I am beginning to think that Russell is using a very narrow or perhaps formal definition of rationality, in which case perhaps objections that random (or unpredictable) behaviour can be rational don't fit it, even though most people think that such actions are at times the most rational choice.
If the definition of rationality is the course of action you believe will "maximise your utility function" then in practice that varies from person to person, and even from moment to moment for a given person. Maybe there is some game-theoretic definition of a utility function that is an idealisation of the real-life version, and an idealised version of rationality that strives to maximise it? It sounds to me like Russell's definition of a "rational agent" is along the lines of a fictional robot that can't "break its programming", while everyone else is thinking of real people who have to decide what to do in a short time, with inadequate information, in a fluid environment, etc. I can see that if this is the case, it will lead to a conflict of opinion! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
