Has it been settled then, that in this Newcomb’s Problem, rationality and winning are at odds? I think it is quite relevant to this discussion whether or not they ever can be at odds.
My last comment got voted down—presumably because whether or not rationality and winning are ever in conflict has been discussed in the previous post. (I’m a quick study and would like feedback as to why I get voted down.) However, was there some kind of consensus in the previous post? Do we just assume here that it is possible that rationality is not always the winning strategy? I cannot!
Looking through the comments, it sounds like many people think it is most rational to pick both boxes because of some assumption about how physical reality can’t be altered. In a hypothetical reality where that assumption doesn’t hold, it would be irrational to insist on applying it.
Not everyone wants to win! Or let’s put it another way: Everyone wants to win, but in different ways. The rational part is winning as one defines it. At least some of the two boxers are winning—as they define it.
I sense you mean that rationaliy is unputdownable—always right always winning. But life is not a two dimensional reiterated PD. Fate plays with dice. Other players can be MAD. Sometimes a flower grows through the asfalt. We don’t live long enough to say on average that rationalists always win.
Has it been settled then, that in this Newcomb’s Problem, rationality and winning are at odds? I think it is quite relevant to this discussion whether or not they ever can be at odds.
My last comment got voted down—presumably because whether or not rationality and winning are ever in conflict has been discussed in the previous post. (I’m a quick study and would like feedback as to why I get voted down.) However, was there some kind of consensus in the previous post? Do we just assume here that it is possible that rationality is not always the winning strategy? I cannot!
Looking through the comments, it sounds like many people think it is most rational to pick both boxes because of some assumption about how physical reality can’t be altered. In a hypothetical reality where that assumption doesn’t hold, it would be irrational to insist on applying it.
Not everyone wants to win! Or let’s put it another way: Everyone wants to win, but in different ways. The rational part is winning as one defines it. At least some of the two boxers are winning—as they define it.
I sense you mean that rationaliy is unputdownable—always right always winning. But life is not a two dimensional reiterated PD. Fate plays with dice. Other players can be MAD. Sometimes a flower grows through the asfalt. We don’t live long enough to say on average that rationalists always win.
When I look at my karma-score I rest my case.