tronvillain

It seems to be a type of Prisoner's Dilemma, but the original has no such thing as non-cooperation - defection and cooperation were the only options.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

tronvillain

Anyway, I'll get back to you interpretation of the equation tommorow. For now, I'll just say that you seem to have completely ignored the flaws I've pointed out.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by God Fearing Atheist: Poly, have you actually been reading my posts?

Yes, but resorting to mathematical equations in an attempt to justify murder doesn’t appeal to me. It might appeal to many in our prison system, but not to me.

Quote:

You went to anesthetized adults, Poly. I dont know about you, but rarely do i happen upon one of those!

You keep talking about how few exceptions there are to your rule, but I think there are more than you actually believe. Around the world, I’d venture to guess that there are probably several thousand people anesthetized every day. Multiply that by 365 and you’re talking several million people per year. How many infants under the age of two are there in the world? I have no idea –maybe 100 million.

Quote:

How many people throughout the world are quadrapalegic? How many are in a coma? The examples you gave of the "severely disabled" seemed to me like nothing of the sort. Im a burn victim...so what? I ride around in a wheelchair...so what? These people cant reciprocate?

I don’t know how many quadriplegics are in the world – maybe a million. Probably hundreds of thousands of people in a coma. Quadriplegics can’t reciprocate if they’re not in a wheelchair. If you’re lying in bed completely paralyzed, how in the world can you reciprocate? You can’t move you’re arms or legs, or feel anything below your neck. Severe burn victims can’t move either. I’m talking about during the weeks and months following their burns. You’re lying in a bed wrapped up like a frickin’ mummy jacked up on morphine. You can’t do a thing if someone tries to harm you.

Quote:

How many people lack pre-contract,secondary morals? Are there really many people that would harm the sorts of indivudals above?

If enough people like you convince the less intelligent that it’s perfectly acceptable to harm those who are unable to reciprocate, then I’d imagine we’d find plenty of individuals who would harm the people mentioned above.

Quote:

How many of the disabled lack post-contract protection? How many lack care from relatives? How many live outside of explicitly contractual care obligations of any sort?

Who cares? I’m not the one trying to justify the killing of innocent humans. If you want to justify murder, then it’s up to you to justify how you can arbitrarily select which loopholes apply. Care from relatives and contractual care obligations are meaningless. How is care from relatives for the disabled any different than for infants? You haven’t distinguished the two categories in plain English.

Quote:

These three taken make this "problem" of yours seem rather silly. Couple it with comment on universality and you have your answer. Think with your head, Poly, not your emotions.

Right… Those who condone baby murdering think with their heads, while those who oppose it merely rely on emotions. What kind of world are we living in where this sort of logic is used?

Am I the only one waiting for the punch line here???

tronvillain

Why would someone want to think without their emotions? Emotions provide a basis for rational behavior.

tronvillain

God Fearing Atheist:
As I said, it shows that the smaller the relative difference between the "tempation" (1-u') and the "reward" (u"-u') the more rational it is to cooperate.

Now, for these values:

defection = 1
exploitation = 0
cooperation = 2/3
non-cooperation = 1/3

For a change to CM to be rational, p/q&gt;[r+1]/r must hold. What is your point? For the system to be at equilibrium, p/q=[r+1]/r must hold, and for a change to SM to be rational, p/q&lt;[r+1]/r must hold. In the first state SMs will switch to CMs until the system is in the second state, and in the third state CMs will switch to SMs until the system is in the second state.

No, it doesn't - this feedback is a figment of your imagination. The equation you are using does not have to hold! If the system is in state two and you raise r without altering p/q, the system will be in state three, not state one - CMs will become SMs until r is back at its original value.

As I pointed out before a higher p/q implies that 1)CMs have gotten better at recognizing CMs 2)CMs have gotten better at recognizing SMs 3)CMs have gotten at recognizing both CMs and SMS or 4)SMs have gotten worse at recognizing CMs. Simply raising r causes none of these things. You could create a mechanism by which it does, but you have not done so.

God Fearing Atheist

The definitions are just slightly modified.

The two defect-cooperation outcomes are termed "exploitation" or "defection", depending on whos defecting (the CM or the SM), and mutual cooperation-mutual defect are termed cooperate or non-cooperation respectivly.

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.

God Fearing Atheist

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions". True enough. Just dont neglect one for the sake of the other.

God Fearing Atheist

Maybe I didnt phrase it the right way. R doesnt affect p/q, but the value at which (that is, a lower value) it becomes rational to adopt CM.

tronvillain

God Fearing Atheist:
I think you have failed to phrase it the right way again. 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.