John Oh wrote:
And did I hear you correctly that you also believe Susan should
cooperate in a standard one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma (assuming she
believes there is a high enough probability that the opposing player
is sufficiently similar to her)?
Correct. For example, if Susan is facing her
Not the baby-halving threat, actually.
http://www.geocities.com/eganamit/NoCDT.pdf
Here Solomon's Problem is referred to as The Smoking Lesion, but the
formulation is equivalent.
Thanks for the reference. The paper is entertaining, in that both the
theories presented (evidential decision
I am trying to understand this issue...
Isn't Causality Decision Theory the basis of legal law Decision?
Someone was the Cause of the accident therefore they were the Cause of the
accident... even some courts award based upon the mediating circumstances
of those causes... Who gets what part
On 5/25/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
I wonder if anyone knows of any mathematical analysis of superrationality.
I worked out an analysis based on correlated computational processes -
you treat your own decision system as a special case of computation
Tell me if this is also a superrationality-type issue:
I commented to Eliezer that, during the last panel of the conference,
I looked around for Eliezer didn't find him, and wondered if there
was a bomb in the room. He replied something to the effect that he
has a strong committment to ethics.
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Thanks for the reference. The paper is entertaining, in that both
the theories presented (evidential decision theory and causal
decision theory) are patently very stupid right from the outset ;-)
EDT and CDT have been the two dominant decision theories, with CDT
having
Pearl's book on causality is a nice one, but I don't think that his
idea of causality fully encompasses the (very useful) folk-psychology
notion of causation.
Basically, the crux of Pearl's definition of causality rests on his
distinction between
P(Y|X)
and what he calls
P(Y | do(X) )
This
