Re: Rationality of Disagreement (Was: Status of Superrationality)

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 18:32:43 MDT

  • Next message: ABlainey@aol.com: "Re: Boy Genius or Craft Idiot?"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jef Allbright" <jef@jefallbright.net>
    To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 2:31 PM
    Subject: Re: Rationality of Disagreement (Was: Status of Superrationality)

    > Robin Hanson wrote:
    > > 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.
    >
    > I would expect the two Bayesians to immediately accept that each of their
    > viewpoints are equally valid within each one's estimate of the range of
    > uncertainty, but it seems to me that for them to immediately and
    absolutely
    > agree on the issue would require certainty that they perfectly understand
    > each other's comprehension of the issue. For non-trivial issues I think
    > this perfect understanding is almost never the case.
    >
    ### A Bayesian A who doesn't understand an issue will not claim he does
    (i.e. his utterances will reflect his level of understanding), therefore
    another Bayesian B can safely accept his statements. In fact, it is
    precisely in arguments where B has no priors at all, knows nothing
    whatsoever, should B accept A's opinion immediately. In situations where
    both A and B have some knowledge, but different opinions, they have to
    assume they have different information about the issue, and proceed with
    exchange of data before coming to a shared conclusion.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 18:43:57 MDT