yes because the assumption that we aren't on the same team in game theory creates an inability to safely correlate the model with irl.

Does the assumption that we *ARE* on the same team safely correlate the model with real life?

of course not if its an assumption. Can we not clearly see this?

Then your observation from the previous post is meaningless.

Any time you make an assumption, you create an inability to safely correlate the model with real life.

So what's your point? (Answer the question in three sentences or less.)

You cannot extract morality from solving games.

Never?

Never. Game theory makes assumptions that taint the solutions.

So if we use game theoretic methods to help determine an equitable way of distributing food resources in a region, we have not extracted a moral solution?

No, thank you for being rational in your questions with me.

You are pointing at extracting a solution. The moral here is that equitable distribution is best, and you cannot decide what is best from game theory.

Once you have a foundation for morality, then game theory can possible help apply it.

I am at a loss for an understanding of why no one can clearly see this

It is true that all game theoretic models are built on assumptions about how the "score" is kept.

It's probably because you lose your point in all sorts of other comments and statements that make no sense. Jargon is not your friend, so don't use it. All this other prisoner's dilemma stuff and whatnot have little to do with the actual point you wish to make, which I think would broadly be seen as uncontroversial. But when you make long, rambling posts that do not address the actual issue you're trying to address in a meaningful way, you put yourself behind the 8 ball because you're not only defending points that have little to do with your primary claim, but you're also not sufficiently knowledgeable in the things you're challenging to articulate meaningful statements to support your position.

But you haven't agreed to the simple fact that you cannot extract morals from it because of this.

I actually know its not because of this.

This op is about a thread in another op suggesting you can extract moral values from a game. It also seems to be common theme around here and it should be shown to be wrong.

The reason you are saying this is because everyone thinks im unknowledgeable about game theory for suggesting that you cannot extract more values from a game. And can assure you I am correct, and the reason people argued with me is because they are not knowledgeable enough on game theory and Nash's work.

I would say that there's a fundamental gap in the use of the word "extract" and "moral" in our usages. I would say that using a game theoretic model to determine an equitable solution to a problem is extracting morality.

What you are saying is more like "general moral principles cannot be extracted from game theoretic models." I think such a statement is valid and correct. I just wouldn't use the words you're using to express that statement.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want about your posts.

It's true that I can't understand "your" jargon. But I care little about that. The jargon that you're using happens to be the exact same words that mathematicians use to mean things entirely different from what you're using them to mean. If you want to use "your" jargon, I strongly suggest you use words that have not already been given an accepted meaning by the relevant communities. Maybe instead of Nash, you can use Smash to avoid future confusion.

I don't think you can support this claim. "everyone thinks you should be knowledgeable for suggesting that" - that might be more accurate.

Yes or we can say you cannot extract or establish a moral foundation.


Yes in the other thread I decided to call it 'flash'.

But regardless its not my lack of understanding that makes my use of the word Nash incorrect. Its people who don't understand the concepts of game theory well enough to see outside its box. They don't understand there are hidden assumptions in their work.


When shown the assumptions, they still do not know what to do with them.

thanks for putting it lightly and nicely but i apologize i meant 'unknowledable'. I fixed it, sorry for the confusion, but it will make more sense now.

I attribute your errors to a false belief that you have a correct understanding of the terminology.

I attribute my perceived errors to the belief that I cannot be saying something intelligent because I was formerly ridiculed for my knowledge on game theory simply for suggesting that you cannot extract moral foundations from it in a thread where people were debating the validity of the op in regards to applying a PD solution to real life, and where really they were all being silly and the thread could have stopped on about the 10th post.

My application of the concepts and the definitions of the words I am implying seem strange not because I don't understand your use of the words but because people aren't seeing the world the way it is.

Instead they are twisting logic to support the ridiculous idea that the best solution for the world involves war and that there is no way around it.

Have we shown yet that no one should be suggesting that we can extract moral foundations from a game?

Have you yet shown that someone is suggesting that we can?

maybe not because i linked the wrong thread in the op

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...isoner+dilemna

Can you be more specific? Which post? What statement?

My understanding was that was the intent of the OP.

There's a lot going on in that OP. And from what I can tell in a brief skim, OP was already receiving quite a bit of pushback from others. Nothing jumps out to me that says his view was getting a good amount of support.

Having gotten to the end of this thread for me (because I really don't know what exactly your goals would be from here, and I'm not sure if I want to continue), here are a couple observations:

1) Notice that you were actually were able to make your main point in the complete absence of jargon. Do that more often.
2) There's a difference between a strategy and a moral principle. Various forms of strategy may be immoral while still achieving the desired goals of the individual. I don't think this is in dispute. Your perspective would benefit from drawing a clear line between the two concepts, as this seems to be part of the difficulty in the presentation of your viewpoint.

Indeed. The problem isn't that everyone thinks the Nash equilibrium for PD produces foundational moral principles. We don't. It's that newguy constantly misuses every piece of jargon which forces everyone to try and get him to explain himself clearly. Newguy then makes his standard move of claiming be the only clear-eyed thinker in the world (apart from JK, Bruce Lee and Russell Crowe).

If he wasn't so ludicrously conceited he would be able to have productive discussion here.

It seems to me that this is just a version of the "is-ought" problem, ie you can't get an ought from an is. Where the right mix of games and their assumptions might approximate a description of what is, like any other description of what is it wouldn't imply what ought to be. And where the right mix and assumptions of games might approximate a description of what we think ought to be, the games would follow the ought rather than the other way round. It really doesn't matter whether a mix of games have much potential for approximating irl. Even if they could the ought wouldn't follow. At least according to the "is-ought" premise.


PairTheBoard

Well I'd be happy to agree on the whole moral extracting issue. From there, as long as we can lay that down as a truth, we can show that if we all collude to solve poker together, we can make this world optimal for each individual.

I'm trying but words don't have the same context for me and its tough to sift through. It's others emotions that get in the way, and also the typing I think because I never have this issue irl life. Thx for the advice (sincerely). Also if someone reads my writing like I'm an idiot then it will seems so.


Yes what you point at is another way of saying what I wanted to point out in the PD thread. Once we realize this though, we can still extrapolate important information but not in the conventional way. So while most people are done with it once realizing you can't set moral foundations this way, they are missing the real value of this understanding.


No game theory for any game produces moral foundations. I'd be happy to hear we all think this is a truth.
I'm using the words properly for the most part you just aren't following along well.

Nash not Crowe. But not the only ones, these are just the ones we have access to and can reference properly.


No I am not conceited, I actually hate knowing this, and I hate having to find someone who can understand me. I hid it for like 10 years. But the world is a horrible place and I can't justify sitting on the intelligent knowledge of non violence.

It's possible I'm conceited sure (obv we all are to a certain extent) but another solution as to why you can't understand me is you are too self centered to believe in, support, or see the obvious fact of a holistic solution to the problem of the world. This coupled with the fact that you were conditioned all your life to violently oppose such a change, which includes ridicule.

Ridiculing others is conceited.

Nash's work was meant to bring peace not war, and you are blind and not intelligent if you can't see that.

But we can show it mathematically if we stop trying to call me an idiot while exploring it.