[MD] Tit for Tat

[ian glendinning]

Brilliant Case,

I've been using "game theory" arguments (of which the prisoners'
dilemma is the archetype) for some time as part of why the
"evolutionary" model inherent in MoQ works at the "psychological"
levels (socio-cultural and intellectual). (Most neo Darwinian
philosophers do too, the "unspoken negotiation" aspect seems to win
through, and gets pretty close to the "engineered" view of evolved
outcomes.)

Being elightened is working out the best game theory policy, better
than tit for tat, and whilst the golden rule is almost the paradoxical
opposite to that, it is closely related. Nice thought.

Ian

On 11/18/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> I am pretty sure this relates to the MoQ and its inability to settle
> arguments about specific courses of action. I am very sure it applies to
> evolution, economics and how systems of thought change but I'm not sure
> exactly how. I am just throwing it out here. If it just lays there like the
> present my dog left for me this morning. well it won't be the first time I
> soiled the rug and no one noticed.
>
> The Prisioner's Dilemma is a kind of thought experiment in Game Theory. It
> has been widely studied by researchers in several disciplines including
> mathematics, economics, biology and psychology.
>
> You can get a detailed explanation at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma but it works something like
> this.
>
> Here is the condensed version:
>
> "Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have
> insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both
> prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal:
>
> -If one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other
> remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives
> the full 10-year sentence.
>
> -If both stay silent, the police can sentence both prisoners to only six
> months in jail for a minor charge.
>
> -If each betrays the other, each will receive a two-year sentence.
>
> Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to
> remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the
> other prisoner will make. So the question this dilemma poses is: What will
> happen? How will the prisoners act? "
>
> If people play this game over and over, various strategies can be seen to
> evolve for maximizing one's score. You can always seek your own benefit and
> screw the other guy. Or you can always try to cooperate. Or you could try
> various patterns of seeking individual or collective benefit.
>
> What has been learned is that the more effective strategy is "Tit or Tat" Is
> your partner tries to screw you, screw him next time, if he cooperates,
> cooperate. It has been suggested that what this looks like a purely
> mathematic purely deterministic incarnation of the Golden Rule.
>
> One of the suppositions of Moral Relativism is that since different cultures
> have different rules then the rules must be arbitrary. But the assumption
> only works if we say that all moral rules are arbitrary and that there are
> not rules common to all cultures. But is this the case? Are there NO rules
> that all or at least most cultures have in common? Perhaps specific
> practices like covering or uncovering the body; or burying versus burning or
> even eating of the dead are arbitrary incarnations of deeper underlying
> universals.
>
> Tit for Tat is not exactly the same as the Golden Rule but it is darn close.
> Here is a site that lists 21 different cultural versions of the Golden Rule.
> I am just throwing in a couple of me favorites.
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
>
>
> Christianity:
> "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
>
> Buddhism:
> "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict
> that upon another?"
>
> Islam:
> "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes
> for himself."
>
> Judaism:
> "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
>
> Taoism:
> The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people
> as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for
> Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the
> unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful."
>
> The most ancient formulation appears to be almost 4,000 years old from the
> Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant.
>
> "This is an ordinance: Act for the man who acts, to cause him to act. This
> is thanking him for what he does."
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>