Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
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),
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
Indeed. The problem isn't that everyone thinks the Nash equilibrium for PD produces foundational moral principles. We don't.
No game theory for any game produces moral foundations. I'd be happy to hear we all think this is a truth.
Quote:
It's that newguy constantly misuses every piece of jargon which forces everyone to try and get him to explain himself clearly.
I'm using the words properly for the most part you just aren't following along well.
Quote:
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).
Nash not Crowe. But not the only ones, these are just the ones we have access to and can reference properly.
Quote:
If he wasn't so ludicrously conceited he would be able to have productive discussion here.
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.