CarlShulman comments on Why do theists, undergrads, and Less Wrongers favor one-boxing on Newcomb?

CarlShulman 19 Jun 2013 21:22 UTC
14 points
Will’s link has an Asimov quote that supports the “self-image vs right answer” idea, at least for Asimov:

I would, without hesitation, take both boxes . . . I am myself a determinist, but it is perfectly clear to me that any human being worthy of being considered a human being (including most certainly myself) would prefer free will, if such a thing could exist. . . Now, then, suppose you take both boxes and it turns out (as it almost certainly will) that God has foreseen this and placed nothing in the second box. You will then, at least, have expressed your willingness to gamble on his nonomniscience and on your own free will and will have willingly given up a million dollars for the sake of that willingness-itself a snap of the finger in the face of the Almighty and a vote, however futile, for free will. . . And, of course, if God has muffed and left a million dollars in the box, then not only will you have gained that million, but far more imponant you will have demonstrated God’s nonomniscience.9
- Qiaochu_Yuan 20 Jun 2013 9:18 UTC
  22 points
  Parent
  Seems like Asimov isn’t taking the stakes seriously enough. Maybe we should replace “a million dollars” with “your daughter here gets to live.”
- RomeoStevens 20 Jun 2013 1:15 UTC
  19 points
  Parent
  And only coincidentally signalling that his status is worth more than a million dollars.
- Luke_A_Somers 20 Jun 2013 19:22 UTC
  10 points
  Parent
  But losing the million dollars also shoves in your face your ultimate predictability.
  
  Voluntarily taking a loss in order to insult yourself doesn’t seem rational to me.
  
  Plus, that’s not a form of free will I even care about. I like that my insides obey laws. I’m not fond of the massive privacy violation, but that’d be there or not regardless of my choice.