0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
No, it was the asparagus vs spinach tarts that set me drooling. The 3rd option is that there is a reason for your choice and it is known to you.Faced with a coin toss decision I would always look for extra data first.Maybe I had asparagus last time, so to even it up in the favourites league I need to have spinach.Maybe it’s asparagus soup for starters, so I might or might not want asparagus tart.EtcBy the way, like most humans I’m really good at post rationalising my decisions, so don’t rely on any reason I give
The article said that you like both equally. Presumably at the time you have to make the choice. Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
I agree I like both equally at the time of choice, but I don’t see that as a reason not to make a rational choice.Selecting on the basis of what I ate last time is rational and is known to me. I must have eaten both before or I wouldn’t know I like both equally; if I like them equally then I’m likely to have eaten them in equal quantities - otherwise I would have a favourite.So, I don’t see there is a problem.
Here is an example. Some people think that their terminal goal is to live forever in heaven.
What you ate last time seems to reduce your preference for it, which makes them unequal at the time you make the choice.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2021 07:12:00What you ate last time seems to reduce your preference for it, which makes them unequal at the time you make the choice. This is illogical.The only way I can know if I like 2 things equally is to try them, and I will always try one of them last. If the last time I try one of them makes them unequal then the test proposed is never going to happen; I will never like them equally.To me this ‘thought’ experiment has not been thought through.
Let's say that you have tried both of them several times already, and you like the second thing slightly better than the first one.
But the last time you have eaten the second thing, which makes it no longer more favorable than the first one.
The example assumed I like both equally.
The problem only arise when you like them equally at the time you are making the choice. How you like them at any other time is irrelevant.
The problem I have is twofold:a) they only give 2 options, but I believe there is a third - that even though I like both equally at the time there are ways I can make a choice and know the reason I made it.b) some of the explanations you gave mean that it would be impossible for me to ever like them equally at the time of choice.
I bring this post here from my other thread to explore further about the terminal goal. Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2021 16:05:30Here is an example. Some people think that their terminal goal is to live forever in heaven. If we ask them why they want to live in heaven, some of them may say that they will get continuous pleasure without feeling pain or hunger. In this case, the heaven would only function as an instrumental goal.
Any decision making process can be considered as trial and error. We put available options as inputs for some simulation algorithm and compare the results. Subsequently, we choose the option which produces the most preferred result.
However, we cannot simply dismiss ideas that are non-rational as a whole. The great David Hume famously realised this in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. This quotation is worth showing in full (if only to have an excuse to relish in the man’s writing).QuoteIt appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)It's unfortunate that Hume stopped at pleasure as the final answer to why question. He could have continued that pain and pleasure helped our ancestors to survive and thrive, by telling them in advance if their latest actions would likely get them killed, or continue to survive and thrive. He could still chase the why question one more time. The answer would be, only surviving conscious beings can think, and have some control over their own future. In the end, only conscious entities can ask all of those why questions in the first place.
It appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)
This video defends an instrumentalist interpretation of the theory of natural selection, drawing on the problem of biological individuality and Robert Brandon's account of the concept of fitness.0:00 - Introduction1:20 - The problem of biological individuality21:11 - Selection-first approaches33:20 - Brandon on fitness44:41 - Resolving the individuality problem57:37 - Further applications
Using consilience, which is a bottom up perspective, Tom Beakbane explains consciousness and how it evolved. This explanation is the result of developments in many disciplines including genetics, cell biology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, neurophysiology and computing. The mechanisms are straightforward and matter-of-fact without any need for any pie-in-the-sky theories.
Frontline researchers have been making remarkable discoveries revealing a new picture of how human neuronal systems work. It turns out that the human brain functions almost identically to the brains of other animals, working on a dipole and in-the-moment. This new picture has yet to displace well-entrenched views that human behavior is the result of conscious thought processes. I explain the neurophysiology in my recently published book How to Understand Everything. Consilience: A New Way to See the World.