1) 100% in agreement with what you are saying. This corresponds also with my suggestion that Rational Choice Theory can help formulating the null hypothesis, and then we can obtain signatures of the actual algorithm with observed systematic departures from the null hypothesis.
2) I hope I specified what I think the relations are during the session. They don't seem to correspond to what you write, but I am not sure.
What I said:
a. To the extent that RCT is a form of belief-desire psychology, it involves the "rational" formation of belief. Rational belief formation is best describe by Bayesian processes (at least when there is uncertainty). Then RCT specifies "instrumental rationality": selection of the most adequate means to attain one's goal/satisfy one's desires (in view of one's beliefs).
b. To the extent that cognition is just one type of action, it will be constrained by the costs and benefit of computing this or that information. For analysing this aspect, you need to analyse expected utility ... i.e. use the tools of RCT.
3) You've restated the point 2.b above in a much better and more precise way than I did. I fully agree with what you say. If you want more information about utility calculation of learning, just come to see me.
2) I hope I specified what I think the relations are during the session. They don't seem to correspond to what you write, but I am not sure.
What I said:
a. To the extent that RCT is a form of belief-desire psychology, it involves the "rational" formation of belief. Rational belief formation is best describe by Bayesian processes (at least when there is uncertainty). Then RCT specifies "instrumental rationality": selection of the most adequate means to attain one's goal/satisfy one's desires (in view of one's beliefs).
b. To the extent that cognition is just one type of action, it will be constrained by the costs and benefit of computing this or that information. For analysing this aspect, you need to analyse expected utility ... i.e. use the tools of RCT.
3) You've restated the point 2.b above in a much better and more precise way than I did. I fully agree with what you say. If you want more information about utility calculation of learning, just come to see me.