On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

    There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

     in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired 

    codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program, 
    incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing 
homogeneity for a
    single specie).

    These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a 
    environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash 
equilibriums among
    these human players. These optimums of well being for all withing the 
constraints of
    human nature called nash equilibriums are the moral code.

In general they are not Nash equilibra. Evolution doesn't settle on Nash equilibra because in many cases they are unstable for finitely repeated games, c.f. Ginitis "Bounds of Reason".

    These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with 
    social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums are 
know by
    our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a knowledge of 
them are
    intuitive.  That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of 
    or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from the nash 
    dissapeared.  To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have 
    hardwired intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call 

That doesn't seem like something individual that will survive dissolution of 
the body.

    What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the expression 
of the
    same moral code operating in different circunstances where the optimum has 
    displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example in foundational 
book of
    evolutionary psychology "The adapted mind"


    about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in 
extreme cases
    (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the extreme of 
the social
    spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close to ours, the rules 
are quite
    "normal". Both the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by 
the same
    basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this 
from a
    dynamic way (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one
    contemplating a "normal" society, the moral is a unique, universal rule 
     Thanks to the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science 
and game
    theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that 
await  a
    development of evolutionary morals

I don't think biological evolution has been nearly fast enough to give us hardwired ethics suited to modern industrial nation states. That's why diverse cultures have evolved; Different ways of trying to satisfy the moral instincts that evolved for life in a small tribe. In theory the interaction of these cultures would eventually pick a winner (cultural selection), but in practice technology and other factors (e.g. global warming, oil depletion, war) may change things on a much shorter time scale.

Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality. Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or exhale.

It also depends on what you want. No decision problem can be solved with values. The values that evolved biologically are common and don't change very fast; so it's a good bet you love your children more than yourself.

This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game theory.

They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain, so they could be part of the morals of a robot if we chose to build it that way. From our perspective as citizens in a very diverse and interconnected world of billions of people, we can see ways in which we might give a robot better, more adaptive, values than biology has given us.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to