A Rational mind.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

It is impossible to be completely rational simply because the human mind can not comprehend anything larger than the immediate scale of itself. Try imagining yourself in relation to an ant, and then yourself in relation to a skyscraper. Now try imagining the ant in relation to the skyscraper.

I don't understand this BAA.

I don't have to imagine myself in relation to an ant - I can stand beside it and it's reality. Likewise for a skyscraper.

As for imagining the ant and the skyscraper - well, the ant is a lot smaller than me, and the skyscraper is a lot bigger, so I'll imagine myself in relation to, say, Ireland. I can do that because I know the geography, distances, times involved in travelling compared to my size.

Maybe I'm missing the point completely.

I think what he's getting at is the middle-world thing - though perhaps ant and skyscraper don't go far enough to make it clear. In scales beyond those in which we have evolved, the universe gets very strange. Take quantum mechanics or relativity. Day to day rationality just cant apply there. We can use high tech instrements to get data, and abstract mathematics to understand it, but we cant then apply this information to decisions about what we want to buy from the shops, despite the fact that it does make a difference.

What is day to day rationality?

I mean the rationality people use on a day to day basis, as opposed to - well thought out rational judgements made with all the available evidence - or even a superrationality as you put it.

Perfect rationality and superrationality are concepts from economics. I try to refrain from making shit up..

By the way, you are defining concepts into empirical categories, that's permissible only because empirical evidence agrees with you, but it isn't going to win you favours with someone who disagrees with you.

Also, you forgot to explain what our failure to 'imagine' what an atom looks like has to do with human rationality.

It's not about imagining it - it's the fact that we can't comprehend how every quantum event will will change our lives, so we can't take them into account when trying to make a decision, therefore, as BAA said, it is impossible to be completely rational.

You mean that the whole point of the scale example was to say that human beings are unable to completely predict the outcome of their behaviour, and that therefore perfectly rational choices are impossible? Odd.

For one, empirical data that shows that humans don't make rational judgements, are bad at statistical understanding and generally aren't built to do well in various games (like the reiterated prisoner's dilemma).

Ok good. Now back on topic, for the limited rationality we are capable of, do you think that it, and kindness, loyalty, honesty etc. are intrinsic aspects of specific individuals, or is it more useful to think of them as temporary acts that we are all capable of?

Not sure whether I understand the difference. Empiricism demands that ascribed traits must be measurable. In humans this means that they are measurable in behaviour (phrenology went out of fashion). Consequently, saying that someone behaves rationally isn't very different from saying he is rational, no, I would not say. Of course, this is more philosophy that cognitive psychology..

[Animavore]

I'm not sure how any mind can be rational? Rationality seems to get in the way of what our body wants to do whether it's smoking, drinking or driving really fast or any other things that excite us or just make us feel good even though we know they are bad for us or potentially lethal. Hell I catch myself doing irrational things in the middle of doing tham all the time, ask myself Why am I doing this?, too late, as the body has already decided it's doing it and that's that (I realise that the body cannot make decisions and it's really one part of the brain against the other but you get where I'm coming from?).
If I were rational I probably wouldn't leave my house. I would certainly stay away from roads and the sea. Probably wear a crash helmet in case I fall down the stairs. I'd need to have a neck brace too to avoid snapping. Nothig would ever be done for the fun of it, on a whim or for kicks. That's what makes this computer I'm typing on more rational to me.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I'm not sure how any mind can be rational? Rationality seems to get in the way of what our body wants to do whether it's smoking, drinking or driving really fast or any other things that excite us or just make us feel good even though we know they are bad for us or potentially lethal. Hell I catch myself doing irrational things in the middle of doing tham all the time, ask myself Why am I doing this?, too late, as the body has already decided it's doing it and that's that (I realise that the body cannot make decisions and it's really one part of the brain against the other but you get where I'm coming from?).
If I were rational I probably wouldn't leave my house. I would certainly stay away from roads and the sea. Probably wear a crash helmet in case I fall down the stairs. I'd need to have a neck brace too to avoid snapping. Nothig would ever be done for the fun of it, on a whim or for kicks. That's what makes this computer I'm typing on more rational to me.

Not necessarily. The benefit of walking down stairs sans helmet might outweigh the costs. The same for the rest. The point being, however, that most heuristics by which you decide to go out of the road do not make this utilitarian assessment. In other words, your behaviour might be predictable by rational heuristics, but it could still come into existence by other less rational heuristics. It is this that interests cognitive scientists, not dubious predictive quality, in my experience.

[hadespussercats]

I believe there is no such thing, no mind is totally rational - nor totally irrational, even people with advanced dementia often serve some purpose with what looks like random behaviour and words.

Reasoning is something done, an act, a verb not a quality contained within specific individuals. Even a fundy will wear a jumper on a cold day, completely reasonable, even carry a raincoat after looking at the forecast, both reasonable and wise (as long as it wasn't the 7 day forecast!). Reasoning is not contained within groups, there are no 'Oasis's of clear thinking' never have been, no cleansing area where the countless traps of irrational thought are washed away. There's just the verb, just the process and attempt, to try or not to try on that given day, with that subject, in that company.

I'd go one further too, I believe our human attributes, the things we hold dearest about ourselves and others all follow the same rules of not being absolute, a transient quality to kindness, loyalty, honesty, cruelty, empathy, selfishness - all there, present, but just as verbs, to do or not do on any given day.

I think we love people based on the attributes we see in them, but is it the person we love or the acts? I suspect it is the latter and as our minds bind person and acts together we always risk bitter disappointment when we see the transience of attributes and we always see it, eventually. Still, I love people (see opening statement).

I fight against my instinct to have heroes, I'm not tempted towards famous ones but some people I know tempt me, sometimes. I fight against having enemies too, those I see in disrespectful ways - I fail on both counts frequently (see opening statement).

It's all just verbs, no us or them, no deeply consistent me, just endeavour.

I hear you on the temptation to have heroes front-- I've been disappointed on that count more than once.

As for whether we love people or their actions, well, I'm not sure how you can really separate the two. We try, in our minds, to say, "This isn't me," when we do things we aren't proud of. But we humans have a strong ability to deny the truth about things, particularly when it's unpleasant.

And as someone who has officially lost her marbles more than once, I can say there is rationality in the irrational. I can tell you the seemingly rational reasons that were going through my head for doing the odd things I did when my brain went kaplooey. Being able to concoct a reasonable rationale for acts doesn't necessarily make those acts reasonable.

It'd be nice if there really were an oasis of clear thinking. But then, craziness does lend life a certain zest.

[Animavore]

I'm not sure how any mind can be rational? Rationality seems to get in the way of what our body wants to do whether it's smoking, drinking or driving really fast or any other things that excite us or just make us feel good even though we know they are bad for us or potentially lethal. Hell I catch myself doing irrational things in the middle of doing tham all the time, ask myself Why am I doing this?, too late, as the body has already decided it's doing it and that's that (I realise that the body cannot make decisions and it's really one part of the brain against the other but you get where I'm coming from?).
If I were rational I probably wouldn't leave my house. I would certainly stay away from roads and the sea. Probably wear a crash helmet in case I fall down the stairs. I'd need to have a neck brace too to avoid snapping. Nothig would ever be done for the fun of it, on a whim or for kicks. That's what makes this computer I'm typing on more rational to me.

Not necessarily. The benefit of walking down stairs sans helmet might outweigh the costs. The same for the rest. The point being, however, that most heuristics by which you decide to go out of the road do not make this utilitarian assessment. In other words, your behaviour might be predictable by rational heuristics, but it could still come into existence by other less rational heuristics. It is this that interests cognitive scientists, not dubious predictive quality, in my experience.

So basically the risk benefits from not being a stay-at-home might out-weigh the safety costs of staying at home? General well-being through socialising rather than depression through lonliness or achievement rather than nihilism? Both things which are more important to social apes like us than safety.

[PsychoSerenity]

Perfect rationality and superrationality are concepts from economics. I try to refrain from making shit up..

By the way, you are defining concepts into empirical categories, that's permissible only because empirical evidence agrees with you, but it isn't going to win you favours with someone who disagrees with you.

Well I do sometimes try to refrain from making shit up, but it doesn't always mean it will happen. I'm glad the empirical evidence agrees with the concepts I'm defining, but I'll try and avoid it in the future, if I ever work out what the hell you're going on about.

You mean that the whole point of the scale example was to say that human beings are unable to completely predict the outcome of their behaviour, and that therefore perfectly rational choices are impossible? Odd.

Well I didn't make the example, I'm just explaining it as I understand it, but as BAA started it with "It is impossible to be completely rational simply because..." I guess that's what he was getting at.

Ok good. Now back on topic, for the limited rationality we are capable of, do you think that it, and kindness, loyalty, honesty etc. are intrinsic aspects of specific individuals, or is it more useful to think of them as temporary acts that we are all capable of?

Not sure whether I understand the difference. Empiricism demands that ascribed traits must be measurable. In humans this means that they are measurable in behaviour (phrenology went out of fashion). Consequently, saying that someone behaves rationally isn't very different from saying he is rational, no, I would not say. Of course, this is more philosophy that cognitive psychology..

Hence the philosophy forum I suppose. As Charlou said yesterday, it's one to ponder upon.

[Hermit]

So basically the risk benefits from not being a stay-at-home might out-weigh the safety costs of staying at home? General well-being through socialising rather than depression through lonliness or achievement rather than nihilism? Both things which are more important to social apes like us than safety.

Well, that sounds rational to me. In a way.

[Animavore]

So basically the risk benefits from not being a stay-at-home might out-weigh the safety costs of staying at home? General well-being through socialising rather than depression through lonliness or achievement rather than nihilism? Both things which are more important to social apes like us than safety.

Well, that sounds rational to me. In a way.

Only to the extant that the need to be near other apes is in itself irration. Bunch of dirty, diseased apes

[Hermit]

So basically the risk benefits from not being a stay-at-home might out-weigh the safety costs of staying at home? General well-being through socialising rather than depression through lonliness or achievement rather than nihilism? Both things which are more important to social apes like us than safety.

Well, that sounds rational to me. In a way.

Only to the extant that the need to be near other apes is in itself irration. Bunch of dirty, diseased apes

Yeah. That way. I agree. I think. Once I find out just what you mean with "irration" and "extant", I'll probably agree with you even more.

[Animavore]

So basically the risk benefits from not being a stay-at-home might out-weigh the safety costs of staying at home? General well-being through socialising rather than depression through lonliness or achievement rather than nihilism? Both things which are more important to social apes like us than safety.

Well, that sounds rational to me. In a way.

Only to the extant that the need to be near other apes is in itself irration. Bunch of dirty, diseased apes

Yeah. That way. I agree. I think. Once I find out just what you mean with "irration" and "extant", I'll probably agree with you even more.

I meant extent and irrational.

[Hermit]

So basically the risk benefits from not being a stay-at-home might out-weigh the safety costs of staying at home? General well-being through socialising rather than depression through lonliness or achievement rather than nihilism? Both things which are more important to social apes like us than safety.

Well, that sounds rational to me. In a way.

Only to the extant that the need to be near other apes is in itself irration. Bunch of dirty, diseased apes

Yeah. That way. I agree. I think. Once I find out just what you mean with "irration" and "extant", I'll probably agree with you even more.

I meant extent and irrational.

That settles it. I agree with you even more.

[charlou]

It'd be nice if there really were an oasis of clear thinking. But then, craziness does lend life a certain zest.

And is often more honest.

[hadespussercats]

It'd be nice if there really were an oasis of clear thinking. But then, craziness does lend life a certain zest.

And is often more honest.

Yeah, going nuts does seem like the appropriate response to the evidence at hand.