[bid_em_up]

Jlall, on Feb 3 2008, 09:44 AM, said:

Post of the year imo

Better than Shubi's? Or just because its a different year now?

[Al_U_Card]

Not even close....the Shoob is in a universe and time of his own...

[Mbodell]

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.
...
Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

Except Prisoner's Dilemma is "solved" to not be evil/evil if the interaction is a repeatable interaction with memory. Then you get strategies like tit-for-tat, and cooperative tit-for-tat which do much better, even just thinking of your own self interest.

But even so evaluating morality from a selfish perspective seems unsatisfactory to me.

[Winstonm]

Mbodell, on Feb 4 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.
...
Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

Except Prisoner's Dilemma is "solved" to not be evil/evil if the interaction is a repeatable interaction with memory. Then you get strategies like tit-for-tat, and cooperative tit-for-tat which do much better, even just thinking of your own self interest.

But even so evaluating morality from a selfish perspective seems unsatisfactory to me.

Again, I am not a student of this concept, but might it be better to alter the concepts to give/take when using selfish/unselfish components?

Perhaps constucted like this:

Give/Give=1 point for each
Give/take=0 points for give and 2 points for take
take/take=1/2 point for each due to damage of conflict

Wouldn't this help explain how selfishness could be viewed as a form of insurance?

Once you get past the basic game, I'm lost - so if there are complex solutions according to game theory, if you wish to contribute I'd need really simple explanations - thanks.

[kenberg]

The problem, I think, with any game theory approach is that self-interest is perceived so differently. The following conversation with a suicide bomber seems possible:

Rationalist: Let us pursue self-interest.
Suicide Bomber: Fine.
Then he pulls the pin.

His interest is killing people. He is pursuing that interest. Not everyone wants a home in the suburbs.