What problem is rationality failing to provide a solution to? I already used reason to solve the problem. I showed that it wasn't a paradox because the thought experiment doesn't take into account that it takes days to die of thirst and hunger. The donkey could have consumed its fill of hay and water many times over before it actually died of thirst or hunger. It doesn't matter which one the donkey chooses first because he can consume both before he dies of either thirst or hunger.

If you are saying that which one it chooses to consume first is random, or irrational, then again I say to you that it isn't. We all have biases that come to play when making decisions. Which one it consumes first will be the one it favors more, or that will produce the best results in the shortest amount of time. Drinking the water first may be favorable because you die sooner from lack of water than you would of a lack of food. Another thing is that many foods contain water, so eating food with water in them kills two birds with one stone. Is that enough rationality and reason for you to solve this "paradox"?

Yes, the ass has survived but at the cost of its rationality. You may say that the rational course of action for the ass is to eat because, well, it would die otherwise. But the act of choosing between the two equally attractive options is not rational for the simple reason that there's no valid rational factor to tip the balance in favor of either pile of hay. So, in this case, the act of choosing is completely irrational. Sometimes it's rational to be irrational.

at best it's random — TheMadFool

It is rational in such a situation to decide to act upon the outcome of a random or pseudo-random phenomenon, because it will break the deadlock and prevent starvation.

Despite the ludicrous unrealism of this scenario, the solution of deciding to act on the outcome of a pseudo-random trial is used in real life, for the same reason. Two parties in conflict agree to abide by the outcome of a coin toss, because although each dislikes the other's plan of action, they know that the result of no action at all is worse.

Yet you avoid the term ''irrational''. Does that mean you see a difference between random and irrational?

Yes, the two are definitely not synonyms. 'Irrational' applies to a voluntary action by a conscious agent, while 'random' applies to a process that typically does not require the involvement of consciousness, such as a coin toss.

However, if I've understood correctly, you make a distinction between rational and random. Otherwise you wouldn't have said:

It is rational in such a situation to decide to act upon the outcome of a random or pseudo-random phenomenon, because it will break the deadlock and prevent starvation — andrewk

So, you've floated three ideas here:
1. Rational
2. Random
3. Irrational

Please clarify

Please clarify — TheMadFool

Sure. What exactly is it that you do not understand?

Sure. What exactly is it that you do not understand? — andrewk

A very simple conception of the issue:

Rationality has rules.

Irrationality is breaking rules

Randomness is also breaking rules

So I don't see the distinction you between the last two.

Harry Hindu
Yes, the ass has survived but at the cost of its rationality. You may say that the rational course of action for the ass is to eat because, well, it would die otherwise. But the act of choosing between the two equally attractive options is not rational for the simple reason that there's no valid rational factor to tip the balance in favor of either pile of hay. So, in this case, the act of choosing is completely irrational. Sometimes it's rational to be irrational. — TheMadFool

Again, it's not irrational to make a choice when not making a choice causes you to die. In this situation, it doesn't matter if the donkey chose the hay or water. It only matters that the donkey choose one now, or die. That's a pretty rational, and easy, choice to make.

Have you never faced a dilemma? Most dilemmas are loss-oriented in the sense the options provided are all undesirable. There are common English expressions that describe such situations e.g. ''Hobson's choice'', ''Catch 22''. These dilemmas are characterized by mental paralysis, the rational mind in particular, and a decision cannot be made. So, here's a situation you're surely familiar with that captures the essence of what I want to say - failure of rationality under certain circumstances.

Randomness is also breaking rules — TheMadFool

That's where you're getting into difficulty. Randomness is not breaking rules. It's just a different set of rules from non-randomness. If you study probability theory you will see that it is formally logical in exactly the same way as other branches of mathematics.

That's where you're getting into difficulty. Randomness is not breaking rules. It's just a different set of rules from non-randomness. If you study probability theory you will see that it is formally logical in exactly the same way as other branches of mathematics. — andrewk

In my opinion randomness is a total absence of rules. If I were to behave randomly that would necessitate an inability on the part of anyone to predict my behavior. Had I been, contrariwise, behaving as per some rules it would be only a matter of time before someone would decipher my rule-based method and predict my actions. And I think this view of randomness conforms with the general consensus on the matter.

Why would you say that randomness has a "different set of rules"? Can you cite some examples of such rules

Can you cite some examples of such rules — TheMadFool

The Kolmogorov framework for probability theory.

Strange then to have the word "random" in our dictionary, isn't it? If everything follows rules why have the word "random", "unpredictable", "erratic", "chaos", etc?

Can you tell me?

We describe something as random when we don't know all the rules.

By the way, 'chaos' is different from 'random', although the two are often confused, because both phenomena make something unpredictable.

We describe something as random when we don't know all the rules — andrewk

Ok. I'm still confused but I'll agree with you for the moment.

How do you fit your interpretation of random with my OP, especially with Buridan's ass paradox? It's my view that the ass is left with no option but to choose randomly. Reason can't assist in this decision because, well, there is no reason to guide the choice. I think the absence of reason in this case implies the decision is/has to be irrational. I have a feeling you'll disagree. I don't know.

This was already covered in this post. The ass rationally decides to base its decision of which way to go on the occurrence of some future event, such as a coin toss.

But is this decision by the ass to be guided by a coin toss rational or irrational?

Rational, because it prevents her from starving and she doesn't want to starve.

Rational, because it prevents her from starving and she doesn't want to starve — andrewk

If a rational choice could be made, as you're suggesting, why did the ass have to toss a coin?

Harry Hindu
Have you never faced a dilemma? Most dilemmas are loss-oriented in the sense the options provided are all undesirable. There are common English expressions that describe such situations e.g. ''Hobson's choice'', ''Catch 22''. These dilemmas are characterized by mental paralysis, the rational mind in particular, and a decision cannot be made. So, here's a situation you're surely familiar with that captures the essence of what I want to say - failure of rationality under certain circumstances. — TheMadFool

There's a big difference between using rationality to discover the truths of the universe and using rationality to decide which option to choose from that will result in the best outcome for myself and/or the most people. It is a fact that we, as human beings, have conflicting goals - both with each other and within ourselves. Evolutionary Psychology has proposed reasons for this - that our brains evolved different modules to solve different problems of survival. We have our ancient, instinctive module of the brain, and our thoughtful, social module of the brain as examples. This and the widespread diversity of human beings and their cultures that come into conflict for all sorts of reasons can be pointed to as the reason why we have moral dilemmas.

As I have mentioned before, every moral dilemma comes down to one question: Who has more rights to achieve their goals? - an individual, or the majority of individuals, and if the former then which individual, and if the later then what about minorities?

As for what we desire, we were never guaranteed that the truths we discover would be desirable to us as individuals, to human beings, not even to life itself. "Desirable" is simply a term associated with some thing or idea that is key to achieving one's goals. Organisms are the only thing that seem to have goals with their seemingly "striving" for survival. But if one takes a different perspective, organisms are simply doing what they do, and as they were designed by the process of natural selection which has no forethought containing any "designs" before the "designs" appear in reality. If so, then where is the planned designs relative to the actual design in nature? The universe has no goals, therefore no desires.

We've already covered this - maybe more than once! The ass did make a rational choice, and that choice was to go in the direction indicated by the coin.

Do you think it irrational that, at the beginning of a football or cricket match, the two captains agree to toss a coin to decide which one gets to choose which direction to run (football) or whether to bat (cricket)?

Do you think it irrational that rugby is played with a non-spherical ball, thereby introducing an element of randomness into the game through the unpredictably of how the ball will bounce? [Tais toi, all you soccer devotees that are screaming Yes, Yes, Yes!!!

Do you think it irrational that, at the beginning of a football or cricket match, the two captains agree to toss a coin to decide which one gets to choose which direction to run (football) or whether to bat (cricket)? — andrewk

If tossing a coin is rational then why not use it for ALL situations, from what we should eat to whether God exists or not? It's rational (according to you) after all.

If tossing a coin is rational then why not use it for ALL situations

Tossing a coin is neither rational nor irrational - it's just an action.

The decision to toss a coin is rational in some situations, of which we've had three examples.

It is not rational in all situations.

Would you use a woolly hat to hammer in a nail?

Rational, because it prevents her from starving and she doesn't want to starve — andrewk

Tossing a coin is neither rational nor irrational - it's just an action — andrewk

There's a big difference between using rationality to discover the truths of the universe and using rationality to decide which option to choose from that will result in the best outcome for myself and/or the most people — Harry Hindu

What is this difference?

You seem to be under the impression that those quotes contradict each other. Yet if you follow each one back and look at the statement to which it was responding, you will see that they are in complete agreement. [Hint, you'll find the first one is referring to a decision, not a toss]

Would you use a woolly hat to hammer in a nail?

Would you use a woolly hat to hammer in a nail? — andrewk

No, I'd use my brains:)

You're being purposely cryptic. Anyway I'll play along.

You seem to be saying only a person can be rational or irrational. A coin toss is not a person, it is random and so, it's neither rational nor irrational.

However...the natural thing when faced with equally desirable/undesirable options is not to pull out a coin and make a toss. What we actually do is make a random choice. So, here a person is making the choice. Is s/he rational or irrational? Clearly s/he is NOT rational because if rationality could assist s/he wouldn't resort to random choices.

C

Clearly s/he is NOT rational because if rationality could assist s/he wouldn't resort to random choices. — TheMadFool

That doesn't follow.