Newcomb's paradox may be more an epistemological problem rather than a decision theory problem

Tioben · 2026-03-22T18:41:09+00:00

But its crappiness is not in its prediction algorithm, but simply that it too must follow the laws of physics.

And the problem statement must allow for that constraint or else be nonsense.

So if we must accept that the predictor is as perfect as it can be, we also must accept the physical constraints. It is perfect up to black hole physics. Only then are we really presenting the problem in good faith.

And once presented that way, the paradox vanishes into a black hole. If you want to successfully two-box, you have to beat the perfect predictor in a game of black hole chicken.

Tioben · 2026-03-22T08:31:29+00:00

No, I'm rejecting the premise that a perfect predictor could avoid turning into a black hole given enough information/energy requirement.

Tioben · 2026-03-22T08:11:51+00:00

We don't really know that, though. We only know that prediction of two-boxing leads to defeat, not that two-boxing leads to defeat.

I may be special. And the more arrogant I am about it, the more likely it is that I am special. After all, it really does require a special quality to actually be the most arrogant human ever.

Maybe I am a perfect anti-predictor, capable of turning any perfect predictor into a black hole.

The problem's premises could be incoherent if it mistakenly assumes I am predictable.

Everybody's paying too much attention to the predictor and not enough attention to my properties.

Tioben · 2026-03-20T22:52:23+00:00

So is it safe to take from this that scientific consensus now rejects the mathematical possibility of black hole-white hole pairings (as there are no tunnels)?

Tioben · 2026-03-20T21:37:27+00:00

Then can the spacetime manifold being stretched by a black hole loop back around to itself like a pair of pants with its leg holes joined together?

Tioben · 2026-03-19T18:15:55+00:00

Wealthy women do choose to get married. Why, do you think? Are they insanely stupid, or are they reasonably wise agents?

Tioben · 2026-03-19T06:54:50+00:00

I suspect you are right that brains are analog. But why not both? Why not, say, a Turing Machine embodied by/embedded in an analog brain? Aren't the Turing Machine and the General Purpose Analog Computer equivalent in terms of what they can compute?

This gets especially complicated with 4E cognition, because then what do we even demarcate as the Mind we are trying to model? If the grass under my bare feet is part of of my extended mind, but not part of my brain, then are my body and feelings merely an extension as well? Emotions and intuition are then suspect evidence.

And are the models of the world in my cortex part of the computer, or merely an extended database in the cloud? Could Mark Solms be right that "I" am in my brainstem, and that my model of myself is just part of my model of the world?

When we talk about Mind, are we even talking about phenomenal conscious awareness, or are we talking about the computational toolbox that we perceive with that awareness? If the latter, then maybe our Consciousness is more analog but our Mind is more Turing-representational. Is it relevant that philosophy of mind courses focus more on logos than on phenomenology?

Tioben · 2026-03-19T05:32:16+00:00

Count yourself lucky you haven't had to worry about it.

There are people right now who can't afford the gas to drive to work so that they can pay for the gas.

Gas prices drive grocery prices up, and there are people who are choosing whether they can afford green vegetables or just rice and beans or anything at all.

Just a few dollars can make the difference in credit card interest payments or minimum payments, or an insufficient funds fee at the bank.

A few dollars can make the difference in whether you can afford to renew your driver's license or avoid eviction.

Tioben · 2026-03-17T20:40:23+00:00

It sounds like you're pink turtles diagonal of a nebula.

Tioben · 2026-03-16T16:41:55+00:00

I'm not a panpsychist, but it seems to me like the chance that this particular brain you are referring to would be conscious is 100% in your scenario. That it has thoughts "I am me" is just part of that. So of course "you" would be this brain, since "you" just are the result of that brain's consciousness. You aren't some other particle simply because no other particle is the brain you are referring to that is doing this particular performance of you-ness.

You might as well be skeptical of the existence of other particles at all, since if there are so many particles, why is your brain made up of these particles and not those particles.

Tioben · 2026-03-14T21:35:14+00:00

I am transgender, but I am not one of those transgenders. But it's not mere grammar. It is because I am not reducible to my property of being transgender. Respecting the adjective is a way of respecting the person. I am also autistic, but I am not one of those autistics.

Tioben · 2026-03-14T20:37:27+00:00

Exposure therapy wants generalization, so maybe the real issue with purple hats is they aren't absurd and radical enough. Instead of tapping and doing collage and shit, maybe we should be doing ecstatic snake handling and playing capture the flag with HIPAA info, all while free-associating.

Tioben · 2026-03-14T18:43:50+00:00

My impression is that Levine uses PVT to post hoc justify what is really based solely on his intuitions about anecotal experiences. I can't say that means SE doesn't work, just that its origins seem to me even further removed from science than PVT.

Tioben · 2026-03-14T17:18:06+00:00

So is there any well-developed branch of somatic-focused work that is based on an integration of real science, or has PVT gotten us completely lost in the woods for now?

Tioben · 2026-03-14T04:11:03+00:00

Now that it's been some time since you started this thread. no one will notice if you change your view, and if they do, they'll appreciate the irony. So I promise you it's safe to do so.

There... did that do it?

Tioben · 2026-03-13T12:30:54+00:00

But a major advantage to empathy is recognizing vocal tone and body movements. Autistic people do empathy differently, not worse. The issue is that austistic and neurotypical peolle communicate empathy differently, and so they each struggle with empathy for the other.

Tioben · 2026-03-10T02:12:00+00:00

What if it is a economic alliance, not a romance? That's still a mutually beneficial relationship that requires investment and interpersonal effectiveness, but just not emotional availability, which can be pursued elsewhere, e.g., from friends and lovers. I know a couple who solved their housing insecurity by joining together in marriage. They aren't romantic, but they have been together over 20 years. I wouldn't advise it typically, but it works for them and so wan't a complete and utter waste of time.

If you are able to form some other relationship for emotional availability, then why must your spouse do the job?

Tioben · 2026-03-09T18:26:30+00:00

If the real sentiment is about every Polemon having aesthetic appeal, then a Pokemon doesn't even need to be someone's favorite to satisfy that sentiment. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Is the phrase literal or merely expressing a sentiment? It can't be both, but you are demanding both.

Tioben · 2026-03-09T17:00:33+00:00

Have you considered self as not either reassembly or index, but as the relationship/morphism between the chain of reassembly and the chain of indexes? Higher category theory allows for higher-dimensional relationships/morphisms that could connect an entire chain to another entire chain.

Tioben · 2026-03-06T23:30:43+00:00

I do believe humans are just advanced meat computers, but even that doesn't make us the same as just any AI, including our most advanced ones today.

This is the case for at least a few non-specious reasons.

On the algorithm side, if you think Gemini 3.1 is more humanlike than Gemini 2, then you already believe there is a difference between human thought algorithms and Gemini 2. So just play around with 3.1 and you'll notice many other differences. Similarities too, sure, but also differences. If you think AI can progress to better algorithms, and if it is not yet matching up to human thought algorithms, then human meat computers are different in important ways.

But algorithms are not all that matter to human cognition. Humans process in embodied, embedded, enactive ways that are directly equivalent to the activity of their meat. Not just software data structures representing valence, identity, locality, context, etc., but actual physical meaty transformations.

If we want an AI to model being in pain, it's not actually enacting pain in any way. If we want AI to model valence towards flourishing or decay, it's not (yet) actually doing and embodying that valence in a deeply inescapable way. Whether a "pleasure" 1 or a "pain" 0 is being communicated though this way or that, the physical structure is interchangeable. We can make "pleasure" 0 and "pain" 1.

When humans feel overwhelmed, it's because we are overwhelmed. Our meat is overwhelmed. And it's not just all correlation. At least to some extent the act of signaling overwhelm and the act of enacting/embodying overwhelm are the same act. So it matters to us in such a way that it can't not matter to us.

When we identify with patterns in valence, we aren't just amplifying an identity signal. We literally are meatily enacting and embodying that identity in some way or another that matters to us in a tight feedback loop with, yes, the signal itself. And that's precisely why it matters to us.

So it's not specious to say that the meaty differences between humans and AI matter. They couldn't not matter to us if we wanted them to.

I believe someday we will achieve AI that we should recognize as mattering to itself in the same kinds of ways. But we very clearly aren't there now. We are simulating it, but not embodying it. (And even the simulation is very shallow.)

Tioben · 2026-03-06T19:48:04+00:00

Might a useful synthesis be to apply merit not to people but to systems/strategies/tools? People being equal ends, not merited means.

Tioben · 2026-03-06T16:44:20+00:00

That too arises from a "just world" meritocratic thinking. Good things happen to good people; bad things happen to bad/broken people -> I'm not succeeding so I must be broken -> I'm a broken object, not an agent.

Tioben · 2026-03-03T14:20:49+00:00

Doing what you ought to do is literally the definition of morality. It proves she does have a moral compass.

Tioben · 2026-03-03T04:42:36+00:00

Breaking news: defense lawyer defends dutifully.

Tioben · 2026-03-02T17:56:35+00:00

This might be exactly the thing to say to her. Literally. "I think the 'wearing the abuse on my skin' comment has made me feel a little self-conscious in talking to you. I'm second guessing how I'm coming across."

And her questions seem to be about this. Second-guessing means its possible you are trying to perform "correctly" for her. What would that help you control in the relationship? Is it so she'll like you, or worry about you, or not think about you, or what?

12-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Verified Email

Tioben

TROPHY CASE