One option is to ditch “instrumental rationality” as a useless and redundant term—leaving “rationality” meaning just “epistemic rationality”.
Another observation from computer-science is that we have the separate conceptions of memory and CPU. Though there isn’t much of a hardware split in brains, we can still employ the functional split—and discuss and test memory and processing capabilities (somewhat) separately. Other computer-science-inspired attributes of intelligent agents are serial speed and degree of parallelism. If we are attempting to subdivide intelligence, perhaps these are promising lines along which to do it.
I think I can see why instrumental rationality could be regarded as just part and parcel of epistemic rationality. Once the probabilities have been rationally evaluated, what work is left for “instrumental reason” to do? Am I on the right track at all? If not, please elaborate.
One option is to ditch “instrumental rationality” as a useless and redundant term—leaving “rationality” meaning just “epistemic rationality”.
Another observation from computer-science is that we have the separate conceptions of memory and CPU. Though there isn’t much of a hardware split in brains, we can still employ the functional split—and discuss and test memory and processing capabilities (somewhat) separately. Other computer-science-inspired attributes of intelligent agents are serial speed and degree of parallelism. If we are attempting to subdivide intelligence, perhaps these are promising lines along which to do it.
I think I can see why instrumental rationality could be regarded as just part and parcel of epistemic rationality. Once the probabilities have been rationally evaluated, what work is left for “instrumental reason” to do? Am I on the right track at all? If not, please elaborate.