ROGER: On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:55:03AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
No, rational beings have to decide which truths they need to apply
to what and how to apply them. These are all relational acts,
which require choice, hence intelligence.
RUSS: I will insist that
Hi Russell Standish
Reason is what allows us to exist in the face of desire and danger.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/12/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver:
On 11/12/2012 2:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/11/11 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 11/11/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems
On 11 Nov 2012, at 23:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/11/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity'
when we consider each observer's 1p to be
On 10 Nov 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity'
when we consider each observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or
sheaf of an infinite number of computations. The chooser of A and
of B
On 11/11/2012 12:53 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:44:36PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Only for some extended, loose definition of rational. The
non-deterministic choices themselves are not rationally determined.
Of course not
On 11/11/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when
we consider each observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or sheaf of
an infinite number of
On 11/11/2012 12:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I like this definition that was posted in that forum: *An agent is rational if
he/she does whatever the modeler (i.e. economist) would do in his/her position.*
The problem is with does. Flipping a coin and doing X if heads and Y if tails can
On 11/12/2012 12:15 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/11/2012 12:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I like this definition that was posted in that forum: *An agent is
rational if he/she does whatever the modeler (i.e. economist) would
do in his/her position.*
The problem is with does. Flipping a coin
On 11/11/2012 10:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
n 11/12/2012 12:15 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/11/2012 12:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I like this definition that was posted in that forum: *An agent is rational if
he/she does whatever the modeler (i.e. economist) would do in his/her
2012/11/11 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 11/11/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when we
consider each observer's 1p to
Hi Russell Standish
No, rational beings have to decide which truths they need to apply
to what and how to apply them. These are all relational acts,
which require choice, hence intelligence.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when we consider each
observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or sheaf of an infinite number of computations.
The chooser of A and of B is one and the same if and only if the
On 11/10/2012 11:44 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when we
consider each observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or sheaf of an
infinite number of computations. The chooser of A and of B is one and
On 11/10/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/10/2012 11:44 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/9/2012 3:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It seems to me that we automatically get a 'fixed identity' when we consider each
observer's 1p to be defined by a bundle or sheaf of an infinite number of
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:55:03AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
No, rational beings have to decide which truths they need to apply
to what and how to apply them. These are all relational acts,
which require choice, hence intelligence.
I will insist that this is
On 11/10/2012 2:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:55:03AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
No, rational beings have to decide which truths they need to apply
to what and how to apply them. These are all relational acts,
which require choice, hence
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 03:27:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But the definition
[of rationality]
seems overly restrictive. It's well known that
in competitive games the best strategy may random in some way. So I
don't see how you can arbitrarily rule out random choices as
'irrational'
On 11/10/2012 3:56 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 03:27:47PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
But the definition
[of rationality]
seems overly restrictive. It's well known that
in competitive games the best strategy may random in some way. So I
don't see how you can arbitrarily
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 04:37:55PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 3:56 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
But if it is rational to be irrational, is it possible to be rational any
more?
No, but you're making a conundrum out of it. The point is that it's
rational to be non-deterministic.
On 11/10/2012 5:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 04:37:55PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 3:56 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
But if it is rational to be irrational, is it possible to be rational any more?
No, but you're making a conundrum out of it. The point is
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 06:44:36PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Only for some extended, loose definition of rational. The
non-deterministic choices themselves are not rationally determined.
Of course not by your definition of rational for in that case
On 11/10/2012 9:53 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Correct. A stochastic decision is obviously not reasoned, so the
decision itself cannot be rational.
But that wasn't the original assertion. You said that a rational person could,
necessarily, on chose one action. So if the rational decision is
On 09 Nov 2012, at 12:01, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
In my discussions of intelligence, I define intelligence
as the ability to (fairly freely) make one's own choices.
OK.
That implies through the word own that there is a
fixed identity, the chooser
OK.
A picture of this might
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 06:01:04AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
In my discussions of intelligence, I define intelligence
as the ability to (fairly freely) make one's own choices.
A bit of an odd definition, don't you think? A purely rational being
does not have a free choice, they
25 matches
Mail list logo