when a child sees a fireman pull a woman out of a burning building and says “if I were that big and strong, I would also pull people out of burning buildings”, in a sense it’s partially the child’s decision that does the work of saving the woman… but vanishingly little of the credit goes to the child
The child is partly responsible—to a very small but nonzero degree—for the fireman’s actions, because the child’s personal decision procedure has some similarity to the fireman’s decision procedure?
Otherwise, I largely agree with your comment, except that I think that us deciding to pay if we win is entangled with/evidence for a general willingness to pay among the gods, and in that sense it’s partially “our” decision doing the work of saving us.
and was insinuating that we deserve extremely little credit for such a choice, in the same way that a child deserves extremely little credit for a fireman saving someone that the child could not (even if it’s true that the child and the fireman share some aspects of a decision procedure). My claim was intended less like agreement with David’s claim and more like reductio ad absurdum, with the degree of absurdity left slightly ambiguous.
(And on second thought, the analogy would perhaps have been tighter if the firefighter was saving the child.)
I think the common sense view is that this similarity of decision procedures provides exactly zero reason to credit the child with the fireman’s decisions. Credit for a decision goes to the agent who makes it, or perhaps to the algorithm that the agent used, but not to other agents running the same or similar algorithms.
The child is partly responsible—to a very small but nonzero degree—for the fireman’s actions, because the child’s personal decision procedure has some similarity to the fireman’s decision procedure?
Is this a correct reading of what you said?
I was responding to David saying
and was insinuating that we deserve extremely little credit for such a choice, in the same way that a child deserves extremely little credit for a fireman saving someone that the child could not (even if it’s true that the child and the fireman share some aspects of a decision procedure). My claim was intended less like agreement with David’s claim and more like reductio ad absurdum, with the degree of absurdity left slightly ambiguous.
(And on second thought, the analogy would perhaps have been tighter if the firefighter was saving the child.)
I think the common sense view is that this similarity of decision procedures provides exactly zero reason to credit the child with the fireman’s decisions. Credit for a decision goes to the agent who makes it, or perhaps to the algorithm that the agent used, but not to other agents running the same or similar algorithms.