Is American highways worth of the lives killed and damaged by accidents

[yinyinwang]

How should we calculate the values of life and compare it with other things? Are three lives more precious than two?

[Ohmer]

Transportation Fatality Rates in US (http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2005/html/chapter_02/transportation_fatality_rates.html)

There were about 44,900 fatalities related to transportation in 2003.
That's more than a 100 per day every day. It really puts terrorism is perspective. The 9-11 death toll is repeated every month.

[slingblade]

What a strange question.

Supposing we decide from our armchair quarterback's position that all the benefits highways provide are not worth the cost of human life. Then what?

[kedo1981]

The root of your question is “is progress worth the danger”

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A lineman was killed here last week hooking up an electric line to a pole. Is having electricity worth the lives killed?

What an odd question.

[HeavyAaron]

Well, conveniently each person can determine the answer independantly. As with all things if you determine that the costs out weigh the benifits don't do it.

Personally, I think it would be nice if everyone BUT me decided that driving was too dangerous. Boy would I have a quick commute.

Aaron

[JamesDillon]

A lineman was killed here last week hooking up an electric line to a pole. Is having electricity worth the lives killed?

What an odd question.
Why is it an odd question? I think it's a question we should take very seriously, in weighing the costs and benefits of any technology or process.

In the case of highways and electricity, I think that the benefits do justify the risks, but the question itself is hardly illegitimate.

[Ladewig]

I've often pondered the difference between airplane travel and car travel. If more than 100 people per day died in aircraft accidents I think that within a week or two, congress would order the FAA to ground every flight. Yet we easily accept loses of that magnitude when dealing with cars.

[senorpogo]

Why is it an odd question? I think it's a question we should take very seriously, in weighing the costs and benefits of any technology or process.

In the case of highways and electricity, I think that the benefits do justify the risks, but the question itself is hardly illegitimate.

I've actually thought about this before. Is there a perfect speed limit that would minimize the number of traffic fatalities while not negatively impacting commerce or quality of life?

[JamesDillon]

I've actually thought about this before. Is there a perfect speed limit that would minimize the number of traffic fatalities while not negatively impacting commerce or quality of life?
Probably not; I think you have to have trade-offs between benefits and risks. Having any speed limit at all "negatively impacts" commerce and quality of life to some extent, but on the other hand if we all had to drive at a very safe 30 m.p.h., there would be far fewer fatal traffic accidents but we'd never get anywhere. The line that is ultimately drawn may have to be somewhat arbitrary due to the subjective nature of the interests involved, but it is an important matter for public discussion nonetheless.

[mumblethrax]

It's difficult to imagine that driving around in metal-and-plastic deathtraps--coming within a couple of feet of people hurtling along in the opposite direction--would be given the time of day by public safety advocates if it were proposed today.

I think there's probably something more at work here than a cost-benefit analysis. At the least, I think that the cost-benefit analysis was done at a time when we were less risk averse and friendlier to high-cost "progress". Life has become somewhat less nasty, brutish and short in the time since we started burning down houses with electricity, blowing up buildings with methane, and piling up on highways. But these are now risks that we've become habituated to (and which have been mitigated against by safety measures), and you can drive many thousands of miles and encounter hundreds of potentially dangerous situations before you see a fatal wreck. Compare this with flying, where crashes are high-profile and flight is--for most of us--infrequent.

[senorpogo]

Probably not; I think you have to have trade-offs between benefits and risks. Having any speed limit at all "negatively impacts" commerce and quality of life to some extent, but on the other hand if we all had to drive at a very safe 30 m.p.h., there would be far fewer fatal traffic accidents but we'd never get anywhere. The line that is ultimately drawn may have to be somewhat arbitrary due to the subjective nature of the interests involved, but it is an important matter for public discussion nonetheless.

I agree. That's always the general consensus I reach in my internal dialogue. Though, it's somewhat disturbing to think that we routinely exchange lives for production and comfort.

[slingblade]

I agree. That's always the general consensus I reach in my internal dialogue. Though, it's somewhat disturbing to think that we routinely exchange lives for production and comfort.

I think we've always done that. And done it under much worse circumstances for some than we have today.


I mean......built any pyramids lately? ;)

[Beerina]

I've often pondered the difference between airplane travel and car travel. If more than 100 people per day died in aircraft accidents I think that within a week or two, congress would order the FAA to ground every flight. Yet we easily accept loses of that magnitude when dealing with cars.

Cars are getting way, way safer, keep in mind. IIRC, if cars were at the same safety level as the 1950's, then, adjusting for more miles driven and more people on the road, we'd be clearing well in excess of 100k deaths a year.

Statistics are an odd thing. I recall someone pointing out that the new regulation that airlines provide seats for little kids for free (so they wouldn't have to sit on a parent's lap) would have saved precisely two lives over the years, and one of those kids didn't die anyway because he flew up into an overhead bin during the crash (the horrific end-over-end flight ending in Chicago, I believe, where the extra pilot was steering the plane using just engine power differentials.) Meanwhile, the incremental cost in tickets as those free seats are amortized over the population of travellers would cause a small percentage of people to take cars rather than planes, thus increasing their chance of death on the trip, causing a net increase in deaths.

[PopeTom]

I don't think life can ever be zero risk.

And regardless of how much you may try to minimize your own personal risk eventually somethings going to get you.

[senorpogo]

I think we've always done that. And done it under much worse circumstances for some than we have today.


I mean......built any pyramids lately? ;)

Agreed. I often look at the US space program and the lives lost the then wonder if we'd be able/willing to do that today. There was something on the History Channel a while ago that mentioned that Nixon had a speech prepared for the deaths of the Apollo 11 astronauts. People were assuming they were going to the die and went with it. Would people do that today?

[JamesDillon]

I agree. That's always the general consensus I reach in my internal dialogue. Though, it's somewhat disturbing to think that we routinely exchange lives for production and comfort.
As slingblade and PopeTom pointed out, it's inevitable, really. It's hard to think of any productive activity that doesn't carry some risk of injury or death. Federal regulatory agencies routinely include the expected injury or loss of life that would be caused by a particular decision under consideration against the anticipated utility (however defined) of that decision. If the benefits outweigh the costs (including loss of life), then it's generally worth pursuing the policy in question. And even though virtually every major decision can cost lives, they also save lives-- how many lives have been saved because the highway system allows rapid access to medical care in emergencies, for example?

[geni]

I've actually thought about this before. Is there a perfect speed limit that would minimize the number of traffic fatalities while not negatively impacting commerce or quality of life?

Not really. Moterways are britians fastest roads. They also tend to be the safest. Safe speeds are more to do with traffic levels road desighn and raw skill rather than absolute limits.

[senorpogo]

And even though virtually every major decision can cost lives, they also save lives-- how many lives have been saved because the highway system allows rapid access to medical care in emergencies, for example?

And I'm sure the timely transport of perishable foodstuffs greatly increases our ability to settle in areas that would be otherwise inhospitable which ultimately leads to a larger carrying capacity for our enivorment which means more people alive than if we did not have fast transportation.

[Katana]

My opinion? It's those darned SUVs.

Seriously, I was driving in Vermont during a fierce snow storm, and the SUVs just drove right past me almost going the speed limit which was 65mph. As I continued driving, I came upon vehicle after vehicle off the side of the road. They were all SUVs. I'm just glad they didn't take anyone down with them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/business/17auto.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=ab39f99261bb8c6e&ex=1250481600&partner=rssuserland

Complicating the safety question is what happens to people in the other vehicle in a collision. Because of the higher ground clearance of sport utilities and large pickup trucks, their bumpers often skip over the crash structures of passenger cars, raising the likelihood that an occupant of the car will be killed or seriously injured.

They're guzzling gas, killing more of their occupants, and killing occupants of other, smaller cars. Down with SUVs. http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb026.gif

[HeavyAaron]

They're guzzling gas, killing more of their occupants, and killing occupants of other, smaller cars. Down with SUVs. http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb026.gif

Seems that the problem is equally with the smaller car then, doesn't it? If it hadn't been smaller the safety issue wouldn't have been there. In fact large vehicle to large vehicle collisions are generally safer than small vehicle to small vehicle collisions. If your going to blame any size of vehicle for fatalities, it seems to me the blame must be with the small cars.

Aaron

[Katana]

Seems that the problem is equally with the smaller car then, doesn't it? If it hadn't been smaller the safety issue wouldn't have been there. In fact large vehicle to large vehicle collisions are generally safer than small vehicle to small vehicle collisions. If your going to blame any size of vehicle for fatalities, it seems to me the blame must be with the small cars.

Aaron

Fair enough. I was actually kind of kidding. SUVs are such an easy target.

[yinyinwang]

What a strange question.

Supposing we decide from our armchair quarterback's position that all the benefits highways provide are not worth the cost of human life. Then what?
I always feel wordless when people raise the question about if some act is worth of the life cost.

[HeavyAaron]

Fair enough. I was actually kind of kidding. SUVs are such an easy target.

Okay, sorry. I took you seriously. It just is, actually, a tradeoff between safety and cost... so, very applicable to this thread.

Debates like this very thread went on in Congress, when considering raising the CAFE. That is, they considered how many lives would be lost per fuel economy improvement. It's exactly this type of calculation.

Aaron

[YoPopa]

American highways worth of the lives killed and damaged by accidentsIs public transportation a good way to escape a disaster like hurricane Katrina or would you rather have a private auto to head out on the highway?

[yinyinwang]

Is public transportation a good way to escape a disaster like hurricane Katrina or would you rather have a private auto to head out on the highway?
That depends on what kind of road/traffic control/vehicle capacity system you have, a simulation is the best way to answer this.

[YoPopa]

That depends on what kind of road/traffic control/vehicle capacity system you have, a simulation is the best way to answer this.A simulation? Why would a simulation be better than just looking at what actually happened in New Orleans?
What did pre-Katrina simulations predict was going to be the best plan to evacuate New Orleans?

[yinyinwang]

A simulation? Why would a simulation be better than just looking at what actually happened in New Orleans?
What did pre-Katrina simulations predict was going to be the best plan to evacuate New Orleans?
I wish I knew.

[American]

There is a scene in Fight Club (a movie I didn't like) that explains it:

Basically, a life is worth one statistic divided by another statistic. If the price of a lawsuit is too great, then a life will be spared. If it costs less money to pay off a settlement, then a wrongful death will happen because that's cheaper.

[yinyinwang]

The root of your question is “is progress worth the danger”
gain/cost

[gumboot]

They're guzzling gas, killing more of their occupants, and killing occupants of other, smaller cars. Down with SUVs.


I agree... :p We call them 4WDs here. They're becoming increasinly popular. They are also causing a lot more deaths. Statistically the chance of surviving an accident involving a 4WD is much lower than for a regular car - especially as a pedestrian.

In addition the significant majority of one-car accidents are 4x4s in our country. They're marketed as cars and so people drive them like cars, but they're not. 4WDs are not designed for speed, they are designed for driving very slowly over rough terrain. Most 4WD accidents happen in high speed zones.

There's something about being that high above other drivers that makes 4WD drivers think they're invunerable - they drive like maniacs.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

I've often pondered the difference between airplane travel and car travel. If more than 100 people per day died in aircraft accidents I think that within a week or two, congress would order the FAA to ground every flight. Yet we easily accept loses of that magnitude when dealing with cars.


I think you have to consider it statistically. How many people are travelling by aircraft every day? And how many people travel by car every day?

It's also one of responsibility. Most people are driving their own cars, for private reasons. They crash into other drivers operating their own vehicle.

In contrast commercial aircraft are owned by companies, controlled by company staff, and carry hundreds of customers.

Consider this... how many people are killed in public transport every day? How many people are killed in taxis every day? How many people are killed in charter buses every day?

Then take into account private aircraft. How many private aircraft are flown every day? How many people die in private aircraft every day?

-Andrew

[Whoracle]

We should ban living because everyone alive will eventually die, a 100% ratio! Living is just too dangerous and must be banned for all of our safety.

[slingblade]

I always feel wordless when people raise the question about if some act is worth of the life cost.

I felt this was a strange question because it isolated one thing in an issue that has many intertwined factors, as if this was the sole factor that really mattered. I mean, that's how it read to me; I don't claim it's what the poster meant.

I grow more and more worried that we've somehow decided that preserving our lives is more important than actually living them, risks and all, and that we're going to "safety" ourselves into total stagnation.

[Tony]

Is public transportation a good way to escape a disaster like hurricane Katrina or would you rather have a private auto to head out on the highway?

As someone who witnessed the traffic chaos in Houston during Hurricane Rita, I'd rather take public mass transit. Relying on roads and people packed into cars as a way to quickly evacuate a population center is short sighted and inefficient. However, you're more likely to see a unicorn than you are to see a mass transit system in Texas.

[Seismosaurus]

There is a scene in Fight Club (a movie I didn't like) that explains it:

Basically, a life is worth one statistic divided by another statistic. If the price of a lawsuit is too great, then a life will be spared. If it costs less money to pay off a settlement, then a wrongful death will happen because that's cheaper.

I have a vague recollection of seeing a documentary on Discovery once where a guy who designed aircraft said industry wisdom was that the dollar value of a Human life was $750,000. Spend less than $750,000 per death caused and your losses from lawsuits and such began to rise significantly; spend more per death than that and it began to become uneconomic to build and run a passenger jet.

[gumboot]

I grow more and more worried that we've somehow decided that preserving our lives is more important than actually living them, risks and all, and that we're going to "safety" ourselves into total stagnation.


Not to mention the havoc it plays with evolution...

-Andrew

[H3LL]

I remember seeing some documentary about the development of road safety (glove boxes that behead and exploding gas tanks etc.).

It was suggested that modern cars with their high levels of protection and comfort give a false sense of security.

One specialist suggested that people would only drive safely if there was a large metal spike poking out of the middle of their steering wheel and pointing at their throat.

:D

.

[The Painter]

I just drove 1,000 miles of American highways. I’m still here.

[Katana]

A simulation? Why would a simulation be better than just looking at what actually happened in New Orleans?
What did pre-Katrina simulations predict was going to be the best plan to evacuate New Orleans?

Did they ever actually do one?

[YoPopa]

As someone who witnessed the traffic chaos in Houston during Hurricane Rita, I'd rather take public mass transit. Relying on roads and people packed into cars as a way to quickly evacuate a population center is short sighted and inefficient. However, you're more likely to see a unicorn than you are to see a mass transit system in Texas.By what we saw on the news it was a bus that caused the worst traffic problem leaving Houston for Rita. You may have a better perspective on this but when all was said and done it looked like most everyone got out who wanted to get out except those poor old incinerated folks.

[YoPopa]

Did they ever actually do one?I can only assume they did some sort of simulation, my bad for using the term simulations in my question. There were evacuation plans and for the most part they did work for New Orleans. They worked so well that the highways out of New Orleans had become eerily empty in the final hours before the storm hit. The highways saved many lives. As for the folks who had no private transport?

[HeavyAaron]

I remember seeing some documentary about the development of road safety (glove boxes that behead and exploding gas tanks etc.).

It was suggested that modern cars with their high levels of protection and comfort give a false sense of security.

One specialist suggested that people would only drive safely if there was a large metal spike poking out of the middle of their steering wheel and pointing at their throat.

:D

.

It's called the Tulluck Safety Device, named after an economics professor under whom I studied. He's better known for the Tulluck Triangle, however.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I should point out something about the Tulluck Safety Device, however. Modern cars don't give us a FALSE sense of security. They give us an ACTUAL sense of security. As a result we (rationally) increase our tradeoff of reckless driving for time to destination. Thus things like air bags increase the accident rate (as does auto insurance). However, air bags, anti-lock brakes, etc. decrease fatalities. So there are more accidents and fewer deaths. The Tulluck Safety Device has the reverse effect. People would drive more safely, thus fewer accidents. But those accidents would often be fatal, so more fatalities.

Aaron

[Seismosaurus]

I remember seeing some documentary about the development of road safety (glove boxes that behead and exploding gas tanks etc.).

It was suggested that modern cars with their high levels of protection and comfort give a false sense of security.

One specialist suggested that people would only drive safely if there was a large metal spike poking out of the middle of their steering wheel and pointing at their throat.

:D

.

Ha, I used exactly that argument once. A fundy told me codoms should be banned because kids would be less likely to have risky unprotected sex. I wondered if he would favour banning seatbelts and mounting a six inch metal spike in the middle of the driving wheel as well, since it would encourage safe driving.

[yinyinwang]

Well, conveniently each person can determine the answer independantly. As with all things if you determine that the costs out weigh the benifits don't do it.

Personally, I think it would be nice if everyone BUT me decided that driving was too dangerous. Boy would I have a quick commute.

AaronIt can be objective. If we agree life is priceless, that is to say from math point of view:life value -->infinite, 2*life value=3*life value.

[HeavyAaron]

It can be objective. If we agree life is priceless, that is to say from math point of view:life value -->infinite, 2*life value=3*life value.

No one I have ever known would agree that life is priceless, so I doubt you'll find wide spread agreement on that.

Also, you might want to study up on your math. Infinities are not neccessarily equal. There are definately some infinities that are larger than other infinities.

Aaron

[Katana]

No one I have ever known would agree that life is priceless, so I doubt you'll find wide spread agreement on that.

Also, you might want to study up on your math. Infinities are not neccessarily equal. There are definately some infinities that are larger than other infinities.

Aaron

Ok. I have to ask. How can one infinity be bigger than other? Aren't they all infinite? I'm not giving you a hard time if that's how this comes across. I'm intrigued.

[HeavyAaron]

Ok. I have to ask. How can one infinity be bigger than other? Aren't they all infinite? I'm not giving you a hard time if that's how this comes across. I'm intrigued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_numbers

Aaron

[JamesDillon]

No one I have ever known would agree that life is priceless, so I doubt you'll find wide spread agreement on that.
Life is certainly not priceless from a legal perspective. The law puts dollar values on human lives all the time, in a variety of contexts. It's an unpleasant job, but it has to be done if we're to have any kind of rational discussion of the costs and benefits of particular courses of action.

And, really, would anyone argue that, for example, we should ban all automobiles in order to save one more life? If we prohibited their use, then the next person who's going to die in a car crash wouldn't. If we really believed that every human life was of infinite value, we'd have to give up on a lot of modern conveniences.

[HeavyAaron]

Life is certainly not priceless from a legal perspective. The law puts dollar values on human lives all the time, in a variety of contexts.

I'm making a much stronger claim than that. I claim that virtually everyone (say, 98%+) of people place a finite value on human life.

How many people would be willing to spend $100,000,000,000 to keep a person on an exotic life support that will only extend their life 10 minutes? It's an extreame example, I admit, but INFINITE is a much greater extream.

It's even true for one's own life. How many people conciously make decisions which have as a consequence a statistical reduction in their life expectancy? I would wager it's universal.

Aaron

[Tony]

By what we saw on the news it was a bus that caused the worst traffic problem leaving Houston for Rita.

Not seeing what you saw I can't comment on that specific, but it's unlikely that a single bus caused the chaos during Rita. All of the Northern, Eastern and Western (290, I-10, I-45 and 59) outbound freeways and feeder streets (which were all converted into one-way contraflow roads) out of Houston were at a standstill.

You may have a better perspective on this but when all was said and done it looked like most everyone got out who wanted to get out except those poor old incinerated folks.

Not everyone did. I know a few people who slept in their cars overnight on the freeway. One of my friends was heading to Austin for something unrealted to the Hurricane. Even though he got out early, it still took him over 12 hours to traverse what is normally a 2 hour drive.

[JamesDillon]

I'm making a much stronger claim than that. I claim that virtually everyone (say, 98%+) of people place a finite value on human life.

How many people would be willing to spend $100,000,000,000 to keep a person on an exotic life support that will only extend their life 10 minutes? It's an extreame example, I admit, but INFINITE is a much greater extream.

It's even true for one's own life. How many people conciously make decisions which have as a consequence a statistical reduction in their life expectancy? I would wager it's universal.

Aaron
I agree. I referred to the law only because these regulatory decisions are usually made by a government body, but I agree that, in practice, no one actually assigns infinite value to human life, notwithstanding rhetoric to the contrary.

[HeavyAaron]

I agree.

You can't do that! This is the Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues portion of the forum! ;)

Aaron

[Katana]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_numbers

Aaron

Wow. I think I followed that. I may just have to take your word for it. If nothing else, I was introduced to a new category of number.

Cool!:)

[yinyinwang]

No one I have ever known would agree that life is priceless, so I doubt you'll find wide spread agreement on that.

Also, you might want to study up on your math. Infinities are not neccessarily equal. There are definately some infinities that are larger than other infinities.

Aaron
I am not an expert on math but this does prevent me from noticing that unless you give every deferent life a different kind of infinity, then if the same kind of infinite number is assigned to life, the equation still holds.

[Elizabeth I]

There was something on the History Channel a while ago that mentioned that Nixon had a speech prepared for the deaths of the Apollo 11 astronauts. People were assuming they were going to the die and went with it. Would people do that today?

While I agree with you about the courage of the astronauts, people weren't actually ASSUMING that they would die. At the level of the presidency, it's routine to plan for either possibility. Nixon also had a speech ready in case of a successful flight (which turns out to be the one that got used.)

Much like news organizations that keep obits on major public figures ready so it won't be necessary to create them from scratch should an unexpected death occur. Nobody really thinks the president will die tomorrow, but I'll bet most newspapers and the networks have an obituary waiting.

[yinyinwang]

No one I have ever known would agree that life is priceless, so I doubt you'll find wide spread agreement on that.

Aaron
Then we have to say some people are more precious than others.

[HeavyAaron]

Then we have to say some people are more precious than others.

While I do not believe that follows, I do believe it is true.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I am not an expert on math but this does prevent me from noticing that unless you give every deferent life a different kind of infinity, then if the same kind of infinite number is assigned to life, the equation still holds.

I'm no expert on math either, but I believe as presented the equation is indeterminate.

Things like infinity-infinity and infinity/infinity are indeterminate forms, meaning they may very well be any value at all.

I'm sure there exist some number theory and/or set theory experts on this forum who could definitively answer the question.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I'm no expert on math either, but I believe as presented the equation is indeterminate.

Things like infinity-infinity and infinity/infinity are indeterminate forms, meaning they may very well be any value at all.

I'm sure there exist some number theory and/or set theory experts on this forum who could definitively answer the question.

Aaron
It may be indeterminate in math, but in this case, if it goes beyond any affordable amount, it is the same.

[yinyinwang]

While I do not believe that follows, I do believe it is true.

Aaron
So we should not treat them equally?

[HeavyAaron]

So we should not treat them equally?

Nope, and of course we do not. (Or do you think you have the same protective services as the president of the US? Or that the medical treatment is available to everyone?

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

It may be indeterminate in math, but in this case, if it goes beyond any affordable amount, it is the same.

I think you'd have to define "affordable" in this context. But I think your point is "let them die" if saving them is not worthwhile, and it doesn't matter the body count. And in that regard I agree.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Nope, and of course we do not. (Or do you think you have the same protective services as the president of the US? Or that the medical treatment is available to everyone?
Aaron
Should he get more votes?

[marksman]

Just because people are treated unequally does not mean they should be treated unequally in all respects.

We reat children differently from adults, and felons differently from non-felons. We treat military different from civilians. We treat physicians differently from non-physicians. The question is whether the differences are rational.

[HeavyAaron]

Just because people are treated unequally does not mean they should be treated unequally in all respects.

We reat children differently from adults, and felons differently from non-felons. We treat military different from civilians. We treat physicians differently from non-physicians. The question is whether the differences are rational.

The question you've posed is meaningless without an underlying value system.

I would rather take the reverse direction. As an economist I assume human (and even non-human) behavior on the whole is rational. I can observe that different humans are treated differently with apparent regard to the value of their lives. I then conclude that our society's value system assigns different values to each person's life.

Of course, the number one charge leveled at economics is that the rationality axiom is in error. If it is than this analysis would also be in error. Even if that's so I still believe your question is vacuous outside of a given value system.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Just because people are treated unequally does not mean they should be treated unequally in all respects.

We reat children differently from adults, and felons differently from non-felons. We treat military different from civilians. We treat physicians differently from non-physicians. The question is whether the differences are rational.
If I pay more tax I should have more say, rational?

[HeavyAaron]

If I pay more tax I should have more say, rational?

If that's your value system then of course such a policy is rational. If that's not your value system, then advocating such a policy without an alterior motive would be irrational.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

If that's your value system then of course such a policy is rational. If that's not your value system, then advocating such a policy without an alterior motive would be irrational.

Aaron
alterior?
Do you think rationality depends on my value system and motive?

[HeavyAaron]

alterior?
Do you think rationality depends on my value system and motive?

I think it's close. I think rational behavior means to line up decisions and expected results with objectives. Objectives depend on values (i.e. you want the outcome of your actions to be something you value.) If you have no values, what difference do your decisions make? I hope I'm making sense.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I think it's close. I think rational behavior means to line up decisions and expected results with objectives. Objectives depend on values (i.e. you want the outcome of your actions to be something you value.) If you have no values, what difference do your decisions make? I hope I'm making sense.

Aaron
Are you saying that my rationality is not your rationality?

[HeavyAaron]

Are you saying that my rationality is not your rationality.

I suppose in one sense. The best decision for you may or may not be the best decision for me. Which is why we make different decisions in some identical circumstances.

But if I know your values, in theory I should be able to predict your decisions by a unified theory of rationality.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I suppose in one sense. The best decision for you may or may not be the best decision for me. Which is why we make different decisions in some identical circumstances.

But if I know your values, in theory I should be able to predict your decisions by a unified theory of rationality.

Aaron
In math again I think you mistaken variables as functions. Rationality is the funtion, we can have different input of variables and have different funtion values, but the funtion remain the same.

[HeavyAaron]

In math again I think you mistaken variables as functions. Rationality is the funtion, we can have different input of variables and have different funtion values, but the funtion remain the same.

I think it's more likely to be a difference in definitions. I use "decision theory" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory in such analysis. I'm not sure what definition of rationality you are using.

However, I must admit I do not know what definition of rationality you could be using to come to this conclusion.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I think it's more likely to be a difference in definitions. I use "decision theory" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory in such analysis. I'm not sure what definition of rationality you are using.

However, I must admit I do not know what definition of rationality you could be using to come to this conclusion.

Aaron
I am talking about objective rationality.
There are many roads to one destination, does that mean you can have as many rationalities as well?

[HeavyAaron]

I am talking about objective rationality.
There are many roads to one destination, does that mean you can have as many rationalities as well?

Okay, I'm trying my best to understand you, and I'm having a superhard time.

I define rational behavior as that behavior predicted by "decision theory." I cannot get more precise than that. Please provide the definition of "rationality" you are using.

Thank you,
Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Okay, I'm trying my best to understand you, and I'm having a superhard time.

I define rational behavior as that behavior predicted by "decision theory." I cannot get more precise than that. Please provide the definition of "rationality" you are using.

Thank you,
AaronYou give me a big tast which will take some time.But I would like to raise another question, when you think someway is the way to your goal, it often turns out not, why?

[HeavyAaron]

I have searched in vein for anything defining the term "objective rationality." I can find no such definition, and I do not know what you mean by it.

I still await your definition of rationality.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Another example, if you set to become another Bill Gates as your goal, how can you rationally get there?

[HeavyAaron]

Another example, if you set to become another Bill Gates as your goal, how can you rationally get there?

1) I doubt you can get there rationally or not. It's improbable.

2) If that really is your goal, the rational choice of decisions is the set of decisions which have the greatest probability of the goal being achieved (assuming no bet hedging.)

3) I have no idea what the set of decisions for 2) is.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

You give me a big tast which will take some time.But I would like to raise another question, when you think someway is the way to your goal, it often turns out not, why?

Because knowledge is incomplete and errors are made.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Because knowledge is incomplete and errors are made.

Aaron
Dose that mean rationality is impossible?

[HeavyAaron]

Dose that mean rationality is impossible?

Of course not. Decision under uncertainty is the primary topic of decision theory. It's probablistic.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Of course not. Decision under uncertainty is the primary topic of decision theory. It's probablistic.

Aaron
Why is probablistcs the rational way to make decisions?

[HeavyAaron]

Why is probablistcs the rational way to make decisions?

I find that a bit of an annoyingly obvious question. So I'll give you an annoyingly obvious answer.

It would be irrational to not consider the likelihoods of possible outcomes when making a decision.

Seriously, I'm done here until you want to provide a definition of rationality. It's going no where.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Okay, I decided I was too much of a jerk... But the answer is "by definition." The definition of rationality I am using depends on probabilities. (See decision theory.) Since you won't provide a definition I cannot answer the question using your definitions.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I find that a bit of an annoyingly obvious question. So I'll give you an annoyingly obvious answer.

It would be irrational to not consider the likelihoods of possible outcomes when making a decision.

Seriously, I'm done here until you want to provide a definition of rationality. It's going no where.

Aaron
It is obvious because you take it for granted and you made mistake here again. probablistics is a way to measure the likelihood, it is not likelihood itsefle.

[HeavyAaron]

It is obvious because you take it for granted and you made mistake here again. probablistics is a way to measure the likelihood, it is not likelihood itsefle.

You're in error. The probability of an event occuring IS the likelihood of the event occuring. Period. I'm tired of defining words for you while you insist upon using some unknown definitions that you refuse to provide. I don't even know what your entire point of this discussion is.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probability

prob·a·bil·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prb-bl-t)
n. pl. prob·a·bil·i·ties
The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood.

[yinyinwang]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probability

prob·a·bil·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prb-bl-t)
n. pl. prob·a·bil·i·ties
The quality or condition of being probable; Don't you think this is cyclical, that is not a logical definition!

[HeavyAaron]

Don't you think this is cyclical, that is not a logical definition!

That's rather dishonest of you to remove "likelihood" from the definition. Which was exactly what I was showing you.

I'm beginning to believe you are simply not an honest debater and you're very close to being my very first person I place on ignore.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

You're in error. The probability of an event occuring IS the likelihood of the event occuring. Period. I'm tired of defining words for you while you insist upon using some unknown definitions that you refuse to provide. I don't even know what your entire point of this discussion is.

AaronBut I should thank you for cooperating with this conversation.By that I find the correct definition of rationality should be:
Scientifically
Rationality is relative and is a measure of accordance with the nature.
Religiously
Rationality is how relatively close to god will.

[yinyinwang]

That's rather dishonest of you to remove "likelihood" from the definition. Which was exactly what I was showing you.

I'm beginning to believe you are simply not an honest debater and you're very close to being my very first person I place on ignore.

Aaron
I am not dishonest because it is not cyclical, but it is another problem, misrelating.

[HeavyAaron]

I am not dishonest because it is not cyclical, but it is another problem, misrelating.

Once again I do not know what you are saying.

The only reason I've been this tolerant is I have a strong impression that English is not your native language. I've tried to give you every benifit of the doubt and grant extreamly liberal readings to your posts. But my patience has run thin. You seem to wish to correct MY English, math, and risk analysis, but fail to back any of it up or even define your terms.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Once again I do not know what you are saying.

The only reason I've been this tolerant is I have a strong impression that English is not your native language. I've tried to give you every benifit of the doubt and grant extreamly liberal readings to your posts. But my patience has run thin. You seem to wish to correct MY English, math, and risk analysis, but fail to back any of it up or even define your terms.

Aaron
I think the present definition of word is not sufficient enough to this discussion. You can not define a word by just another word, that is not logical too, even it is not cyclical definition and that is why I split them.
And I gave my definition already, can you see it?(post #93)

[YoPopa]

HA... I have enjoyed reading your responses here for the last couple days. It has amazed me that you continued to provide intelligent and reasonable discourse single-handedly. It was my impression early on that yinyinwang was here just to practice the art of the Zen koan. That you managed to make any sense at all out of it seems to have stupefied Zen Master yinyinwang into actually trying to debate you. You got under his skin as it were.

BTW.. I also enjoyed your posts on the matter of the minimum wage. I hope you continue to spend more time with the posters who are here for honest debate.

[HeavyAaron]

But I should thank you for cooperating with this conversation.By that I find the correct definition of rationality should be:
Scientifically
Rationality is relative and is a measure of accordance with the nature.
Religiously
Rationality is how relatively close to god will.

That's definately the strangest set of definitions I have ever seen. Do you expect that people understand you to mean this when you use the term "rational?" How can you tell if an action IS rational. Heaven knows there is no agreement on "God's Will". And for the "accordance with nature", how would ANYTHING not be rational? Is not every action consistant with nature? (I suppose by this definition anything supernatural would be irrational...)

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

That's definately the strangest set of definitions I have ever seen.
yes, I know.I am trying to perfect it, hope I will find the final version since you press so hard I just put it for discussion.
Do you expect that people understand you to mean this when you use the term "rational?"
That is not my concern and I only care if it is correct.

How can you tell if an action IS rational.
measure the accordance like probablistic measure likelihood.

Heaven knows there is no agreement on "God's Will".
That is hardly a reason to deny it at all.
And for the "accordance with nature", how would ANYTHING not be rational?
If you kill youself now it is not rational.
Is not every action consistant with nature? (I suppose by this definition anything supernatural would be irrational...)

Aaron
Polluting the air is not.

[HeavyAaron]

yes, I know.I am trying to perfect it, hope I will find the final version since you press so hard I just put it for discussion.

That is not my concern and I only care if it is correct.

Fair enough. But there is some need for uniform definitions of words, is there not? In your shoes, I might be tempted to provide my audience with a disclaimer when using a non-standard definition of a word.


measure the accordance like probablistic measure likelihood.

I thought I just showed you that probabilities are not measurements. One CAN measure them, but a probability is NOT a measurement. So your sentence makes no sense. Please try again, as I really don't understand how under your definition something can be deemed rational or irrational.


That is hardly a reason to deny it at all.

Okay, supposing a God exists, and He/She/It has a Will, and something is "religiously rational" (talk about an odd phrase) it means that it is in concordance with that Will, I will grant that it does not matter that people don't know what it is. That just means the question of whether or not an action is rational is as unanswerable as what is God's Will. Personally I think that makes the word useless. But if that's how you want to define it you go right ahead. However, don't then go to tell me what's (religiously)rational and what's not or you'll be, in effect, trying to tell me God's Will, and forgive me, but I don't think you know.

If you kill youself now it is not rational.

Polluting the air is not.

These were examples of not "scientifically rational" (another weird term.) In what way is suicide or polluting not in accordance with nature? They certainly don't violate natural law. Perhaps you mean not in accordance with "Mother Nature" which is as ill defined as "God's Will."

So, in effect you've moved the question of what's rational under your definitions to what is in accordance with "Mother Nature" and "God's Will." The moment you can demonstrate those concepts exist and can be determined I will bow to your greatness. Until then I will think you are just silly.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

HA... I have enjoyed reading your responses here for the last couple days. It has amazed me that you continued to provide intelligent and reasonable discourse single-handedly. It was my impression early on that yinyinwang was here just to practice the art of the Zen koan. That you managed to make any sense at all out of it seems to have stupefied Zen Master yinyinwang into actually trying to debate you. You got under his skin as it were.

BTW.. I also enjoyed your posts on the matter of the minimum wage. I hope you continue to spend more time with the posters who are here for honest debate.

Thanks for the encouragement. I've never heard of "Zen koan," but perhaps it's time to look it up. Maybe I'll have a better time of making heads or tails of this.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Fair enough. But there is some need for uniform definitions of words, is there not? In your shoes, I might be tempted to provide my audience with a disclaimer when using a non-standard definition of a word.

Aaron
When the "standard" definition is cyclical and misrelated, what am I going to do?

[HeavyAaron]

When the "standard" definition is cyclical and misrelated, what am I going to do?

What word? I know you said that probability is circularly defined (which I dispute.) Are you saying that rationality is also circularly defined? I admit that it's a difficult to define word. But I also think you used it knowing that your readers would have a different definition than the one you use, at which point I think a disclaimer is in order.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

What word? I know you said that probability is circularly defined (which I dispute.) Are you saying that rationality is also circularly defined? I admit that it's a difficult to define word. But I also think you used it knowing that your readers would have a different definition than the one you use, at which point I think a disclaimer is in order.

Aaron
Of cause you can dispute but when you accuse me of not backing my arguements, would you mind backing your own dispute?(probability definition).
I am not trying to define it differently. I am just trying to correct the mistake.

[HeavyAaron]

Of cause you can dispute but when you accuse me of not backing my arguements, would you mind backing your own dispute?(probability definition).
I am not trying to define it differently. I am just trying to correct the mistake.

I already have. I've provided the definition of probability as likelihood. You seem to think one is a measure of the other, but I've already showed you that you were wrong. Probability is the likelihood of an event. If you want a more precise definition it also carries a mathmatical definition of being the ratio of actual occurances divided by the possible occurances for given known conditions. This definition was also provided in my link to you (in the dictionary.)

We're still deep into a tangent. Did you have a point to this?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I thought I just showed you that probabilities are not measurements. One CAN measure them, but a probability is NOT a measurement. So your sentence makes no sense. Please try again, as I really don't understand how under your definition something can be deemed rational or irrational.

Aaron
On which post #? do you give a reason for your conclusions on measurement? I wish you could provide more reasons than conclusions.

[yinyinwang]

I already have. I've provided the definition of probability as likelihood. You seem to think one is a measure of the other, but I've already showed you that you were wrong. Probability is the likelihood of an event. If you want a more precise definition it also carries a mathmatical definition of being the ratio of actual occurances divided by the possible occurances for given known conditions. This definition was also provided in my link to you (in the dictionary.)

We're still deep into a tangent. Did you have a point to this?

AaronYou seem sticking to the existing definition and take it for granted while I think some corrections may be necessary. "Probability is a " measurement of "the likelihood of an event". And the math ratio is just one standard definition, there can be other definitions too and they all measure likelihood.

[HeavyAaron]

On which post #? do you give a reason for your conclusions on measurement? I wish you could provide more reasons than conclusions.

*sigh* this isn't a conclusion. This is strictly definitional.

Ratios are not measurements. pi is a ratio, but I think you realize it's not a measurement.

You CAN measure ratios, including events to determine probabilities, much like you can measure the diameter and circumference of a circle to determine pi. But that doesn't make probabilities or pi a measurement.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

You seem sticking to the existing definition and take it for granted while I think some corrections may be necessary. "Probability is a " measurement of "the likelihood of an event". And the math ratio is just one standard definition, there can be other definitions too and they all measure likelihood.

This is just rediculous. I see no reason to debate this. I'm flat out telling you that when I used the word probability I used it to mean likelihood.

This all goes back to the fact that I said that using probabilities is part of making rational decisions. If you don't like that pretend I said that estimating likelihoods is part of making rational decisions.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Okay, supposing a God exists, and He/She/It has a Will, and something is "religiously rational" (talk about an odd phrase) it means that it is in concordance with that Will, I will grant that it does not matter that people don't know what it is. That just means the question of whether or not an action is rational is as unanswerable as what is God's Will.
Aaron
I am trying my best to search god will and we can hardly say we are rational at all.
REmenber I said rationality is relative?

[HeavyAaron]

You seem sticking to the existing definition and take it for granted while I think some corrections may be necessary. "Probability is a " measurement of "the likelihood of an event". And the math ratio is just one standard definition, there can be other definitions too and they all measure likelihood.

What the?!? You want to correct a definition?!? Definitions cannot BE wrong. They are axiomatic. If you want to invent new words, be my guest. But definitions are what they are.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I am trying my best to search god will and we can hardly say we are rational at all.
REmenber I said rationality is relative?

Search away. And with your definition of rational, I can only conclude that it is unknowable when and if people act rationally.

But I will continue to say that when people act in accordance with decision theory they are acting rationally, which is virtually always.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

This is just rediculous. I see no reason to debate this.
Aaron
conclusion without reason once again.

[Kopji]

The word probability means a number that represents how likely something is to happen.

If something is absolutely certain to happen, we say its probability is one. If something is impossible, we say its probability is zero. A number between zero and one means we don't know for sure what will happen, but the higher the number the more likely something is to happen. If something has a probability of 0.8, most people would say "it probably will happen".

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Primary_mathematics:Probability

As I see it, the problem with defining religious rationality by correspondence to 'God's will' is that the probability of knowing 'God's will' is zero (if God is to remain infinite). Additionally, the definition excludes religion that is not deity based, so it also assumes that a God exists or religion is not valid, which is begging the question and also simply opposed by evidence - there seems to be religion that is not deity based.

From the scientific definition side, defining rationality as corresponding to nature seems to not really say anything. What is not natural?

[yinyinwang]

Search away. And with your definition of rational, I can only conclude that it is unknowable when and if people act rationally.

But I will continue to say that when people act in accordance with decision theory they are acting rationally, which is virtually always.

Aaron
what If you take your believe in decision theory as the relative reveal of "god will"?

[HeavyAaron]

what If you take your believe in decision theory as the relative reveal of "god will"?

My belief in decision theory is based on its predictive and descriptive power. If it so happens that "God's Will" is that we behave according to decision theory, well then YAY! WE DO!

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

conclusion with reason once again.

Dude, you want to debate that I used the word probability incorrectly when I used the dictionary's definition. How much firmer ground can I be on? Please move on.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Dude, you want to debate that I used the word probability incorrectly when I used the dictionary's definition. How much firmer ground can I be on? Please move on.

Aaron
Sorry for mistyping I should say conclusion without reason.

[yinyinwang]

What the?!? You want to correct a definition?!? Definitions cannot BE wrong. They are axiomatic. If you want to invent new words, be my guest. But definitions are what they are.

Aaron
Well, that is something I have to disagree, definitions can be wrong logically.

[HeavyAaron]

Sorry for mistyping I should say conclusion without reason.

Fortunately that's what I answered.

Whereas you seem to want to nitpick every little iota on me (even though the nitpicks were wrong) I've been granting you every leniency... I'm just a nice guy at heart.

Now, I'm going to pretend that we're beyond that, and that you now understand that when I say rational people consider the likelihoods associated with the possible outcomes to their actions, you'll know what I mean and you won't quibble with definitions.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Fortunately that's what I answered.

Whereas you seem to want to nitpick every little iota on me (even though the nitpicks were wrong) I've been granting you every leniency... I'm just a nice guy at heart.

Now, I'm going to pretend that we're beyond that, and that you now understand that when I say rational people consider the likelihoods associated with the possible outcomes to their actions, you'll know what I mean and you won't quibble with definitions.

Aaron
Of course I know what you mean, what I am trying to say till now is that it means much more to me than you just mentioned.

[HeavyAaron]

Well, that is something I have to disagree, definitions can be wrong logically.

Please provide a definition of a word which is "wrong logically." For this example you can even make one up.

If I event a word "hyacho" that means "the era in which two plus two was equal to nineteen", the definition contains a logical error. But the definition remains valid. It simply refers to something that does not exist.

Perhaps I could define a word "squircle" that means a "square circle." It's a meaningless concept. There are no squircles. But I find nothing wrong with creating the word. I just cannot instantiate it.

I'm looking forward to this example.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Of course I know what you mean, what I am trying to say till now is that it means much more to me than you just mentioned.

Hey, what it means to you is your own business ;).

Seriously though, why read into something you KNOW wasn't intended? That's just not reasonable to me.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Please provide a definition of a word which is "wrong logically." For this example you can even make one up.

If I event a word "hyacho" that means "the era in which two plus two was equal to nineteen", the definition contains a logical error. But the definition remains valid. It simply refers to something that does not exist.

Perhaps I could define a word "squircle" that means a "square circle." It's a meaningless concept. There are no squircles. But I find nothing wrong with creating the word. I just cannot instantiate it.

I'm looking forward to this example.

AaronAs I have said cyclic definition is logically wrong. You can not define the word "wrong" as "being wrong".

[yinyinwang]

But I should thank you for cooperating with this conversation.By that I find the correct definition of rationality should be:
Scientifically
Rationality is relative and is a measure of accordance with the nature.
Religiously
Rationality is how relatively close to god will.
Maybe I should say:
Scientifically
Rationality is relative and is a measure of accordance with the rules of nature.
Religiously
Rationality is how relatively close to god will.

[HeavyAaron]

As I have said cyclic definition is logically wrong. You can not define the word "wrong" as "being wrong".

Sure you can. It's just not smart.

The definition for GNU is even recursive.

GNU = GNU's Not Unix

In fact, ultimately all words are circularly defined. Every word is defined by words. Those words are defined by words, etc. There is no base case.

But this isn't exactly the point.

My point was that a definition cannot be wrong. The context was that you wanted to "correct" the meaning of a word, as if the definition wasn't what it should have been.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I've never heard of "Zen koan,"
Aaron
Me too. just a joke.

[HeavyAaron]

Maybe I should say:
Scientifically
Rationality is relative and is a measure of accordance with the rules of nature.
Religiously
Rationality is how relatively close to god will.

How do "the rules of nature" differ from the "laws of nature." If they do not, then all is rational under this definition.

Your second definition is either undefined if the will of God does not exist, or is a continum. I'm curious how this would be expessed. For this exersize pretend that I am God. How rational (under this definition of rational) is it to keep penguins for pets?

Aaron

eta: it should be far easier to answer this question while pretending that I am God, then while NOT pretending that I am God, as I am (and my will is) far more comprehendable.

[yinyinwang]

Sure you can. It's just not smart.

The definition for GNU is even recursive.

GNU = GNU's Not Unix

In fact, ultimately all words are circularly defined. Every word is defined by words. Those words are defined by words, etc. There is no base case.

But this isn't exactly the point.

My point was that a definition cannot be wrong. The context was that you wanted to "correct" the meaning of a word, as if the definition wasn't what it should have been.

Aaron

Maybe I should not use the word "wrong", just invalid definition because it is not telling you any more information than the original word.

[HeavyAaron]

Just as an aside, the best recursive definition I've ever come accross:

My friend in High School used the word "bazillion" to express a large quantity. I once asked him to define a "bazillion." He answered that it's "1 followed by a bazillion zeros."

I thought it was quite clever, and even more so if you do the math as you'll find the value is not defined (it's a non-existant log.) I thought that was just about right.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Just as an aside, the best recursive definition I've ever come accross:

My friend in High School used the word "bazillion" to express a large quantity. I once asked him to define a "bazillion." He answered that it's "1 followed by a bazillion zeros."

I thought it was quite clever, and even more so if you do the math as you'll find the value is not defined (it's a non-existant log.) I thought that was just about right.

Aaron
1)That is cyclic too.
2)1followed by zeros is only a subset of large quantity.
wrong?

[yinyinwang]

How do "the rules of nature" differ from the "laws of nature." If they do not, then all is rational under this definition.

Your second definition is either undefined if the will of God does not exist, or is a continum. I'm curious how this would be expessed. For this exersize pretend that I am God. How rational (under this definition of rational) is it to keep penguins for pets?

Aaron

eta: it should be far easier to answer this question while pretending that I am God, then while NOT pretending that I am God, as I am (and my will is) far more comprehendable.
The word "law" has too much implication of human activities. In fact I am trying to replace both of words with some thing like "ways of nature".

[yinyinwang]

HA... I have enjoyed reading your responses here for the last couple days. It has amazed me that you continued to provide intelligent and reasonable discourse single-handedly. It was my impression early on that yinyinwang was here just to practice the art of the Zen koan. That you managed to make any sense at all out of it seems to have stupefied Zen Master yinyinwang into actually trying to debate you. You got under his skin as it were.

BTW.. I also enjoyed your posts on the matter of the minimum wage. I hope you continue to spend more time with the posters who are here for honest debate.
Can you explain what you mean by "stupefied"?

[HeavyAaron]

The word "law" has too much implication of human activities. In fact I am trying to replace both of words with some thing like "ways of nature".

It seems to me that you're struggling to state what you mean regarding this.

Do you mean something like ecologically sound?

How about metor impacts on Earth? Is that "the way of nature?" It's certainly distructive to life, but it's a natural pheonoma in every sense of the word.

In this definition of rational, can a non-human act irrationally? I.e. is it possible for a bear, or a skunk, or a shark to do anything but rational behavior? If so can you provide an example? If not, what makes us uniquely capable of irrational behavior as you have defined it?

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

The word "law" has too much implication of human activities. In fact I am trying to replace both of words with some thing like "ways of nature".

Whatever these "ways of nature" are, why are they what they are? Could they be otherwise? If they were otherwise, would it change what is rational (under your definition)?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

In this definition of rational, can a non-human act irrationally? I.e. is it possible for a bear, or a skunk, or a shark to do anything but rational behavior? If so can you provide an example? If not, what makes us uniquely capable of irrational behavior as you have defined it?

Aaron
This is a good question.
we can only tell one shark is more rational than the other one, but we can not say a shark is more rational than a bear.
I think what makes us unique is that we have ideas.

[HeavyAaron]

This is a good question.
we can only tell one shark is more rational than the other one, but we can not say a shark is more rational than a bear.
I think what makes us unique is that we have ideas.

So then it must be possible for a shark to make an irrational (under your definition) decision. Can you provide an example of one?

You didn't answer the metorite question. If a meteor or comet hits Earth and kills most or all living things, is that "the way of nature"?

Is the question "was the meteor rational" meaningful for your definition of rational?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

So then it must be possible for a shark to make an irrational (under your definition) decision. Can you provide an example of one?

You didn't answer the metorite question. If a meteor or comet hits Earth and kills most or all living things, is that "the way of nature"?

Is the question "was the meteor rational" meaningful for your definition of rational?

Aaron
I heard suicidal whales but not sharks. I am not quite familar with sharks so can not come up with a handy example,just speculate.
For the comet case, rationality does not apply.

[HeavyAaron]

I heard suicidal whales but not sharks. I am not quite familar with sharks so can not come up with a handy example,just speculate.
For the comet case, rationality does not apply.

Okay, so a whale that commits suicide is not acting in the ways of nature. I think most people would disagree with you, but since you're defining "ways of nature" it's your call.

Okay, so rationality doesn't apply to the comet. Got it. That seems reasonable. But is it part of the "ways of nature"?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Okay, so a whale that commits suicide is not acting in the ways of nature. I think most people would disagree with you, but since you're defining "ways of nature" it's your call.

Okay, so rationality doesn't apply to the comet. Got it. That seems reasonable. But is it part of the "ways of nature"?

AaronI am still thinking that since animals have such a low level of conscience, maybe clever is a better word for rational.

[yinyinwang]

Okay, so rationality doesn't apply to the comet. Got it. That seems reasonable. But is it part of the "ways of nature"?

Aaron"way of nature" sounds too broad for rationality.

[HeavyAaron]

"way of nature" sounds too broad for rationality.

I agree. Great. I'll wait for your next refinement.

Aaron

[YoPopa]

Can you explain what you mean by "stupefied"?I meant that it appeared to me that you were not understanding what HeavyAaron was saying.

It also was my opinion that your discourse up to that point had been Socratic in method and intent.

By koan I was thinking of the type of question posed by a Zen master to student such as. "Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?" Zen Master Hakuin Ekaku. The koan connection occurred to me when I read the OP. Are three lives more precious than two?

HeavyAaron has cut you quite a bit of slack (made allowance) for the fact that English is not your native language. I respect the patience shown by HeavyAaron. I can only aspire to that level of patience for myself. I apologize if I have misjudged your meaning. Your last series of posts seem more like a person who is sincerely seeking answers with peers and less like someone who believes they are acting as a Bodhisattva.

[yinyinwang]

I apologize f I have misjudged your meaning. Your last series of posts seem more like a person who is sincerely seeking answers with peers and less like someone who believes they are acting as a Bodhisattva.
It is ok. I am just not sure in what sense you use the word and it seems more than what is given in the dictionary.
Whom would you like, the answer seeker or acting Bodhisattva.

[YoPopa]

Whom would you like, the answer seeker or acting Bodhisattva.Seekers are cool. I think that everything works better when we accept each other as having something we can learn. I have made a fool of myself here a few times when I thought that I knew more than someone else. :footinmou

If I met a Bodhisattva on the road I would have to treat him the same as if I met Buddha on the road. :hit:

[Darth Rotor]

Is American highways worth of the lives killed and damaged by accidents ?
Yes. Navigatin the road safely is the obligation of the driver, not the highway engineer.

"When you drive, no if's or but's
Drive like everyone else is nuts."

(Old Burma Shave ad)

Next question?

DR

[yinyinwang]

Seekers are cool. I think that everything works better when we accept each other as having something we can learn. I have made a fool of myself here a few times when I thought that I knew more than someone else. :footinmou

If I met a Bodhisattva on the road I would have to treat him the same as if I met Buddha on the road. :hit:
You don't find constructive conversation very often, it is almost like luck.

[yinyinwang]

I agree. Great. I'll wait for your next refinement.

Aaron
Rationality

In decision theory, rationality is defined as" the rational choice of decisions is the set of decisions which have the greatest probability of the goal being achieved" .

But this definition is far from enough because probability should not be the only factor to assess the rationality of decisions because we should also consider the other factors like economic costs. When two choices have the same likelihood of achieving, we should consider the more economical one more rational. If there are other factors like ecological, social and political rationality most of time becomes weighing cost/benefit rather than assessing the likelihood. We may also choose a set of decisions which has a little bit of less probability but more economical, it is not an easy task to tell which one is the rational choice. We have to take time and effort into consideration, effectiveness and efficiency should also be included in our rationality assessment. So Rationality is the synthetic balancing of all factors rather than maximizing one.


Scientifically, rationality is relative and is a synthetic assessment of accordance with the rules of nature, which includes feasibility appraisal, effectiveness, efficiency, social and ecological impacts, etc. Rationality is relative because we have to talk about rationality with in a specific system of factors. A rational choice within a smaller system of factors may not be rational at all when put in a larger system of factors. Given only all the other factors equal, we can say that the rationality definition by the decision theory is correct.


Religiously, rationality is a measure of closeness to god will.

[HeavyAaron]

Rationality

In decision theory, rationality is defined as" the rational choice of decisions is the set of decisions which have the greatest probability of the goal being achieved" .

I don't know where you go this definition, but it looks like you simply sythesized it from the one example. That would make that a straw man definition. You've provided the definition, then declared it to be incomplete.

But this definition is far from enough because probability should not be the only factor to assess the rationality of decisions because we should also consider the other factors like economic costs. When two choices have the same likelihood of achieving, we should consider the more economical one more rational.

Just a suggestion, try using the term "less costly" instead of "economical." Economical is not so well defined. And a cost/benifit analysis most certainly IS part of decision theory.

If there are other factors like ecological, social and political rationality most of time becomes weighing cost/benefit rather than assessing the likelihood. We may also choose a set of decisions which has a little bit of less probability but more economical, it is not an easy task to tell which one is the rational choice.

I already addressed this in my example by saying I was assuming no bet hedging as your question to me didn't specify, but I most certainly left that door wide open.

We have to take time and effort into consideration, effectiveness and efficiency should also be included in our rationality assessment. So Rationality is the synthetic balancing of all factors rather than maximizing one.

Again your question only asked of one outcome. If you read my answer more closely you would have seen that I was directly answering your question, and addressed all of this by saying that I was specificly ignoring bet hedging because your question directed me not to.

Scientifically, rationality is relative and is a synthetic assessment of accordance with the rules of nature, which includes feasibility appraisal, effectiveness, efficiency, social and ecological impacts, etc. Rationality is relative because we have to talk about rationality with in a specific system of factors. A rational choice within a smaller system of factors may not be rational at all when put in a larger system of factors. Given only all the other factors equal, we can say that the rationality definition by the decision theory is correct.

I think you need to study up on decision theory, rather than basing your entire understanding of a whole disipline on one answer to one question.

Religiously, rationality is a measure of closeness to god will.

What if God wills you to kill yourself, which you've already stated would be irrational?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I think you need to study up on decision theory, rather than basing your entire understanding of a whole disipline on one answer to one question.

Aaron
How evolutionary biology challenges the classical theory of rational choice

W. S. Cooper1
(1) S.L.I.S., University of California, 94720 Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

Abstract A fundamental philosophical question that arises in connection with evolutionary theory is whether the fittest patterns of behavior are always the most rational. Are fitness and rationality fully compatible? When behavioral rationality is characterized formally as in classical decision theory, the question becomes mathematically meaningful and can be explored systematically by investigating whether the optimally fit behavior predicted by evolutionary process models is decision-theoretically coherent. Upon investigation, it appears that in nontrivial evolutionary models the expected behavior is not always in accord with the norms of the standard theory of decision as ordinarily applied. Many classically irrational acts, e.g. betting on the occurrence of one event in the knowledge that the probabilities favor another, can under certain circumstances constitute adaptive behavior.
One interesting interpretation of this clash is that the criterion of rationality offered by classical decision theory is simply incorrect (or at least incomplete) as it stands, and that evolutionary theory should be called upon to provide a more generally applicable theory of rationality. Such a program, should it prove feasible, would amount to the logical reduction of the theory of rational choice to evolutionary theory.

Key words Evolution - evolutionary biology - fitness - decision theory - theory of choice - rationality - rational behavior - reductionism

[yinyinwang]

I don't know where you go this definition, but it looks like you simply sythesized it from the one example. That would make that a straw man definition. You've provided the definition, then declared it to be incomplete.


Aaron
I got it from you and I assume that you quoted it as standard form of definition.

[BPSCG]

My opinion? It's those darned SUVs @$$holes driving SUVs.

Seriously, I was driving in Vermont during a fierce snow storm, and the SUVs @$$holes driving SUVs just drove right past me almost going the speed limit which was 65mph. As I continued driving, I came upon vehicle after vehicle off the side of the road. They were all SUVs @$$holes driving SUVs. I'm just glad they didn't take anyone down with them.

They're guzzling gas, killing more of their occupants, and killing occupants of other, smaller cars. Down with SUVs @$$holes driving SUVs. Edited to comport with reality. SUVs do not drive themselves.

[BPSCG]

However, you're more likely to see a unicorn than you are to see a mass transit system in Texas.Look, a unicorn (http://www.dart.org/)!

(...of course, nobody rides it...)

[yinyinwang]

I already addressed this in my example by saying I was assuming no bet hedging as your question to me didn't specify, but I most certainly left that door wide open.



Again your question only asked of one outcome. If you read my answer more closely you would have seen that I was directly answering your question, and addressed all of this by saying that I was specificly ignoring bet hedging because your question directed me not to.

Aaron
I need to clarify the term "bet hedging", I assume that by that you mean putting your bets on more than one choice in hedging against risk. But I only talk about assessing choices in comparision with one another not decision making techniques, so bet hedging is not relevent here.

[yinyinwang]

What if God wills you to kill yourself, which you've already stated would be irrational?

Aaron
Well you got big task to prove it is god will. But if by killing myself, the world can be saved or something the same size, I will seriously consider the choice.

[yinyinwang]

I think you need to study up on decision theory, rather than basing your entire understanding of a whole disipline on one answer to one question.

Aaron
You seem having a habit of giving advice for others and ironically asking others to do some study is the most common form of hiding your own ignorance.
Now my advice for you is that you qualify yourself before giving any advice by giving more reasons than conclusions, and discuss things with your own ideas.

[yinyinwang]

Just a suggestion, try using the term "less costly" instead of "economical." Economical is not so well defined. And a cost/benifit analysis most certainly IS part of decision theory.





Aaron
1)Prudent and thrifty in management; not wasteful or extravagant.
See: sparing
2)Intended to save money, as by efficient operation or elimination of unnecessary features; economic:

I think it is sufficiently defined and I am using it in exactly the same sense.

[Katana]

Edited to comport with reality. SUVs do not drive themselves.

True enough. I stand corrected.

[HeavyAaron]

How evolutionary biology challenges the classical theory of rational choice

Do you have a link to this? I have read such things before, but they always wound up being discredited later. I'm interested specifically in the date. All I've read indicates that whenever someone would find a behavior that seemd irrational from evolutionary goals, it was later found to be incorrect. Also, I'd like to read the article in it's entirety to see if it provides any such behavior examples.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I got it from you and I assume that you quoted it as standard form of definition.

I never used those words. Please show me the posting of mine where you think I've defined things that way. As I said, it looks like you synthesized the definition, but it is not correct.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Well you got big task to prove it is god will. But if by killing myself, the world can be saved or something the same size, I will seriously consider the choice.

So then you grant that sometimes suicide IS rational (by your definitions?)

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Do you have a link to this? I have read such things before, but they always wound up being discredited later. I'm interested specifically in the date. All I've read indicates that whenever someone would find a behavior that seemd irrational from evolutionary goals, it was later found to be incorrect. Also, I'd like to read the article in it's entirety to see if it provides any such behavior examples.

Aaron
It is a book without e-form. Sorry.

[HeavyAaron]

I need to clarify the term "bet hedging", I assume that by that you mean putting your bets on more than one choice in hedging against risk. But I only talk about assessing choices in comparision with one another not decision making techniques, so bet hedging is not relevent here.

This was in regards to your asking how to best become as rich as Bill Gates.

I provided the optimal strategy ASSUMING not bet hedging.

Bet hedging would mean to make decisions that reduce the likelihood of achieving the goals such that other factors are not so heavily comprimised. (Which is exactly the complaint you had.)

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

You seem having a habit of giving advice for others and ironically asking others to do some study is the most common form of hiding your own ignorance.
Now my advice for you is that you qualify yourself before giving any advice by giving more reasons than conclusions, and discuss things with your own ideas.

When you totally misapply decision theory what would you have me say?

What ignorance of mine do you speak of? I AM qualified to discuss decision theory. Would you like a copy of my degree with that insult?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

So then you grant that sometimes suicide IS rational (by your definitions?)

Aaron
I do not think killing myself passively will be rational but some mission of very low success rate maybe so.

[HeavyAaron]

1)Prudent and thrifty in management; not wasteful or extravagant.
See: sparing
2)Intended to save money, as by efficient operation or elimination of unnecessary features; economic:

I think it is sufficiently defined and I am using it in exactly the same sense.

What is more economical, a Yugo or a Rolce Royce?

The Yugo costs a lot less. The Rolce Royce deprecatates a lot less as a percentage of value.

The question is an open one.

Which choice is less costly? The Yugo.

Likewise the term "economical" carries a lot of connotative baggage.

I was merely suggesting the terminalogy because I know you're not a native speaker and may not know the connotative meanings. Strange as it may seem "economical" is not a term used by economists. Scientists generally prefer terms that are more precise and less ambiguous. But if you prefer the term "economical" and use it specifically to mean "less costly" I will not object.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

When you totally misapply decision theory what would you have me say?

What ignorance of mine do you speak of? I AM qualified to discuss decision theory. Would you like a copy of my degree with that insult?

Aaron
You seem laughing at a definition provided by yourself, is this more convincing than your degree?

[HeavyAaron]

I do not think killing myself passively will be rational but some mission of very low success rate maybe so.

But what if God wills you to kill yourself passively?

We've both admitted we wouldn't know what God's will is. But you said that was beside the point. That His will, whether we know it or not, is what is rational. So, what if God wills a suicide, is it rational?

As I understand it, by one of your definitions it is and by the other it is not. Since a definition is a form of axiom, and if axioms are incongruitious then the system is logically inconguitious, then I propose that your definitions are inconguitious.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

You seem laughing at a definition provided by yourself, is this more convincing than your degree?

Show me where I did that. I asked you to, and you haven't. I don't believe I have. I've even done a search on the thread. Go ahead, show me. Until then I will assume that you're wrong.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

What is more economical, a Yugo or a Rolce Royce?

The Yugo costs a lot less. The Rolce Royce deprecatates a lot less as a percentage of value.

The question is an open one.

Which choice is less costly? The Yugo.

Likewise the term "economical" carries a lot of connotative baggage.

I was merely suggesting the terminalogy because I know you're not a native speaker and may not know the connotative meanings. Strange as it may seem "economical" is not a term used by economists. Scientists generally prefer terms that are more precise and less ambiguous. But if you prefer the term "economical" and use it specifically to mean "less costly" I will not object.

Aaron

Don't you think Rolce gets some "unnesacessary features"

[HeavyAaron]

It is a book without e-form. Sorry.

Bummer... I would find it interesting. Can I ask if it's referring to the sunk-cost fallacy? This has been the most researched example of trying to find an irrational evelutionary behavior in biology.

Also, what is the date of publication?

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Don't you think Rolce gets some "unnesacessary features"

Maybe... I've never owned one (sadly).

What's more economical, a new fuel efficient car, or a used fuel inefficient car. Again, it's an open question. The term is not well defined. But I'd rather not argue about this. I was just trying to be helpful.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Show me where I did that. I asked you to, and you haven't. I don't believe I have. I've even done a search on the thread. Go ahead, show me. Until then I will assume that you're wrong.

Aaron
I quoted here from you and if it is missing, then I will regard you dishonest.

[HeavyAaron]

I quoted here from you and if it is missing, then I will regard you dishonest.

Link to the post, or give the post number. I've searched. I can't find it.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I THINK you mean the post that contains this:
" If that really is your goal, the rational choice of decisions is the set of decisions which have the greatest probability of the goal being achieved (assuming no bet hedging.)"

You might want to note the "If that really is your goal" and "assuming no bed hedging" parts. In other words my statement your applying generally was a very specific answer to one situation.

Please don't be so careless.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Maybe... I've never owned one (sadly).

What's more economical, a new fuel efficient car, or a used fuel inefficient car. Again, it's an open question. The term is not well defined. But I'd rather not argue about this. I was just trying to be helpful.

Aaron
A street guy without any degree can give an answer to this question and it is not open at all.

[HeavyAaron]

A street guy without any degree can give an answer to this question and it is not open at all.

So now I'm getting English lessons from you :rolleyes: . This should be good... first math, then decision theory, and now English.

Then do tell me, what is the answer. I'm all ears.

For the record I think both are correct answers. So I want to know what you think is the right answer and why the other is WRONG.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Do you have a link to this? I have read such things before, but they always wound up being discredited later. I'm interested specifically in the date. All I've read indicates that whenever someone would find a behavior that seemd irrational from evolutionary goals, it was later found to be incorrect. Also, I'd like to read the article in it's entirety to see if it provides any such behavior examples.

Aaron
try this.
http://www.springerlink.com/(f5h5ag45lsiw1prn4b43zz45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,7;journal,73,88;linkingpublicationr esults,1:102856,1

[HeavyAaron]

try this.
http://www.springerlink.com/(f5h5ag45lsiw1prn4b43zz45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,7;journal,73,88;linkingpublicationr esults,1:102856,1

Dude! It's 1989! *bangs head on desk*

In otherwords, a topic of work I've already seen done and has been generally discredited.

At least you knew enough to realize it was relavent to the discussion.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

This was in regards to your asking how to best become as rich as Bill Gates.

I provided the optimal strategy ASSUMING not bet hedging.

Bet hedging would mean to make decisions that reduce the likelihood of achieving the goals such that other factors are not so heavily comprimised. (Which is exactly the complaint you had.)

Aaron
I really need your help to make sense of this.
Why would people ever consider bet hedging if it is "to make decisions that reduce the likelihood of achieving the goals such that other factors are not so heavily comprimised. "

[yinyinwang]

Dude! It's 1989! *bangs head on desk*

In otherwords, a topic of work I've already seen done and has been generally discredited.

At least you knew enough to realize it was relavent to the discussion.

Aaron You certainly are entitled to having your opinion. But a lot of theories are a lot older than that.

[HeavyAaron]

You certainly are entitled to having your opinion. But a lot of theories are a lot older than that.

Obviously the age of a theory is not relavent to its truthfulness. It's just that behavior examples that seemed contrary to rational behavior as described by decision theory has been shown to be consistant with it. Now, if this were a much newer article it may mean they've found something not yet explained.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

So now I'm getting English lessons from you :rolleyes: . This should be good... first math, then decision theory, and now English.

Then do tell me, what is the answer. I'm all ears.

For the record I think both are correct answers. So I want to know what you think is the right answer and why the other is WRONG.

Aaron
After seeing you so indifferent to cyclic definitions, it is reasonable to question your understanding.
But I am not atempting to teach you and no one can teach somebody who pays more attentions to degrees than reasons.

I am not saying you are wrong, I just think the correction is not necessary.

[HeavyAaron]

I really need your help to make sense of this.
Why would people ever consider bet hedging if it is "to make decisions that reduce the likelihood of achieving the goals such that other factors are not so heavily comprimised. "

For this we really need game theory. But let me try an example on you instead.

Your child needs to get to the hospital very quickly. It's an emergency.

You have one car and it has a flat tire. The tire will hold air if only it were inflated.

You call an ambulance to pick up the child. They tell you that they will try to get there quickly, but their ambulance is old and doesn't always start. It starts most of the time.

If you wait for the ambulance then when it arrives you'll be able to get the child to them immediately. If, however, you attempt to inflate the tire on your car and the ambulance arrives, then it will take a small amount of time to stop doing that and get your child to the parametics.

The goal is to get your child to the hospital as quickly as you can.

Now, do you attempt to inflate the tire on your car?

If you do you'll be hedging your bet. The quickest way to get the child to the hospital is to wait for the ambulance.

But if the ambulance doesn't arrive... well, bummer.

If you inflate the tire, then it's going to take a little longer to get the child to the hospital if the ambulance arrives, but if it doesn't you can still drive the child to the hospital yourself.

I hope that makes sense. I'm sure there are more simplistic examples, but for whatever reason, this is the story my brain created.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

After seeing you so indifferent to cyclic definitions, it is reasonable to question your understanding.
But I am not atempting to teach you and no one can teach somebody who pays more attentions to degrees than reasons.

I am not saying you are wrong, I just think the correction is not necessary.

Nice dodge. If it's something "a street guy ... can answer ... and it is not open at all" surely you can answer the question and explain why the other answer is wrong.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

When you totally misapply decision theory what would you have me say?

What ignorance of mine do you speak of? I AM qualified to discuss decision theory. Would you like a copy of my degree with that insult?

Aaron
Ok now, I think it is time to ask you to provide the definition of rationality using decision theory.

[HeavyAaron]

Ok now, I think it is time to ask you to provide the definition of rationality using decision theory.

I've provided my definition of rationality (a LONG time ago.) Rational decisions are decisions made in accordance with decision theory.

If you're hoping for an entire discourse in decision theory in a definition, I'm sorry to disappoint.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I've provided my definition of rationality (a LONG time ago.) Rational decisions are decisions made in accordance with decision theory.

If you're hoping for an entire discourse in decision theory in a definition, I'm sorry to disappoint.

Aaron
Compareed to this, my definition of rationality in accordance with rules of nature should include decision theory and even wider than that. Why do you have so much complaint.

[HeavyAaron]

Compareed to this, my definition of rationality in accordance with rules of nature should include decision theory and even wider than that. Why do you have so much complaint.

Yes, let's compare them shall we?

Decision theory is a well-defined, possibly complete theory. It also happens to be science. I can test if a particular behavior is in accord with decision theory through analysis.

"rules of nature" is undefined. Where can I look up these rules? How do I decide if a particular behavior is in accord with the "rules of nature?" What test can I use?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

For this we really need game theory. But let me try an example on you instead.

Your child needs to get to the hospital very quickly. It's an emergency.

You have one car and it has a flat tire. The tire will hold air if only it were inflated.

You call an ambulance to pick up the child. They tell you that they will try to get there quickly, but their ambulance is old and doesn't always start. It starts most of the time.

If you wait for the ambulance then when it arrives you'll be able to get the child to them immediately. If, however, you attempt to inflate the tire on your car and the ambulance arrives, then it will take a small amount of time to stop doing that and get your child to the parametics.

The goal is to get your child to the hospital as quickly as you can.

Now, do you attempt to inflate the tire on your car?

If you do you'll be hedging your bet. The quickest way to get the child to the hospital is to wait for the ambulance.

But if the ambulance doesn't arrive... well, bummer.

If you inflate the tire, then it's going to take a little longer to get the child to the hospital if the ambulance arrives, but if it doesn't you can still drive the child to the hospital yourself.

I hope that makes sense. I'm sure there are more simplistic examples, but for whatever reason, this is the story my brain created.

Aaron

That depends on how you define you objective.
If saving the child is the objective, then inflate the tire and call the ambulance will provide better chance of survival.

[HeavyAaron]

For the record, I've accepted your definition of rational as "in accordance with God's will" as a legitimate defintion. I just find it a useless concept as under that definition it is impossible to determine if any action is rational. As such we'd need another word to take its place.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

That depends on how you define you objective.
If saving the child is the objective, then inflate the tire and call the ambulance will provide better chance of survival.

I've already stated the goal as "The goal is to get your child to the hospital as quickly as you can."

Yes, we want the child to live. To do that we've hedged our bets, slightly undermining our goal. In fact, the child MIGHT DIE because the ambulance didn't arrive at the hospital quite soon enough because we inflated the tire.

The example asside, do you now understand the illistration of bet hedging?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Yes, let's compare them shall we?

Decision theory is a well-defined, possibly complete theory. It also happens to be science. I can test if a particular behavior is in accord with decision theory through analysis.

"rules of nature" is undefined. Where can I look up these rules? How do I decide if a particular behavior is in accord with the "rules of nature?" What test can I use?

Aaron
Maybe the term "rules of nature" is too general, but if something becomes a rule, I assume that it should stand to scientifical tests and other reasonable examinations, not just decision theory.
And I also don't believe any theory can be "complete".

[yinyinwang]

I've already stated the goal as "The goal is to get your child to the hospital as quickly as you can."

Yes, we want the child to live. To do that we've hedged our bets, slightly undermining our goal. In fact, the child MIGHT DIE because the ambulance didn't arrive at the hospital quite soon enough because we inflated the tire.

The example asside, do you now understand the illistration of bet hedging?

Aaron
I would regard this as a wrong definition of goal rather than bet hedging. The rational thing would boost the overall chance rather than maximizing arrival time.

[HeavyAaron]

Maybe the term "rules of nature" is too general, but if something becomes a rule, I assume that it should stand to scientifical tests and other reasonable examinations, not just decision theory.
And I also don't believe any theory can be "complete".

I wouldn't make any requirement that the rule pass a scientific test. This is your definition. If you want to say that eating grass is a violation of the rules of nature and thus cows are irrational, be my guest.

I don't know what "not just decision theory" means. What does it lack that you think it should have?

Why don't you believe a theory can be complete? I presume you mean that in theory a theory can not be complete. I find that very bizzare if not outright incorrect. I think Newton's Laws of Motion formed a complete theory. (Wrong, but complete.) I think that arithmatic is (ALMOST) a complete theory of finite, real, numbers (the incompleteness being division by 0). And I think, but I'm open to debate, that decision theory is a complete theory of rational decision making.

Can you provide an example physical situation that Newton's Laws do not make a prediction (right or wrong) about? Can you provide an example of a decision a rational agent might face that decision theory cannot answer? (There is a known example that has had some debate... a horse is thirsty, a bucket of water exists on either side of the horse, equadistant. How does the horse decide which to drink from, or does the horse thirst to death trying to decide?)

Aaron

edited for grammatical error

[HeavyAaron]

I would regard this as a wrong definition of goal rather than bet hedging.

Then you provided the wrong goal when asking how to be as rich as Bill Gates if you think my answer did not handle some of the costs.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

For the record, I've accepted your definition of rational as "in accordance with God's will" as a legitimate defintion. I just find it a useless concept as under that definition it is impossible to determine if any action is rational. As such we'd need another word to take its place.

Aaron
It is not useless, it is just the first step to find rationality. I don't think searching god will is so much different from searching sientific theory, including decision theory, sometimes they are just different terms for the same thing.

[HeavyAaron]

It is not useless, it is just the first step to find rationality. I don't think searching god will is so much different from searching sientific theory, including decision theory, sometimes they are just different terms for the same thing.

I said "I find it useless"; I did not say "it is useless."

Of course you're welcome to disagree with my oppinion. Just don't expect me to share yours.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Then you provided the wrong goal when asking how to be as rich as Bill Gates if you think my answer did not handle some of the costs.

AaronHow can you say it is a wrong goal, do you mean that no one should become richer than Gates?

[yinyinwang]

I don't know what "not just decision theory" means. What does it lack that you think it should have?

Aaron

edited for grammatical error
Does decision theory consider the psychological effects?

[yinyinwang]

Why don't you believe a theory can be complete? I presume you mean that in theory a theory can not be complete. I find that very bizzare if not outright incorrect. I think Newton's Laws of Motion formed a complete theory. (Wrong, but complete.) I think that arithmatic is (ALMOST) a complete theory of finite, real, numbers (the incompleteness being division by 0). And I think, but I'm open to debate, that decision theory is a complete theory of rational decision making.

Can you provide an example physical situation that Newton's Laws do not make a prediction (right or wrong) about? Can you provide an example of a decision a rational agent might face that decision theory cannot answer? (There is a known example that has had some debate... a horse is thirsty, a bucket of water exists on either side of the horse, equadistant. How does the horse decide which to drink from, or does the horse thirst to death trying to decide?)

Aaron

edited for grammatical error
Well all the theorists have attempted to provide a "complete" theory on some subject but no one seem true to the fact.
Does Newton Laws have any clue on Big Bang?

[HeavyAaron]

How can you say it is a wrong goal, do you mean that no one should become richer than Gates?

No, I mean, if you cared about other things than just wealth, you should have stated that as part of the goal in your question.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Well all the theorists have attempted to provide a "complete" theory on some subject but no one seem true to the fact.
Does Newton Laws have any clue on Big Bang?

You mean you don't think there's a complete TRUE theory?

But now you think it's possible? I'm not sure what your position is. Let me ask some yes/no questions to get at your position.

1) Is a complete theory possible in theory?

2) Do you believe any complete theories exist?

3) Is a complete, and also true theory possible?

4) Do you believe any complete and true theories exist?

Big Bang cosmology depends upon non-Neutonian mechanics. You could certainly posit a moment in time shortly following the Big Bang and then ask what Neutonian mechanics would predict for following and preceeding time intervals, sure. It'd be VERY wrong in that case, but that's because the theory was wrong. As far as I know the theory has defined behavior under those conditions.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Look, a unicorn (http://www.dart.org/)!

(...of course, nobody rides it...)

I think I found where most of the unicorns are hanging out (or maybe they are Pegasai?)

http://www.air-and-space.com/20060228%20LAX/DSC_3151%20767-232%20N102DA%20Delta%20left%20front%20take-off%20l.jpg

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

No, I mean, if you cared about other things than just wealth, you should have stated that as part of the goal in your question.

Aaron
I certainly did not mean how to get the same Gates dna.

[HeavyAaron]

I certainly did not mean how to get the same Gates dna.

Are you being obtuse?

You said:
But this definition is far from enough because probability should not be the only factor to assess the rationality of decisions because we should also consider the other factors like economic costs. When two choices have the same likelihood of achieving, we should consider the more economical one more rational. If there are other factors like ecological, social and political rationality most of time becomes weighing cost/benefit rather than assessing the likelihood. We may also choose a set of decisions which has a little bit of less probability but more economical, it is not an easy task to tell which one is the rational choice. We have to take time and effort into consideration, effectiveness and efficiency should also be included in our rationality assessment. So Rationality is the synthetic balancing of all factors rather than maximizing one.

If you want to consider all of those other factors without bet hedging then they dang well better be a part of the goal, but you didn't stipulate that, did you?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

You mean you don't think there's a complete TRUE theory?

But now you think it's possible? I'm not sure what your position is. Let me ask some yes/no questions to get at your position.

1) Is a complete theory possible in theory?

2) Do you believe any complete theories exist?

3) Is a complete, and also true theory possible?

4) Do you believe any complete and true theories exist?

Big Bang cosmology depends upon non-Neutonian mechanics. You could certainly posit a moment in time shortly following the Big Bang and then ask what Neutonian mechanics would predict for following and preceeding time intervals, sure. It'd be VERY wrong in that case, but that's because the theory was wrong. As far as I know the theory has defined behavior under those conditions.

Aaron

Wheather a theory is true or not is a hard question already, not to mention complete.
In theory, right or wrong, everything is possible.

[HeavyAaron]

Wheather a theory is true or not is a hard question already, not to mention complete.
In theory, right or wrong, everything is possible.

Then why did you say:

I also don't believe any theory can be "complete".

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Then why did you say:



Aaron
I mean true theory can not be complete.

[HeavyAaron]

I mean true theory can not be complete.

Then why did you say:
In theory, right or wrong, everything is possible.

When I specifically asked that?

Pinning you down on what you mean on the simplist of things is difficult. I've also considered going back through this thread to count the number of questions you've simply not answered.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Then why did you say:


When I specifically asked that?

Pinning you down on what you mean on the simplist of things is difficult. I've also considered going back through this thread to count the number of questions you've simply not answered.

Aaron
I just want to make this discussion easier by obmiting something that I think you should know.
I don't think you pin me anything. Let me explain.
A fancy theory can claim anything and build its own virtual world of whatever kind completeness.
But a "true to fact theory" can not be regarded as complete because there are so many phenominum not explained. Otherwise, we have the answer already.
So that is why I am saying no theory till now is complete.
But if you ask if theories in theory can be complete, then I would say, it is just a ideal rather than possibility, it just like saying if we are going to have a perfect democracy.

Otherwise I would have to ask you to define the word "complete" to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

[HeavyAaron]

I just want to make this discussion easier by obmiting something that I think you should know.
I don't think you pin me anything. Let me explain.
A fancy theory can claim anything and build its own virtual world of whatever kind completeness.
But a "true to fact theory" can not be regarded as complete because there are so many phenominum not explained. Otherwise, we have the answer already.
So that is why I am saying no theory till now is complete.
But if you ask if theories in theory can be complete, then I would say, it is just a ideal rather than possibility, it just like saying if we are going to have a perfect democracy.

You could have just answered this post of mine:

1) Is a complete theory possible in theory?

2) Do you believe any complete theories exist?

3) Is a complete, and also true theory possible?

4) Do you believe any complete and true theories exist?

1) Yes
2) Don't know
3) Yes
4) No

Which at least would have been a reasonable set of answers.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Does decision theory consider the psychological effects?

Psychological effects of what? And how should they be considered?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Psychological effects of what? And how should they be considered?

Aaron
Of the decisions suggested by decision theory.

[HeavyAaron]

Of the decisions suggested by decision theory.

That's not much help. Psycological effects of a decision are not handled differently than any other type of effect.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

1) Is a complete theory possible in theory?

2) Do you believe any complete theories exist?

3) Is a complete, and also true theory possible?

4) Do you believe any complete and true theories exist?


Aaron
1)depends on your definition of completeness.
2)maybe in some fancy theory not true to fact.
3)no
4)same as 3)

[yinyinwang]

That's not much help. Psycological effects of a decision are not handled differently than any other type of effect.

Aaron
Let me give you an example, if we kill people of IQ lower than 50, with no education, with criminal records, whould it be a rational decision to make a better world in a less costly way?

[HeavyAaron]

Let me give you a example, if we kill people of IQ lower than 50, with no education, with criminal records, whould it be a rational decision to make a better world in a less costly way?

That would depend on your underlying value system. The key phrase there is "better world."

Decision theory has no part in values, ethics, morality, etc. Good luck finding any (scientific) theory that does.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

That would depend on your underlying value system. The key phrase there is "better world."

Decision theory has no part in values, ethics, morality, etc. Good luck finding any (scientific) theory that does.

Aaron
That is why we need a wider definition of rationality than decision theory can provide.

[HeavyAaron]

That is why we need a wider definition of rationality than decision theory can provide.

Why should those things be covered under a definition of rationality?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Why should those things be covered under a definition of rationality?

Aaron
why not?

[HeavyAaron]

why not?

The status quo is the default position. You need to explain why rationality should be expanded to include values and morals; a none too small expension to be sure.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

The status quo is the default position. You need to explain why rationality should be expanded to include values and morals; a none too small expension to be sure.

Aaron
we have to make progress, don't we?

[HeavyAaron]

I don't believe that's progress.

Let me put it another way. Right now we have a notion called rationality. Given a set of beliefs and desires rationality gives us ranked decisions. If we change the beliefs or desires we get different decisions.

You want to incorperate the beliefs INTO the rationality. If we did that then we could no longer change the beliefs without changing the theory of rationality. Unless all is known the set of beliefs is constantly changing and no one agrees on the correct set.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

You want to incorperate the beliefs INTO the rationality. If we did that then we could no longer change the beliefs without changing the theory of rationality. Unless all is known the set of beliefs is constantly changing and no one agrees on the correct set.

Aaron
Please, be more specific, I can not make sense of it.

[yinyinwang]

Are you being obtuse?

Aaron
if you want distract the discussion, go ahead. I am not going to reponse to this.

[yinyinwang]

Then why did you say:


When I specifically asked that?

Pinning you down on what you mean on the simplist of things is difficult. I've also considered going back through this thread to count the number of questions you've simply not answered.

Aaron
I would suggest you have a count list of both of us to see who have more questions to answer and refuse to define his own term.

[HeavyAaron]

I would suggest you have a count list of both of us to see who have more questions to answer and refuse to define his own term.

Which terms have I failed to define?

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Which terms have I failed to define?

Aaron
You did not define the term rationality using your beloved decision theory,
then I ask for the definition of "complete" theory, I still don't have a answer.

[HeavyAaron]

You did not define the term rationality using your beloved decision theory,
then I ask for the definition of "complete" theory, I still don't have a answer.

I've defined rationality, twice. You just don't like it. I'll do so this last time. Rational behavior is behavior consistant with that prescribed by decision theory. I don't care if you don't like that definition. It's a definition. And to say I haven't defined it is dishonest. Deal.

I don't recall you ever asking for a definition of a complete theory. If I missed it I'm sorry. But you seem to have a working knowledge of it anyway (enough to make claims regarding it.) But here's your definition: http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?complete+theory

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I've defined rationality, twice. You just don't like it. I'll do so this last time. Rational behavior is behavior consistant with that prescribed by decision theory. I don't care if you don't like that definition. It's a definition. And to say I haven't defined it is dishonest. Deal.
You don't have to do it again the same way, you just said I have said all I can say about rationality.
To me decision theory is far from enough to tell wheather a decision is rational or not and you just don't like to go anyfurhter than that.

Aaron[/QUOTE]

[HeavyAaron]

I should say that that's not exactly the definition of "complete theory" I've been using. I've been using one more related to closure. That is that the theory describes or proscribes every possible contingency. The formal definition provided applies more strictly to logical systems. The concept is quite similar, however.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

You don't have to do it again the same way, you just said I have said all I can say about rationality.
To me decision theory is far from enough to tell wheather a decision is rational or not and you just don't like to go anyfurhter than that.

It's one piece required. One must also have the decision makers beliefs and desired objectives. An action cannot be judged rational or irrational without context.

The same is true for your "religious definition" WHICH I'VE ACCEPTED. In order to judge an action I need to know the will of God. Which, being rather unlikely to impossible prohibits me from making such an evaluation in practice.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I don't recall you ever asking for a definition of a complete theory. If I missed it I'm sorry. But you seem to have a working knowledge of it anyway (enough to make claims regarding it.) But here's your definition: http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?complete+theory

Aaron
"An abstract logical theory in which all true statements have formal proofs within the theory."
Sounds like math.
Theories generally begin with axioms without proofs.

[HeavyAaron]

"An abstract logical theory in which all true statements have formal proofs within the theory."
Sounds like math.
Theories generally begin with axioms without proofs.

I think you mean that some true statements in a theory are axioms. Which is of course true. So what? This has nothing to do with anything. Are you saying that there are assumptions in decision theory? Well of course there are! If you want to disagree with any of them, be my guest. Point out which ones you don't like and tell me why.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Heck, your theories depend on axioms like "there exists a God" and "nature has rules". Unless you're prepared to prove those things, then they are axioms. Worse yet, they are undefined/ill defined axioms!

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

It's one piece required. One must also have the decision makers beliefs and desired objectives. An action cannot be judged rational or irrational without context.

The same is true for your "religious definition" WHICH I'VE ACCEPTED. In order to judge an action I need to know the will of God. Which, being rather unlikely to impossible prohibits me from making such an evaluation in practice.

Aaron
That is why I ask you about becoming another Gates.
In order to know the decision rationality, I would have to know the probability, which is almost the same hard to tell as god will in real world.

[HeavyAaron]

That is why I ask you about becoming another Gates.
In order to know the decision rationality, I would have to know the probability, which is almost the same hard to tell as god will in real world.

You don't have to KNOW probabilities to make decisions. You do have to be able to estimate them. And, actually, there has been reseach on that as part of decision theory as well. Nice try, but you're far from the first person to consider that.

Aaron

ETA: do you really think it's as hard to estimate the probabilities of the outcomes of your decisions as it is to guess the nature of God? If so, how on Earth do you ever make a decision where the outcome isn't guarenteed?

[HeavyAaron]

Btw, if you can't do differential calculous in your head you can't ride a bicycle.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Heck, your theories depend on axioms like "there exists a God" and "nature has rules". Unless you're prepared to prove those things, then they are axioms. Worse yet, they are undefined/ill defined axioms!

Aaron
Nature has rules is not more difficult to prove than things follow probability predicts.

[yinyinwang]

You don't have to KNOW probabilities to make decisions. You do have to be able to estimate them. And, actually, there has been reseach on that as part of decision theory as well. Nice try, but you're far from the first person to consider that.

Aaron

ETA: do you really think it's as hard to estimate the probabilities of the outcomes of your decisions as it is to guess the nature of God? If so, how on Earth do you ever make a decision where the outcome isn't guarenteed?
exactly the same analogy, you don't have to know god will, you estimate what is god will..

[yinyinwang]

Btw, if you can't do differential calculous in your head you can't ride a bicycle.

Aaron
It works for both, decision theory or god will.

[yinyinwang]

I think you mean that some true statements in a theory are axioms. Which is of course true. So what? This has nothing to do with anything. Are you saying that there are assumptions in decision theory? Well of course there are! If you want to disagree with any of them, be my guest. Point out which ones you don't like and tell me why.

Aaron
This is a big topic and needs a lot of clearance and not relevent to rationality discussion.If you like it we can go on in another thread.

[HeavyAaron]

This is a big topic and needs a lot of clearance and not relevent to rationality discussion.If you like it we can go on in another thread.

Then what was your point?

Aaorn

[HeavyAaron]

exactly the same analogy, you don't have to know god will, you estimate what is god will..

You claim to be able to estimate God's will?!? Hahahaha! Pray tell, how do you do that?

Why don't you start by trying something FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR easier. Estimate my will. (For starters there is more evidence that I exist. Secondly, presuming that both I and God exist, I am a MUCH simplier creature.)

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Nature has rules is not more difficult to prove than things follow probability predicts.

You still haven't even told me what these rules are, but now you claim that they are as structured as probabilistic outcomes. Well, then you must be able to explain them if you can prove them. I await said explaination.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

It works for both, decision theory or god will.

You think that God's will can be intuitively derived at? Not my intuition. But tell me what your intuition tells you God's will is. Mankind has only gone to wars over that. So, it would save a lot of lives if you could just tell us what His will is.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Here's a personal challenge for you. I'm a bit of a poker player. But God is much, much better.

I play poker by estimating the odds. Since you think that estimating God's will is roughly equal in difficulty I challenge you to a poker match. You play your cards according to God's will. I'll play according to my estimates of probability.

What say you?

Aaron

btw, how much money do you have? ;)

[yinyinwang]

You claim to be able to estimate God's will?!? Hahahaha! Pray tell, how do you do that?

Why don't you start by trying something FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR easier. Estimate my will. (For starters there is more evidence that I exist. Secondly, presuming that both I and God exist, I am a MUCH simplier creature.)

Aaron
You don't have the quality of being consistant and reliable, that is my estimate of you.But if you expose yourself long enough like human history for me to study, I can have a pretty good estimate of you.

[yinyinwang]

Then what was your point?

Aaorn
If you like it we can go on in another thread.