Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.puzzle,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Newcomb's Paradox
Message-ID: <531@umich.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Mar-86 20:18:13 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.531
Posted: Sat Mar 22 20:18:13 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Mar-86 00:54:11 EST
References: <12518@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.puzzle:1548 net.philosophy:4596

I think this belongs also in net.philosophy (at least, my angle does).

The statement of the puzzle is misleading because it encourages us to make
a single, specific decision.  Actually, this is just one instance of a more
general problem, on which a decision of principle must be made.  The more
general problem is that sometimes, aiming directly at what we value is not
the most effective way to achieve it.  The solution to the general problem
is to adopt a set of dispositions (emotions, decision-rules, etc.) that
will be likely to have the best consequences.

In other words, one should think of the question not as "should I take
one box, or two?" but as "should I be the kind of person who takes one
box, or the kind who takes two?"  But now the answer is obvious.  (Not
quite:  since there are no Perfect Predictors in the real world, and
since it would complicate one's psychology needlessly to become the
kind of person who takes one box, we shouldn't bother.  But the people
who live in that imaginary world with the Perfect Predictor should.)

--Paul Torek						torek@umich