[ExI] Superrationality

[Jef Allbright]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Damien S. writes
>
>  >> Interestingly, the major commercial players in markets sometimes
>  >> behave in the "superrational" manner, working towards and welcome
>  >> regulation - ie: externally imposed restrictions. The great example of
>  >
>  > I think that would just be rational, not Hofstadter's superrationality.
>
>  Yes.
>
>  > The latter is when you agree to the thing not in your immediate
>  > self-interest, with no actual enforcement of that, in the expectation
>  > that the other person will follow your thinking and do likewise.  It
>  > sounds nice but I've never really bought it.
>
>  I bought it hook, line, and sinker---having had many exactly
>  similar thoughts myself---back in 1983, when H published
>  an SA article on it. It took me at least three years to fully
>  understand and appreciate the flaw.
>
>  The flaw in Hofstadter's superrationality is very simple to state.

The overarching flaw in Hofstadter's view and exposition of
superrationality is that he retained the prevailing consequentialist
framework which, like Archimedes and his famous lever, presumes a
position outside the system from which to evaluate and act.
Consequentialism works -- very well -- but only to the extent that the
context is effectively well-defined.  It's a special case of a more
general principle which, roughly stated, describes the (necessarily
subjective) rightness of any action as increasing with the application
of increasingly effective principles (reflecting an increasingly
scientific understand of the world),  toward the the promotion of
(evolving) values increasingly coherent over increasing context.  This
means (in part) that to the extent the future is complexly evolving
and thus uncertain, effective decision-making should be on the basis
of best-known principles rather than expected consequences.


>  Unless the other player's behavior is highly correlated with yours
>  ---for reasons that must be explained and must make sense---
>  then to Cooperate is to defy the very definition of the two-player
>  game.

Key to understanding this, and the "arrow of morality", is that our
natures (and thus our subjective values) are **hugely** correlated
like the individual leaves on a tree of increasing possibility,
grounded through branches of increasing probability rooted in ultimate
"reality."

I hope this suffices as my response to Rafal, and (probably
inadvisably) to our mischievous Lee Corbin.

- Jef
[Back to work building tools for increasing awareness]