----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 1:38 AM Subject: Re: Free will and physics
> I did not label goals rational and irrational -- in fact, in this thread > I specifically stated that my stated goal was subjective. Your reply > does not address my comment...I was just watching the Godfather. If > everyone behaved as the dons in that movie, almost no one would want > to live in the resulting world. This is not the question we are differing on. I agree that a society in which everyone cooperates and works for the common good is better than a cut-throat society. The question is whether such a society naturally arises out of simple enlightened self-interest. >And sure enough, the crime bosses are largely gone now. Most people realized what would happen if such a > system were allowed to expand. You are seriously arguing that organized criminal activity doesn't exist? > Actually, the overwhelming amount of evidence is for it. That is why > humans have progressed from animal-like apes, to tribes, feudalism, > and finally liberal democracy with the rule of law. And progress has > accelerated, especially with the transition to liberal democracy and > rule of law. Things are better than they were before. I'm not arguing with that. But, I didn't see the total connection between people seeking their own narrow self interest and this progress. I won't argue that it has happened; that people have sought to benefit themselves and have ended up benefiting everyone. There are indeed times when self interest and the interest of the community coincide. During these times, one need not worry about morality; just informing people where their own self interest lies. But, there are a multitude of historical examples where people have used force to enforce a system in which they prosper at the expense of others. Let me give an example from Native Americans. Iroquois were warriors who attacked other tribes to extermination. The reason for this is that they noted that, as long as their slaves knew that their tribesmen still lived, they acted as if they had hope of escape and/or being freed. But, once the rest of the tribe was slaughtered, they gave up this hope and were more subservient. This was clearly in the best interest of the Iroquois, but not the slaughtered tribes, nor humanity in general. Yet, it was a perfectly rational act, if you assume the Iroquois acted in the self interest of their own tribe. > > No, you are thinking much too small. There are indeed many win-lose > scenarios if you look at thing myopically. But if you consider both > the long-term and the interaction of others if they all followed a > similar strategy, then the world is a big win-win scenario. Fine, but again, that misses the question at hand. The question is it better for person X if X behaves in a given manner. Self interest, pretty well by definition, looks myopically at what benefits one person: oneself. To use your language, the question at hand is "if one considers their own self interest only in a myopic fashion, why worry about others?" Indeed, if you look at ancient moral codes; you will find repeated reference to the goodness/evil of a time being measured in how society treats the widows, the orphans, and the strangers. These are obviously three relatively powerless groups. They are not in a position to play tit for tat. So, winning strategy for an individual playing a game against someone this weak is to roll over them. Maybe the stranger could be if he got back to his home, and the people in the original town then had to travel to his town. But, if one is not likely to be at the mercy of the people at that town at a later date, then it is similar to the 2/3rds rule of tit for tat. The reason I bring this up is that one can see 2500 years ago an understanding that there was a difference between treating someone who would have the power to harm you in the future poorly and treating someone who is at your mercy poorly. Maybe one could argue that this was only implicitly addressed 2500 years ago, but it was explicitly addressed 2000 years ago. So, using examples of situations where one has enlightened self interest in being nice to people who are in a position to either be nice or nasty to you in return doesn't work when discussing the foundation of morality. The question at hand was how do you treat those who do not have the power to demand good treatment. >I mentioned > this previously, but again you failed to address it. Surely you don't > think we could have made as much progress as we did in the 20th century > with everyone acting myopically in their own self interest? So, are you agreeing that the progress is inconsistent with people acting only in their own self interest? This seems to refute the contention that cooperation is reducible to enlightened self interest. >How do you explain the huge growth in GDP per capita in the Western world >in the last 150 years? That's an interesting question, and one that would take an L5 post...but I'm not sure how it relates to the question of whether morality can be shown to be derived from self interest. > > Not necessarily. If I thought my neighbor(s) would be likely to take > the same risks for me in the future, I would do it, and it would be > in my self-interest, unless I could trick my neighbors (or they could > trick me) into thinking I (they) would do it but really would not. Of > course, then honesty and trustworthiness comes into it. If I didn't > think my neighbors were honest and trustworthy in these matters, then > I would be less likely to do it since it would be much less in my own > self-interest. But, no reasonable person would think that. Even if they are willing, what are the odds of them being in a position to do that? Even if you assume that the risks of death assumed by someone going door to door in a smoke filled building (to the point where they had to be hospitalized) is only 1%, one can clearly see by looking at the frequency of life threatening fires, the mobility of people, the number of people that he saved, etc, that it was not a cost effective strategy. If, for example, you were to have a game theory with multiple scenarios during which people would either act in their immediate self interest, or act in a manner that helped others immediately and stored good will for the future, it would be a no brainer to run as fast as possible in this scenario. One would just do the numbers, and program accordingly. > > Because if you don't (and enough others don't), they won't, and everyone > loses. That's not enlightened self interest. That's sacrificing for others. > > for it at: > > > > http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html > > That site is incomplete. Here are some key words for you: repeated > Prisoner's Dilemma Robert Axelrod Tit-for-Tat > > http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/026.html Thanks for pointing me right to the site that you are interested in. Look at the ground rules for that game. 1) There are repeated meetings (indeed the tit for tat rules indicate that the strategy should not be used if the chances of a repeated meeting <2/3rds) 2) Everyone has equal power. 3) Someone does not lose power to harm an advisory in the future after being harmed by that advisory. 4) There is transparency; one knows who cooperated and who acted in their immediate self interest by not cooperating. This certainly excludes the widows and orphan problem. It also excludes slaughtering people and taking their land. Further, it excludes using military power to set up an unequal system; to maintain oneself in power. In short, it excludes many/most situations where morality comes into play. > Actually, it agrees with so many clear historical examples and > simulations that it is the best simple strategy there is. Huh? Are you seriously arguing that people in power have historically acted in the best interest of the powerless? > > So, we have a brief period of human history, over which the type of > > society that is more like the one you suggest has barely survived and > > then prospered. That certainly doesn't constitute a proof. > > I don't claim proof, but it is very suggestive. We survived by the self sacrifice of people who believed in something bigger than they are. That is not unlighted self interest. From my perspective, you are so sure that faith is bad, even when it proves beneficial, when the benefit is tangible and measurable, it is still bad because it is at odds with your metaphysics. You have the same right to your faith in your metaphysical position as does anyone else. But, it is not science. >And it is rather > interesting that you are demanding proof. Perhaps it is time for you to > answer the questions I asked earlier, and provide proof? You and I made very different types of statements. When I say I believe in something; I acknowledge that there is no proof; no empirical basis. You claim an empirical basis for morality: it is the behavior that occurs when someone pursues their enlightened self interest because harming others harms oneself. So, where we differ is that you believe a number of things that are not derivable from the empirical; yet you claim that they are. Indeed, what you posts indicate as your basic metaphysical position: strong realism, needs a lot of contortions to be at all consistent with experimental results of modern physics collected over the last century. Right now the best realistic interpretation of modern physics assumes that there is a rich infinity of inherently undetectable universes that contain a rich infinity of variations** of you and me (as well as an even richer infinity that don't) created every annosecond. Why not change metaphysics instead of doing this type of contortion? ** many of these different universes contain identical versions of us, even if it is the QM within ourselves that require the splitting of universes. > > Indeed, in an ironic twist, this system was created by a number of > > people who acted irrationally by your standards. > > Nope, they acted rationally. They pledged their lives, the fortunes, their sacred honor for an idea that has no empirical basis. How is this rational in your worldview? Yet, when I believe in similar things; you talk about me living in a fantasy world. They did not act in enlightened self interest. Indeed, the nation is built on a willingness to self sacrifice. Their prevailing philosophy was that of the Enlightenment. The faith that underlies the Enlightenment shines through like a beacon in the introduction to the Declaration of Independence. You can differ with their viewpoint, but why deny it was what it was? > > So? That is not the point. Short-term, it may be best for an individual, > but not long-term if everyone else also does it. Of course, if everyone > cooperates then it can become beneficial to act selfishly. But the key > is how everyone else reacts. Sure, but you cannot control how others react. That's the reason that enlightened self interest is not sufficient for a society. In particular, the US system has been dependant on a set of shared beliefs. > > Come on Dan, your reading comprehension is better than that. I was > talking about the Culture SOCIETY. Any sufficiently advanced technology > could support such a society. No, the Minds are the foundation of the society. The odds on them existing are slim and none, with slim walking out the door. One would have to suppose that there are straightforwardly tappable laws of physics that are undetectable over, roughly 40 orders of magnitude. > > Bank's work is good SF, with one suspense of disbelief, one can accept > > the world. Well and good. But, one does not deal with reality that > > way. > > Heh. Dan talking about dealing with reality. Heh. I've been doing it for years. What is interesting is that you have passed on most of my comments on the metaphysical implications of modern physics. I've stated the consensus opinion of the non-crackpots on sci.physics: "the most important step in the development of science is when it was decided it wasn't about the truth." a number of times. Yet, you appear to believe that science is about the truth. > > That is what laws and rules are for, Dan. In the short-term in a > cooperative society, it is frequently beneficial to be selfish. But > long-term, if everyone behaves that way, everyone loses. So we have > laws, rules, deterrents, and punishments to align majority long-term > interests with individual short-term interests. And, it does work to some extent. One of the interesting things about the founding of the country was that there was a deliberate attempt to balance interests so that selfish people would have to work for the general interest. Laws prohibiting certain activity has worked to some extent. But laws require the tacit support of most of the governed to be effective. Laws that most people only obey if they don't think they can get away with disobeying the law are rarely effective. Its an interesting phenomenon; I like to summarize it like this: systems that require everyone to be moral are doomed to fail, as are systems where everyone does the right thing only if it is their own self interest. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
