In economics, utility is a measure of relative satisfaction. Given this measure, one may speak meaningfully of increasing or decreasing utility, and thereby explain economic behavior in terms of attempts to increase one’s utility. Utility is often modeled to be affected by consumption of various goods and services, possession of wealth and spending of leisure time.
That is what “utliity” means—and not what you mistakenly said. Consequently, if an agent has preferences for its own immediate actions, so be it—that is absolutely permitted.
I meant a respectable reference which supported your position. It sure seems to me
that that quotation supported me, rather than you. So it is quite likely that we are not understanding each other. And given results so far, probably not worth it that we try.
My reference looks OK to me. It supports my position just fine—and you don’t seem to disagree with it. However, here is another similar one:
Utility: Economist-speak for a good thing; a measure of satisfaction. (See also WELFARE.) Underlying most economic theory is the assumption that people do things because doing so gives them utility. People want as much utility as they can get.
However such definitions are simply inadequate for use in decision theory applications.
Note that utility is NOT defined as being associated with states of the external world, things in the future—or anything like that. It is simply a measure of an agent’s satisfaction.
If you really do think that satisfaction is tied to outcomes, then I think you could benefit from some more exposure to Buddhism—which teaches that satisfaction lies within. The hypothesis that it is solely a function of the state of the external world is just wrong.
Uh, try here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
That is what “utliity” means—and not what you mistakenly said. Consequently, if an agent has preferences for its own immediate actions, so be it—that is absolutely permitted.
I meant a respectable reference which supported your position. It sure seems to me that that quotation supported me, rather than you. So it is quite likely that we are not understanding each other. And given results so far, probably not worth it that we try.
My reference looks OK to me. It supports my position just fine—and you don’t seem to disagree with it. However, here is another similar one:
http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=U
It is true that some economic definitions of utility attach utility to “goods and services”—or to “humans”—e.g.:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utility
However such definitions are simply inadequate for use in decision theory applications.
Note that utility is NOT defined as being associated with states of the external world, things in the future—or anything like that. It is simply a measure of an agent’s satisfaction.
If you really do think that satisfaction is tied to outcomes, then I think you could benefit from some more exposure to Buddhism—which teaches that satisfaction lies within. The hypothesis that it is solely a function of the state of the external world is just wrong.