One question I do have is: does anyone actually have the “FDT intuition”…? That is, is it really an intuition, or is it a perspective that people need to be reasoned into taking?
(I also have some serious problems with the FDT view, but this is not the place to discuss them, of course.)
That is, is it really an intuition, or is it a perspective that people need to be reasoned into taking?
There’s no natural separation between the two. Reasoning and training chisels and changes intuition (S1) just as much as it chisels and changes deliberate thinking (S2).
Take the example of chess. A grandmaster would destroy me, 10 games out of 10, when playing a classical game. But he would also destroy me 10 games out of 10 when we play a hyperbullet (i.e., 30+0 seconds) game, where the time control is so fast that you simply don’t have time to deliberately analyze variations at all and must instead play almost solely on intuition.[1] That’s because the grandmaster’s intuition is far far better than mine.
But the grandmaster was not born with any chess intuition. He was born not knowing anything about the existence of chess, actually. He had to be trained, and to train himself, into it. And through the process of studying chess (classical chess, where you have hours to think about the game and increment to give you extra time for every move), he improved and changed his intuitive, snap, aesthetic judgement too.
This is true to some extent, but I don’t think it’s relevantly true in the given context. Recall the claim/argument which prompted (the discussion that led to) this post:
...Also, just to be clear, you’re aware that these are two different internally-consistent but contradictory theories of how to evaluate counterfactuals? Like, we can be pretty confident that there’s no argument a CDT agent can hear that causes them to wish to adopt FDT counterfactuals, and vice versa. Humans come equipped with both intuitions (I can give you other problems that pump the other intuitions, if you’d like), and we have to find some other way to arbitrate the conflict.
I understood Nate to be saying something other than merely “it is possible for a human to become convinced that FDT is correct, whereupon they will find it intuitive”.
Hmm. Yeah, I think you’re right. But I suppose I’m a poor advocate for the opposite perspective, since a statement like “Humans come equipped with both intuitions,” in this precise context, yields a category error in my ontology as opposed to being a meaningful statement capable of being true or false.
Yeah, it matches wat @mesaoptimizer said, I believe. I was reluctant to post my view, but thought it could be helpful anyway :)
Great question! I’m wondering the same thing now. I, for one, had to be reasoned into it. It does feel like it “clicked”, so to speak, but I doubt whether anyone has this intuition naturally.
I would be willing to discuss FDT more, if you’d like (in a separate post, of course).
Thanks! This seems to match up to what @mesaoptimizer wrote in his comment, I think?
One question I do have is: does anyone actually have the “FDT intuition”…? That is, is it really an intuition, or is it a perspective that people need to be reasoned into taking?
(I also have some serious problems with the FDT view, but this is not the place to discuss them, of course.)
There’s no natural separation between the two. Reasoning and training chisels and changes intuition (S1) just as much as it chisels and changes deliberate thinking (S2).
Take the example of chess. A grandmaster would destroy me, 10 games out of 10, when playing a classical game. But he would also destroy me 10 games out of 10 when we play a hyperbullet (i.e., 30+0 seconds) game, where the time control is so fast that you simply don’t have time to deliberately analyze variations at all and must instead play almost solely on intuition.[1] That’s because the grandmaster’s intuition is far far better than mine.
But the grandmaster was not born with any chess intuition. He was born not knowing anything about the existence of chess, actually. He had to be trained, and to train himself, into it. And through the process of studying chess (classical chess, where you have hours to think about the game and increment to give you extra time for every move), he improved and changed his intuitive, snap, aesthetic judgement too.
And that’s the case even if the grandmaster very rarely plays hyperbullet and instead focuses almost solely on classical chess
This is true to some extent, but I don’t think it’s relevantly true in the given context. Recall the claim/argument which prompted (the discussion that led to) this post:
I understood Nate to be saying something other than merely “it is possible for a human to become convinced that FDT is correct, whereupon they will find it intuitive”.
Hmm. Yeah, I think you’re right. But I suppose I’m a poor advocate for the opposite perspective, since a statement like “Humans come equipped with both intuitions,” in this precise context, yields a category error in my ontology as opposed to being a meaningful statement capable of being true or false.
Yeah, it matches wat @mesaoptimizer said, I believe. I was reluctant to post my view, but thought it could be helpful anyway :)
Great question! I’m wondering the same thing now. I, for one, had to be reasoned into it. It does feel like it “clicked”, so to speak, but I doubt whether anyone has this intuition naturally.
I would be willing to discuss FDT more, if you’d like (in a separate post, of course).