This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as >50% likely to be written by an LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written or co-written work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance.
So, we reject all LLM generated posts from new users. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*
"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"
If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language and using a different (preferably non-LLM) translation software to translate it directly.
"What if I think this was a mistake?"
For users who get flagged as potentially LLM but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.
you wrote this yourself (not using LLMs to help you write it)
you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post)
your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.
If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.
* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)
Intelligent systems, whether human or artificial, inevitably face self-reference, formal incompleteness, and computational limits. This post presents a conceptual framework for understanding how rationality emerges under uncertainty, how meta-rational self-awareness can be modeled probabilistically, and how agents can navigate epistemic blind spots without claiming omniscience.
Key idea: Intelligence is not omniscience; it is the ability to act optimally under uncertainty while reflecting on the limits of one’s own reasoning. I aim to connect insights from logic, theoretical computer science, decision theory, and philosophy to clarify how meta-rational reasoning works.
1. Self-Reference and Incompleteness
Self-reference enables a system to reason about its own states, knowledge, and decisions. Without it, complex adaptation and reflection are impossible. Yet, as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems show, any sufficiently expressive system contains undecidable statements: truths that cannot be proven or disproven internally.
Intelligent agents encounter epistemic blind spots for similar reasons: some truths are unknowable due to formal limits or computational constraints. The boundary between “unknown due to lack of knowledge” and “undecidable due to formal incompleteness” is fuzzy, creating a landscape of uncertainty that must be navigated probabilistically.
2. Rationality under Uncertainty
Rationality is defined relative to available knowledge and computational resources. A rational agent:
Evaluates consequences of possible actions given current knowledge
Accounts for epistemic and computational limits
Maximizes expected outcomes under uncertainty
Blind spots and undecidable statements introduce unavoidable uncertainty. Probabilistic reasoning allows structured navigation of these blind spots: assigning credences to propositions that cannot be proven and integrating them into decision-making.
3. Meta-Rational Self-Awareness
A meta-rational agent reflects on its own rationality. It recognizes:
Decisions are bounded by formal, computational, and epistemic limits
Probabilistic assessments are approximations, not absolute truths
Actions are optimal relative to context (genuine knowledge) yet bounded (illusion of omniscience)
Even humans operate deterministically in this sense, acting rationally given limited knowledge, often unaware of blind spots.
4. Computational and Complexity Constraints
Many decision problems are NP-hard or intractable, preventing perfect evaluation of all actions. Memory and time limitations restrict what can be computed. Robust intelligence focuses on doing the best with what can be computed, not with idealized omnipotence.
5. Probabilistic Meta-Reasoning
Meta-rational systems can assign probabilities to undecidable statements and computationally intractable outcomes. Probabilities are updated based on evidence and meta-level reflection. Expected outcomes are evaluated, and actions are chosen to optimize utility. This converts blind spots from obstacles into structured uncertainty navigable by rational agents.
Decision theory: Rationality as probabilistic and context-dependent
Philosophy: Distinguishing genuine knowledge from bounded illusion
It provides a unified conceptual model of intelligence under formal and practical constraints.
7. Conclusion
Intelligent systems face self-reference, incompleteness, and uncertainty. Rationality emerges not by overcoming these limits, but by navigating them optimally. Meta-rational self-awareness allows reflection on bounded knowledge and probabilistic reasoning about undecidable statements. Intelligence is therefore a balance between genuine rationality and the bounded illusions of incomplete information.
Description: Nodes include Self-Reference, Gödelian Limits / Blind Spots, Probabilistic Reasoning, and Meta-Rational Action. Arrows show dependencies: reflection, uncertainty, optimal action, self-awareness, bounded reasoning.
9. Key Questions for Feedback
Are the connections between self-reference, incompleteness, and meta-rationality sound?
Are probabilistic assignments over undecidable statements a reasonable approach?
Is the distinction between genuine knowledge and bounded rationality clear?
Are there formal frameworks or models I might be missing?
How could this inform AI alignment, meta-rational agents, or consciousness studies?
