Bounded Rationality

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.

Arcturus Descending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:laughing:

Arcturus Descending

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

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

:-k

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

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

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

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

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

Convince me otherwise, Yoda. :evilfun:

encode_decode,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

[/b]

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Me? :laughing:

They are not necessarily exclusive. :evilfun:

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

Arc,

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

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

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

gib

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

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

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

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

My two cents . . .

:-k

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be happy, James.

Yes, and I have learnt that some so called facts are also a matter of perspective.

Not certain where to put this . . .

I had a thought that since our thinking is always performed in the past that awareness is actually an interpolation of our two most recent memories.

This kind of memory is temporary and strengthens existing connections within the brain that allow for integrations of a new memory at a later point in time.

Therefore our rationality is bound by past events.

:-k