3 ms·
It's not helpful to think of rationality as a set of rules. I think rationality is better described, in my view, as an explicit acknowledgement of a search for
by e63f67dd-065b 4y ago
It's not helpful to think of rationality as a set of rules. I think rationality is better described, in my view, as an explicit acknowledgement of a search for optima in their own chosen utility functions.
Rationality is not thinking like a robot; it's asking the question: if I have a vaguely-defined utility function f, how would a rational optimiser optimise for f? Would you march towards a local optima, or try to look for other better local optima? You see an optima in the distance, what's the shortest path that will lead you there? Other rational agents have function y that conflict with your function; how best to resolve/navigate said conflict? What path traverses along high-value areas such that the expected utility of your path over time is highest?
As OP points out, our utility functions are poorly defined. That doesn't mean, however, that we cannot apply mathematical/rational techniques to it. A big part is explicitly acknowledging our own biases and trying to restructure our thinking in a way that best avoids them.
A good heuristic, for example, is that having a more accurate view of reality generally allows for more efficient searches of your utility space. Thus, updating your view of the world to better conform to reality is a positive EV investment.
- nuancebydefault 4y agoIMHO you missed the point of the article... it says that rationality on itself only can lead to progress in the light of virtues (rules of what is 'right'). Without those as a starting point, there can be no reasoning. Hence reasoning/rationalizing depends on the irrational, ie. subjective virtues, dogmas as it were.
- pjscott 4y agoI think what we have here is a terminological mix-up -- it sounds like you're conflating virtues [1], rules [2], dogma (in the non-Catholic sense), and consequentialist [3] utility functions [4]. The post you're replying to is well aware of the is/ought distinction that the article is talking about. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
- nuancebydefault 4y agoThanks for this more profound insight! I still do not understand parent comment... I think if the utility function (based on credits based on "a" type of ethic) is ill described, rationality will not bring you far, it stays on the phylosophical level.