Yeah, I think I mean normative DT comes before normative epistemics. I guess I have two claims.
The first is that an agent should have its DT system interacting with, or inside its epistemic system in some way. This is opposed to a self-contained epistemic system at the inner core, and a decision system that does stuff based on the results of the epistemic system.
The second is that we are confused about DT and naturalized world models, and I suspect that progress unpacking that confusion can come from abandoning this “epistemics first, decision second” view and working with both at the same time.
Ah, okay, I think that makes a lot of sense. I actually didn’t realize viewing things as epistemics first was normal in decision theory, although now that I think about it the way the model moves complexity into the agent to avoid dealing with it naturally is going to cause it to leave questions of where knowledge comes from underaddressed.
As I stated above, I think a choice first approach is also sensible because it allows you to work with something fundamental, choice/interaction/phenomena, rather than something that is created by agents, knowledge. Look forward to where you go with this. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss this more, as I think you are bumping into things I’ve just had to go through dealing with from a different perspective to make progress in my own work, but there is likely more to be learned there.
Yeah, I think I mean normative DT comes before normative epistemics. I guess I have two claims.
The first is that an agent should have its DT system interacting with, or inside its epistemic system in some way. This is opposed to a self-contained epistemic system at the inner core, and a decision system that does stuff based on the results of the epistemic system.
The second is that we are confused about DT and naturalized world models, and I suspect that progress unpacking that confusion can come from abandoning this “epistemics first, decision second” view and working with both at the same time.
See also my response to cousin_it.
Ah, okay, I think that makes a lot of sense. I actually didn’t realize viewing things as epistemics first was normal in decision theory, although now that I think about it the way the model moves complexity into the agent to avoid dealing with it naturally is going to cause it to leave questions of where knowledge comes from underaddressed.
As I stated above, I think a choice first approach is also sensible because it allows you to work with something fundamental, choice/interaction/phenomena, rather than something that is created by agents, knowledge. Look forward to where you go with this. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss this more, as I think you are bumping into things I’ve just had to go through dealing with from a different perspective to make progress in my own work, but there is likely more to be learned there.