But this is still a type error even if you think the strategy is being executed without any regard to why it’s being executed. It’s like mixing up the policy for the utility function.
Is this an objection? That a person fails to conceptualize what they are doing doesn’t change the reality of what they are doing except by their own understanding of it.
For example, many people wander around in a state of cognitive fusion with the world, causing them to do things like read intent into places where there is none because they can’t tell apart their own motivations from observations about the world. This doesn’t really mean though that, for example, the curb on the sidewalk was out to get them when they tripped over it.
So it can still be a type error regardless of if the mind bothers to check this or not; it’s a type error within the normal meanings we give to categories like value and strategy and terminal.
But this is still a type error even if you think the strategy is being executed without any regard to why it’s being executed. It’s like mixing up the policy for the utility function.
Not all minds do type checking.
Is this an objection? That a person fails to conceptualize what they are doing doesn’t change the reality of what they are doing except by their own understanding of it.
For example, many people wander around in a state of cognitive fusion with the world, causing them to do things like read intent into places where there is none because they can’t tell apart their own motivations from observations about the world. This doesn’t really mean though that, for example, the curb on the sidewalk was out to get them when they tripped over it.
So it can still be a type error regardless of if the mind bothers to check this or not; it’s a type error within the normal meanings we give to categories like value and strategy and terminal.
What I’m saying is that these categories may not map cleanly onto the messy reality of a real mind.