Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard, The problem here is that I am not sure in what sense you are
using the
word "rational". There are many usages. One of those usages is very
common in cog sci, and if I go with *that* usage your claim is
completely wrong: you can pick up an elementary cog psy textbook and
find at least two chapters dedicated to a discussion about the many
ways that humans are (according to the textbook) "irrational".
This is a subject of huge importance, and it shouldn't be hard to reach
a mutual understanding at least. "Rational" in general means that a
system or agent follows a coherent and systematic set of steps in
solving a problem.
The social sciences treat humans as rational agents maximising or
boundedly satisficing their utilities in taking decisions - coherently
systematically finding solutions for their needs,(& there is much
controversy about this - everyone knows it ain't right, but no
substitute has been offered)
Cognitive science treats the human mind as basically a programmed
computational machine much like actual programmed computers - and
programs are normally conceived of as rational. - coherent sets of
steps etc.
Both cog sci and sci psych. generally endlessly highlight
irrationalities in our decisionmaking/problemsolving processes - but
these are only in *parts* of those processes, not the processes as a
whole. They're like bugs in the program, but the program and mind as a
whole are basically rational - following coherent sets of steps - it's
just that the odd heuristic/ attitude/ assumption is wrong (or perhaps
they have a neurocognitive deficit).
Mike,
What is happening here is that you have gotten an extremely
oversimplified picture of what cognitive science is claiming. This
particular statement of yours focusses on the key misunderstanding:
> Cognitive science treats the human mind as basically a programmed
> computational machine much like actual programmed computers - and
> programs are normally conceived of as rational. - coherent sets of
> steps etc.
Programs IN GENERAL are not rational, it is just that the folks who
tried to AI and build models of mind in the very very early years
started out with simple programs that tried to do "reasoning-like"
computations, and as a result you have seen this as everything that
computers do.
This would be analogous to someone saying "Paint is used to build
pictures that directly represent objects in the world." This would not
be true: paint is completely neutral and can be used to either
represent real things, or represent non-real things, or represent
nothing at all. In the same way computer programs are completely
neutral and can be used to build systems that are either rational or
irrational. My system is not "rational" in that sense at all.
Just because some paintings represent things, that does not mean that
paint only does that. Just because some people tried to use computers
to build rational-looking models of mind, that does not mean that
computers in general do that.
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=73344123-2104e3
