Hi David, On Nov 1, 2011, at 9:51 PM, David R. Block wrote: > Complete and total rationality might be a myth. > > If rationality is a myth, then is irrationality the truth?? Not sure I want > to go there. Not sure that you would want to go there, either. If you do want > to, WHY?? >> We aren't. The human brain isn't designed for rational calculation. It is >> designed for *heuristics* -- determining behavior by matching patterns >> against the environment. Heuristics aren't quite rational (formally provable), but they aren't irrational either. My point is that rational calculation is *a* useful heuristic, but not the only one.
> I have to admit that I don't see floating point as irrational. And the > difference between real and rational is therefore an enigma to me. Sorry, it was a bad math pun. Real numbers include both irrational (square root of 2) and rational (1/2). > I find it intriguing that when dealing with rationality, and in some cases > when dealing with Libertarianism, there appears to be this presupposition or > demand of "perfectionism." i readily acknowledge that as impossible, so I > don't really understand the criticism of what I am not saying or believing > most of the time-close to the number I really don't want to use-99 % of the > time. > > I would like to think that we are more rational than irrational. The real problem of rational deduction is ensuring your a) premises, and b) information are sufficiently accurate. Libertarian narratives always seem to implicitly assume i) their premises are correct, and ii) they have sufficient information to decide conclusively. Whenever I question either of those, I am told "You're ignoring hard cold logic." My premise is that rational calculation is *one* way of approaching the word, but only in circumstances where the premises and information *are* clear. In the absence of such, it is perfectly legitimate to appeal to tradition, experience, intuition, etc. And in fact, I think I could easily prove that the vast majority of our everyday decisions are most subconsciously using heuristics, not consciously using rational calculation. In fact, there's some fascinating studies showing that our brains are better are inventing post-hoc rational explanations for things we believe intuitively than for choosing beliefs based on rational calculation -- and lousy at telling the difference. -- Ernie P. > > > Your mileage may vary, > > David > > "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people > do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke > > On 11/1/2011 4:19 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: >> >> Hi Billy, >> >> On Nov 1, 2011, at 12:56 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> How Not to Argue for Limited Government and Lower Taxes >>> T. M. Scanlon >>> This article is part of Libertarianism and Liberty, a forum on arguments >>> for libertarian policy conclusions. >>> >>> Libertarians embrace liberty as their fundamental starting point. From >>> this, they advocate a program of limited government and lower taxes. >>> >>> But it’s not clear how they get from their starting point to their policy >>> conclusion. >> Very nice analysis, though I'm a little fuzzy about his conclusion. >> >> I also realized a fundamental flaw in Libertarian reasoning: the assumption >> that humans are rational. >> >> We aren't. The human brain isn't designed for rational calculation. It is >> designed for *heuristics* -- determining behavior by matching patterns >> against the environment. >> >> In fact, this is the only kind of system that can deal with the real world >> -- in the mathematical sense. The world is real, not rational -- continuous >> floating-point numbers, not discrete integers. The only robust way to cope >> with reality is to use some kind of fuzzy logic --- which leads to >> heuristics. Logic is one important heuristic, but frankly of limited >> validity, because it depends incredibly precisely on the initial conditions, >> and in complex systems the relation of outputs to inputs is generally >> chaotic not linear. The mapping between the analog real world and the >> digital rational world -- analog-to-digital -- is really hard, and in fact >> one of the most difficult problems in computation. >> >> The requirement for rational thinking is the requirement for perfect >> information. Most libertarian utopias assume that everyone has access to >> sufficiently accurate information to decide for themselves. But we don't. >> All information is imperfect, our time and attention is limited, and frankly >> our brains (mine included) are too stupid to really make effective decisions >> about *most* things that matter to us. We *need* each other to provide >> abstractions and rules to simplify our lives to the point of manageability. >> >> This is not to entirely dis rationality or logic -- heck, I make my living >> off of computers and production systems designed for maximum rationality. >> But I never forget that they are the servants of human beings, and that all >> the interesting and difficult questions lie on the *analog* side of the >> equation. >> >> I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this rant, but it struck me that >> this myth of rationality runs deep in Western thought, and I only now >> realized that the emperor has no clothes -- or at most, a headband. >> >> DRB, Kevin -- as the Libertarian-leaning among us, what do you think? >> >> -- Ernie P. >> > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
