(Warning) This is a huge mind-dump created while on lunch break. By all means pick it apart, but I am not planning on defending it in any way. Take it with all the salt in the world.

Personally, I find the concept of animal rationality to be more of a distraction. For some reason, my linguistic matrix finds the word "intelligent" to describe cats responded to a can opener. Animals are very smart. Humans are very smart. But smart does not imply rational and a smart human is not necessarily imply rationality.

I tend to reserve rationality for describing the next "level" of intelligence. Rationality is the form or method of increase intelligence. An analogy is speed versus acceleration. Acceleration increases speed; rationality increases intelligence. This is more of a rough, instinctive definition, however, and one of my personal reasons for being here at Less Wrong is to learn more about rationality. My analogy does not seem accurate in application. Rationality seems connected to intelligence but to say that rationality implies change in intelligence does not fit with its reverse: irrationality does not decrease intelligence.

I am missing something, but it seems that whatever I am looking for in my definitions is not found in cats. But, as you may have meant, if cats have no rationality and cannot have rationality, is it because they have no rationality?

If this were the case, and rationality builds on itself, where does our initial rationality come from? If I claim to be rational, should I be able to point to a sequence of events in my life and say, "There it started"? It seems that fully understanding rationality implies knowing its limits; its beginning and ending. To further our rationality we should be able to know what helps or hinders our rationality.

Annoyance claims that the first instances of rationality may be caused by chance. If this were true, could we remove the chance? Could we learn what events chanced our own rationality and inflict similar events on other people?

Annoyance also seems to claim that rationality begets rationality. But something else must produce that first spark in us. That spark is worth studying. That spark is annoyingly difficult to define and observe. How do we stop and examine ourselves to know if we have the spark? If two people walk before us claiming rationality yet one is lying, how do we test and observe the truth?

Right now, we do so by their actions. But if the liar knows the rational actions and mimics them without believing in their validity or truth, how would we know? Would such a liar really be lying? Does the liar's beliefs matter? Does rationality imply more than correct actions?

To make this more extreme, if I build a machine to mimic rationality, is it rational? This is a classic question with many forms. If I make a machine that acts human, is it human? I claim that "rationality" cannot be measured in a cat. Could it be measured in a machine? A program? Why am I so fixated on humanity? Is this bias?

Rationality is a label attached to a behavior but I believe it will eventually be reattached to a particular source of the behavior. I do not think that rational behavior is impossible to fake. Pragmatically, a Liar that acts rational is not much different from a rational person. If the Liar penetrates our community and suddenly goes ape than the lies are obvious. How do we predict the Liars before they reveal themselves? What if the Liars believe their own lies?

I do not mean "believe" as in "having convinced themselves". What if they are not rational but believe they are? The lie is not conscious; it is a desire to be rational but not possessing the Way. How do we spot the fake rationalists? More importantly, how do I know that I, myself, have rationality?

Does this question have a reasonable answer? What if the answer is "No"? If I examine myself and find myself to be irrational, what do I do? What if I desire to be rational? Is it possible for me to become rational? Am I denied the Way?

I think much of the confusion comes from the inability to define rationality. We cannot offer a rationality test or exam. We can only describe behavior. I believe this currently necessary but I believe it will change. I think the path to this change has to do with finding the causations behind rationality and developing a finer measuring stick for determining rational behavior. I see this as the primary goal of Less Wrong.

Once we gather more information about the causes of our own rationality we can begin development methods for causing rationality in others along with drastically increasing our own rationality. I see this as the secondary goal of Less Wrong.

This is why I do not think Annoyance's answer was sufficient. "Chance" may be how we describe our fortune but this is inoculative answer. During Eliezer's comments on vitalism he says this:

I call theories such as vitalism mysterious answers to mysterious questions. These are the signs of mysterious answers: First, the explanation acts as a curiosity-stopper rather than an anticipation-controller. Second, the hypothesis has no moving parts - the model is not a specific complex mechanism, but a blankly solid substance or force. The mysterious substance or mysterious force may be said to be here or there, to do this or that; but the reason why the mysterious force behaves thus is wrapped in a blank unity. Third, those who proffer the explanation cherish their ignorance; they speak proudly of how the phenomenon defeats ordinary science or is unlike merely mundane phenomena. Fourth, even after the answer is given, the phenomenon is still a mystery and possesses the same quality of sacred inexplicability that it had at the start.

(Emphasis original. You will have to search for the paragraph, it is about three-quarters down the page.)

"Chance" hits 3 of 4, giving Annoyance benefit of the doubt and assuming there is no cherished ignorance. So, "chance" works for now because we have no better words to describe the beginning of rationality, but there is a true cause out there flipping the light bulbs on inside of heads and producing the behavior we have labeled "rationality." Let's go find it.

(PS) Annoyance, this wasn't meant to pick on what you said, it just happened to be in my mind and relevant to the discussion. You were answering a very specific question and the answer satisfied what was asked at the time.

Yeah. If I were to do it I would probably start from the question of defining someone's level of rationality. The topic itself assumes:

• "Rationality" is not boolean. People can be more or less rational on a scale.
• People can be completely irrational in the sense that they score a 0 on the scale.

The question becomes: Can such a person increase their level on the scale?

Further thoughts:

• How does one increase their level on the scale?
• Does it require rationality to get more rationality?
• Is there an upper bound? If the lower bound is 0...
• If there is an upper bound, can this upper bound be achieved?