Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 02-03-2002, 10:49 AM

Wrong thread. Weird.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

Polycarp · 02-04-2002, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist:
Forgive me, Poly, if I disregard any further posts you might make.

Its obvious that an intelligent normative conversation does not appeal to you.

A very nice dismissal of an opposing viewpoint. All I was looking for was a justification on your part of how you can distinguish between various categories of humans. You failed to do so, therefore your theory is incoherent until you do so. Your distinction seems completely arbitrary without some clarification.

God Fearing Atheist · 02-04-2002, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
For now, I'll just say that you seem to have completely ignored the flaws I've pointed out.

This has gone on for so long now, i dont even remember what im supposed to be responding to.

In any event, it was enjoyable. Just imagine: someone with knowledge of the Theory of Games!

tronvillain · 02-04-2002, 11:50 AM

Yes, it's been an enjoyable discussion. Still, without a mechanism to link it to the utilities or p/q, changing r changes nothing other than possibly which of the three states the system is in.

God Fearing Atheist · 02-05-2002, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Yes, it's been an enjoyable discussion. Still, without a mechanism to link it to the utilities or p/q, changing r changes nothing other than possibly which of the three states the system is in.

I dont know why you dont see this.

As r increases, p/q does not change: as you said, that is dependent on translucentcy. What does change is the *value at which p/q can rationally lead to an actor adopting CM*. As there are more CMs in the population, they are willing to take more risks that would, given a lower number of CMs, not be possible...precisely because there are fewer SMs.

tronvillain · 02-06-2002, 12:48 AM

Ah, I see what you mean now. If we use the values you mentioned before, and assume p/q=[r+1]/r when r=0.5, then p/q=3. Now, if we make r=0.6, it becomes rational to switch from SM to CM since 3>8/3 and eventually r is driven to one. On the other hand, if we make r=0.4, it becomes rational to switch from CM to SM since 3<3.5, and eventually r is driven to zero. For some reason, I was under the impression that p/q=[r+1]/r would be a stable equilibrium rather than an unstable one. Interesting. Looks like a pretty unrealistic description of morality though.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

hedonologist · 02-06-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Freedom's Minion:
Sorry to misinterpret you. It seems that I mistook your question for a bit of rhetoric meant to demonstrate that divisions between "physical" and "merely aesthetic" preferences are arbitrary at best.

No matter where the lines are drawn, relative value is distinguished. My main point was that if the intention of a law is to benefit we the lawmakers, who is to say that more babies are not good for us, assuming there is a demand for them?

hedonologist · 02-06-2002, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist:
I think there is. Is emotional "hurt" enough to justify physical action, and therefore, reciprocation on the part of the one you're harming?

I imagine if you define justification, then you could answer your own question. If something is "justified", does that mean it is the most beneficial course of action for the one acting or some group?

Quote:

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist:
If you look at it from this way as well (that is, not just from the point of view of the one beating the crap out of babies), it becomes far less appealing.

What becomes less appealing to who, in what situation? -- you seizing a baby from someone trying to kill them? -- Nancy deciding not to kill her baby? -- a voter or legislator deciding not to try to legalize infanticide? Etc

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: hedonologist ]

God Fearing Atheist · 02-06-2002, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Ah, I see what you mean now.

Excellent.

Quote:

Looks like a pretty unrealistic description of morality though.

Constrained Maximization is not, strictly speaking, about morality. Rather, its about the rationality of a disposition to compliance with morals, the morals being rights (the Lockean Proviso) and cooperative bargaining solutions (the principle of minimax relative concession).

I want to discuss rights next, so you'll see a new thread today or tomorrow.

tronvillain · 02-06-2002, 10:45 PM

God Fearing Atheist:

Quote:

Constrained Maximization is not, strictly speaking, about morality. Rather, its about the rationality of a disposition to compliance with morals, the morals being rights (the Lockean Proviso) and cooperative bargaining solutions (the principle of minimax relative concession).

Fine. Your model looks like a pretty unrealistic description of the world. Let's try a different model:

Let p be the probability of identifying a cooperator given that they are a cooperator.
Let q be the probability of identifying a defector given that they are a defector.
Let u' be the defect-defect utility.
Let the defect-cooperate utility be one.
Let the cooperate-defect utility be zero.
Let u" be the cooperate-cooperate utility.

So, the utility of being a defector will be rp(1-q) + [1-rp(1-q)]u', and the utility of being a cooperator will be rppu" + [1-rpp-r(1-p)q]u'.

Now, I may have made an error somewhere, but as far as I can tell the behavior of this system is independent of r. The system is either all defector or all cooperator, depending on what p, q, u' and u" are. Again, I don't think this is a realistic system.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

02-03-2002, 10:49 AM	#71
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Wrong thread. Weird. [ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

02-06-2002, 12:48 AM	#76
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Ah, I see what you mean now. If we use the values you mentioned before, and assume p/q=[r+1]/r when r=0.5, then p/q=3. Now, if we make r=0.6, it becomes rational to switch from SM to CM since 3>8/3 and eventually r is driven to one. On the other hand, if we make r=0.4, it becomes rational to switch from CM to SM since 3<3.5, and eventually r is driven to zero. For some reason, I was under the impression that p/q=[r+1]/r would be a stable equilibrium rather than an unstable one. Interesting. Looks like a pretty unrealistic description of morality though. [ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2002, 11:50 AM	#74
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Yes, it's been an enjoyable discussion. Still, without a mechanism to link it to the utilities or p/q, changing r changes nothing other than possibly which of the three states the system is in.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.