It all depends on what you value, what do you want to achieve, what is your utility function? If being popular is your goal then being able to lie, manipulate, use impressive arguments even if they are wrong can be a successful way, it’s called politics.
For Amy winning means reasoning correctly. For Beth winning meant being popular.
Winning for a paperclip maximizer looks different than for you and me.
I understand where you want to go. For you rationality is a procedure that will bring you closer to the truth. The problem is, where do we get the correct procedure from and how can we be sure that we are applying it correctly? Here is where the “winning” test comes in. According to the prevailing scientific consensus in the past, airplanes where impossible and anyone investing time and money trying to build one was clearly acting irrationally. Yet, in the end those who acted irrationally won, that is, they achieved scientific truth as you can see today.
PS: Here is where Newcomb’s problem comes in. It seems that it is very hard to define a rational procedure(starting from fundamental principles) that will one-box, yet one-boxing is the correct choice(at least if you value money).
At least, if you value money more than whatever (emotional) value you place on sounding logically consistent. ;-)
However, since any formal system can contain undecidable propositions, and since there is no reason to suppose that human brains (or the universe!) are NOT equivalent to a formal system, then there isn’t any way to guarantee a mapping from “procedure” to “truth”, anyway!
So I prefer to treat logical consistency as a useful tool for winning, rather than treating winning as a useful tool for testing logical consistency.
It all depends on what you value, what do you want to achieve, what is your utility function? If being popular is your goal then being able to lie, manipulate, use impressive arguments even if they are wrong can be a successful way, it’s called politics.
For Amy winning means reasoning correctly. For Beth winning meant being popular. Winning for a paperclip maximizer looks different than for you and me.
I understand where you want to go. For you rationality is a procedure that will bring you closer to the truth. The problem is, where do we get the correct procedure from and how can we be sure that we are applying it correctly? Here is where the “winning” test comes in. According to the prevailing scientific consensus in the past, airplanes where impossible and anyone investing time and money trying to build one was clearly acting irrationally. Yet, in the end those who acted irrationally won, that is, they achieved scientific truth as you can see today.
PS: Here is where Newcomb’s problem comes in. It seems that it is very hard to define a rational procedure(starting from fundamental principles) that will one-box, yet one-boxing is the correct choice(at least if you value money).
At least, if you value money more than whatever (emotional) value you place on sounding logically consistent. ;-)
However, since any formal system can contain undecidable propositions, and since there is no reason to suppose that human brains (or the universe!) are NOT equivalent to a formal system, then there isn’t any way to guarantee a mapping from “procedure” to “truth”, anyway!
So I prefer to treat logical consistency as a useful tool for winning, rather than treating winning as a useful tool for testing logical consistency.