Limits on Rational Agency

[Brotep]

You must be over 18 to be an agent 



(depending on the country/state)

[Cramulus]

I'm interested in establishing where, in practice, rational (deliberate, systematic, and calculable) behavior ends, and animal (instinctual, survival oriented, primitive) behavior begins.  Is there a clear distinction?  Is there any such thing as pure rational behavior, and, in humans is there such a thing as pure animal behavior?  What are the fundamental differences?

I'm not sure there's a clear distinction. Even the most sophisticated and urbane Don Juan is still carrying out instinctive reproductive programming.

The difference between Einstein and Mike Tyson may be that Einstein experienced rewards for being clever, whereas Tyson experienced rewards for being strong. To me, it's the same organism, just wired to different rewards.

So I'd like to hear your thoughts.  Whence does human agency stem?  Can we really swallow the notion that everything we do comes from a place of animal instinct, augmented by recent cognitive faculties such as social cognition?  Or are we equipped with a pure rationality that can overcome any amount of organic inclination?  Where's the line?

to expand ....

Behavioral psychology has given us a number of models we can use to understand human behavior. To me, the most salient are operant conditioning and the melioration principle.

We're very familiar with operant conditioning, our eternal romance with rewards and punishments. If there's anything unique about mankind's execution of these biological imperatives, it's that we have some degree of control over what we consider a reward.

The Melioration principle states that an organism will continue to carry out a behavior until a competing behavior offers a better reward. I can't think of a single moment in my life where I've managed to escape this programming.

We also have the ability to project the future - a trait not shared by many animals. Our ability to sniff out long term rewards and weigh them against short term ones gives us significantly more variance in our behaviors than our animal friends. We are also not very good at predicting the future and calculating for unknowns - hence the chaotic nature of human behavior.

In my thinking, the hyperrational people who have escaped the meat parade have merely decided that intellectual rewards outweigh physical ors social rewards. They are still playing the melioration game, they're just being rewarded by different things than us bonobos. To some extent, it may be a function of identifying with the collective (ie, doing things for the betterment of the whole human tribe), rather than being stuck in a tiny little ego which is easily distracted by flesh and luxury.

[Jasper]

Then it seems like the best way to really have long term, cohesive agency in one's own behavior is to actively control the reward schema and let the rest of it "take care of" itself.


ETA: What I mean by that is, if I really want to control the things I do in a rational way, in anything more than a proximate capacity, I need to be able to control what rewards me.  If I can't escape melioration, then I might as well try to steer it.

[SuperNull]

For the concept "rational behavior" to exist, there needs to be some agreed upon concept of purpose first. You need to have a goal to act rationally towards.

Every single goal that is considered worth pursuing is in line with our basic instincts, however.
We want the best for our selfs, for our gene-pool and especially for our children. We may cut back on self-interest here and there, but only to help our fellow humans.
Even the stuff that looks like true altruism is sold to us as a benefit to our gene-pool. "Save [insert endangered species x here] so that our grand-children may enjoy seeing them too".

If every goal for rational behavior is set by our instincts then there isn't much point trying to make a fundamental distinction between the 2, is there?

[Triple Zero]

Ok I'm going to be a littlebit vague about this, but I don't have much more than those 2c now.

I'm interested in establishing where, in practice, rational (deliberate, systematic, and calculable) behavior ends, and animal (instinctual, survival oriented, primitive) behavior begins.  Is there a clear distinction?  Is there any such thing as pure rational behavior, and, in humans is there such a thing as pure animal behavior?  What are the fundamental differences?

First, don't these two things come from a different part of the brain? Aren't there parts for low, medium and higher brain functions? That would show at least that the distinction is real.

Second, on an entirely different level, the two types of behaviour just feel different.

[The Johnny]

Every single goal that is considered worth pursuing is in line with our basic instincts, however.

Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism  toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited.

Therefore, all culture is discredited, according to you?

We want the best for our selfs, for our gene-pool and especially for our children. We may cut back on self-interest here and there, but only to help our fellow humans.

That sounds slightly contradictory, can you explain? Do we do it for "our-selves" or do we do things "to help our fellow humans" too?

Even the stuff that looks like true altruism is sold to us as a benefit to our gene-pool. "Save [insert endangered species x here] so that our grand-children may enjoy seeing them too".

You seem to be questioning the relation of rationality with altruism - but i dont think anybody brought that up? i dont think they are related concepts

If every goal for rational behavior is set by our instincts then there isn't much point trying to make a fundamental distinction between the 2, is there?

The distinction doesnt stem of the "why" of the behaviour necesarrily, but the "how" of it.

edit: bold parts

[Cramulus]

ooh, related