On 22 January 2014 13:33, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:32:23PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > 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. > > Yes - of course it is the formal definition of rationality. Do you mean > there is some informal everyday use of the term that means something > different? > The "informal" usage (as several people have pointed out) implies that it would be rational, under some circumstances, to make a random decision. For example, Nasrudin's Ass is caught exactly half way between two bales of hay. Each bale is equally attractive, so it has no reason to prefer one to the other, and gets stuck in the middle. It seems ridiculous that it is more rational for the ass to remain half way between the bales until it starves to death, than to randomly select one bale to eat. That's why I assumed you must be using some formal definition of rationality that made that sort of action "reasonable". -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
