Not exact matches
How are we supposed to derive
human consciousness — our
rationality and intentionality, our richly variegated qualitative experiences, our sense of free choice, our complex and highly developed agency — from the aboriginal mentality of the simple individuals, presumably the basic particles, that constitute us?
There is no similar agreement about
how our minds work: the economist assumes that rational behavior is dominant, for example, while a psychologist questions what fraction of
human behavior is rational, and a biologist may ask whether
rationality is even a useful concept, or merely an evolved illusion.
I was at a dinner a couple weeks back at which several journalists spoke on just this issue, and Shankar Vedantam and Chris Mooney made a good case for what I have also suggested (including in my reply to you on April 6); What's really irrational is for smart people, in support of the myth of perfect
rationality and frustrated by the public's «ignorance» about risk, to ignore the mountains of evidence from neuroscience and social sciences about
how human perception and decision - making actually works, about risk or anything else.