I conclude that the rational action for a player in the Newcomb Paradox is
taking both boxes, but that rational agents will usually take only one box
because they have rationally adopted the disposition to do so.″
They agree that agents who can self-modify will take one box. But they call that action “irrational”. So, the debate really boils down to the definition of the term “rational”—and is not really concerned with the decision that rational agents who can self-modifiy will actually take.
If my analysis here is correct, the dispute is really all about terminology.
I think this is the position of classical theorists on self-modifiying agents:
From Rationality, Dispositions, and the Newcomb Paradox:
They agree that agents who can self-modify will take one box. But they call that action “irrational”. So, the debate really boils down to the definition of the term “rational”—and is not really concerned with the decision that rational agents who can self-modifiy will actually take.
If my analysis here is correct, the dispute is really all about terminology.