Agreed, but I’d say that people do have a utility function—it’s just that
it may be so complex that it’s better seen as a kind of metaphor than as a
mathematical construct you can actual do something with.
I share your annoyance—there seems to be a bias among some to use
maths-derived language where it is not very helpful.
You might still be able to determine a manageable utility function for a lower
animal. For humans it’s simply too complex—at least in 2010, just like the
function that predicts next week’s weather.
Agreed, but I’d say that people do have a utility function—it’s just that it may be so complex that it’s better seen as a kind of metaphor than as a mathematical construct you can actual do something with.
I share your annoyance—there seems to be a bias among some to use maths-derived language where it is not very helpful.
If utility isn’t a mathematical construct you can do something with, then it’s an empty concept.
You might still be able to determine a manageable utility function for a lower animal. For humans it’s simply too complex—at least in 2010, just like the function that predicts next week’s weather.
I will believe this only when I see it done.
I do not expect to see it done, no matter how low the animal.