Yes, I could not find a decent definition of irrational at first:
Amending my statements now...

Using the Wiki basis below: the term is used to describe thinking and actions 
which are, or appear to be, less useful or logical than the rational 
alternatives.

I would remove the 'logical' portion of this, because the examples given below, 
emotions, fads, stock markets.
These decisions are all made useing logic, with emotions contirbuting to a 
choice, or a choice being made because we see others wearing the same clothes, 
or based on our (possibly incorrect) beliefs about what the stock market may do.
  The other possibility is to actually incorrectly use the knowledge.  If I 
have all the rules about a stock that would point to it going down, but I still 
purchase and believe it will go up, I am using the logic incorrectly.

  So possibly irrationality could be amended to be something like: basing a 
decision on faulty information, or incorrectly using logic to arrive at a 
choice.

So for my AGI application, I would indeed then model the irrationality in the 
form of emotions / fads etc, as logical components, and it would implicity be 
irrational becuase it could have faulty information.  And incorrectly using the 
logic it has, would only be done if there was an error.

James
Theories of irrational behavior include:
 
   people's actual interests differ from what they believe to be their interests
This is still logical though, just based on beliefs that are wrong to actual 
interests.


>From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality
Irrationality is talking or acting without regard of rationality. Usually 
pejorative, the term is used to describe thinking and actions which are, or 
appear to be, less useful or logical than the rational alternatives. These 
actions tend to be regarded as emotion-driven. There is a clear tendency to 
view our own thoughts, words, and actions as rational and to see those who 
disagree as irrational.
 Types of behavior which are often described as irrational include:
 
   fads and fashions
   crowd behavior
   offense or anger at a situation that has not yet occurred
   unrealistic expectations
   falling victim to confidence tricks
   belief in the supernatural without evidence
   stock-market bubbles
   irrationality caused by mental illness, such as obsessive-compulsive 
disorder, major depressive disorder, and paranoia.

Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:       >> You  have hinted around it, but 
I would go one step further and say that Emotion is  NOT contrary to logic.
  
 :-) I thought that my last statement that "<emotion> is equally likely to be  
congruent with <logic and reason>" was a lot more than a hint (unless  
congruent doesn't mean "not contrary" like I think/thought it did   :-)
  
 I liked your distinction between illogical and  irrational -- though I'm not 
sure that others would agree with your using  irrational that way.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    James Ratcliff    
   To: agi@v2.listbox.com 
   Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:34    AM
   Subject: Re: [agi] A question on the    symbol-system hypothesis
   

Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   >      Are
> you saying that the more excuses we can think up, the more      intelligent
> we are? (Actually there might be something in      that!).

Sure. Absolutely. I'm perfectly willing to contend that it      takes 
intelligence to come up with excuses and that more intelligent      people can 
come up with more and better excuses. Do you really want to      contend the 
opposite?

> You seem to have a real difficulty in      admitting that humans behave
> irrationally for a lot (most?) of the      time.

You're reading something into my statements that I certainly      don't mean to 
be there. Humans behave irrationally a lot of the time. I      consider this 
fact a defect or shortcoming in their intelligence (or      make-up). Just 
because humans have a shortcoming doesn't mean that      another intelligence 
will necessarily have the same      shortcoming.

> Every time someone (subconsciously) decides to do      something, their
> brain presents a list of reasons to go ahead. The      reasons against are
> ignored, or weighted down to be less preferred.      This applies to
> everything from deciding to get a new job to      deciding to sleep with
> your best friend's wife. Sometimes a case      arises when you really,
> really want to do something that you *know*      is going to end in
> disaster, ruined lives, ruined career, etc. and      it is impossible to
> think of good reasons to proceed. But you still      go ahead anyway,
> saying that maybe it won't be so bad, maybe nobody      will find out, it's
> not all my fault anyway, and so      on.....

Yup. Humans are not as intelligent as they could be.      Generally, they place 
way too much weight on near-term effect and not      enough weight on long-term 
effects. Actually, though, I'm not sure      whether you classify that as 
intelligence or wisdom. For many bright      people, they *do* know all of what 
you're saying and they still go      ahead. This is certainly some form of 
defect, I'm not sure where you'd      classify it though.

> Human decisions and activities are mostly      emotional and irrational.

I think that this depends upon the person.      For the majority of humans, 
maybe -- but I'm not willing to accept this      as applying to each individual 
human that their decisions and activities      are mostly emotional and 
irrational. I believe that there are some      humans where this is not the 
case.

> That's the way life is.      Because life is uncertain and unpredictable,
> human decisions are      based on best guesses, gambles and basic
> subconscious      desires.

Yup, we've evolved to be at least minimally functional      though not optimal.

> An AGI will have to cope with this      mess.

Yes, so far I'm in total agreement with everything you've said      . . . .

> Basing an AGI on iron logic
> and 'rationality'      alone will lead to what we call 'inhuman'
> ruthlessness.

. . .      until now where you make an unsupported blanket statement that 
doesn't      
appear to me at all related to any of the above (and which may be      entirely 
accurate or inaccurate based upon what you mean by ruthless --      but I 
believe 
that it would take a very contorted definition of ruthless      to make it 
accurate -- though inhuman should obviously be      accurate).

Part of the problem is that 'rationality' is a very      emotion-laden term 
with 
a very slippery meaning. Is doing something      because you really, really 
want 
to despite the fact that it most      probably will have bad consequences 
really 
irrational? It's not a wise      choice but irrational is a very strong term . 
. 
. . (and, as I pointed      out previously, such a decision *is* rationally 
made 
if you have bad      weighting in your algorithm -- which is effectively what 
humans have --      or not, since it apparently has been evolutionarily 
selected      
for).

And logic isn't necessarily so iron if the AGI has built-in      biases for 
conversation and relationships (both of which are rationally      derivable 
from 
it's own self-interest).

I think that you've been      watching too much Star Trek where logic and 
rationality are the opposite      of emotion. That just isn't the case. Emotion 
can be (and is most often      noted when it is) contrary to logic and 
rationality -- but it is equally      likely to be congruent with them (and 
even 
more so in well-balanced and      happy      individuals).



You    have hinted around it, but I would go one step further and say that 
Emotion is    NOT contrary to logic.  In any way really, they cant be compared 
like    that.  Logic even 'uses' emotion as imput.  The decisions we make    
are based on rules and facts we know, and our emotions, but still    logically.
  What emotions often contradict is our actual ability to    make good 
decicions / plans. 
  If we do something stupid because of    our anger or emotions, then it still 
is a causal logical    explanation.
  So humand and AGI may be irrational, but hopefully not    illogical.  If it 
is illogical then that implies it made its decision    without any logical 
reasoning, so possibly random.   AGI will need some    level of randomness, but 
not for general things.

James    Ratcliff


_______________________________________
James Ratcliff    - http://falazar.com
New Torrent Site, Has TV and Movie Downloads!    
http://www.falazar.com/projects/Torrents/tvtorrents_show.php      

---------------------------------
   Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your    
question on Yahoo!    Answers.   
---------------------------------
    This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To    unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303  
---------------------------------
 This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303 


_______________________________________
James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
New Torrent Site, Has TV and Movie Downloads! 
http://www.falazar.com/projects/Torrents/tvtorrents_show.php
 
---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get 
things done faster.

-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303

Reply via email to