Rationality of Disagreement (Was: Status of Superrationality)

From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 03:31:56 MDT

  • Next message: Anders Sandberg: "Re: Red Rectangle of Qwelldor"

    Rafal Smigrodzki responded to Eliezer S. Yudkowsky re my paper:
    > >> Certainly a quite complex article. I think that what you quoted
    > >> above means that the Bayesian would treat the output of another
    > >> Bayesian as data of the same validity as the output of his own
    > >> reasoning. ... In effect, his beliefs are as valid an input for
    > >> your future reasoning as your own sensory ... subsystem outputs.
    > >
    > > Bear in mind that one should distinguish between *real*, *genuine*
    > > Bayesians like AIXI, and mere Bayesian wannabes like every physically
    > > realized being in our Universe.
    > >
    > > Bear in mind also that the above result holds only if you believe with
    > > absolute certainty (itself a very non-Bayesian thing) that the
    > > Bayesian's reasoning processes are perfect.
    >
    >### But why? If I believe with some reasonable certainty that the other
    >Bayesian is a perfect as myself, and then some more (to account for my lack
    >of absolute certainty that he is what I think he is), then I should still
    >assign the same level of trustworthiness to his beliefs as to mine.

    Let me echo Rafal; you should find their reasoning as useful as your own
    as long as they are as reliable as you. They need not be perfect.

    Jef Allbright wrote:
    >To me the problem is simple in concept, but limited in practice. We can
    >never have absolute agreement between any two entities, due to their
    >different knowledge bases (experiences.) However, two rational beings can
    >approach agreement as precisely as desired by analyzing and refining their
    >differences. ... extrapolate any more limited
    >concept of rational behavior to a timeless setting.

    The argument is *not* that eventually rational agents must come to agree
    if they share enough experience and evidence. It is that they must agree
    *immediately*, merely due to knowing each other's opinion, without knowing
    their supporting evidence.

    Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
    Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
    MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
    703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 03:42:45 MDT