Pei Wang wrote:
I agree with Oaksford and Chater in their general spirit, that is, the
so-called *irrationality* may have a deeper explanation, though I
don't agree with the concrete (Bayesian) explanation they suggest.
One interpretation: when the mind tries to rely too heavily on a
routine, mindless application of a formalized system for dealing with
the world, it shows its dumbest side. Then, when something else steps
in (higher level structures that use other principles to dig the dumb
bayesian reasoning engine out of its mess), the system shows its
smartest side.
This is possible.
At the very least, this is suggestive empirical evidence that, yes,
there are interesting mechanisms at work down there, but that the bits
that try to rely too heavily on simple formal-system approaches are not
the ones that make the system intelligent.
It completely depends on what you mean by "simple formal-system
approaches".
Agreed. I introduce the idea only because it puts an interesting
perspective on a problem that is usually interpreted in a diametrically
opposite way - namely that the surface "irrationality" is evidence of
too little bayesian reasoning. One rather amusing interpretation of
Oaksford and Chater is that it is actually caused by too much of it.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
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
