Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.puzzle,net.philosophy
Subject: rational behavior
Message-ID: <533@umich.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 17:24:11 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.533
Posted: Mon Mar 24 17:24:11 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Mar-86 05:21:31 EST
References: <12518@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <12539@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <738@hounx.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.puzzle:1552 net.philosophy:4624
Summary: (was "Re: Newcomb's Paradox")

In article <738@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes:
>[...] 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?)
>
>[...] What *exactly* do we mean by completely rational behavior?

We mean, behavior that follows the norms of reason.  Some examples:  modus
ponens and the law of non-contradiction are norms of reason.  Somewhat
more controversially, the principle "maximize subjective expected utility"
is a norm of reason.  Still more controversial are norms for the formation
of "expectation" in this sense (i.e., probability judgements) and "utility"
functions (i.e., value systems).

--Paul Torek							torek@umich