Bounded Rationality

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

surreptitious57

I have been thinking about this for quite some time.

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

What are your thoughts?

I will spend more time thinking about this.

James

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

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

I do hear you when you say:

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

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

Only to be limited by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

James

Thank you for your thoughts . . .

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

People seem to think there are no limits in life.

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

James

I can only wish to serve the right master.

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

James

Most definitely.

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

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

…reminds me of a short story:

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.

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.

James

I see you like to use analogy.

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!

Oh, I know. It might even be the case that a few people think I am a dark lord.

Example?

The White-hats already knew that. :sunglasses:

James

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

I am guessing that is a good sign.

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.

James

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

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.

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?

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”.

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”
[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 . . .

encode-decode wrote:

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:

Arcturus Descending

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

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.

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!

:smiley:

pilgrim-seeker_tom

Thank you. I myself do have an intuitive sense.

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

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?

James,

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.

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

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:

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?

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

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