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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @michaelporcelli and
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.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
But, here I mean “a tool for making categorical distinctions in reality” as opposed to “a method for making decisions.”
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Yes. It seems like you don’t have an alternate at that same level beyond “pluralism”. Does that fit?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @michaelporcelli @ESYudkowsky and
Do you mean “an alternative method for making decisions” or “an alternative way of thinking about people and sensible activity”? There are lots of both.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 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.