[extropy-chat] Superrationality (was: singularity conference at stanford)

[Anders Sandberg]

"Hal Finney" wrote:
> I put more weight on the first two arguments, the general failure of
> Hofstadter to find support for superrationality among his friends and
> colleagues, and the fact that 20 years later no experts use it to explain
> and analyze game theory and economic problems.  If there were really
> something to it, if the logic were sound, we'd know about it by now.

I think there are some superrationals around. One of my housemates is a
Swiss philosopher (Reto Givel) who has been working on criticisms of game
theory. His current approach looks very much like superrationality. We
spent much of this evening trying to deal with an apparently fatal flaw of
his approach, that it seems to break down when there is uncertain
information or even deceit. We'll see if he gets out of the trouble, but I
think the problem is general: superrationality requires that you have no
false beliefs, no uncertainty and indefinite amounts of mindpower, and
that is unrealistic.

This is also why I distrust a lot of ordinary game theory. People have a
hard time doing these "rational" calculations, so they can't be trusted to
follow rational strategies. And actions are subject to noise etc. Instead
the aim ought to be to look for stable and robust strategies under many
kinds of noise, uncertainty and coevolving competitors, and that is in
IMHO a far more *fun* problem that finding equilibria. But it lacks all
the austere purity of philosophy and classic game theory.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University