Well it´s not cooperation between computer programs, but cooperation of
entities in the abstract level. This can be described mathematically or
simulated in a computer program. In both cases, it starts with a game with
its rules  goals  wins and loses is created.

If the game is simple and/or played by a small number of players (for
example two) This game is analtyzed with Game Theory techniques to obtain
the stable strategies that make each player to optimize its wins in a way
that they can not win more and it is inmune to attacks from other players.
This is a Nash equilibrium.

But when the game is too complex or the players use different strategies or
they evolve and adapt, specially when the sucessful entities give birth to
new generations with mutant and/or strategies which are a mix of the
parents ones (in a way defined in the game) Then it is necessary to
simulate it within an computer programs. This is part of the work of
Axelrod. evolution of generations is modeled with a genetic program

to summarize, any entity that collaborate need memory of past interactions
of each other entity , In other words, it needs individual recongnition
ablities and a form of "moral evaluation" of each individual.

It also needs to punish free riders even at the cost of its own well being,
in a way that the net gain of free riders is negative. or else the fhe
collaborators will fail and the defectors/free riders will expland.

So the collaborators need to collaborate too  in the task of  punishing
free riders because this is crucial for the stability of collaboration in
other tasks.

Forgiveness is another requirement of collaboration, specially when the
entities produce spurious behaviours of non collaboration, but collaborate
most of the time. A premature punishment could make a collaborator to
punish in response so the collaboration ends.

In these games the goals are fixed. In more realistic games the goals vary
and the means to obtain them depend on knowledge and asssumptions/beliefs,
so an homogeneity within the group around both things should be required
for collaboration. For sure there is a tradeof between mind sharing and
punishment. Less mind sharing, more violent punishment is necessary for a
stable collaboration. To verify mind sharing and investment in the group
collaboration, periodic public meetings where protocols/rituals of mutual
recognition are repeated to assure to each member that the others are
in-line. For example, to visit a temple each week, to discuss about the
same newspaper or to assist to minoritary rock concerts. (or to mutually
interchange checksums of the program content of each entity)

 But this is not the last world. It is a world of infinite complexity. For
example, a strategy for avoiding free riders or mind sharing can be
exploited by meta-free-riders. Among humans, when trust is scarce,
sacrifices in the temples, blood pacts and violent punishments become avoid free riders and maintain stable the collaboration.

All of this does not change wjheter the entities are humans, robots or
programs. Evolutionary game theory is a field in active research by
economist, lawyers,moralists, computer scientists, Philosophers,
psichologists etc.

.  Matt Rydley "what is human" is a good introduction.

2012/7/11 Stephen P. King <>

>  On 7/11/2012 4:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> 2012/7/10 meekerdb <>
>>  Why would you not expect a theory-of-everything to include the behavior
>> of people?  Note that 'govern' does not imply 'predictable'.
>  A phisicinst theory of everithing , despite the popular belief, does not
> "govern" the behaviour of the people. No longer than the binary logic
> govern the behaviour of computer programs. I can program in binary logic
> whatever I want without limitations. the wetware whose activity produces
> the human mind could execute potentially any kind of behaviour. Our
> behaviour is not governed by anything related wth a phisical TOE, but by
> the laws of natural selection applied to social beings. I can observe the
> evolution of such behaviours (in a shchematic way) in a binary world within
> a computer program as well. Robert Axelrod
> <>dit
> it for the first time.
>  On the contrary, the antrophic principle tell you that is the mind the
> determinant element for the existence of a TOE. A phisical TOE  It is just
> the playing field and the stuff upon things are made.
>   Dear Albert,
>     Interesting that you bring up
> ! Could you
> elaborate a bit on your thoughts? Do you have any ideas how to model
> cooperation between computer programs? The main problem that I have found
> is in defining the interface between computations. How does one define
> "identity" for a given computation such that it is distinguished from all
> others?
> --
> Onward!
> Stephen
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to