I feel like I am having reading comprehension difficulties.
So the Triviality Perspective claims that you should one-box, but also that this is an incredibly boring claim that doesn’t provide much insight into decision theory.
This passage seems a lot like applying the concept to get an answer out of two option scenario.
If you accept the premise of a perfect predictor, then seeing $1 million in the transparent box implies that you were predicted to one-box which implies that you will one-box.
This seems to me to be that one option is deemed possible and the other impossible. Deeming an option impossible is a form of “screw this”. So this approach forms opinions of two counterfactuals.
A true situation that is so trivial its not a decision would be like. “You come across a box. You can take it.” If we complicate it even a little bit with “You come across a box. You can take it. You can leave it be.” its a non-trivial decision problem.
It might be baked in to the paradigm of providing a decision theory that it should process and opine about all the affordances available. In a given by hypothetical situation the affordances are magically fixed. But being in a real situation part of the cognition is responcible to turning the situation into a decision moment if it is warranted.
If you come across a fork in the road one agent might process it as a decisions problem “Do I go left or right?” and another might ask “Do I go north or south?”. The chopping of the situation into affordances might also be perspective relative, “Do I go left or right or turn back?” is a way to see three affordances in the same situation where another perspective would see two. An agent that just walks without pondering does not engage in deciding. The “question” of “how many affordances I should see in this situation” can be answered in a more functional manner and a less functional manner (your navigation might be greatly hampered if you can’t turn on roads).
The question of counterfactuals is placed before the problem is formulated and not after it.
I feel like I am having reading comprehension difficulties.
This passage seems a lot like applying the concept to get an answer out of two option scenario.
This seems to me to be that one option is deemed possible and the other impossible. Deeming an option impossible is a form of “screw this”. So this approach forms opinions of two counterfactuals.
A true situation that is so trivial its not a decision would be like. “You come across a box. You can take it.” If we complicate it even a little bit with “You come across a box. You can take it. You can leave it be.” its a non-trivial decision problem.
It might be baked in to the paradigm of providing a decision theory that it should process and opine about all the affordances available. In a given by hypothetical situation the affordances are magically fixed. But being in a real situation part of the cognition is responcible to turning the situation into a decision moment if it is warranted.
If you come across a fork in the road one agent might process it as a decisions problem “Do I go left or right?” and another might ask “Do I go north or south?”. The chopping of the situation into affordances might also be perspective relative, “Do I go left or right or turn back?” is a way to see three affordances in the same situation where another perspective would see two. An agent that just walks without pondering does not engage in deciding. The “question” of “how many affordances I should see in this situation” can be answered in a more functional manner and a less functional manner (your navigation might be greatly hampered if you can’t turn on roads).
The question of counterfactuals is placed before the problem is formulated and not after it.