Not sure what you mean by “you SHOULD be sad when you miss an opportunity1”? What’s the advantage of being sad instead of just shrugging and replanning?
I was assuming a non-transhuman world in which the unnecessary connection between sadness and emotional thoughfulness, as well as sadness and system 2 replanning is a reality. Sorry I didn’t point it out explicitly.
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by “There are many ways to tackle this question, but I mean this in a homo economicus, not biased perspective.” then. See my reply to ShardPhoenix.
I can think of some purposes this sadness might serve—eg signalling or self-punishment (for lack of past efforts) with TDT type considerations for why you wouldn’t just skip it.
He specifically said he’s talking about “homo economicus”-”rational”-like decision. An agent like that should have no need to punish itself—by having a negative emotion—since the potential loss of utility itself is a compelling reason to take action beforehand. So self-punishing is out.
How do you think sadness would serve as a signalling device, in this case?
This is speculative, but if someone isn’t upset about losing an opportunity, one could infer that they never really believed that they had it in the first place—whereas if they’re upset, perhaps losing the opportunity was just bad luck.
Not sure what you mean by “you SHOULD be sad when you miss an opportunity1”? What’s the advantage of being sad instead of just shrugging and replanning?
I was assuming a non-transhuman world in which the unnecessary connection between sadness and emotional thoughfulness, as well as sadness and system 2 replanning is a reality. Sorry I didn’t point it out explicitly.
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by “There are many ways to tackle this question, but I mean this in a homo economicus, not biased perspective.” then. See my reply to ShardPhoenix.
Oh, yes, you did (but this is always the writer responsibility, so it is my fault (Gilbert 2012))
I am writing a text about what Should happen. Not what does happen. Is-ought problem.
I mean’t what a rational actor should do, without changing the Is aspect of reality.
So the homo economicus was the Should agent. The is agent is still like us.
I can think of some purposes this sadness might serve—eg signalling or self-punishment (for lack of past efforts) with TDT type considerations for why you wouldn’t just skip it.
He specifically said he’s talking about “homo economicus”-”rational”-like decision. An agent like that should have no need to punish itself—by having a negative emotion—since the potential loss of utility itself is a compelling reason to take action beforehand. So self-punishing is out. How do you think sadness would serve as a signalling device, in this case?
This is speculative, but if someone isn’t upset about losing an opportunity, one could infer that they never really believed that they had it in the first place—whereas if they’re upset, perhaps losing the opportunity was just bad luck.