On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:08:43 PM UTC+3 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > [...]
Thanks for the reply. Here I address only the comments about my proposal (for a decision theory w/o probability of single events). Your message has some good criticism of the proposed decision theory. I plan to start another thread about the disagreement WRT foundations of probability and statistics. My quotations are minimal, but the message was so well written that I recommend that other readers resd it again. Link: https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/-3lX-gaWOCE/m/8bJk3lNLAQAJ >> [...] a version of the Born rule concerning large samples only, instead of single outcomes. > Such a version would be less powerful and less useful because if a gambler wished to make money he would be foolish to ignore the Born rule when placing bets or setting odds, even for one time events. So there doesn't seem to be much point in developing such a version. I grant you that the proposed decision theory does not regard gambling as a rational activity, so long as it is not (yet) an addiction. It will be judged by other criteria; mainly: Is it fun? Then I do not mind losing some money. If you want to be serious, GO TO the example with the revolver, below. > If the use of probability, even for single occurrences, triggers an instinctive impulse then it must've conferred an evolutionary advantage [...] We agree on this -- I think it would be impossible to disagree. > If a rational person were forced to play Russian roulette (a one time event) but was given a choice between using a revolver that had 1 bullet and 5 empty chambers and a revolver that had 5 bullets and 1 empty chamber, which revolver would a rational person choose? This is a stunning example, thanks! I must modify your question, because a healthy person is not exclusively rational (that would be a psychosis, I suppose; autism, I guess) but only rational on top of other things. So, I would be scared by the 5 bullets more than the single bullet. Yet, if there are any benefits from being a hero, enough to overcome the scare, then I would go for it! The want of a rational decision in this matter can be satisfied if we consider that the agent needs to be insured (exactly because all outcomes are real in different futures). Insurance policies forbid risky behaviour. That is all the rationality I can offer in this example, but I take it seriously, and it implies that rational decisions are made in a social context. Instead of insurance, we may consider other ways of seeking protection, such as a State, a tribe, or a church. This may be a good way to account for "identity seeking" which wrecks the modern world. > Aristotle wrote that women had fewer teeth than men It is a known issue, that sometimes it is hard to separate Aristotle's writing from spurious commentaries. >> Example. When I have a choice between acting recklessly and acting carefully, [...] > In Evolution there is always a trade-off, being too courageous can reduce your chances of getting your genes into the next generation, but being too cowardly can too. [...] Surely it takes all kinds to keep a species going; even ugly, childless philosophers. Your emphasis on Evolution creates the impression that you are a team player, so (in spite of our apparent disagreement) we might agree that decisions are made in a social context. In my account, an Everttian agent fulills her civic obligations dutifully because of self-interest (including her family); you seem to take it for granted that one should be a team player -- then we are not on opposite sides. The opposite side is hedonism or maximisation of expected utility (for each single case). George K. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3dc60240-4447-4bc9-aa6b-85d5d8efc91dn%40googlegroups.com.
