4 ms·

> The fact is that to make a good decision, eventually you need to compute a single number. Your linked blog post states that if you make a good decision, then

> The fact is that to make a good decision, eventually you need to compute a single number. Your linked blog post states that if you make a good decision, then there is a process computing a single number which is equivalent to your process. This is not equivalent to what you claim. As a matter of fact, it's the same kind of confusion that exists around the p-value. It's not the case that a process explicitly computing such a number automatically makes good decisions, which is what you seem to claim implicitly. Also, Gödel has nothing whatsoever to to with this.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Eventually you need to compute a number which is either above or below your go/no go threshold. That's the number I'm referring to. I don't claim you can't arrive at it by some perfect heuristic. I merely claim that you are better off being explicit about your assumptions and formalizing your reasoning. That just makes mistakes more obvious, makes your strong assumptions more clear, and makes it more likely that you will correctly update your beliefs rather than incorrectly discounting/overvaluing evidence. You are right about godel, it's a separate theorem I'm referring to which says you need unproveable axioms. I misremembered, sorry, wrote that before my coffee.
- algorias 12y ago
  I see where you're coming from, and I agree with you in large part, specially about making your assumptions explicit. However, I think it's important to notice that an explicit formula for your thought processes can be difficult (computationally expensive) to find. Our brains have evolved to use heuristics and "gut feelings" to make decisions, and the approach you propose forces you to throw all that away and use the much slower general purpose processing part of your brain to emulate those processes. So there's a tradeoff there.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Eventually you need to compute a number which is either above or below your go/no go threshold. That's the number I'm referring to. I don't claim you can't arrive at it by some perfect heuristic. I merely claim that you are better off being explicit about your assumptions and formalizing your reasoning. That just makes mistakes more obvious, makes your strong assumptions more clear, and makes it more likely that you will correctly update your beliefs rather than incorrectly discounting/overvaluing evidence. You are right about godel, it's a separate theorem I'm referring to which says you need unproveable axioms. I misremembered, sorry, wrote that before my coffee.

algorias 12y ago
I see where you're coming from, and I agree with you in large part, specially about making your assumptions explicit. However, I think it's important to notice that an explicit formula for your thought processes can be difficult (computationally expensive) to find. Our brains have evolved to use heuristics and "gut feelings" to make decisions, and the approach you propose forces you to throw all that away and use the much slower general purpose processing part of your brain to emulate those processes. So there's a tradeoff there.