On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/6/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As your example illustrates, a higher intelligence will appear to be > > irrational, but you cannot conclude from this that irrationality > > implies intelligence. > > Neither does it imply a lack of intelligence. > > Note that had the master left the table and another good but less than > masterful player taken his position, the master's moves would probably have > left his replacement at a disadvantage. > > The test of intelligence is whether it is successful in achieving the > desired goal. Irrationality may be a help or a hindrance, depending on how > it is applied. >
I think you are using a wrong concept for 'rationality'. It is not a particular procedure, fixed and eternal. If your 'rationality' is bad for achieving your goals, you are not being rational. See http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/newcombs-proble.html "It is precisely the notion that Nature does not care about our algorithm, which frees us up to pursue the winning Way - without attachment to any particular ritual of cognition, apart from our belief that it wins. Every rule is up for grabs, except the rule of winning." -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
