Maybe I am confused (and it’s been a while since I thought about these parts of decision theory), but I thought smoking lesion is usually the test case for showing why EDT is broken, and newcombs is usually the test case for why CDT is broken, so it makes sense that Smoking Lesion wouldn’t convince you that CDT is wrong.
Ah that’s helpful. I remember being frustrated hearing about it in an 80K episode with Joe Carlsmith, where (to my memory) it was an example which was supposed to show you that naive decision theory (where it doesn’t matter whether you smoke or not, because you either have or don’t have the lesion already) is insufficient.
Maybe I am confused (and it’s been a while since I thought about these parts of decision theory), but I thought smoking lesion is usually the test case for showing why EDT is broken, and newcombs is usually the test case for why CDT is broken, so it makes sense that Smoking Lesion wouldn’t convince you that CDT is wrong.
Ah that’s helpful. I remember being frustrated hearing about it in an 80K episode with Joe Carlsmith, where (to my memory) it was an example which was supposed to show you that naive decision theory (where it doesn’t matter whether you smoke or not, because you either have or don’t have the lesion already) is insufficient.