This is not because humans obey the prescriptions of decision theory. It is because humans are making things that can be viewed as decisions. This is not because human beliefs are coherent. It's because humans can be well-viewed as believing things even if incoherently.
-
-
Replying to @ESYudkowsky @Meaningness and
It seems to me that you don't understand the very abstract use that is being made of decision theory. It's not a recipe or an algorithm. It's a generalization relating coherent or incoherent behavior to performance, making far more minimal assumptions than you seem to think.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well… I *think* I understand this; but I may be wrong! We clearly have very different cognitive styles, which makes it difficult for us to understand each other.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Seems like DT is used as Tool or Law. Many tools useful depending on agent/context/intent/goal. DT as Law analyzes agents/tools generally. Are there alternates? As Tool => yes, As Law => no(?) Am I Accurate? Helpful? Else?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @michaelporcelli @ESYudkowsky and
I guess I’m not sure enough I understand what
@ESYudkowsky means by Law to respond to this confidently!2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @michaelporcelli and
I think by Law he probably means “a set of mathematical constraints that apply if you accept a particular set of axioms.” If you accept that set of axioms, then that is indeed the unique set of constraints that apply.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Could be a Kantian-style transcendental argument — given agents, goals, & decisions, then what must be the world be like in order for these to exist as they do. Ergo DT!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @michaelporcelli @ESYudkowsky and
Possibly. My interest is in “how do formal systems relate to the world.”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @michaelporcelli and
The world doesn’t inherently have agents, goals, or decisions in it; those are concepts we apply to it. We can think about those in many different ways, which will have different consequences.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @michaelporcelli and
DT is one way of thinking about agents, goals, and decisions, which has particular consequences at the level of constraints, completely setting aside methods. Sometimes that’s a useful way of thinking; sometimes it isn’t.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
In other words, the conceptual system itself is a tool.
So, maybe @ESYudkowsky is right after all! I do think DT is merely a tool—once you try to apply it to reality, as opposed to considering it as abstract mathematics.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @michaelporcelli and
But, here I mean “a tool for making categorical distinctions in reality” as opposed to “a method for making decisions.”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.