Discussion [Rationality] An Introduction

I'll be starting a series on rationality, to provide bite sized introductions to the subject.

Hopefully, this series will continue for a while.

Very little of the knowledge I post will originate from me, and I'll reproduce the knowledge I've accumulated from Lesswrong and RAZ: Rationality: From AI to Zombies, with my own spin on it. Credit goes to Eliezer Yudkowsky.

Let's start with "What is Rationality?"


There are two types of rationality, namely:

1. Epistemic rationality: systematically improving the accuracy of your beliefs.
2. Instrumental rationality: systematically achieving your values. Something I like to call winning. Systematically winning.

Contrary to popular belief, rationality is not cold logical thinking in the absence of emotion. Instrumental rationality helps you achieve your values. If those values include altruism, then it serves them. If they include egoism, then it serves them as well. Instrumental rationality is amoral, and indifferent. It favours neither good nor evil, nor anyone purpose. Whatever value you choose, rationality helps you achieve it. It let's you "win".


The rationality, I plan to introduce is not traditional rationality, but rather Bayesian rationality. We'll learn more about "Bayesian" later.

 

"We'll talk about this in the next lecture"
-Prof Dragon God

 

This sounds like the introduction to a cult (I love it)

 

Yes teacher.

 

I was rationale.
Editted: so rationale is realistic? Materialism? Or both is included in Rationalism?

 

The human brain is quite a wonderful thing. We have hardcoded ways of thinking.

We call these heuristics. They're cognitive short cuts and rules of thumb for thinking and decision making. Heuristics are very useful, and we wouldn't be able to function without them.

However, some heuristics lead to sub optimal decision making. We may make decisions that aren't the best for us.

 

Why, not Both?

 

Is that a typo? Are you trying to say you were rational?

 

There's an actual philosophy called "Bayesianism" that incorporates Bayesian Rationality.

 

Both rational and irrational? The mere thought is itself not rational.

 

Stop making me Philosophise, thinking hurts.

 

Sir! The lesson was 1 minute long, can you please speak for longer?
Such as, Bayesian rationality? The exam season is almost here, and we've barely started the last topic.

 

This feels like school~ I'm learning~

 

reminds me of...

 

Bayesian rationality differs substantially from traditional rationality.

In traditional rationality, it's okay to have any hypotheses, as long as as you test it, and if it's wrong you falsify it.

It's also okay to keep a not yet falsified hypotheses.


In Bayesian rationality, this is not so. For every subject of inquiry, under any given state of knowledge, there is a single specific belief that you should hold.

In Bayesian rationality, there are correct and incorrect beliefs.

The correct beliefs, are determined by the most probable explanation under the given knowledge.


The rule for deciding most probable explanation is Bayes Rule; the Holy Grail of Bayesian Rationality. However, that is a lesson for the future.

 

so that's all?

 

I'll post some more later?

 

lazy bum~ kinda like testing water

 

Sounds very interesting when you started to talk about this matter. I'm very intrigued with this subject and I have my own train of thought but I'm not sure which group it belongs to.

When you were explaining about Bayesian Rationality, it sounds like most of the so called feminists hold their views by on that as they keep rejecting others opinion even though it has scientific backups. This makes me feel a little bit worried about such rationality not only because of what I have previously mentioned but also the fact that I've been thinking that rationality is more of subjective rather than facts.

So my only request here is that for you to provide satisfying instances and also the sources where I can further read regarding this matter. Thank you, I'll be following this thread, it looks interesting.

 

So instead of "test till you find the most efficient and valid way", you go "calculate the best way, no practical work"?