Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: (ir)rationality and (un)selfishness
Message-ID: <462@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Nov-83 13:34:31 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.462
Posted: Tue Nov  1 13:34:31 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Nov-83 16:53:09 EST
Organization: D.C.I.E.M, Toronto, Canada
Lines: 70

I sent the following as part of a private correspondence that
followed on my comment that people who claim to be consistently
rational thereby proclaim their irrationality. The immediate
predecessor to this item was a brief discussion about the nature of
Tom Craver's arguments about rationality.

======

Tom did not claim in so many words that his world is based on finite
and known assumptions and on finite and known rules, but it is clear
from his whole argument structure that this is so. I don't think it
is a case of him being backed into a corner by his opponents (and I
doubt that such an event will happen). I think it is inherent in the
nature of *totally* rational argument, which is why I made the original
comment to which you responded.

Incidentally, this is a position I have held since I was a teen-ager,
when I thought that I had developed a rational argument that proved
that rational thought could not encompass the real world. I still
believe that, but I doubt my teen-age argument would hold water (if I
could remember what it was).

As a cognitive psychologist (one of my various hats) I have become aware
of the strong possibility that human rationality is at the minimum
level that can permit a language with syntax. If we are allowed to
evolve for a few more million years, we *may* develop into an
intelligent (reasonably rational) species. But at present, we are
usually more likely to arrive at correct decisions for behaviour in
complex situations by irrational means (what is commonly called intuition).
This results in the paradoxical situation that although rational
argument and discussion is greatly to be desired, the rational
course may often be to dump the rational argument and just act.
Zen!

The place of rational thought is to extend the possibilities of intuition
in those circumstances where the boundary conditions and the rules
are reasonably well known. Mathematical physics works beautifully
as an example. For some mystic reason, a small number of assumptions
and rules map very well onto the physical world and permit drmatic
and surprising predictions that work. There are (as yet) no such rules
that predict the behavior of people, either individually or en masse.
We are *often* led astray in reasoning from logic about the behaviour
of people, much as pre-Galilean physicists were led astray by the idea
that inertia meant objects tended to come to rest after being disturbed.

If you look at the Craver arguments for rationality, not once does he
make a rational argument covering any single example of behaviour. His
convincing arguments are always based on abstract principles. If you
grant his assumptions, his results usually follow. But for specific
examples, he just asserts that such-and-such is a rational course of
action. It seems to me irrational to assert that "reality" is the
test of rational action, when the effects of importance may lie far
in the future, and even the criteria for assessment may be indeterminate.

========

I believe, with Craver, that selfishness is a necessary criterion
for judgment on action; but I do not agree that it is always possible
to determine rationally what is the appropriate selfish course of
action. Craver's recent arguments about the Prisoner's Dilemma
problem were very neatly countered a few months ago by Hofstadter
in his Scientific American articles. Extrapolating from those
papers to the real world may be a bit dangerous, but the results
clearly suggest that altruism is the most selfish course *until you
discover that your partner/opponent is not altruistic*. Also,
rational action in a non-zero sum game may frequently look altruistic
while being selfish in fact. Cooperation gets everyone further than
obvious selfishness.

Martin Taylor