We may be overthinking things here. What's wrong with defining it as the
capacity to make choices when more than one option is available?
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 5:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>> Yes - and rationality often does not help much. In such situations, it
>> is often better to make a fast decision than a good one. Only
>> irrational agents can make fast decisions.
> Almost all real decisions (even in chess) are time constrained. How can
> it be rational to wait too long for your decision to matter and irrational
> to make a quick decision on incomplete information, on incomplete analysis?
>> > From the responses I've received on this list, I don't think people
>> are using the term rational in the same way it is used in
>> economics. Flipping a coin is never rational, although it may well be
>> the best thing to do.
> Random moves are optimum in many games and provably so. What meaning of
> 'rational' are you using?
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at