2012/7/12 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>

>  On 7/11/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> Stephen:
>
>  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.
>
>
> Hi Alberto,
>
>     OK, but can we think of the abstract level as the dual of a physical
> level where physical objects play out their scattering games? What is
> described by mathematics and/or simulated by computer program does not have
> to just be some abstraction. We cannot assume absolute closure and any
> implied externality is just semantics of the abstractions. Abstractions
> simply cannot exist as free floating entities, for this leads inevitably to
> contradictions.
>
>
> Concerning the question of individuality, A good selfish collaborator must
develop an individuality and !self conscience! (and we are talking about
collaboration between selfish entities, that want as much benefit from the
collaboration as possible).

The point is that the entity must evaluate other individuals, but he is
evaluated by others. So to know if others will collaborate with him, he
must evaluate himself in relation with the others, that is if I, entity A
wants to know what to expect from B, he does evaluate B, but also has to
evaluate what itself, A did to B in the past. This self start to have the
attributes of a conscious moral being. A measure of self steem becones
necessary to modulate what he can realistically demand from the others and
so on.

In a computer program, the individuality would be composed of its memory of
relevant interactions with others and the evaluation algorithms. It seems
that humans can store the details of about 150 other individuals. That´s
why companies with less that 150 persons can work efficiently without
burocracy. This information is very important and must be syncronized with
the others. Most of the talks are about what did who to whom and who
deserve something from me because in the past he did something to my
friend. Bellond 150 external memory is necessary: written records,
registration cards, id numbers, Money

>
>  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.
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
>
>
>     I understand and agree! My point is that equilibria to obtain, but we
> cannot substitute the abstract descriptions of games for the actual playing
> of the games. There is a duality involved that cannot be collapsed without
> stultifying both sides.
>
>
>  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
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
>
>
>     Yes! This is where we get into law of large numbers situations and
> have some change of discovering the emergence of aspects of reality that we
> have just been assuming to be a priori given. Some examples of this are
> Penrose's "spin networks" and Reg Cahill's "Process physics".
>
>
>  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.
>
>
>     I agree, but how do we treat the notion of memory such that an
> arbitrary entity has the capacity to access it? We humans have a large
> memory capacity that we carry around in our craniums...
>
>
>  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.
>
>
>     I suspect that free-riders will be, like the poor, always with us.
>
> We each one are free riders because we are selfish collaborators. A twist
on selfish collaboration is the self deception: our memory is unconsciously
distorted to support our case. we thinkl that we deserve more than the fair
share etc.

>
>  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.
>
>
>     But there is a problem with this. There does not exist any finite and
> pre-given list of what defines a free rider!
>
> we all!. The christian analogy of fallen beings is perfect image of what
evolutionary game theory teach about  selfish collaboration under darwinian
selection!


>
>  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.
>
>
>     This rule is a form of pruning, so we can easily see what effects it
> has in networks of collaborators. It is an aspect of currying or
> concurrency.
>
>
>  In these games the goals are fixed.
>
>
>     This is only for the sake of closure, but closed systems have very
> short life spans, if any life at all. The trick is to get close to closure
> but not into it completely. Life exists as an exploitation of this
> possibility.
>
>  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.
>
>
>     Right!
>
>  For sure there is a tradeof between mind sharing and punishment. Less
> mind sharing, more violent punishment is necessary for a stable
> collaboration.
>
>
>     yes, but can you see how this rapidly suppresses any potential for
> further evolution. It is in effect the establishment of closure that seals
> off those involved. North Korea is a nice real world example of this.
>

That is very true!.  sucessful groups fix basic dogmas, but maintain inside
controlled darwinian  variation/selection games among individuals for the
benefit of the whole group. The market of goods and services operates in
this way, under the "dogmas" of trade laws:  The offer of goods and
services is the variation. The demand for each of them is the selection. In
the process, wealth is created because internal needs are satisfied. The
same happens in politics, science, sports etc.


>
>  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)
>
>
>     Certainly! This shows a rational for the "rituals" that we see as
> "traditions" in cultures, for example.
>
>
>   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
> necessary.to avoid free riders and maintain stable the collaboration.
>
>
>     Are you familiar with 
> Hypergames<http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/%7Eparsons/events/gtdt/gtdt06/vane.pdf>?
> Novelity is the result of openness, but at the cost of allowing free
> riders. They are a necessary evil.
>
> Yes, see above. However, dogmas are necessary. The point is a good
combination of dogmas rules, rites, traditions and punishments so that
 selfishness (perceived internally as freedom) work for the good of the
group. and deletereous selfisness (antisocial) is supressed.

>
>  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.
>
>
>     Good stuff!
>
>
>
>  .  Matt Rydley "what is human" is a good introduction.
>
>
>     I will add this to my list. Thanks! I found this,
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/47413560/69/MATT-RIDLEY , so far...
>
>
>
> 2012/7/11 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
>
>>   On 7/11/2012 4:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/10 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
>>
>>>
>>>  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
>> <http://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEvolution_of_cooperation&ei=jTj9T77NB6iy0QXah8mmBw&usg=AFQjCNGua7j080q_oP5ft9ABtXu7bG99dg&sig2=KKUr0FxQezNKKU0MNCQ1vw>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
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation ! 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to