 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000 time: 07:34
|
|
I think each side thinks of the "rational analysis" thingie differently.
Say, if i'm going in the street drunk and I buy a completely useless shiny toy for 10$ that I would've never bought if I were sober. I was drunk, and my brain was not working right and I decided to buy the toy.
The way I understand it, for PA, Kuciwalker and others that decision was rational. Because for me, at that specific moment the value of the toy was greater than the value of 10$. So I did the rational decision and went the road that brings me higher value.
But Azazel, Agathon and others think that a rational decision has to be impartial in some universal sense.
I chose what I thought to have higher value, therefore it was a rational decision. But my choice doesnt really have that perceived higher value and therefore it's an irrational decision.
So before bringing dogs into the discussion, agree on what you think a "rational cost-benefit analysis" is. 
Last edited by Eli on 27-07-2004 at 11:09
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|