This essay argues that there cannot exist a formal framework that consistently obtains intuitively correct results for all cases of awareness growth. This is because intuitions determine the rationally correct outcome of any case of awareness growth. Since it is reasonable for intuitions to vary between rational agents, it is feasible to obtain different intuitively correct results with two rational agents in an identical case of awareness growth. This impedes the existence of a framework that consistently obtains intuitively correct results for all cases of awareness growth.
First, I present the classical Bayesian framework and explain how the problem of awareness growth arises. Second, I present Bradley’s account of Reverse Bayesianism as a credence-revision rule and show that it fails to provide intuitively correct results for mixed cases of awareness growth, which disqualifies it as a general framework for all cases of awareness growth. Third, I demonstrate that intuitions determine the rationally correct outcome of any case of awareness growth and show that it is feasible to rationally obtain different intuitively correct outcomes when considering the exact same case of awareness growth with two rational agents.
Last, I conclude that it is impossible for a framework that consistently obtains the intuitively correct outcome to exist and suggest that credence-revision following awareness growth should occur on a case-by-case basis without any constraints other than the rationality assumption of the rational agent.
Table of Contents
1. The classical Bayesian model and how the problem of awareness growth arises
2. Reverse Bayesianism as a response to awareness growth and its shortcomings
3. The challenge of intuitions for an account of awareness growth
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay examines the limitations of formal frameworks in addressing awareness growth, specifically focusing on the inadequacy of Reverse Bayesianism. The central research question explores whether a consistent formal framework can exist that yields intuitively correct results for all cases of awareness growth, given the variability of agent intuitions.
- Analysis of the classical Bayesian model and its inability to handle awareness growth.
- Evaluation of Bradley’s Reverse Bayesianism as a credence-revision strategy.
- Demonstration of the role of intuitions in determining rational outcomes.
- Argument for a case-by-case approach to credence revision following awareness growth.
Excerpt from the Book
Landlord/Tenant-example
Bob shares his flat with his landlord. Imagine you are in his flat and you hear someone in the shower. You want to know who the person in the shower is. Since you do not have any indication of who it is, you assign credences to the propositions according to the table below. Suddenly, it occurs to you that the singer could be another tenant who is not Bob without gaining any new evidence. Applying Reverse Bayesianism to this case of awareness growth requires holding the relation between Landlord and Tenant constant. Since nothing has changed on the coarse-grained level of this case, Reverse Bayesianism demands to assign P(Landlord)=0.5 and P(Tenant)=0.5. Next, Reverse Bayesianism requires holding the relation between Landlord and Bob constant. Since P(Landlord)=0.5, P(Bob) must be P(Bob)=0.5 as well. Consequently, we need to assign P(Other)=0. However, intuitively and following rationality we want to assign the credences as in the table below:
Summary of Chapters
1. The classical Bayesian model and how the problem of awareness growth arises: Defines the agent's epistemic state within the probability set and explains why awareness growth cannot be modeled via standard conditionalization.
2. Reverse Bayesianism as a response to awareness growth and its shortcomings: Discusses Bradley’s approach to credence revision through refinement and expansion, identifying its failure to provide intuitively correct results in mixed cases.
3. The challenge of intuitions for an account of awareness growth: Demonstrates through examples that since rational agents may have different intuitions, a unified framework for awareness growth is impossible.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings by arguing that credence assignment after awareness growth should be treated as an independent process based solely on the rationality of the agent.
Keywords
Awareness growth, Bayesian framework, credence revision, Reverse Bayesianism, rationality, intuitions, probability space, conditionalization, epistemology, epistemic state, mixed cases of awareness, rational agents, belief revision.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core problem addressed in this essay?
The essay addresses the problem of how a rational agent should update their beliefs when they become aware of new possibilities without receiving new empirical evidence.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The main themes include classical Bayesianism, the theory of Reverse Bayesianism, the role of agent intuition in decision theory, and the philosophy of belief revision under growing awareness.
What is the primary thesis of the author?
The author argues that no consistent formal framework can exist to solve all cases of awareness growth because rational outcomes are fundamentally dependent on individual agent intuitions.
Which methodology is employed in this research?
The research primarily utilizes analytical philosophical methodology, employing thought experiments and comparative evaluations of formal logical models to demonstrate the limitations of current theories.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body examines the classical Bayesian model, outlines the failures of Inverse Bayesianism in "mixed cases" of awareness, and uses the "Landlord/Tenant" example to illustrate the necessity of intuitions.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The work is characterized by terms such as awareness growth, Reverse Bayesianism, credence revision, rationality, and epistemological constraints.
Why does the author use the "Landlord/Tenant" example?
The example serves to demonstrate a "mixed case" of awareness growth where applying Reverse Bayesianism leads to results that are intuitively and rationally unsatisfactory.
How should an epistemologist respond to the problem of awareness growth?
The author suggests that epistemologists should abandon the search for a rigid universal framework and instead treat the probability spaces before and after awareness growth as independent, allowing for case-by-case revision.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Tim Windbrake (Autor:in), 2022, What is the problem of awareness growth and how should an epistemologist respond to it?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1263418
