Bounded Rationality

Arcturus Descending

Yes . . . it depends somewhat on the context you are using here. You might be saying that you have a relation to the stars - spiritual in nature I would guess.

Yes and Yes. Again we would be discussing the relation here and it would go down to the core of ones own being for that matter.

I am guessing this is a compliment of sorts. A compliment to the human being - the sense of balance however is rare in people - if you are referring to an emotional balance that is. The same would apply for a rational balance as well as social balance. Reality itself it seems is never balanced.

Our mental balance is in constant adjustment to the adjustments taking place in existence. The bots outcome changes with the input.

:-k

encode_decode wrote:

Arcturus Descending

Yes, everything is about relationship or relating. I come close to worshipping the stars and I am not ashamed to admit it.
But again, is that a feeling of possession toward them?

One of my favorite passages from the bible…

I’m not a believer but I can almost intuit the stars [thinking and feeling] in that way.
It is such a profound poetic thought and sensation to me.

If the creator’s handiwork reflects the creator, then yes, it is a compliment to the human being.

Both emotional and mental. I intuit that there is a distinction between the two. Perhaps rare in most people but not all.
But I suppose that in actuality the creator’s handiwork MAY reflect the creator but being human the creator has other aspects to him/her -self which don’t reflect an ongoing perfection.

When I wrote this~~~

What I was asking was if a bot’s language could instill within one a sense of harmony and balance just as, for instance, a beautiful snowfall could do the same for a person?

Maybe, maybe not. Could it be that it is simply our PERCEPTION of it which is not balanced? We do not have the right lens with which to look? It’s not a statement. It is a question, my musing.

As for the former, we can only hope. :evilfun: As for the latter, doesn’t that make them almost human?
:-k

Arcturus Descending

I maintain: I do not believe I own any words in any of the worlds languages.

I am sorry Arcturus Descending but I do not understand the question.

Interesting . . . I intuit the mind and its connection to everything.

What do you mean by creator?

Really - emotional and mental are distinct from each other? I am guessing you are talking about emotional versus rational. I don’t believe in perfection just precision and I believe we are a long way from precision - speaking as an engineer we deal in tolerances. The imperfection in a bot would would be a tolerance and it would certainly be multiplied by the engineers tolerances - so if the engineer is out by plus or minus 10 then the bot could be out by plus or minus 1000.

I would say not - a beautiful snowfall is a very complex scenario whereas a bot’s language is course grained or low resolution.

OK but the same question could be asked in reverse. I still say reality is not in balance.

No because humankind is a construct that never stays consistent - therefore the same can be said about a human - Logical Independence . . . To know yourself, you’ll find that almost all of the knowing was invention, you have a silent mind, a ghost town of the present wherein no world exists at all. Something inside tells us to seek independence. Logic dictates you ought to reason with complete independence, not relying on communication you’ve ever heard or read, meditating and contemplating, becoming familiar with the silent mind.

encode_decode

I know that I can say the same, rationally speaking. I’ve never coined a word or phrase.

But do you have words for which there is a much deeper experience for you, that is not shared by others?

Don’t be sorry. What I meant within this context is a sense of ownership, not actual of course. Perhaps my question doesn’t make any sense. lol Many of them don’t.

Do you have a special physical place which you go to? You know it doesn’t belong to you, you didn’t pay for it, it isn’t in your name yet you feel that you own it, that it is yours, encode_decode?

Define what you mean here by interesting. :stuck_out_tongue:

Is that your way of saying that you have an experience of consciousness towards everything?
Consciousness has to be different for everyone I think ~ I mean how we experience it, I intuit.

But perhaps I am not quite getting your meaning. What do you mean by I intuit the mind and its connection to everything Can you expound on that a bit if you would care to?

Michelangelo and his David; John Keats and his Endymion, Nietzsche and his Zarathustra, Caravaggio and his Narcisse, Debussy’s and his Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, Eli Whitney and his cotton gin, encode_decode and his little bots, ad continuum.

Is it true that the actual meaning of create is to cause into existence through nothingness?
I wonder how anything could possibly come into existence by way of the use of absolutely nothing?
There always has to be something, in my book, in order to create.
Michelangelo has his undefined marble, his exquisite imagination to see possibilities and his creativity in order to bring that awesome David into existence.

I somehow think also of the Phoenix even though that is about a rebirth. The Phoenix within the flames in order to become again. The Phoenix had his/her :evilfun: flames, willpower, endurance, vulnerability, insightfulness, et cetera to create or re-create itself Ok I’m rambling.
But that is basically for me a good definition of create or creator - going through the fire and the struggle and the agony and hard work to bring something into existence - but never without some kind of material or immaterial something. I write poetry. I know this. :angry:

Hmmm, I’m not sure now. They do of course reside within the same brain. Perhaps I am speaking of emotional vs. rational, but I’m not sure at this time if that is what I meant. I’ll have to think about it. You may be right but I’ll give it more thought.

I get what you are saying here. What you say about tolerance can also go a long way in dealing with human imperfection.

I don’t grasp your meaning here. Are we speaking emotional or technological here? lol

That begs the question at least to me: Reality defined as WHAT?
Perception really is everything I have found. As for nature, the elements, human evolution, physics, other sciences, et cetera, what if it is all as it is or supposed to be? That doesn’t mean that everything is pre-determined to me. Who knows? Maybe i was just coming from a Buddhist mindset for a moment. Who knows. Maybe I didn’t quite express that the way in which I wanted to.
Doesn’t it stand to reason, encode_decode that in order to make such an absolutist statement (if that was your intention) wouldn’t we have to know EVERYTHING as it is in actuality? Did that make sense to you?

I enjoy dealing with personification. Perhaps I have a weird way of relating to many things.

True. Probably the most consistent thing about us is our inconsistencies. Not a bad thing though. We are also FLOW, a wonderful things.

Can we also say that some of that knowing is education - a drawing out of ourselves of what we were meant to know, of what is waiting within to find out? I don’t think that I said that correctly.
As for the second part, I liked that. But how about a pristine landscape?

Oh, yes. But perhaps a better word would be *interdependence, encode_decode. But I intuit you are right too because without our independent mind and action, we can’t serve others or ourselves in an inter-dependent way.

Especially when you have the aide of a place like my avatar, my Location. But one doesn’t actually need that physical place in order to put one’s self in that place. Just close your eyes and you can be there, building it all around you, down to the very last snowflake, the very last flicker of light.
Okay I’m rambling. :blush:

Arcturus Descending

OK . . . That is some pretty cool stuff you have written there . . . Let me get back to you on that.

=D>

Arcturus Descending

It seems I myself have been experiencing some unacceptable(to me) Rational Confinement aka Bounded Rationality in recent times.

Subsection #TBD: Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by:

  1. cognitive limitations
  2. time available to answer the question
  3. openness to influence from the social norm
  4. availability of accurate information
    I choose for my recent times: Number one because I have been covering a lot of new ground. Number two because that ground has been vast. Hopefully not too much of number three. Number four is always a problem for all of us. I hope that makes sense.

So I will do my best to answer you in a way that is hopefully rational and at the same time emotive.

Along with the new ground I have been covering has come differing levels of Emotional Confinement in different emotional ranges covering different emotions. I know the Emotional Confinement to be true because the other day I broke down into tears for reasons I wont go into here - I shed tears and surplus energy for around ten minutes. Not good too confine ones emotions for too long - they are nasty little beasts when locked up.

For a few days there I also experienced Social Confinement - an occupational hazard of what I do unfortunately.

I hope that my written expression is sufficient to shed light on my thoughts.

Generally speaking no - I have coined some words that help me to see reality more clearly. Generally however I find that a combination of words that form one of the sentence types give a deeper experience for example one of the following:

Declarative sentence.
Imperative sentence.
Interrogative sentence.
Exclamatory sentence.
It is in the combination that I find deeper meaning - each word certainly has meaning - it is likely I apply different weights to the meanings of each word than other people but I perceive deeper meaning from the content of the sentence itself - that is how I feel anyway.

It seems I don’t have a sense of ownership regarding words with the exception of terms that I come up with for programming languages - a lot of which use context free grammars. My sense in this case is also shallow as I find deeper meaning in the finished programs - the script that is to be compiled or interpreted.

I think we all sense things in different ways because each of us has different programming. Each of us has a different script that is being written/re-written throughout our lives. In some ways the artist and the engineer are complementary. To see this - just look at “life”.

It is when I take no offense to what I have written that I find deeper meaning but I find no real ownership because those things are only temporary.

I have many special physical places that I go that provide meaning to me. I don’t feel that I own any of them but at times I feel connected to the meaning of the place - this meaning comes from within. I guess that inside it feels like mine.

Interesting in a connected sense - I was saying that I found some synergy with what you were saying - just on a different level. It is indeed my way of saying that I have an experience of consciousness towards everything. Consciousness is different for everyone.

Maybe that is the meaning of create - I feel that I am only a medium to organize the part of reality that I am connected to. I don’t believe anything could possibly come into existence by way of the use of absolutely nothing.

Like you say: There always has to be something, in my book, in order to create. Michelangelo has his undefined marble, his exquisite imagination to see possibilities and his creativity in order to bring that awesome David into existence.

In order to create one must first see the substance of their creation. Lightly speaking and without completion for me everything is a combination of being self-referential, recursive and iterative. The substance is in at least two forms.

Both.

You can define reality however you want to. What if? I have no intuition of physical pre-determination only conceptual. In a way we do kind of know everything but it is simpler than you can imagine. It made perfect sense to me however I don’t believe my response will make much sense to you.

:smiley:

This is where the artist and engineer differ. Education is invention/re-invention. It takes place in the pristine landscape of our mind. Our creative abilities are learned whether we feel that or not. Again though I express this as the medium to organize the part of reality that we are connected to.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

We are all rambling all of the time . . . lol

:laughing:

Rationality and Responsibility

Is not wisdom also about good judgement? Being able to judge your own actions before those of others . . . I would say having an intention to contemplate your own thoughts and actions would be good judgement and in turn wise . . .

Is it not rational to be responsible?

Yes, like… feeling in a tube right now?

Hello 1mpious

I am not exactly sure how to answer your question so I will just take a guess and go for it.

:smiley:

I am taking the assumption you are referring to the idea of feeling confined. Funnily you would think that we humans would have gotten used to that by now but it seems we have not. For the time being our physical bodies are confined to our solar system and most of us are confined to the planet. Some of us are confined to the country we are in and there are a fewer who have never left the city they are in. Rarely we hear of reports of people who have confined themselves to the house they are in for x amount of time. I have seen two reports of people confined to a bed for x amount of time. The last two sentences speak of time and the preceding do not but obviously time is involved.

It seems as though we are confined in some way or other. Every now and then I need to be at the beach because I feel confined by my current country location.

I am happy to have an imagination however - it makes me feel less confined.

:smiley:

Here is another idea I have:

When judging others our rationality in judgement is bound by:

  1. A pattern of imaginings we have created in our mind associated with that person
  2. Emotional feedback associated with that person based on initial impressions
  3. Emotional feedback associated with that person based on current impressions
  4. Differentiation of 1, 2 and 3

I need to put more thought into this but it is a seed of an idea.

Another idea:

Rationality associated with a subjective degree of belief is bound by:

  1. The level of emotional attachment to existing beliefs
  2. The level of objectivity associated with internal and external information sources
  3. The level of willingness to accept or test new objective information
  4. The differentiation of 1, 2 and 3

Again just another seed of thought . . .

:-k

Some thoughts on the possibilities - on Bounded Rationality

Being: human - person - individual - brain - mind - subjectivity
Traits: rationality - reason - logic - sense - emotion - ability - capacity
Misc: time - information - mismatch - social - beliefs - objectivity

Abstract:
Rationality is a quality of the human mind based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Being rational is affected by emotion and emotion relative to rationality is just a rational mismatch from information that does not make sense and a rational match for information that does make sense. To make sense information must match the ability of the individual to think sensibly or logically. Initially a person must be endowed with the capacity to reason. For the individual to be endowed with the capacity to reason is something that is built up over time. Basic logic is included before birth to allow for basic functioning. Sometime after birth the mind becomes aware of internal logic.

“we call rationality the distinction of man, when compared with other animals”
[size=85]Google[/size]

Thoughts:
I would have to say that rationality is the ability to calculate information based on communicative methods between the individual and the environment in which they exist. An attachment to a particular place can be determined by way of logic and emotion. It might make sense to the individual that their place in the environment is a good one based on a number of factors calculated from the manifestation of information in the mind - the person may also have an emotional attachment to their place - but it is based on what determines the type of rational mismatch that takes place. If it makes less sense in a new environment but the person had no choice but to leave their old environment they would experience a rational mismatch - whether or not a strong emotion is expressed is based on the level of Bounded Rationality the individual has. Conversely if an individual’s loved one died in the environment then sometimes it makes sense to leave the environment because of the strong expression of an emotion but this is Bounded Rationality in action - a narrowing of the bandwidth of rationality, so to speak.

I suggest that this can happen without a native spoken language . . . that language is not necessary for logical deduction.

I say that rationality is built into us as a seed from birth and grows with experience - rationality is just the calculation of information and does not require language. Self reflection is possible without language. Patterns from our environment “are language” and can be differentiated and integrated into the mind as useful information. Pattern recognition and processing is where language starts. This includes body language and other such external expression. The clouds can unintentionally communicate rain to a person based on the individuals experience. Language is just an expression of information and a means to consciously calculate and pass information on.

Some say that language was manifested by a desire or emotion to express ourselves

  • I say that language is also bound to rationality . . . language happened because of rational mismatch . . .
    . . . associated with an inherent discomfort that we carry with us to this day.

Logic is the brain . . .

I define “rationality” as taking a rationed-out, step by step route to a chosen goal. Without a goal, there can be no rationality. When the path from where a person is to where they chose to go is willingly interrupted (due to divergent emoting), “irrationality” is formed and the chosen goal is lost (trying to accomplish too many things at once - lack of concentration and focus).

surreptitious57

I have been thinking about this for quite some time.

I wonder whether 1, 4 and 5 might come under the category of cognitive limitations. I also wonder whether relevancy is bound by time and complete information.

What are your thoughts?

I will spend more time thinking about this.

James

It makes sense what you are saying, certainly. I find affinity with most of it.

Don’t you think it is possible to achieve more than one goal? I imagine that is what we were talking about in another thread - the highest priority goal. I understand what you said about all other goals being subservient to the highest priority goal which tells me that an individual sets one goal as the highest and then all other goals are subservient to that. Some goals however may be unrelated, such is the case for many people these days in modern living - some goals are forced upon us.

I do hear you when you say:

Without a goal, there can be no rationality.
This to me spells time management which is related to your concept of rationality and is quite logical.

Would you say that communication has to make sense too? Communication that makes sense would be rational - I suggest it is also related to openness. There would have to be a common language and set expectations for that to take place. That would be clear, verified, instilled and reinforced - everybody is on the same page.

Only to be limited by:

  1. cognitive limitations
  2. time available
  3. openness
  4. availability of clear information

As I understand it, you have time constraints too, like us all. I would really appreciate your thoughts here . . .

A person cannot reliably serve two distinct masters. At some point in time, to serve one will be to betray the other. If and when both individual masters make the exact same demands, they are not distinct, but identical.

ALL goal, forced upon you or not, either serve your highest purpose/goal, or they are “harlots”.

Communication has purpose, the effort to cast influence. In that sense, communication must be rationally assembled. If the influence is one of the transfer of information, obviously the “form” must be transmitted such that it can be retrieved (aka “same language”). But on the other hand, it is unwise/irrational to have all people throughout the world speaking the same one language.

You regularly speak of limitations. I have yet to discern your higher intent (rationale) concerning such.

James

Thank you for your thoughts . . .

Are limitations not part of the truth of reality? And rationality?

People seem to think there are no limits in life.

If I am to develop a theory of mind then these limits are necessary to understand - I am not really that impressed by the existing theories.

James

I can only wish to serve the right master.

I am fully aware of this . . . fully . . . however, we are all serving at least two masters. The government that presides over us and ourselves.

James

Most definitely.

I say a lot of the goals the government force upon me are harlots.

No. You are always only serving one Master. And you are to choose which one that is. If one does not maintain a hierarchy of needs, the master that one serves is Entropy and the death it inspires.

…reminds me of a short story: