Rational analysis in ethics, according to the provided context, is actually not about ethics at all. It is an account of how probabilistic modeling can be used to construct non-mechanistic but self-standing explanatory models of the mind.
This definition, while specific, requires some unpacking to understand its implications. Let's break it down:
-
Probabilistic Modeling: This involves using probability theory to create models of cognitive processes. Instead of rigidly defining how a mind must work, it allows for uncertainty and variability, reflecting the real-world complexities of human thought. Think of it as assigning probabilities to different possible mental states or actions.
-
Non-Mechanistic: This means the models are not based on simple, deterministic input-output relationships. A mechanistic model would treat the mind like a machine, reacting in predictable ways to stimuli. Rational analysis moves beyond this by acknowledging the role of internal beliefs, goals, and prior experiences.
-
Self-Standing Explanatory Models of the Mind: The goal is to create models that can independently explain how the mind works. These models should be comprehensive enough to account for a wide range of cognitive phenomena without relying on overly simplistic or reductionist explanations. These models attempt to explain cognitive function in terms of why it might be optimal or rational in the given environment, rather than simply how it is implemented.
In essence, rational analysis, in this context, represents a methodology for understanding the mind through the lens of optimal probabilistic reasoning, not a specific ethical theory or method. It's important to recognize this distinction, as the term "rational analysis" might suggest a different meaning within ethical philosophy.
``
