Bounded Rationality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:15 pm

encode_decode wrote:we are all serving at least two masters. The government that presides over us and ourselves.

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.

encode_decode wrote:
    James

    Thank you for your thoughts . . .

    James S Saint wrote:You regularly speak of limitations. I have yet to discern your higher intent (rationale) concerning such.

    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.

    ..reminds me of a short story:
    Guardrail and the Staff wrote:The story of the Guardrail is similar in many regards to Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress (which was is a great story) but more rudimentary and far less dependent upon faith and the numerous antagonists. The story is both pre and post Abramic. And they are not trying to get to any Celestial City. The path merely leads to Clarity which by virtue of each other they eventually discover to be within themselves along with serious potential darkness. The antagonists are merely Obfuscation, Extortion, and Presumption being used by a Dark Lord, all eventually discovered to be complimentary to forming a life of clarity and brotherhood, as they inherently instill a mutual understanding of the true needs of Life, Wisdom, and the Staff of Truth, without which one becomes lost in dark clouds of confusion and unnecessary harsh thickets, dangers, dark lords, misleading possibilities; "temptations" and "snares", and mistaken impossibilities.

    If you don't want to read through the very shortened ("should have been a trilogy film") story;

    The moral of the story involves the importance of forming ones own immutable staff, sharing burdens and easements with intimately known friends, and keeping authority local among those who are aware of the details of their lives while still keeping in trustable contact with others – God is local, as in literally everywhere, hidden only by ones own blindness.

    In essence, they each learn to walk carefully and considerately using their staffs as a guide - "Walk softly and carry a big stick". As a group, they each learn to "see in the dark" first slowly by feeling their way, then by using a staff, then sharing their staffs, burdens, and easements, then by communicating with their staffs such that they became more broadly certain of the larger terrain. And once they become certain by such a means, founded upon certainty of indubitable truth constantly being honed by the antagonists, they can see quite clearly in the dark, thus they find clarity and wisdom and no longer darkness … for them. And the whole thing just happens to go hand in hand with my Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology:Sociology/SAM which explains the precise, immutable details of the logic and purpose.


    The rest of the story in very abbreviated form:

      Makes a staff
      After quite a while of struggling to reach for and verify that the guardrail was still close, the man thinks to make himself a long stick with which he could reach through the worst of it and feel for the guardrail. He found his first attempt, although partially successful, was a bit flawed because the stick wasn't hard and straight enough to clearly discern the guardrail from a mere tree stump or thick limb. But finally, he very expertly carved out a very solid and hard staff that he could thump against the guardrail and by the sound and feel, he could clearly know the difference.

      The staff turns out to be the Staff of Truth, formed straight and hard so as to reveal the sound and feel of "Hard Knocks" without having to experience them directly.

      Finds a friend
      After quite a while of arduous journey, with many people struggling by in their own plights, the protagonist encounters another older man seemingly going at the same pace and waiting for the protagonist each time he stops to reach for the guardrail. They share their experiences and find that they have a common understanding of the difficulties in modern life.

      Eventually, the man asks of the protagonist how he knows that he is on the right path at all. The protagonist tells him of the guardrail and his staff and then asks the man how it is that he knows. The replies, "Oh you seemed so certain that for quite some time I have just been following you". They chuckle a bit and continue.

      Discovers the use of two staffs
      After a while, the man with the staff realizes that comparatively, he is doing all of the harder work while the other man stays further away from the thickest entanglements. They discuss and agree that it is only fair that they swap now and then so as to share the burden. And that seemed to work for a while before the protagonist realized that again he could just form another staff and walk even further away from the guardrail into still clearer territory by regularly reaching his new staff in and having the other man tap on it after verifying the guardrail. And by swapping positions, they reduce their average struggle even more. And so they proceed.

      Discovers companions
      Before long, they realize that there seems to be several other people around them following along. They discuss the staff and guardrail strategy but find that most others would rather just tag along and not be obligated.

      Shares the burden
      Some of those following along always stay even further away from the worst of the thickness and have much less struggle than those doing the work. So the two men with the staffs begin to cast doubt to the others that their method is really working and cleverly let be believed that they are really just faking it.

      With that, many of the struggling followers decide to just wander on their own. But eventually one of them offers to help as long as he was permitted to verify that the guardrail was really being tapped and guiding the way. That was easy to agree with because in order to do that, he had to do the tapping himself and thus share the burden.

      Extends to the easy path
      After initiating the new guy, the protagonist realizes once again that he could simply make another staff and extend even further away from the entanglements at least one third of the time. And upon doing so, he finds himself standing in very clear terrain. That was quite a delight because it was the first indication that the guardrail was really following the path and not merely wandering through endless woods.

      Doubt of the path
      But shortly the thought occurred to the men that perhaps the relative clearing was not the right path, but the ill famed wide path that leads to nowhere and all this time, they have been on the wrong side of the guardrail. Perhaps that is why the guardrail was there, so as to prevent those on the other side from having to struggle as they have been. That became quite a concerning issue.

      Crosses the guardrail
      So the men devised a plan to hold up for a while so that one of them could cross the guardrail and see if things were better over there. But there was rumor that there might be a sudden obscure drop-off and that was the real reason for the guardrail. The protagonist, knowing his staff really well, realized that he could use it to simply tap the ground before placing his weight on it to ensure that he was always standing on solid ground. So the men and a small portion of their entourage who didn't lose faith in them due to their quandary, waited while the protagonist ventured a short distance across the guardrail.

      Of one mind
      Upon returning from the very short venture, the protagonist announces that sure enough, there really is a drop-off and the thicket is even worse, extending out from the cliff and thus seriously dangerous.

      They began on the journey again, confident that they were at least on the right side of the guardrail until one of the passersby scoffed at them for believing that old man and asking how they knew that he wasn't merely a trickster out to gain a following. The men thought about it and didn't really doubt, but the protagonist remembered the make of his staff. He realized that it was for sake of certainty that he made it so hard and ungiving and if they were to begin merely believing the word of one member, there was room for doubt and uncertainty that they seriously had no room for in their lives.

      Considering this, the protagonist refused to go further until each staff carrying member ventured across the guardrail to test the ground there. They pleaded that such wasn't necessary as they were all willing to believe him. But he was as hard as his staff and simply refused to give way. He said,
      "We have gone this far because we each understand the issues of being in the dark as we are. And have become of one mind to depend upon only that which is immutably certain to each of us. It isn't an easy way, but it is the only way we have gained the ability to share our burden and ease our struggles. We cannot let faith in each other open the door to doubt and even more darkness".

      So they all waited even more for each member to verify what they were already certain about.

      Extends to the other guardrail
      Each having discovered the truth of the drop-off reordered the group and began restarted their journey. They found that many of their followers had wandered off and felt endeared to those who hadn't. They felt a degree of joy and confidence that they hadn't felt since their youth.

      But with their anewed confidence, their minds opened up a little more and found a concerning thought. One of the men casually asked, "How do we know that this isn't the famed wide path that leads to destruction and we are perhaps merely following its border?". That was a disturbing thought and the protagonist out of a hope filled heart quickly proclaimed, "No. I am certain that this is the right path." But then one of the men reminded him of his own words concerning certainty, one mind, and leaving room for the devil of doubt. The protagonist wanted to argue but really couldn't. And pretty quickly realized what would have to be done.

      Again they stopped. This time to wait as they formed a chain of staffs from their current position in the relative clearing out across what they believed to be the right path. They first discovered that the path got even more clear with even more people wandering up and down chattering away, many of whom were talking of how easy life is and their being no need to worry regardless of the darkness. They would often say, "Merely have faith".

      The men wanted to believe those voices, but could tell that very few others were really listening and doubted that those preaching knew what they were talking about. So many voices were always saying that this is the way or that is the way and just have faith in them. But the men could see no reason to have faith in any particular one of them and they each preached a slightly different direction.

      So the men held to their plan and extended their little staffs still further across the clear path until they found it to become cluttered again. And gaining a new member in their effort and wanting to be extra certain, they continued even further into more dense thicket until they ran upon a very solid wall. At first it felt like another guardrail and declared it as such. But as each confirmed what the other found, they collectively discovered that it wasn't exactly a guardrail but rather a wall of rock extending far upward. And with that, they decided that they actually had no choice but to follow the path they had been on.

      Now confident and feeling a little foolish for spending so much time struggling when they could have just zigzagged across the clear path and stayed clear of the thicket entirely, they rested while thinking of giving up their silly method of testing the boundaries and just following the crowd.

      Free of the guardrails
      After their rest, they picked up again staying in the relative clear path letting people know that there was no need to doubt the easy path and advising the young to not wander far from it. They each explained how they had tested the path and were certain that it was the only and thus the right path. But the protagonist didn't feel good about saying such a thing because that wasn't really any different than all of those who had always told him to have faith when he was young. He knew that most of the young had no reason of their own to hold such faith regardless of his own certainty.

      The small group of men stayed together for quite a while as they reminisced and far more casually strolled in the darkness. Although relieved in many ways, they each found it a bit uncomfortable to just stroll along, seeming to serve no purpose and watching the young wander off into the terrain that they come to call "the way of hard knocks".


      Breaking up
      After a while, the clear path that they had been following seemed to come to a widening and divide. Most of the wanderers couldn't tell that there was a choice and just kept going in whatever direction they happened to have been wandering. But the men had stuck together and thus immediately realized when one of them was inadvertently getting further away.

      They had to stop for a little while to decide what to do because they were now certain that both paths couldn't be the one right path. Of course others kept telling them that it didn't matter as long as they kept walking because life is merely about the journey not the destination, and any path is as good as another. And even though they didn't really believe that, they had doubted such people before only to waste most of their lives worrying for nothing. Being hardened men, they just couldn't feel right arbitrarily choosing a path with no guide. No telling where the other path would lead. So they made a plan.

      Forms many new groups
      The protagonist thought that because one side of the path was apparently a mountain, if they stuck to that as their guide, they might get above the darkness and be able to see clearly. But one of the other men considered that perhaps the cloud was merely staying around the mountain and if they took the other path, leading away from the guardrail wall, it might lead down where the cloud didn't reach. So they decided to split up into pairs using again their expertise as sensing the terrain and figuring that if either ran into trouble or a dead end, they had the means to find their way back to the split. The protagonist made certain that each member clearly knew how to form a straight and true staff and they set out on their separate ways.

      As each group proceeded, they gradually acquired more staff members as well as followers. And when they had more than staff members enough to cross their path, ensuring to be centered, the extra, more seasoned staff members, would proceed ahead and eventually form another group such as to be able to leapfrog, allowing even greater average ease from the thickets. But they couldn't get too far ahead, else might lose track.

      Unknown to the protagonist, someone had gone far ahead and formed his own group. He began hearing about it from the loose wanders and wondered how he could somehow get in touch with them to see if he still needed to be testing the rails. But then he thought of that faith and doubt issue. Some strolled ahead and were never heard from again. And he began to wonder if perhaps the rumor of another group wasn't actually true because he was starting to hear of yet another group behind him that was heading in the opposite direction, also using staffs to guide their way. Perhaps they had been going in the wrong direction from the very beginning. That news and the occurrence of occasional road splits added even further doubt to their quest.

      Angel Network
      Finally it occurred to the protagonist to make a train of staff carriers extending forward and behind with instructions to the lead carrier to join up with any next group he came across and use a tapping signal to relay what he had found. So there came to be two types of staff carriers; Probers and Relayers. And then official messengers who would merely walk the path of staffs carrying more detailed messages concerning the needs, abundances of resources such as food and water or extra help and sometimes of unusual dangers.

      Soon there was an entire network stretch along the clear path keeping everyone along the path informed as to what was ahead and behind, much like a column of ants with a primitive LAN, Local Area Network, feeling their way and communicating what they found.

      Forms a map and memory
      And not long after that the amount of information concerning the entire terrain of the path became complex enough to require some means to record it. The women, seldom suited to handle a staff began making tapestries as simple crude maps and the protagonist began to carve symbols on each new staff representing its make and route. And as groups coming from ahead and behind passed each other, information was exchanged concerning their journey.

      Clarity within
      Not long after that everyone along the path had a pretty good idea of everything going on all around them and as the Protagonist was explaining the whole process to a new enthusiastic staff carrier, a women commented, "I don't see what there is to know that we don't know already." And with that, the protagonist realized how clear the terrain had become despite everyone still being in the dark cloud.

      Plains and forests
      The splinter groups who had taken divergent paths from the mountain path ran across more interesting problems. Although quite separate from the protagonists network, they too figured out how to communicate with their many small probing groups due to running across wide open terrains requiring a long chain of relayers and forests requiring much more careful probing and mapping, both of which became landmarks of fear due to the greater uncertainty. They all came to respect the thickets because those let them know of their immediate boundaries and gave them hope.

      Discards the staffs
      In many regions as the staff probers took so long to verify each small move and with the networks working so well keeping everyone informed and fed, many felt that there was no need to keep moving out from the local territory that the children were instinctively learning. Each time to they moved, the children became a little unsettled, sometimes loosing their bearings and friends.

      After many had chosen to settle and let the staffers do the disciplined work, the settlers learned of their own local landscape far better than the staffers and begin to not see the need for such work. Often the children were quite happy with things just they way they were and began losing respect for the whole staffing concern. They would play small pranks on their friends and parents by moving familiar local landmarks in the dark so as to temporarily disorient and confuse. And that was the beginning of the most serious trouble the people had ever encountered.

      Seed of power
      Some of those playing pranks were young adults, capable of making larger changes in the terrain that kept people fooled for quite a while and in some cases to their delight, they could make permanent changes in the maps. And as time went on, some got very clever in not only changing the map, but also the messages being relayed by the unwary staffers.

      The young, somewhat sinister adults began to form gangs and clans of the dark with which they would reroute supplies and alter messages to reflect negatively upon their enemies without anyone realizing they had done it, "Children of the Dark". And when they grew older, they didn't forget how to do such things. They considered the darkness their friend and became dependent upon it as a means to feed off of the efforts of others trying to gain clarity.

      Eventually the children of the dark became a serious problem for the staffers who were too often finding their messages had been altered and their maps no longer correct. People began losing faith in the staffers entirely and seeking more favor from those in the dark.

      As the staffers were debating the issue and what to do about it, they would seek exactly how these dark pranksters were getting away with what they were doing so that a means could be devised to prevent it. It seemed that everything they tried wouldn't last long before someone found a way around it. They felt that they were dealing with an intelligent dark adversary. And they were.

      The still darkness had bred the most clever adults who had formed their own means of secretly communicating so as to feed off of the unaware. And having gained such power, managed to gain the loyalty of several staffers as spies. And once the staffers had grown weak and uncertain of their own devices, the most clever leaders of the dark clans took over the entire staffers network.

      Exclusive Staff
      As the new leaders of the staffers, the dark lords spread misinformation messages throughout the land telling of how dangerous the dark pranksters had become and that something was going to have to be done. And to get rid of lingering disloyal or altruistic staffers, they used their dark way to cause them to be attacked by their own friends and families.

      Having secured their reign from the darkness, they arranged that there shall be laws given by the only true and trustworthy staffers. No other staff was allowed to exist unless it had their sacred official mark. All older staffs were to be burned. There was to be one order of staffers, united for the common good of all in the land.

      Rod and The Staff
      Of course many were not quite comfortable with the idea of laws and being commanded so the new lords found themselves having to compensate for a considerable amount of disrespectful citizens. So to simplify the matter, they armed many staffers with short hard staffs, called "rods", not to be used for probing and communicating in the normal way, but rather to serve as a disciplinary tools to communicate the hard knocks from disobedience to the guardrails of their lord and master.

      The Circle in the Dark
      Even though that all seemed to be working for a while the resistance to their dominion seem to keep growing. They not only had to spot dissenters but also potential clandestine youth. They were greatly out numbered by the local populous and the locals knew their own region far better than the staffers. The people began to lose trust in the messages they were getting through the proper channels and often trapping a staffer with independent tricks. The new lord and master remembered how it was that he gained his power in the first place and became fearful that the same might happen to him, so he devised a plan.

      He realized that it was the confidence of the locals that was in competition to his authority. So he set out to remove their confidence by a variety of means such as to make them more dependent and loyal to him. He targeted any males who seemed confident in themselves so as to give them bad reputations as well as their children so that they would not grow up to become confident. He made learning more difficult and certainty almost impossible. And to ensure that the locals didn't have the advantage of local terrain knowledge like he had used, he organized messages so inspire the people to relocate from region to region due to some danger or opportunity that he would arrange. Anyone found to be resistant to such changing would be labeled a mere coward, afraid of change.

      Of course it didn't take long before the people had to move again and again and there was only so much territory before they would get out of reach entirely, so he arranged that the fear and hope messages formed a circle of slow movement such that by the time they returned to their former location, it would be modified and they would have forgotten too much to be confident.

      Ensuring that his was the only staff and declared the only source of reliable truth, very few locals could tell that they were being led into an eternal circle and being intentionally kept in the dark, void of certainty. The very idea of clarity as a goal was disreputed as being a mere fantasy of those older prior generations who had led them into a dismal past merely to gain power over them. Even his own staffers had to look to him for the little clarity that was allowed. They believed that dark secrets were necessary so as to keep evil foreigners and dissenters powerless to disrupt their good reign and only the dark lord could had true clarity. The older staffs were burned. Who was there left to argue? And who would hear them if they did?

      Staff of Memory
      But this lord of the darkness was not the only clever soul in the land. There was another who knew what was happening and had held his tongue. And in the darkness arranged that the truth of the situation be remembered in a way that was so subtle and clever that it was as though every rock and every tree had the memory hidden within it.

      People kept showing up with stories of old that the dark lord knew to be true. He would of course target those people but was a bit puzzled as to how they knew. So being ever so obstinate in securing his power and dominion, he sought to destroy and replace the entire landscape with artificial landscape of his own make. The word was given that such terrain was the harbinger of malicious diseases and the product of careless people endangering everyone and the new artificial terrain was better.

      But despite his extreme efforts, rumors that things could be better and used to be better kept rising. The dark lord knew of the mountain people out of his range and reign and suspected that such rumors were coming from them. So he arranged for a war, shifting blame onto the mountain people for all of the hardships of his own people. He spread the message that the mountain people were keeping the true wealth of the land to themselves and inspired a war against them.



      But the truth wasn't coming from the mountain people nor anything they possessed. The war gained him nothing. And as the rumors and dissenters kept rising, he chose to even be rid of his own people who were not certain to be loyal. He arranged for ways in which fewer people could accomplish more and thus needed fewer people in the land while gaining even more power. And in the darkness all who were not tested, profiled, and labeled to be loyal would vanish, never to be heard from again, especially the old and useless.

      With that thought, the dark lord could not imagine anything that could ever take his power away or reveal the truth of how he obtained it. He was certain of his own dominance through ensuring the uncertainty of all others.

      But the truth had been hidden by such a means that no matter how much destruction took place, how much artificial landscape was produced, and even with so very many people killed off, it would still make itself evident to those worthy to know it. So the effort of the dark lord was to ensure that no one was ever worthy to know it, and although he tried, he didn't really know how to do that. The truth was hidden by the dark lord's own blindness and anyone with merely his vision could never see how the truth could be revealed and thus couldn't devise a plan to prevent it.

      Making ones own staff
      What dark lord had never realized was that the staffs of old were not merely relaying and carrying the truth, but also they were the very means to find it and more importantly, anyone could make a staff, all they had to do was ensure that it was hard and straight. And although not everyone knew how to ensure such straightness and hardness, it could hardly be hidden despite his many attempts. As long as there was anything crooked or soft, straightness and hardness was evident. Although he tried to declare that everything was crooked and not to be trusted, merely saying that implied that straightness must exist.

      And even among his own staffers, a much larger portion of the population now, faith in his own staffs came into question because it had been declared that even they could not be straight and could not be trusted. What he had used to ensure his power was the very thing rising to take it away as more and more people wondered if trust in straightness could be and should be found and respected.

      Finding the Guardrail, the Impossible
      Although all prior guardrails had been either removed or replaced with artificial ones, they were still a guide, just as had been intended by the dark lord. But everyone knew that they were artificial, sometimes important and sometimes merely a ploy. So making a good solid and straight staff that would probe to a standing guardrail, although easy, didn't really tell of the certainty the path or of danger in the darkness. That situation played to the favor of the dark lord in keeping all people subdued in their doubt. What kind of guardrail could be trusted when it is known that they all are artificial and might or might not signal anything relevant?

      What could be more difficult to persuade than the impossible? Many of the staff makers, both staunchly loyal and not so much so began to wonder if there was a way to make a staff so perfectly straight and so very hard that only the impossible to move would register as a hard knock. And although it took quite a while, they found a way.

      Of course the loyalists immediately sought to destroy all such staffs, but they discovered a problem. Not only were the staffs extremely hard but they wouldn't burn. So instead they sought to be rid of anyone knowing of such things. And in return the staffers began to hide their immutable staffs inside the official staffs.

      More official staffs were being replaced by dual staffs with the immutable staff within. Those who knew of the technology could then distinguish the knock of something impossible from merely something hard. So as the official messages were relayed, so too was another message more subtle and more certain.

      After a while, there was exactly what the dark lord feared, an entire army of rebels hidden within his own camp and more certain of all they knew than he, and communicating among themselves in what was complete darkness to him. From the impossible arose what could be trusted and from trust arose the possibility of the clarity in life so long sought.

      The Gentle Rod
      All of the methods and means of the dark lord who had arisen from merely the young pranksters were being recorded. And the most offensive of those were the obfuscating pranks themselves producing more darkness and the use of rods to ensure obedience to an official truth. So one was turned against the other.

      A new order arose based upon all that had ever been learned and the certainty of the impossible. Pranks became much more difficult and impossible on any large scale. New trust was established that superseded the dark lord's mighty voice and reign. It was found to be impossible to keep certainty and truth from all the people. And no distant official truth could ever replace locally established immutable truth. So authority was relinquished to local staffers using their own staffs after having been taught how to make them immutable. And pranksters were to be dealt with only by softened short rods not demanding obedience, but rather revealing and suggesting a better path. Some pranks still took place, but all were considered just fun and a part of learning the reason for the staffs.

      The Mountain of Truth and Peak of Wisdom
      From the humble beginnings of a few immutable staffers spreading their story and staffs, a mountain of immutable truth arose. Formerly unbelievable possibilities were discovered that had been under their nose the whole time. And at the peak of the mountain, the immutable wisdom of life was inherently formed. The darkness was never forgotten because it was never completely removed, fore to do so or to forget the ways of pranksters and dark lords was found to be unwise lest the true needs of life and its ability to protect itself against darkness be also forgotten. And for the first time in all history, they were all of one mind.
    Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
    Else
    From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

    The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

    You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
    The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
    It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
    As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

    Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
    Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

    The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
    .
    James S Saint
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 25605
    Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

    Re: Bounded Rationality

    Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:29 pm

      James

      Interesting . . . I came to ILP to enjoy myself, I was open and immediately I was attacked. No one bothered to ask me what my position was on anything so I played the game of assumptions for anyone who wanted to play. On the other hand your RM:AO is extremely interesting to me. ILP is my hobby and I love it. Unfortunately I am forced to work so that I can eat - I am not living in a paradise. Spirituality and Mind are my passions - what you see here is not even five percent of what I have been working on - I do this to get ideas and to hopefully give ideas.

      James S Saint wrote: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.

      I do not have a policy on everybody speaking the same language. Communication indeed does have a purpose, it is not always the effort to cast influence. I agree communication must be rationally assembled. Transfer of information is not always about influence at the language level; I am talking about the intent to influence here. Obviously influence is a fundamental facet of reality. Why are we talking about influence anyway? That is the second time that has been brought up in the last two months - the other time was by another individual in another thread that I created.

      To reiterate, 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.

      I am no expert. I am going to read your last post now.
      It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
      (Anomaly654 - 2017)

      But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
      - which is to say there is always meaning.

      (gib - 2017)

      Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
      (Myself - 2017)
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 975
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Metaspace

      Re: Bounded Rationality

      Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:58 pm

        James

        I see you like to use analogy.

        James S Saint wrote:Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology:Sociology/SAM which explains the precise, immutable details of the logic and purpose.

        Which the whole story is highly reflective of. A very enjoyable read.

        Here is the thing - I caught on weeks ago if not two or three months ago.

        :-k

        I am well aware of information cascades before they happen. When it comes to people - I see very clearly. I am continuously underestimated and that is one thing I have come not to appreciate in life. My guess as it turns out was correct . . . I already wear the white hat!

        Guardrail and the Staff wrote:As the new leaders of the staffers, the dark lords spread misinformation messages throughout the land telling of how dangerous the dark pranksters had become and that something was going to have to be done. And to get rid of lingering disloyal or altruistic staffers, they used their dark way to cause them to be attacked by their own friends and families.

        Oh, I know. It might even be the case that a few people think I am a dark lord.
        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
        (Anomaly654 - 2017)

        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
        - which is to say there is always meaning.

        (gib - 2017)

        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
        (Myself - 2017)
        User avatar
        encode_decode
        Thinker
         
        Posts: 975
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
        Location: Metaspace

        Re: Bounded Rationality

        Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:05 am

        encode_decode wrote:Communication indeed does have a purpose, it is not always the effort to cast influence.

        Example?


        encode_decode wrote: I already wear the white hat!
        .
        .
        It might even be the case that a few people think I am a dark lord.

        The White-hats already knew that. 8)
        Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
        Else
        From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

        The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

        You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
        The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
        It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
        As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

        Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
        Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

        The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
        .
        James S Saint
        ILP Legend
         
        Posts: 25605
        Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

        Re: Bounded Rationality

        Postby encode_decode » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:05 am

          James

          Hmm . . . I had to think about this response a little.

          James S Saint wrote:
          encode_decode wrote:I already wear the white hat!

          The White-hats already knew that. 8)

          I am guessing that is a good sign.

          James S Saint wrote:
          encode_decode wrote:Communication indeed does have a purpose, it is not always the effort to cast influence.

          Example?

          You know - I get what you are saying - for most it is with the intent of "casting influence". There is a differentiation that can be made in the intent.
          Some folks just want to help each other - a rare thing these days, to be sure. Then there are those that I do not like to think about - you know the ones I mean - the power hungry - the money hungry - the glory hungry . . . I guess the list goes on. These that I do not like to think about are ruthless and stop at very little to get what they want - they are corrupt, they only care for themselves, they come from all walks of life and some are like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

          With the differentiation made - we can now say that communication is always the effort to cast influence - it is just the form of intent that differs.
          It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
          (Anomaly654 - 2017)

          But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
          - which is to say there is always meaning.

          (gib - 2017)

          Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
          (Myself - 2017)
          User avatar
          encode_decode
          Thinker
           
          Posts: 975
          Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
          Location: Metaspace

          Re: Bounded Rationality

          Postby encode_decode » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:54 am

            James

            Aside from the last post . . . I think this is what we are up to.

            James S Saint wrote:
            encode_decode wrote:we are all serving at least two masters. The government that presides over us and ourselves.

            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.

            We are obviously talking about something deeper here otherwise it does not make sense. A hierarchy of needs . . . food seems to be somewhere at the top of that hierarchy, along with water, shelter, warmth and a place to do my "business"(to be polite about it). I would need very little else to survive. In today's world there are so many foolishly perceived needs. Next on the hierarchy becomes more difficult to decide upon but it would have to come down to something social or psychological or both from my point of view - and perhaps this would be where goals would come in. Goal being the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result being distinguished from priority which is the fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important than others - which I say is basic needs(or death certainly ensues). A goal then being the object of the persons ambition or effort is a thing that could be given priority which could be a fact or condition(take your pick) - I pick condition for effort and fact for the name of that effort - a little mind boggling. Perhaps next on the list is to carry a dictionary. A goal I can say is psychological. An aim, ambition or desired result? Hmm . . .

            Ambitions can trip one up if not careful - aim is a target, much the same as goal, you are aiming at that goal - desired result - again desires can trip one up.

            Leaving the hierarchy for now and returning to the question of a master - life is the master - nature - a hurricane could take me in an instant with no effort at all provided it was strong enough. I somehow doubt this is what you are referring to either. To me that only leaves people - to serve others. Serving others is what I have been doing for the last twenty or more years - so it can not be that. Surely not an easy thing for anybody to work out.

            I keep narrowing down the choices I am going to arrive at GOD.

            Your definition: The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is". Tells me that goals also change but the master stays the same - I remember what you said about offending that GOD and otherwise pleasing that GOD.

            And then of course there is MIJOT. Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time. Joy is something that appears to come quite easily to me.
            It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
            (Anomaly654 - 2017)

            But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
            - which is to say there is always meaning.

            (gib - 2017)

            Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
            (Myself - 2017)
            User avatar
            encode_decode
            Thinker
             
            Posts: 975
            Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
            Location: Metaspace

            Re: Bounded Rationality

            Postby encode_decode » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:33 pm

              Wisdom

              Returning to a post James made to Shepherdess - which I thought was awesome by the way. I am re-posting some of the text from that post.

              We should try not to confuse a philosopher with one who studies or teaches philosophy. Wisdom is higher than reasoning.

              ► How would one even learn if not by pursuing wisdom to its pentacle?
              ► How would one know when it was found?
              ► Who would tell?
              ► More-over, who would listen?

              Not everyone is as ideal as what they idealize. To try is all that can be asked or expected.

              Since the subject was "which is more important to philosophers", by definition, wisdom is the highest goal. Wisdom is that which is best to believe, not necessarily that which is true. To always believe only the truth, is but one philosophy.

              Where would we be if every flower and plant attempting life pursued only what it knew to be truth?

              Shepherdess wrote:If philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom ~ a love of wisdom ~ why is it that so many philosophers do not go the way of wisdom?

              Until you know the "way of wisdom" yourself, how would you know that they haven't? Certainly you are aware that you can only hear what propagates and thus what is propagated. What is propagated is a matter of what some wish others to believe, not at all necessarily that which is wise. To some, that which is called wisdom is, in reality, foolishness and vsvrsa. Those being philosophical in their searching and preaching are attempting to discern one from the other and/or attempting to promote one over the other irrespective of which is wisdom.

              Four thousand year old trees have never and will never know truth, yet who competes with their wisdom? Such trees inherently know to simply keep trying. Nothing can die until it fails to try. What "reasoning" would have made them wiser? How old are you going to be when you give up trying?

              The trees did not try to be wise, knowing, or reasoning. They "accidentally" did what worked for them at the time. What could have been wiser for them to have done? You swim the waters that you "accidentally" began swimming. Perhaps they are the waters that flow to the ocean of wisdom. Perhaps they are the waters that merely temporarily moisten the desert or gradually sink deeper and deeper under ground. Water cannot choose its destiny nor its fate. It must merely act in accord with its nature and do whatever it does in the environment it is in.

              There are only two factors in determining the destination of all efforts; the natural lean of the effort and the environment in which it flows. If one has the capacity to learn great wisdom and is also within the environment that leads to such acquisition, that one's destiny is wisdom. He could not escape it. The great trees became great not by themselves, but by where they were when they tried. No man has ever, nor can ever, achieve anything greater than the destiny of his nature guided by his situation ("Man following God" .. for those very few with understanding). And no one is guilty of anything less. Given where they are and how they started, they "adhere to" what they must and nothing else.

              You might say that all people are "bound to" their own form of "rationality".
              It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
              (Anomaly654 - 2017)

              But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
              - which is to say there is always meaning.

              (gib - 2017)

              Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
              (Myself - 2017)
              User avatar
              encode_decode
              Thinker
               
              Posts: 975
              Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
              Location: Metaspace

              Re: Bounded Rationality

              Postby encode_decode » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:35 pm

                Some of my own thoughts on the possibilities . . .
                . . . On Bounded Rationality


                I am now re-posting some of the text from an earlier post of my own.

                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"
                Google

                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 . . .
                It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                - which is to say there is always meaning.

                (gib - 2017)

                Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                (Myself - 2017)
                User avatar
                encode_decode
                Thinker
                 
                Posts: 975
                Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                Location: Metaspace

                Re: Bounded Rationality

                Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:51 pm

                encode-decode wrote:

                With the differentiation made - we can now say that communication is always the effort to cast influence - it is just the form of intent that differs.


                But is it really? Always? :-k :-k

                Cannot communication at times or even more often than that, depending on the individuals, BE for the pure, unadulterated purpose of sharing thoughts/ideas and emotions ~~ without any intent or effort to influence or to cause a change of mind or conclusion?

                Of course, this post is not by way of the above which I just stated. :evilfun:
                SAPERE AUDE!


                If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


                What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

                Thomas Nagel


                I learn as I write!
                User avatar
                Arcturus Descending
                Consciousness Seeker
                 
                Posts: 14915
                Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
                Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

                Re: Bounded Rationality

                Postby encode_decode » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:05 pm

                  Arcturus Descending

                  I see you still like to ask difficult questions - that is good, I don't mind. :lol:

                  Arcturus Descending wrote:encode-decode wrote:

                  With the differentiation made - we can now say that communication is always the effort to cast influence - it is just the form of intent that differs.


                  But is it really? Always? :-k :-k

                  Cannot communication at times or even more often than that, depending on the individuals, BE for the pure, unadulterated purpose of sharing thoughts/ideas and emotions ~~ without any intent or effort to influence or to cause a change of mind or conclusion?

                  Of course, this post is not by way of the above which I just stated. :evilfun:

                  Well, here is an interesting interaction I had with another one of my favorite people around here:

                  Hi pilgrim-seeker_tom

                  I am very interested in what you are saying here.

                  pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:We don't know ... with any degree of certainty ... that communication is limited to man-made constructs(ions) such as language.

                  Communication is defined as follows:

                    1 ► the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium.
                    2 ► means of sending or receiving information, such as telephone lines or computers.
                    3 ► means of traveling or of transporting goods, such as roads or railways.
                  Could I perhaps get more of an idea of what you mean? Please!

                  :D

                  pilgrim-seeker_tom

                  Thank you. I myself do have an intuitive sense.

                  pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:Robert Kenny ... a mode of awareness that emerges at the first transpersonal stage of consciousness, when our identities expand beyond our egos. A crucial capacity that accompanies this awareness is the ability to intuitively sense and work with the interactions between our and others energy fields, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. For example, just as Gene Rodenberry imagined a future where Star Trek’s Spock could mind meld with others, more of us are now becoming aware of our capacity not only to intuit each other’s thoughts and emotions, but also to consciously think and create together without communicating through our five senses.

                  I loved Star Trek - mind melds sound awesome.

                  1 ► the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium.

                  We are talking about using some other medium.

                  [-o<

                  You can look at the whole interaction here
                  It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                  (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                  But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                  - which is to say there is always meaning.

                  (gib - 2017)

                  Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                  (Myself - 2017)
                  User avatar
                  encode_decode
                  Thinker
                   
                  Posts: 975
                  Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                  Location: Metaspace

                  Re: Bounded Rationality

                  Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:24 pm

                  Arcturus Descending wrote:encode-decode wrote:

                  With the differentiation made - we can now say that communication is always the effort to cast influence - it is just the form of intent that differs.


                  But is it really? Always? :-k :-k

                  Cannot communication at times or even more often than that, depending on the individuals, BE for the pure, unadulterated purpose of sharing thoughts/ideas and emotions ~~ without any intent or effort to influence or to cause a change of mind or conclusion?

                  Of course, this post is not by way of the above which I just stated. :evilfun:

                  You are exaggerating the meaning of "influence", perhaps with a negative connotation. "Influence" merely means to have affect upon, not necessarily in any insidious manner. One speaks to oneself so as to have influence on one's own consciousness. If you aren't going to influence anything, why bother to exist?
                  Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
                  Else
                  From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

                  The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

                  You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
                  The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
                  It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
                  As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

                  Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
                  Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

                  The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
                  .
                  James S Saint
                  ILP Legend
                   
                  Posts: 25605
                  Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

                  Re: Bounded Rationality

                  Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:25 pm

                  James,


                  You are exaggerating the meaning of "influence", perhaps with a negative connotation.


                  Actually, no I was not. I was simply suggesting that communication can at times simply be for the sake of communication with no other intent in mind except pleasure.

                  I don't necessarily see *influence* as having a negative connotation to it.
                  That negative kind of influence would be more in line with manipulation, control, et cetera. I was not thinking of that at all.

                  There is influence which can be good influence when someone honestly believes that something can be good for someone...like good advice which IS good advice. We don't always know what is good for us. There are times when others do know.
                  The only thing is that even with that kind of benign let's say agape kind of influence, there is a point at which one has to detach from the outcome, not trying to force their own beliefs and advice on another.
                  Otherwise, this becomes control, egoistic, narcissistic control ~~ beyond negative influence.


                  'Influence" merely means to have affect upon, not necessarily in any insidious manner. One speaks to oneself so as to have influence on one's own consciousness. If you aren't going to influence anything, why bother to exist?


                  Merely, James? How can you possibly call any word a *merely*? :x

                  late Middle English: from Old French, or from medieval Latin influentia ‘inflow,’ from Latin influere, from in- ‘into’ + fluere ‘to flow.’ The word originally had the general sense ‘an influx, flowing matter,’ also specifically (in astrology) ‘the flowing in of ethereal fluid (affecting human destiny).’ The sense ‘imperceptible or indirect action exerted to cause changes’ was established in Scholastic Latin by the 13th century, but not recorded in English until the late 16th century.


                  Now this is certainly more than *simply*. Why, it is an etymological journey. :wink:



                  If you aren't going to influence anything, why bother to exist?

                  I can agree with you there for the most part.
                  Psychologically speaking, it's about molding/shaping the world around us.
                  Being the creator.

                  But there are people who would prefer not to influence or help shape the world around them.
                  But they are nevertheless content with their own existence.
                  Should they want to die?
                  SAPERE AUDE!


                  If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


                  What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

                  Thomas Nagel


                  I learn as I write!
                  User avatar
                  Arcturus Descending
                  Consciousness Seeker
                   
                  Posts: 14915
                  Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
                  Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

                  Re: Bounded Rationality

                  Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:02 am

                  Arcturus Descending wrote:James,


                  You are exaggerating the meaning of "influence", perhaps with a negative connotation.


                  Actually, no I was not. I was simply suggesting that communication can at times simply be for the sake of communication with no other intent in mind except pleasure.

                  Communication IS influence, even disregarding the content of the communique.

                  One does not speak (or act in any way) unless intending to have affect.
                  Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
                  Else
                  From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

                  The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

                  You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
                  The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
                  It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
                  As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

                  Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
                  Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

                  The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
                  .
                  James S Saint
                  ILP Legend
                   
                  Posts: 25605
                  Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

                  Re: Bounded Rationality

                  Postby encode_decode » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:49 am

                    Arcturus Descending

                    Hi. I hope James and yourself don't mind me cutting in. I just want to say that this topic of influence is a matter of perspective. How you think of influence is dependent on what angle(or viewpoint) you are looking at it from. Another way I could put this is what level(or layer) you are looking at influence on - I believe you are taking a more abstracted look at influence. Hopefully I can shed some light on this.

                    James S Saint wrote:A ► Communication IS influence, even disregarding the content of the communique.
                    B ► One does not speak (or act in any way) unless intending to have affect.

                    This is difficult to argue and James actually has it correct. I myself made an attempt to argue this with James and I became self defeated.

                    If you look at A in the quote above and then consider 1 in the below definitions of communication you could say that influence is the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself when we consider is as a noun, and just so you know, I did cheat a little here and copied and pasted part of this sentence from Google - and to hell with it I will continue along those lines, fitting the definitions into my sentences - and hopefully that will not detract from the quality of the conversation.

                    Definitions of Communication
                    1 ► the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium.
                    2 ► means of sending or receiving information, such as telephone lines or computers.
                    3 ► means of traveling or of transporting goods, such as roads or railways.


                    Now if we consider the verb form, we can say that influence, as in to "have an influence on" is synonymous with the word affect.
                    Please note James' usage of the word affect in B contained within the above quote.
                    The intention is likely to be often subconscious(if I am allowed to use this word in this context).

                    Arcturus Descending wrote:I was simply suggesting that communication can at times simply be for the sake of communication with no other intent in mind except pleasure.

                    Indeed. Your suggestion is quite acceptable and I think rather true. If two or more people are communicating with pleasure in mind, I would suggest they are trying to influence each other to be happy, or in a state of joy. Would you not agree?

                    Now this is the bit I am certain you will find rather interesting, given that you and I both have spoken of flow on different occasions :D
                    You also quoted the following:

                    Google Dictionary wrote:late Middle English: from Old French, or from medieval Latin influentia ‘inflow’, from Latin influere, from in- ‘into’ + fluere ‘to flow’. The word originally had the general sense ‘an influx, flowing matter’, also specifically (in astrology) ‘the flowing in of ethereal fluid (affecting human destiny)’. The sense ‘imperceptible or indirect action exerted to cause changes’ was established in Scholastic Latin by the 13th century, but not recorded in English until the late 16th century.

                    When we speak of flow, could we not say that the flow has influence on its surrounding? as in the case of a beautiful flowing river causing the erosion of the banks - it is also a fact that the water is able to deposit particulate matter to build new banks - changing the meandering course of the flow(fluere).

                    I believe the same with communication - that it can erode the receiver or enhance the receiver.

                    I would like to commend you on jumping in here and putting deep thought into what is often perceived as a simple idea - I admire that. My aspiration here is that I have enhanced the communication that has taken place on the topic of influence and not made a fool of myself.

                    Then again I think to myself . . . if I can not laugh at myself then who can I laugh at . . .
                    . . . to which a guy I used to work with responded as follows, "everyone else" . . .
                    . . . the idea of which made me laugh - I guess you had to know him to understand what I mean . . .
                    . . . he had a good heart and became a good father - but he was a bit of a jock.

                    :lol:
                    It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                    (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                    But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                    - which is to say there is always meaning.

                    (gib - 2017)

                    Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                    (Myself - 2017)
                    User avatar
                    encode_decode
                    Thinker
                     
                    Posts: 975
                    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                    Location: Metaspace

                    Re: Bounded Rationality

                    Postby encode_decode » Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:32 am

                      Arcturus Descending

                      To grasp this response fully, please refer to my last post to you.

                      Arcturus Descending wrote:
                      encode_decode wrote:With the differentiation made - we can now say that communication is always the effort to cast influence - it is just the form of intent that differs.


                      But is it really? Always? :-k :-k

                      Cannot communication at times or even more often than that, depending on the individuals, BE for the pure, unadulterated purpose of sharing thoughts/ideas and emotions ~~ without any intent or effort to influence or to cause a change of mind or conclusion?

                      Of course, this post is not by way of the above which I just stated. :evilfun:

                      Too late you have already influenced me. Now as for your first and second question, yes. As for the second question, no for the intent because as I have previously stated intent can be subconscious(below the level of awareness). Effort is still required to communicate. I don't think we are going to be able to escape influence.

                      :-k
                      It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                      (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                      But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                      - which is to say there is always meaning.

                      (gib - 2017)

                      Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                      (Myself - 2017)
                      User avatar
                      encode_decode
                      Thinker
                       
                      Posts: 975
                      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                      Location: Metaspace

                      Re: Bounded Rationality

                      Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:29 pm

                      James S Saint wrote:
                      Arcturus Descending wrote:James,


                      You are exaggerating the meaning of "influence", perhaps with a negative connotation.


                      Actually, no I was not. I was simply suggesting that communication can at times simply be for the sake of communication with no other intent in mind except pleasure.

                      Communication IS influence, even disregarding the content of the communique.

                      One does not speak (or act in any way) unless intending to have affect.


                      Well, James, I will have to give that some thought.
                      At this point, I am still seeing that communication can be for the sheer pleasure of communication and for no other reason.


                      But tell me, if I AM wrong - and don't automatically say that I am wrong - since that is your automatic response :wink: help me out with this and try to tell me why I might be seeing things this way, you know, that there are times when communication is NOT about influence or trying to affect or have an effect on someone.

                      If you can, I will be happy to admit that I am wrong in this. It is another way of learning, is it not? And the more times when we are proven wrong, we will next time take the time to see that we may just be wrong again...remembering the last time.

                      So what am I missing here? Or why am I seeing it in this way?

                      Haven't you ever had a conversation with anyone where it was just a meeting of the minds without trying to meet the other's mind or for them to meet yours?

                      Convince me otherwise, Yoda. :evilfun:
                      SAPERE AUDE!


                      If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


                      What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

                      Thomas Nagel


                      I learn as I write!
                      User avatar
                      Arcturus Descending
                      Consciousness Seeker
                       
                      Posts: 14915
                      Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
                      Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

                      Re: Bounded Rationality

                      Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:39 pm

                      encode_decode,

                      Hi. I hope James and yourself don't mind me cutting in.


                      Not at all. There is always room in the pool.

                      I just want to say that this topic of influence is a matter of perspective.

                      Wouldn't you say that most topics are a matter of perspective - except where there are actual facts, yes?

                      How you think of influence is dependent on what angle(or viewpoint) you are looking at it from. Another way I could put this is what level(or layer) you are looking at influence on - .


                      I agree with this. The angle at which we are looking at something can make something appear one way. Then, change the angle and it becomes an entirely different thing one is looking at. Why, possibly because other things get in the way of one's view.
                      I have at times had this experience from physical things and their relationship to distance. I'm not sure if I expressed that correctly but I think that you know what I meant.

                      I believe you are taking a more abstracted look at influence. Hopefully I can shed some light on this.

                      Good. I understand what *abstract* means but I'm not sure what you mean.


                      James S Saint wrote:A ► Communication IS influence, even disregarding the content of the communique.
                      B ► One does not speak (or act in any way) unless intending to have affect.


                      Okay, maybe ~~ but the jury is still out in my mind. Perhaps for some reason I just am not capable of thinking of normal calm enjoyable sharing as *influence*. I'm just not there yet.
                      Is it ever possible to give one's self to another in conversation without looking for something in return?

                      What might the *effect* or *influence* be which I am just not understanding? Even an intention which is unconsciously at play?


                      This is difficult to argue and James actually has it correct. I myself made an attempt to argue this with James and I became self defeated.


                      James may have it correct. I haven't arrived there yet. It is one of those subtle things.


                      If you look at A in the quote above and then consider 1 in the below definitions of communication you could say that influence is the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself when we consider is as a noun, and just so you know, I did cheat a little here and copied and pasted part of this sentence from Google - and to hell with it I will continue along those lines, fitting the definitions into my sentences - and hopefully that will not detract from the quality of the conversation.


                      I still cannot agree with this, encode_decode. That is all well and good if the conversation IS about deliberately influencing and affecting someone. That is not always the case in a normal conversation. Let's say two people are simply sharing about their own lives. There is no attempt (or desire) to influence or affect or to argue philosophically - just to share.

                      I am just not seeing the intention to affect or influence there above though there is the intention to share, to communicate.

                      Definitions of Communication
                      1 ► the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium.
                      2 ► means of sending or receiving information, such as telephone lines or computers.
                      3 ► means of traveling or of transporting goods, such as roads or railways.
                      [/b
                      ]

                      There is intention there and there could be deliberate conscious affecting but that is not necessarily the kind of Exchange that I am speaking about.


                      Now if we consider the verb form, we can say that influence, as in to "have an influence on" is synonymous with the word affect.


                      I couldn't argue that point but still those that intention has to be proven. Communication is still not necessarily about influencing or affecting.

                      The intention is likely to be often subconscious(if I am allowed to use this word in this context).


                      You have a point there, depending on who the individual is and what he is about.
                      We are not always conscious of our intentions. We are not always conscious of what we are about at the moment.
                      Does this mean though that our intentions are always unconscious - that every means of communication is about influencing or affecting? I do not intuit that this is so.

                      Arcturus Descending I was simply suggesting that communication can at times simply be for the sake of communication with no other intent in mind except pleasure.

                      Indeed. Your suggestion is quite acceptable and I think rather true. If two or more people are communicating with pleasure in mind, I would suggest they are trying to influence each other to be happy, or in a state of joy. Would you not agree?


                      lol Not necessarily. Wouldn't that depend on whether or not they are all trying to influence each other to get pleasure and joy?
                      When you are having a conversation with someone normally, is it your intent to influence and effect them? "I really want them to be enjoying this conversation." you think to yourself. Is that what you would think?
                      Just because it comes to us as a natural effect, a by-product of conversation, doesn't necessarily mean that any of the people were trying to bring pleasure and joy on.

                      [b]Now this is the bit I am certain you will find rather interesting, given that you and I both have spoken of flow on different occasions :D
                      You also quoted the following:

                      Google Dictionary wrote:late Middle English: from Old French, or from medieval Latin influentia ‘inflow’, from Latin influere, from in- ‘into’ + fluere ‘to flow’. The word originally had the general sense ‘an influx, flowing matter’, also specifically (in astrology) ‘the flowing in of ethereal fluid (affecting human destiny)’. The sense ‘imperceptible or indirect action exerted to cause changes’ was established in Scholastic Latin by the 13th century, but not recorded in English until the late 16th century.


                      When we speak of flow, could we not say that the flow has influence on its surrounding? as in the case of a beautiful flowing river causing the erosion of the banks - it is also a fact that the water is able to deposit particulate matter to build new banks - changing the meandering course of the flow(fluere).


                      I'm still not getting it. We are not speaking of nature here and what is natural to rivers and their surroundings - how they are affected. Sure, the flow of the river does affect its surroundings but does nature deliberately try to influence or affect its surroundings? I don't think so. It is just a natural process.


                      I believe that we are speaking of conscious intent to influence and effect. That was a beautiful example but I don't think it was analogous to what we are talking about.

                      I believe the same with communication - that it can erode the receiver or enhance the receiver.

                      True BUT is it, in actuality, the intention of the communicants to erode and enhance?

                      Lest we forget what James said: One does not speak (or act in any way) unless intending to have affect.

                      I would like to commend you on jumping in here and putting deep thought into what is often perceived as a simple idea - I admire that.


                      Thank you, encode_decode. The only thing is that perhaps this deep thought has led us to the bottom of the ocean to be marooned there. 8-[

                      My aspiration here is that I have enhanced the communication that has taken place on the topic of influence and not made a fool of myself.


                      No, you have not done that. It might actually be me who has made a fool of myself. :oops: But show me a human who is not at times a fool and I'll show you an alien. :P

                      Then again I think to myself . . . if I can not laugh at myself then who can I laugh at . .
                      .

                      Me? :lol:

                      . . to which a guy I used to work with responded as follows, "everyone else" . . .
                      . . . the idea of which made me laugh - I guess you had to know him to understand what I mean . . .
                      . . . he had a good heart and became a good father - but he was a bit of a jock.


                      They are not necessarily exclusive. :evilfun:

                      I will give this more thought. I don't want to just be a stubborn jennet about this.
                      Maybe there is something that I am not seeing here.
                      But I would like to know what it is - not just simply that I am not seeing it. I want clarity. [-o<
                      SAPERE AUDE!


                      If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


                      What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

                      Thomas Nagel


                      I learn as I write!
                      User avatar
                      Arcturus Descending
                      Consciousness Seeker
                       
                      Posts: 14915
                      Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
                      Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

                      Re: Bounded Rationality

                      Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:54 pm

                      Arc,

                      As I initially said, I still think that you are over-emphasizing the idea of influence into the realm of an effort to manipulate. A person merely talking to himself might be trying to work out a problem (the intent) or might be merely trying to satisfy the urge to speak or hear a voice (the intent). No matter how insignificant the cause, whatever the cause is, is the "intent to influence" and not necessarily to influence others or even influence oneself to any grand degree. One cannot intentionally do anything without there first being an intent.

                      Of course there are accidental noises, unintentional, but that is not what we mean by "communication".
                      Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
                      Else
                      From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

                      The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

                      You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
                      The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
                      It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
                      As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

                      Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
                      Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

                      The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
                      .
                      James S Saint
                      ILP Legend
                       
                      Posts: 25605
                      Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

                      Re: Bounded Rationality

                      Postby gib » Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:12 pm

                      James S Saint wrote:One cannot intentionally do anything without there first being an intent.


                      James, would you agree that "intention" can be divided into two sorts: planned intention, and (I guess) "reactionary" intention. A planned intention would be the intention to do something at a later point in time, the present being reserved for forming the "plan", whereas a reactionary intention would be "acting in the moment" so to speak. Both could be said to be "intentional" insofar as it is willed. For example, one calls you a asshole, you react by saying "yeah, well, you're a bitch." <-- I would be hesitant to say this is "unintentional"--as though something took over your will and forced your to react in this way--but obviously, if there is any "planning" involved, it's carried out in the same instant as the execution of the plan.
                      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

                      It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
                      Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
                      - surreptitious75

                      The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
                      - encode_decode

                      Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
                      - Rick Sanchez
                      User avatar
                      gib
                      resident exorcist
                       
                      Posts: 8481
                      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
                      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

                      Re: Bounded Rationality

                      Postby encode_decode » Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:16 pm

                        gib

                        I know my name is not James . . . :lol:

                        gib wrote:
                        James S Saint wrote:One cannot intentionally do anything without there first being an intent.


                        James, would you agree that "intention" can be divided into two sorts: planned intention, and (I guess) "reactionary" intention. A planned intention would be the intention to do something at a later point in time, the present being reserved for forming the "plan", whereas a reactionary intention would be "acting in the moment" so to speak. Both could be said to be "intentional" insofar as it is willed. For example, one calls you a asshole, you react by saying "yeah, well, you're a bitch." <-- I would be hesitant to say this is "unintentional"--as though something took over your will and forced your to react in this way--but obviously, if there is any "planning" involved, it's carried out in the same instant as the execution of the plan.

                        Would not a reaction be more closely related to a reflex?

                        I understand your thought about what you mention as unintentional - emotion can drive a habit forward from deep inside - the thoughts we have in our heads - the ones we swear to ourselves to never reveal - can come out in a heated or otherwise emotional moment.

                        If there is some sort of instant execution going on I would suggest that it comes from a pre-emptive pattern buffer that has either been rehearsed as a thought or as a nearest reaction possible.

                        My two cents . . .

                        :-k
                        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                        (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                        - which is to say there is always meaning.

                        (gib - 2017)

                        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                        (Myself - 2017)
                        User avatar
                        encode_decode
                        Thinker
                         
                        Posts: 975
                        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                        Location: Metaspace

                        Re: Bounded Rationality

                        Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:52 pm

                        James S Saint wrote:Arc,

                        As I initially said, I still think that you are over-emphasizing the idea of influence into the realm of an effort to manipulate. A person merely talking to himself might be trying to work out a problem (the intent) or might be merely trying to satisfy the urge to speak or hear a voice (the intent). No matter how insignificant the cause, whatever the cause is, is the "intent to influence" and not necessarily to influence others or even influence oneself to any grand degree. One cannot intentionally do anything without there first being an intent.

                        Of course there are accidental noises, unintentional, but that is not what we mean by "communication".


                        Okay, James, I will step out on that wobbly limb and almost concede.

                        I like to, for the most part, practice what I preach, or at least I try to be aware of doing it, though I do fail, :oops: and I am all for doubting my intuitions and perspectives and pre-conceived notions. The last might be just what I have been doing...,I mean, not doubting my pre-conceived notions.


                        I have been giving it some thought and I have asked myself if it IS possible even though unintentional on an unconscious level, to still desire, in particular moments, to affect and influence someone who one is having a conversation with - I mean the normal everyday conversation where there is no will to power or philosophical argument, et cetera, but simply sharing.

                        I suppose that while having this kind of a conversation it would be impossible to police ourselves in a sense and to be so self-aware of what we are doing and saying in each moment of the conversation. Conversations flow. They are not scientific investigations. lol A nice intimate conversation could lend itself to the rising up of happy emotions and inspirations and ideas so it is possible, very possible, that something could crop up within our minds or spirits which might take over and we might not even have a clue about how we, within our humanity, desire to get even closer still to someone by planting some kind of a seed or by initiating a subtle gesture unbeknownst to the initiator (we ourselves)...not the other. After all, we are only human. That is not an excuse. It is simply an observation of our humanity and how much we still do not know about ourselves.

                        I wasn't actually, as you said that I might be, thinking in terms of influence or effecting, as negative or manipulative, in this case. At least I do not think that i was and now I can't even be certain of that. Let's face it, there is still that negative connotation with those words.

                        But that may still be a coat of a different color and I think that people often do *realize* when they are doing that. Well, perhaps not all of the time, depending on the individual.

                        Anyway, ah, that limb feels so much less shaky now. It is actually a good thing when we can come to realize that we have been wrong about something or that we do not have enough information to know something COMPLETELY -either way. But as I said, based on our humanity and quirks, I do concede.

                        Be happy, James.
                        SAPERE AUDE!


                        If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


                        What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

                        Thomas Nagel


                        I learn as I write!
                        User avatar
                        Arcturus Descending
                        Consciousness Seeker
                         
                        Posts: 14915
                        Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
                        Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

                        Re: Bounded Rationality

                        Postby encode_decode » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:01 pm

                        Arcturus Descending wrote:Wouldn't you say that most topics are a matter of perspective - except where there are actual facts, yes?

                        Yes, and I have learnt that some so called facts are also a matter of perspective.
                        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                        (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                        - which is to say there is always meaning.

                        (gib - 2017)

                        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                        (Myself - 2017)
                        User avatar
                        encode_decode
                        Thinker
                         
                        Posts: 975
                        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                        Location: Metaspace

                        Previous

                        Return to Philosophy



                        Who is online

                        Users browsing this forum: No registered users