Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hounx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort
From: kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT)
Newsgroups: net.puzzle,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Newcomb's Paradox
Message-ID: <738@hounx.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Mar-86 14:05:57 EST
Article-I.D.: hounx.738
Posted: Sat Mar 22 14:05:57 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Mar-86 00:29:09 EST
References: <12518@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <12539@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.puzzle:1546 net.philosophy:4592

I enjoyed David Desjardin's article in which he confronts the paradox
of rationality.

Along the same lines, consider the consequences of behaving completely
rationally (whatever that means) at all times.  Along comes your
Nefarious Adversary, hell bent on making personal gains at your
expense.  To the extent that Dr. NA can mimic your rational decision
making process, he can anticipate your behavior, and use that foreknowledge
to his own advantage.  Realizing the dangers of behaving in too *predictable*
a fashion, you encorporate a degree of randomness into your strategy.
Now you are beginning to look like a Random Number Generator to Dr. NA.
You have vexed him and defeated his strategy.

Question:  From the outside, do you *appear* to be behaving "rationally"
or "irrationally"?  That is, does rational behavior mean "predictable"
behavior or "successful" behavior, or what?  (Or not?)  Is the appearance
that you present a function of the observer?  (That is, does it depend
on how the observer answers the second question in this paragraph?)

So we return to my opening dilemma.  What *exactly* do we mean by 
completely rational behavior?

--Barry Kort  ...ihnp4!houxn!kort