Bounded Rationality

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.

I have to say this because it’s super-ironic.

The Jewish people have a messianic prophesy that when the whole world is either holy or in sin, the messiah will come. What’s ironic about this is that the messiah is supposed to restore the temple…

This is what’s ironic!!

(Sorry I veer sometimes). Temples, shrines, mosques, churches, ashrams, synagogues, marriage, rites of passage (baptisms etc…), markings of rank, like a salute or bow or something like flashing a peace sign, categories of encoding universals to free symbols (it’s oppressive)… this basic list goes on and on… are all very serious sin!!

This world has always been in deep sin.

And if there is to be anything resembling an actual messiah… it is a vast cosmic group effort!!

Ecmandu

I like the idea of a group effort.

When one member of the said group makes no effort to express themselves(offer something of substance) there is a possible corruption in the group. When a person is too embarrassed to offer their view they are corrupt. When others take the time to work on that person and that person is able to start feeling comfortable again the corrupted individual is able to be a part of the group again - the group can be self healing.

What about when one member taints the group with lies, deception, delusions of grandeur et cetera? I say the same self healing process as previously mentioned is needed.

The truth is not yet perfect but we have many things that point at it - I am not sure how healthy it is for the said group to divert from the obvious approximation of truth by following the individual who is making claims that are against the groups approximation.

Truth and goodness are the maze of non hypocrisy.
The challenging part is that hypocrisy gives short term gains - people effectively become non cognitive about words that they on some level understand will make those short term gains challenging.

Perfection is a margin of error most of the time.

I always say that when I order coffee, I always ask for “spill room” or “walking room” (usually about 3/4ths full) — never have I had the same exact pour, but all of them are perfect… which is to say, perfection has infinite diversity!!

Yes, this is true. James does at least offer his own proofs to back up what he says.

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?
Why do they not practice what they think and believe?
Why is it more about the intellect and the academics rather than the living what one has learned?
I’m not here saying that no philosopher does that but it appears to me to be more about the intellect and less about the “living wisdom” of it all.
Isn’t it a sign of intelligence to gather information and utilize it rather than simply storing it somewhere in time?

That cannot actually be set in stone. It’s one’s own point of view, one’s own experience but it can’t be absolute, now can it?

At the very least, yes, they swim in the same waters ~ for me at least. Actually, one can have ~ let’s qualify that ~ one can have the capacity for right reason or reasoning and wisdom and yet not adhere or tend toward them or put into practice what they have learned.
Am I wrong, insofar as you are concerned?

encode_decode

I sometimes feel that I own the stars. Is there a way to experience that one own’s something yet at the same time does not feel possessive of it? Perhaps it is the stars which own and possess me. We have an Ich & Du relationship.

Can someone not feel that way about certain words or all words? Valuing them beyond compare but particularly certain words which speak to them, as in holding a relationship with them?

Could a bot’s language flow like the river?
Could a bot’s language give one a sense of harmony and balance? Well maybe.

How fascinating it might be to converse with a bot.

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.

On the Planets of the Apes, in the Land of Lies, how would one know what wise men have done and what wisdom may rise? 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?

Why doesn’t the professional basketball player simply shoot the basket every time he gets the ball? Why doesn’t the coach, obviously knowing more than the players, play and make the highest scores for his team?

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

Try not to confuse a philosopher with one who studies or teaches philosophy.

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?

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”. If that is what you intended to say, then no, insofar as I am concerned, you were not wrong.

Arcturus Descending

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

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

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

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

:-k

encode_decode wrote:

Arcturus Descending

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

One of my favorite passages from the bible…

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

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

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

When I wrote this~~~

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

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

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

Arcturus Descending

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

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

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

What do you mean by creator?

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

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

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

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

encode_decode

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

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

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

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

Define what you mean here by interesting. :stuck_out_tongue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arcturus Descending

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

=D>

Arcturus Descending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both.

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

:smiley:

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

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

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

:laughing:

Rationality and Responsibility

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

Is it not rational to be responsible?

Yes, like… feeling in a tube right now?

Hello 1mpious

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

:smiley:

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

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

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

:smiley:

Here is another idea I have:

When judging others our rationality in judgement is bound by:

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

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

Another idea:

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

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

Again just another seed of thought . . .

:-k

Some thoughts on the possibilities - on Bounded Rationality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logic is the brain . . .

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