Search Ideas

Rational Decision-Making

Expanding on #2112…

If an idea, as written, has no pending criticisms, it’s rational to adopt it and irrational to reject it. What reason could you have to reject it? If it has no pending criticisms, then either 1) no reasons to reject it (ie, criticisms) have been suggested or 2) all suggested reasons have been addressed already.

If an idea, as written, does have pending criticisms, it’s irrational to adopt it and rational to reject it – by reference to those criticisms. What reason could you have to ignore the pending criticisms and adopt it anyway?

Or, simplified:

It is rational to adopt only those ideas which, as written, don’t have pending criticisms, and to reject ideas that do.

If you don’t have any counter-criticisms, how could the criticisms not be decisive?

To arrive at that conclusion, you’d first need some counter-criticism anyway.

Just how ‘tiny’ is a criticism then? By reference to what principle or measure?

To incorporate some notion of decisiveness or severity, we need to be prepared to program that into our decision-making tool. I’m not aware that anyone knows how to programmatically determine the severity or decisiveness of a criticism, and I suspect outsourcing it to the user would result in the same unintended behavior we saw with the sliders for hard to vary.

Ration … has pretty indirect relation with the common sense.

That’s fine. Common sense is often found to be wrong upon closer inspection. It’s rationality that helps us seek truth. Common sense says the sun rotates around the earth; rationality helped us understand why that isn’t the case.

How rationality will help you to stand the right up, and do the thing?

If you’re asking how rationality will help you figure out the right course of action: using the process outlined in #4471.

Ration overrated and has pretty indirect relation with the common sense.

That’s fine. Common sense is often found to be wrong upon closer inspection. It’s rationality that helps us seek truth. Common sense says the sun rotates around the earth; rationality helped us understand why that isn’t the case.

pretty often

So not all the time.

I see no perspective in communication with ones who found it discomfortable to retrospect frames of own perspective.

That isn’t what’s happening here. There are dozens of examples on V of me being self-critical.

You’re being passive aggressive, which further sabotages debate. You also ignored my request to take a break for a day or two, and to be less spammy (I just opened V to 16 new notifications from you after a short amount of time), contrary to your own statement that you see no point in discussing with me – which makes no sense.

I’m locking your account for a week. You may return in 7 days. If you then continue disregarding the forum rules, I will ban you permanently. Review them here: #4460

freedom of association

It doesn't appears out of nowhere. Freedom is the consequence of an ability to withstand, the power, resources to elaborate and protect such consensus, and maintain it. If you are ready to pay the price, and have the resources.

freedom of association

It doesn't appears out of nowhere. Freedom is the consequence of an ability to withstand, the power, resources to elaborate and protect such consensus, and maintain it.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains are real and the space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains are still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). Also, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains are real and the space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). Also, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains are real and the space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). And, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). And, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). And, each consensus have a price.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But anyway, each consensus have cost.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But anyway, each consensus have cost.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely of available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory.

Enjoy your crystal clearness. Feel free to remove my account, please, since I see no such option. I see no perspective in communication with ones who found it discomfortable to retrospect frames of own perspective.

Enjoy your crystal clearness.

There's a lot of meanings for this word: mathematical (structural), logical induction, epistemological one (anti-unification aka generalization, abduction). BTW it's interesting: how do you see the abduction: do you have a precise definition in mind?

Could you refer something specific for a brief introduction to the Popper's conclusions, which ones most interesting and important from your perspective?

There's a lot of meaning for this word: mathematical (structural), logical induction, epistemological one (anti-unification aka generalization, abduction). BTW it's interesting: how do you see the abduction: do you have a precise definition in mind?

Could you refer something specific for a brief introduction to the Popper's conclusions, which ones most interesting and important from your perspective?