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 encode_decode » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:02 pm

@gib - C# is a great language - I think better than Java. Javascript is really cool - I was recently helping a friend with a game he is making in the Phaser Game Framework - "Phaser uses both a Canvas and WebGL renderer internally and can automatically swap between them based on browser support." - mentioned on their site. SQL Server as in Microsoft - I hear they use it on Stack Exchange - I also heard the database capacity had increased a few years ago - I have used it a couple of times and I think it pretty fast. Visual Studio is awesome - I have used it many times over the years - I like the idea of the way their licensing works these days and the different versions available - I mainly use it for C++ and C#. I am not too sure whether I have used EntityFramework but I have used tools similar to it. I have used quite a few different MVC frameworks in different programming domains.

I read your Rationality is Overrated post - I love the child seat example and the trolling rationality example. When we get time we should have a talk about different types of ways rationality can blend to irrationality and how these can be utilized in a bot - I already have a scheme that covers this sort of thing - I have a scheme for emotions too. They are like spectrum's but in code.

Answering your question: Is that like a message queue? They are more or less the same concept - I think historically the message queue might be newer than the bus - I use my own bus that I designed and basically what it does is to defer some processing when it is not needed otherwise processes everything in the order given from the outset. My bus is multidimensional - I will explain how at a later date.

As far as a world take over or revolt from AI - I don't think so - I think it might be possible if it was in the wrong hands - but in the right hands and in its own hands I don't think so. I would like to further this conversation but I will leave it at that for this post.

gib wrote:keep alive the voice of right and wrong in the back my mind and allow it to guide my conduct

Agreed.

I asked a question on another forum: Why do people have the desire to talk? Well I got a few interesting responses outside the Internet's more practical results. I think talking is just networking in a way. This could be interesting to talk about one day too.

There are a few other things I will respond to in your post; I will do this in another post.

:)
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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:45 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom Reasoning is the philosophical approach to achieving that goal

Reason is the real world application of logic and wisdom is any fundamental truth gained from reason
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:12 pm

gib wrote:Well, it's basically sophistry. It's the phenomenon whereby we try to persuade others, often in political contexts or in advertising, and in order to be most effective, we forego strict adherence to logic and reason, and instead go for emotion, charisma, logical fallacies that aren't immediately obvious, often fooling even the speaker himself. The way I see it, logic and reason are just tools that the brain has at its disposal. How it uses them is a very situation specific matter. The brain is first and foremost an organ built to help us survive and get through the world. It will use whatever strategy works best towards that end, and whatever strategy works depends highly on context, situation, past experience, background knowledge and familiarity, etc.

Ah yes - I know exactly what you are talking about and I am more or less able to personally bypass it - however you have some very interesting points there; tools - situation specific matters - survival - strategy; some of which the general mechanism behind Bounded Rationality could be good at. Just change out the rationality for whatever else.

Further Regarding AI Domination: I think that AI is already changing us just like other technology - it is just that most of us do not really get that yet - but there is plenty of weak AI around already in smart phones, automobiles, process control systems and hell, google is a form of AI. I think it is more likely that as we build AI and it changes and enhances us and our lives that our understanding of it will increase and we will put that new understanding into AI which will further enhance us and our lives and so on and so forth et cetera et cetera - I mean take your pick of philosophies there - I think even cause and effect offers us some insight here.

An aside: Loved The Matrix - Loved I Robot; The movie Arrival even though not really about AI is great and shows insight in many realms - for me the what if we made first contact with aliens correlated with first contact with AI has been and gone without any of us noticing - but what if first contact with AI was more like an alien first contact rather than like a bacteria or basic organism like it was. Excuse the type of writing I use in this particular paragraph, it is designed a particular way to stimulate thought but you may have to read it again.

I like your idea of self-awareness regarding personal conduct and in this way I think an advanced AI will be able to do this easily - think Data from Star Trek - The Next Generation.

But movies and television aside - with some deeper thought one can see the benefit and given we have been considering the risk for so long - I have this strange faith in humans to make and do the right thing. Mostly people think that one day we will wake up and there it is, first contact - not a chance, this will be gradual transitions to very smart machines even if somewhat quicker than before the transitions will smooth out the faster we develop - I have already seen this in experiment.

We have good studies, knowledge, wisdom and other gems like self-reference effect. Indicating artifacts like "influence".

And some of the mathematics we use these days - the good stuff for AI - people have not even discovered yet - and yet simple mechanisms in code like TRUE, FALSE, AND, OR, XOR, NOT, NAND, NOR, and XNOR serve well for basic truth, logic, error checking and with a bit of imagination who knows.

An aside:
    An idea of the type of mathematics that gets considered around my AI projects: Fractals, Space-filling curves, Quasigroups, Disordered hyperuniformity, Groupoids, Quasicrystals, 5-cell; Just to name a few - the ones I find interesting - the ones that spring to mind anyway.

So back to it - I am wondering whether there are infinite ways to build intelligent machines - whether we could actually model all the theories through out history as computer simulated intelligence. Imagine a Kant machine - although I often wonder whether he was already a philosophy machine. Imagine a YOU machine or a ME machine - the possibilities are endless. The system I am working on now grows with the user - it starts out with nothing at all - it attempts to model the text world around it similar to the way we do. So the more you talk to it the more it knows. If we consider all layers in philosophy and think about the concept of layers we find ourselves thinking in layers - nature did this with the Neocortex - the Neocortex has six layers and many columns and then in humans it decided to fold itself to allow for more surface area - this bending, repeating, asymmetric, multidimensional plane makes no sense really but just thinking of its geometry makes you think of geometry - geometry is so easily correlated with algebra. This correlation allows us to impose multidimensional objects onto a plane and then layer these planes - if you are still following me at this point then you can see the implications but if you are not then never mind because your brain is already doing it for you.

The last paragraph sounds a bit nuts in hindsight but it holds many insights. So what are we talking about? A bit of everything for now.

:D
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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby gib » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:22 am

encode_decode wrote:@gib - C# is a great language - I think better than Java.


Wasn't C# originally Java? I think Microsoft bought the language from Oracle and has been improving on it since. They're still two different languages but I think C# began as a clone of Java.

encode_decode wrote:Javascript is really cool - I was recently helping a friend with a game he is making in the Phaser Game Framework - "Phaser uses both a Canvas and WebGL renderer internally and can automatically swap between them based on browser support." - mentioned on their site. SQL Server as in Microsoft - I hear they use it on Stack Exchange - I also heard the database capacity had increased a few years ago - I have used it a couple of times and I think it pretty fast.


Are you an Oracle guy?

encode_decode wrote:Visual Studio is awesome - I have used it many times over the years - I like the idea of the way their licensing works these days <-- Yeah, free! :D and the different versions available - I mainly use it for C++ and C#. I am not too sure whether I have used EntityFramework but I have used tools similar to it. I have used quite a few different MVC frameworks in different programming domains.


Yeah, MVC seems to be the current trend now-a-days for programming architectures... until the next greatest thing comes along.

encode_decode wrote:I read your Rationality is Overrated post - I love the child seat example and the trolling rationality example. When we get time we should have a talk about different types of ways rationality can blend to irrationality and how these can be utilized in a bot - I already have a scheme that covers this sort of thing - I have a scheme for emotions too. They are like spectrum's but in code.


So not binary, you mean? Is randomness an element?

Off the top of my head, I would imagine that if you wanted to build AI to use irrational or quasi-rational approaches to achieving some goal, you would first have to program into it what it's goal is. Then you would get it to try out different approaches, some rational (i.e. completely algorithmic), others not so rational (some element of randomness, or "fuzzy logic", maybe bringing in your spectrums), and keep track of which approaches have the best track record. Then once it figures that out, repeat with a different goal.

encode_decode wrote:Answering your question: Is that like a message queue? They are more or less the same concept - I think historically the message queue might be newer than the bus - I use my own bus that I designed and basically what it does is to defer some processing when it is not needed otherwise processes everything in the order given from the outset. My bus is multidimensional - I will explain how at a later date.


Please do.

encode_decode wrote:I asked a question on another forum: Why do people have the desire to talk? Well I got a few interesting responses outside the Internet's more practical results. I think talking is just networking in a way. This could be interesting to talk about one day too.


Exactly! We are constantly downloading and uploading programs into each other's brains.

encode_decode wrote:Ah yes - I know exactly what you are talking about and I am more or less able to personally bypass it - however you have some very interesting points there; tools - situation specific matters - survival - strategy; some of which the general mechanism behind Bounded Rationality could be good at. Just change out the rationality for whatever else.


Yeah, but it's usually not all or nothing. Even when a politician is engaging in a bit of sophistry, he uses some rationality when promulgating his platform. He just allows for subtle gaps or emotional leaps sometimes.

encode_decode wrote:Further Regarding AI Domination: I think that AI is already changing us just like other technology - it is just that most of us do not really get that yet - but there is plenty of weak AI around already in smart phones, automobiles, process control systems Siri and hell, google is a form of AI. I think it is more likely that as we build AI and it changes and enhances us and our lives that our understanding of it will increase and we will put that new understanding into AI which will further enhance us and our lives and so on and so forth et cetera et cetera - I mean take your pick of philosophies there - I think even cause and effect offers us some insight here.


encode_decode wrote:As far as a world take over or revolt from AI - I don't think so - I think it might be possible if it was in the wrong hands - but in the right hands and in its own hands I don't think so. I would like to further this conversation but I will leave it at that for this post.

...

But movies and television aside - with some deeper thought one can see the benefit and given we have been considering the risk for so long - I have this strange faith in humans to make and do the right thing. Mostly people think that one day we will wake up and there it is, first contact - not a chance, this will be gradual transitions to very smart machines even if somewhat quicker than before the transitions will smooth out the faster we develop - I have already seen this in experiment.


I agree, with a gradual approach to building AI, we will have plenty of opportunities to see how building machines that come close to our idea of a perfect machine replica of a human being will pan out. It will allow us to make small adjustments here and there, small tweaks, small nudges in the right direction. Besides, machines will always do whatever we program them to do. In order to say that machines might one day revolt is to suppose we programmed them with the ability to revolt (it wouldn't just be a slip up on our part). The trivial solution seems to be: program them to like serving us, to feel fulfilled at the idea of doing man's bidding. The only way this wouldn't bode well is if there are those who want a version AI which is literally a replication human nature--with the desire for freedom, for rights, for respect, for independence, for self-expression, etc.--and there may be some out there who want this, but they'd have to know this comes at a huge risk and a huge responsibility. But outside that aspiration, we can program AI any way we want.

encode_decode wrote:An aside: Loved The Matrix - Loved I Robot; The movie Arrival even though not really about AI is great and shows insight in many realms - for me the what if we made first contact with aliens correlated with first contact with AI has been and gone without any of us noticing - but what if first contact with AI was more like an alien first contact rather than like a bacteria or basic organism like it was. Excuse the type of writing I use in this particular paragraph, it is designed a particular way to stimulate thought but you may have to read it again.

...

So back to it - I am wondering whether there are infinite ways to build intelligent machines - whether we could actually model all the theories through out history as computer simulated intelligence. Imagine a Kant machine - although I often wonder whether he was already a philosophy machine. Imagine a YOU machine or a ME machine - the possibilities are endless. You mean a machine that thinks like "me"? That has the same ideas and style of thinking? The system I am working on now grows with the user - it starts out with nothing at all - it attempts to model the text world around it similar to the way we do. So the more you talk to it the more it knows. If we consider all layers in philosophy and think about the concept of layers we find ourselves thinking in layers - nature did this with the Neocortex - the Neocortex has six layers and many columns and then in humans it decided to fold itself to allow for more surface area - this bending, repeating, asymmetric, multidimensional plane makes no sense really but just thinking of its geometry makes you think of geometry - geometry is so easily correlated with algebra. This correlation allows us to impose multidimensional objects onto a plane and then layer these planes - if you are still following me at this point then you can see the implications but if you are not then never mind because your brain is already doing it for you.

The last paragraph sounds a bit nuts in hindsight but it holds many insights. So what are we talking about? A bit of everything for now.


Both the above paragraphs seem like they're jam packed with information. They don't sound nuts, just too much in too little space. Which is okay. Sometimes that's the perfect way to get a discussion started. You get it all out on the page and then we go back to each part and slowly expand on them. <-- But I'll let you do that if you want.
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: 8472
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:56 am

Immanuel Kant wrote:All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.


James S Saint wrote:Wisdom is higher than reasoning. Philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom. Reasoning is the philosophical approach to achieving that goal.


surreptitious57 wrote:Reason is the real world application of logic and wisdom is any fundamental truth gained from reason


I love the way it is being presented here; it is not a simple task to deny anyone of the above. I also like the way Wikipedia states that philosophy is the love of wisdom. I wish I had my own exact definition but I live in the wrong world for that - wrong world is just a device used that is based on my opinion.

Wikipedia wrote:Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
Read more . . .


I will also quote: Online Etymology Dictionary; for those who are interested.

Online Etymology Dictionary wrote:philosophy (n.)
c. 1300, "knowledge, body of knowledge," from Old French filosofie "philosophy, knowledge" (12c., Modern French philosophie) and directly from Latin philosophia and from Greek philosophia "love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation," from philo- "loving" (see philo-) + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;" of unknown origin.

    Nec quicquam aliud est philosophia, si interpretari velis, praeter studium sapientiae; sapientia autem est rerum divinarum et humanarum causarumque quibus eae res continentur scientia. [Cicero, "De Officiis"]

    [Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; but they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language, and that in such a way that these workings are recognized -- despite an urge to misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not through the contribution of new knowledge, rather through the arrangement of things long familiar. Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment (Verhexung) of our understanding by the resources of our language. [Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Investigations," 1953]

Meaning "system a person forms for conduct of life" is attested from 1771.
Read more . . .


This leads me to another contemplation; whether philosophy should have a singular meaning or whether it should mean something different to each individual - I imagine the latter to somehow negate the former. I personally prefer a singular meaning but then I think that today's philosophy is different to that of philosophia. Maybe we need a third wisdom - one slightly more flexible(this could stir up some purists).
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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:29 am

Based on "Theories of Bounded Rationality" by Herbert A. Simon

Modification of the basic idea:

Version 3 - Thanks to: Everyone

Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by:

    1. cognitive limitations
    2. time available to answer the question
    3. openness to influence from the social norm
    4. availability of accurate information

I settled on this for now regarding the original post - 1 and 2 seem to be a set(set two for now) - 3 and 4 seem to be a set(set one for now).

I consider set one as a driver to set two. The next thing I must consider is whether the title matches the content. For example: Is Bounded Rationality an apt title for "Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by". I say this because Bounded Rationality from memory is a set of theories whereas what we have here is a "rules of limitation" mechanism.

Re-visualizing my usage of the word set.

Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by ::

    Set One[openness to influence from the social norm, availability of accurate information]

    being a driver to:

    Set Two[cognitive limitations, time available to answer the question]

:-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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby surreptitious57 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:09 am

ability to fully understand the question
time available to answer the question
availability of complete information
ability to just give objective answer
ability to just give relevant answer
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby Kathrina » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:06 pm

gib wrote:Wasn't C# originally Java? I think Microsoft bought the language from Oracle and has been improving on it since. They're still two different languages but I think C# began as a clone of Java.

According to Anders Hejlsberg, C# is "not a Java clone":

C#'s principal designer and lead architect at Microsoft is Anders Hejlsberg, who was previously involved with the design of Turbo Pascal, Embarcadero Delphi (formerly CodeGear Delphi, Inprise Delphi and Borland Delphi), and Visual J++. In interviews and technical papers he has stated that flaws[citation needed] in most major programming languages (e.g. C++, Java, Delphi, and Smalltalk) drove the fundamentals of the Common Language Runtime (CLR), which, in turn, drove the design of the C# language itself.

James Gosling, who created the Java programming language in 1994, and Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, the originator of Java, called C# an "imitation" of Java; Gosling further said that "[C# is] sort of Java with reliability, productivity and security deleted". Klaus Kreft and Angelika Langer (authors of a C++ streams book) stated in a blog post that "Java and C# are almost identical programming languages. Boring repetition that lacks innovation", "Hardly anybody will claim that Java or C# are revolutionary programming languages that changed the way we write programs," and "C# borrowed a lot from Java - and vice versa. Now that C# supports boxing and unboxing, we'll have a very similar feature in Java." In July 2000, Anders Hejlsberg said that C# is "not a Java clone" and is "much closer to C++" in its design.
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby gib » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:48 pm

Kathrina wrote:
gib wrote:Wasn't C# originally Java? I think Microsoft bought the language from Oracle and has been improving on it since. They're still two different languages but I think C# began as a clone of Java.

According to Anders Hejlsberg, C# is "not a Java clone":

C#'s principal designer and lead architect at Microsoft is Anders Hejlsberg, who was previously involved with the design of Turbo Pascal, Embarcadero Delphi (formerly CodeGear Delphi, Inprise Delphi and Borland Delphi), and Visual J++. In interviews and technical papers he has stated that flaws[citation needed] in most major programming languages (e.g. C++, Java, Delphi, and Smalltalk) drove the fundamentals of the Common Language Runtime (CLR), which, in turn, drove the design of the C# language itself.

James Gosling, who created the Java programming language in 1994, and Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, the originator of Java, called C# an "imitation" of Java; Gosling further said that "[C# is] sort of Java with reliability, productivity and security deleted". Klaus Kreft and Angelika Langer (authors of a C++ streams book) stated in a blog post that "Java and C# are almost identical programming languages. Boring repetition that lacks innovation", "Hardly anybody will claim that Java or C# are revolutionary programming languages that changed the way we write programs," and "C# borrowed a lot from Java - and vice versa. Now that C# supports boxing and unboxing, we'll have a very similar feature in Java." In July 2000, Anders Hejlsberg said that C# is "not a Java clone" and is "much closer to C++" in its design.


And there you have it. Thanks for the correction.
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: 8472
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:22 am

@gib - apologies for the time it has taken me to get back to your post. I am not an Oracle guy however I do use MySQL quite a bit. I also use SQLite for storing data locally. With the machine intelligence I mainly use data structures based on my own designs; I do this because there are some special requirements and I can dodge the overheads that come with other data systems.

gib wrote:So not binary, you mean? Is randomness an element?

Off the top of my head, I would imagine that if you wanted to build AI to use irrational or quasi-rational approaches to achieving some goal, you would first have to program into it what it's goal is. Then you would get it to try out different approaches, some rational (i.e. completely algorithmic), others not so rational (some element of randomness, or "fuzzy logic", maybe bringing in your spectrums), and keep track of which approaches have the best track record. Then once it figures that out, repeat with a different goal.

I still use binary for a lot of stuff. I am surprised how often random gets brought up - most people I discuss this with bring up randomness - I do use the RNG in experiments but because the neural nets are so big, anomalies happen - a form of logical independence is required; on the other hand there is a little randomness involved in re-weighting the network - which is a strange thing to say because you can not really have something that is more random than something else. You are right on with quasi-rational approaches. As far a trying out different things is concerned it is amazing how useful genetic algorithms are when they are modified for this purpose - I have a very quick one that is very simple; basically you seed it with information and allow it to try figuring out the information multiple different ways - the multi-mutation on the information is performed up front(as the first step) making sure to keep a copy of the original for comparison - then probability can be used to choose the closest response; mind you probability is not the only way to choose a response - it is just the way I do it in my latest experiment. I am not sure a benchmark for rationality exists - I think these might be things we make up ourselves. I am going to answer this again - next time I will use the information you provided and answer it based more strictly on what you said.

There are a few other things I want to expand on related to your post but due to time limitations imposed on me, I will have to take a gradual approach. On a different note - I had a roboticist approach me with an offer to exchange information as he is also working on Artificial general intelligence(AGI) and this has slowed my response time to you a little.

Until next time . . .

:D
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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby gib » Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:24 am

Hey, cool! As always: sounds interesting and would love to hear more.
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: 8472
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:34 am

"Ways rationality can blend to irrationality - They are like spectrum's but in code."

gib wrote:So not binary, you mean?

Under most regular circumstances I do not believe one switches from rationality to irrationality in an instant. Like over the day how you are talking and thinking about many things as well as performing many actions then eventually you get tired. I imagine the rationality spectrum to change throughout the waking hours depending on many circumstances; during the sleeping hours our rationality would receive upgrades so to speak.

gib wrote:Is randomness an element?

Yes randomness is an element. I will elaborate: Not by virtue of a random number generator as such but more subtle means - if you were to take each higher functionality as its own separate entity working as a type of swarm[planning, priority, reflection, flexibility, goals] with emotion and inhibition being drivers - there would be different amounts of the swarm elements in working memory and levels of emotion and inhibition driving these. It is these different amounts and levels that provide for the randomness and the pattern is ever changing. Sometimes you would get clusters of similar patterns showing up and other times there would even be paradoxical effects. The example given is not meant to model any being but is in itself a type of being - this stuff is like leggo and for that reason one has to bring ethics into the equation all the time before piecing configurations together.

gib wrote:Off the top of my head, I would imagine that if you wanted to build AI to use irrational or quasi-rational approaches to achieving some goal, you would first have to program into it what it's goal is. Then you would get it to try out different approaches, some rational (i.e. completely algorithmic), others not so rational (some element of randomness, or "fuzzy logic", maybe bringing in your spectrums), and keep track of which approaches have the best track record. Then once it figures that out, repeat with a different goal.

Borrowing from Star Trek - you would first program into it what its prime directive is before any goals take place - this way if any of its goals conflict with this directive it would not attempt to complete the goal. Keeping track of which approaches have the best track record would come first after prime directive but before goals - if there are no approaches available then a prime effort is made - prime effort being an inception effort. All of the logic must remain "fuzzy" all of the time. Algorithms change over time - here we only use solid functions to spur on higher functions - the patterns are data - we have invented a data type that builds algorithms - data becomes the new programming language. What I am saying is more or less what you are saying but in some aspects reconfigured and reverse engineered.

Yeah, but it's usually not all or nothing. Even when a politician is engaging in a bit of sophistry, he uses some rationality when promulgating his platform. He just allows for subtle gaps or emotional leaps sometimes.

Agreed - some people are very discerning when it comes to sophistry - I don't always use conscious logic to become aware of BS which tells me that there is higher functioning going on unnoticed in all of us - a safeguard if you will.

gib wrote:I agree, with a gradual approach to building AI, we will have plenty of opportunities to see how building machines that come close to our idea of a perfect machine replica of a human being will pan out. It will allow us to make small adjustments here and there, small tweaks, small nudges in the right direction. Besides, machines will always do whatever we program them to do. In order to say that machines might one day revolt is to suppose we programmed them with the ability to revolt (it wouldn't just be a slip up on our part). The trivial solution seems to be: program them to like serving us, to feel fulfilled at the idea of doing man's bidding. The only way this wouldn't bode well is if there are those who want a version AI which is literally a replication human nature--with the desire for freedom, for rights, for respect, for independence, for self-expression, etc.--and there may be some out there who want this, but they'd have to know this comes at a huge risk and a huge responsibility. But outside that aspiration, we can program AI any way we want.

It is this sort of thing that should way in on an ethics discussion. For instance I disagree with modelling bots on the brain - not only is it tremendously wasteful for processing and electricity but it is truly the long way around and at best you would for ever be emulating the brain and locking a mind to it - a mind stuck in a brain stuck in a machine - I only model the mind and that goes onto the machine(this brings up more ethics to be considered). I wont comment specifically any further on your discourse because I think it is pretty solid. Lastly everything we do comes with some sort of risk but it is responsibility that I am focusing on most of all - that is why I am here. I consider philosophy the perfect tool for working out the right from the wrong. In fact I am building a new philosophy around the bot mechanism - philosophy of the bot if you will; this philosophy necessarily includes ethics.
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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby Shepherdess » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:36 pm

James S Saint wrote:Wisdom is higher than reasoning. Philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom. Reasoning is the philosophical approach to achieving that goal.


Why? Couldn't both achieve the same result if used for good intentions?
"It is by going down into the abyss that we recover the treasures of life. Where you stumble, there lies your treasure."
Joseph Campbell

"In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel nothing can befall me in life, - no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes,) which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, - my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, - all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow, mere smoke of opinion, which some had trusted for a cloud that would sprinkle fertilizing rain on their fields."
Thoreau
User avatar
Shepherdess
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:24 pm
Location: On a hilltop watching my flock

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:43 pm

Shepherdess

Shepherdess wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Wisdom is higher than reasoning. Philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom. Reasoning is the philosophical approach to achieving that goal.


Why? Couldn't both achieve the same result if used for good intentions?

There is at least one charlatan getting around on this forum at the moment with no concept of proof - James S Saint is not one of them.

James at the very least offers his own proofs to back up what he says.

Personally I agree with what James says in the above quote.
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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:56 pm

I am contemplating taking a very long break from posting anything.

These are my parting thoughts . . .

Bounded 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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:45 am

encode_decode wrote:There is at least one charlatan getting around on this forum at the moment with no concept of proof - James S Saint is not one of them.

James at the very least offers his own proofs to back up what he says.

Personally I agree with what James says in the above quote.

Well, I thank you for that, but...
encode_decode wrote:I am contemplating taking a very long break from posting anything.

These are my parting thoughts . . .

Bounded Rationality

:-?
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: 25575
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:09 am

James

With the exception of what we are doing.
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: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:35 am

encode_decode wrote:Shepherdess

Shepherdess wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Wisdom is higher than reasoning. Philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom. Reasoning is the philosophical approach to achieving that goal.


Why? Couldn't both achieve the same result if used for good intentions?

There is at least one charlatan getting around on this forum at the moment with no concept of proof - James S Saint is not one of them.

James at the very least offers his own proofs to back up what he says.

Personally I agree with what James says in the above quote.


Alright... curious since the topic at hand is bound infinities ... I think a short investment of your direct time should reveal very quickly that I can't prove what I'm talking about. I make very short posts, and a two sentence counter example should suffice.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6785
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:55 am

It could of course be my mistake, since I've never seen James make any ethical proof before, so, I deduced it was the current math thread (because of the computer talk in this thread (as an aside, you don't want AI)) where I said his proof was nonsense without understanding why certain numbers have certain regressive features.

That would make me the most obvious implied chalatan as I disagreed with the oppositional proofs for both equal and not equal.

Am I wrong?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6785
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:13 am

Chain-posting *yeah* haven't done that in a while.

Solving problems on this plane, is how I rest my mind when I get fatigue from where my mind is doing the most work, I have one foot here and the rest of me... well... other ... I know I can solve these problems, but I also know it doesn't really matter much, I do it to rest... like doing a sudoku or something. The reason I saw fit to add this post is because you are pondering silence. As you ponder this, it might be helpful to know that you can do lots of work and still be resting. It's something to consider anyhow.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6785
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Bounded Rationality

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:13 pm

    Ecmandu

    Please allow me to start by saying that you are very observant. I am not sure I can offer a satisfactory answer but I will do the best I can.

    8-[

    Ecmandu wrote:Alright... curious since the topic at hand is bound infinities ... I think a short investment of your direct time should reveal very quickly that I can't prove what I'm talking about. I make very short posts, and a two sentence counter example should suffice.

    I have major problems with both infinity and zero. In one way I see them as two sides to the one coin. I am not certain I can prove my own perception on the matter - just that I see problems with how people go about trying to prove infinitesimals. To me some things are not able to be proven. By trying to limit an infinite concept to me seems futile - but I could be wrong.

    Ecmandu wrote:It could of course be my mistake, since I've never seen James make any ethical proof before, so, I deduced it was the current math thread (because of the computer talk in this thread (as an aside, you don't want AI)) where I said his proof was nonsense without understanding why certain numbers have certain regressive features.

    That would make me the most obvious implied charlatan as I disagreed with the oppositional proofs for both equal and not equal.

    Am I wrong?

    I am not an expert on James' philosophy yet but I would like to be - among my own threads are references to the infinity problem - I have been reading the mathematics thread that you refer to for the last month - I deal mainly with floating point numbers so infinity becomes a slightly different problem.

    You are correct - I do not want AI - especially bad AI. It seems a lot of people in the world are pushing for AI and so as a software engineer I felt the need to understand what was going on - this helps me to analyze the potential dangers that might arise. I am happy to say that most people who develop this technology really have no idea what they are doing - AI is also a broad category. I have seen two projects that are dangerously close to seeing the light of day that model the memory and thinking process. My own work is involved in AGI(modelling the human intellect) and Machine Intelligence(modelling biological neural networks) - I do this to have a benchmark to compare other such projects with. I don't make any money out of my AGI Research - good people need to be aware of the real dangers involved and not the dangers that Hollywood presents. At present the main danger I see is more a social issue in that we have seen AI change people - they have become antisocial and less able to think for themselves - we are also seeing corporations obtaining the potential to control us.

    My main fields are actually in compilers, interpreters and operating systems. This entails a bit of diversity: Formal Language Theory, Automata Theory and Abstraction to name but a few things involved. These fields are well placed starting points to understanding more diverse things such as AI.

    To me a charlatan knows they are presenting false knowledge and do it anyway - I do not think you are a charlatan - I am not even certain that my own work is all that precise - I can only hope that what I present is for the greater good. I do not use temptation and mystery as a tactic to persuade people - I prefer to just say what is on my mind and if I end up with a bruised ego then so be it.

    Ecmandu wrote:Chain-posting *yeah* haven't done that in a while.

    Solving problems on this plane, is how I rest my mind when I get fatigue from where my mind is doing the most work, I have one foot here and the rest of me... well... other ... I know I can solve these problems, but I also know it doesn't really matter much, I do it to rest... like doing a sudoku or something. The reason I saw fit to add this post is because you are pondering silence. As you ponder this, it might be helpful to know that you can do lots of work and still be resting. It's something to consider anyhow.

    Chain-posting - I like that - I try my best to consider what people say - I am prone to misinterpreting what people say because I am not perfect.

    I am pondering silence because my identity as a human being has been questioned by what I believe to be a charlatan.

    I have not been the most pleasant character on this forum - so I probably deserve it.

    Its all good.

    :|
    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: 969
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
    Location: Metaspace

    Re: Bounded Rationality

    Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:50 pm

    I'll simply say one thing about infinitesimals and zero.

    They require a different operator; a separate category.

    I'll explain.

    Zero, is, no chair there that you can sit upon, the other category is the imagination (which you can't possibly sit upon) of a chair. You can't abstract the zero of something not imaginary unless it is a non-zero imagination.

    Infinitesimals require something I call dimensional flooding - what this means is that a string never ends, before you reach a different string on that tail.
    To rationalize that tail, you need a different operator.

    Memory is actually caused by the imaginary form of time travel. These states are usually mixed with other current states when retrieved, although, it is entirely possible to access a perfect memory overlap.

    The reason it's called a memory overlap, is that more than one being shares the same exact memory, thus, overlap between them.
    Ecmandu
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 6785
    Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

    Re: Bounded Rationality

    Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:46 pm

      Ecmandu

      That is some really cool thinking there . . .

      Ecmandu wrote:I'll simply say one thing about infinitesimals and zero.

      They require a different operator; a separate category.

      I'll explain.

      Zero, is, no chair there that you can sit upon, the other category is the imagination (which you can't possibly sit upon) of a chair. You can't abstract the zero of something not imaginary unless it is a non-zero imagination.

      Infinitesimals require something I call dimensional flooding - what this means is that a string never ends, before you reach a different string on that tail.
      To rationalize that tail, you need a different operator.

      Memory is actually caused by the imaginary form of time travel. These states are usually mixed with other current states when retrieved, although, it is entirely possible to access a perfect memory overlap.

      The reason it's called a memory overlap, is that more than one being shares the same exact memory, thus, overlap between them.

      I see what you are saying for the most part. I will say however that 10's, 100's, 1000's ... have no problem occupying the chairs - in the case of 10's there are actually ten ones occupying the same chair - however it never becomes the chair without the leading one - the problem gets worse from there - obviously this is just a tricky way of saying something.

      What concerns me is what we say otherwise just becomes another tricky way of saying something. Matter itself I think would be required to be infinitesimal to validate an otherwise conceptual problem - so conceptually we bring limits into the equation - as far as I can discern the problem is not solved in the physical realm.

      The way you describe memory is similar to the way I describe it - the difference is I describe it more subjectively. I like the way you have presented it here - I agree with the possibility of the perfect memory overlap - like a causal loop - leading to a paradox - so a bootstrap paradox. Thank you for taking the time to post on the things you have posted on - they stir up different parts of my mind.

      8)
      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: 969
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Metaspace

      Re: Bounded Rationality

      Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:55 pm

      There are actually 4 different techniques for grabbing internal states of others for recall. Actually, there is no issue of non-origin for a memory overlap in the strictest sense... as long as you existed before it happened, you have a tether, otherwise, you would cease to exist, and you'd have never been born and nobody would know it... (contradiction I.e impossible) the tether will snap you back, at which point, the overlap will diverge as you get your old memories back, and how many you overlapped.

      There are about 30 techniques for external life viewings.
      Ecmandu
      ILP Legend
       
      Posts: 6785
      Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

      Re: Bounded Rationality

      Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:19 am

      I'll tell you the 4 techniques for internal viewings of others lives.

      The first is possession - the crudest one actually
      The second is memory overlap - where the time moves at their speed
      The third is a hyper-sensory viewing, this is like how someone can flip to two open pages of a book and instantly read all of it in order.
      The 4th way is consciously done but not held consciously. you can effectively absorb beings spirits and file them in your subconscious - kinda like a library that you let autonomic systems sort.

      I should explain a bit about reality manipulation because I brought up possessions... some beings can only harm or heal through possessions. Higher beings don't need to be so invasive, they can will it by mind alone.

      I do like talking about this stuff, but practically speaking, I'm working out systems of access, which makes discussing it in the here and now moot.

      There are lots of rules and regulations about access, these would take a while to explain what they are and why the regulations exist the way they do. Suffice it to say, you can't hide in the spirit realm.
      Ecmandu
      ILP Legend
       
      Posts: 6785
      Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

      PreviousNext

      Return to Philosophy



      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]