[cherdano]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 2 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Feb 2 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 1 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

How many civilizations did the spanish destroy( this may predate but the point is the same)

Lol, they teach us that this is just propaganda from England and France you know?


Anyway Al_U_Card, why didn't you even mention the jews? didn't anything happen in europe on the first half on the century?

Genocide is a distorted part of the survival imperative. The church destroyed the heretical Mayan and Incan cultural records, Hitler eviscerated the jewish communities to help fund his war machine etc. etc. I couldn't (sadly) possibly fit all of the atrocities on the list....

It was bad enough to start this poll, bad enough to omit the Holocaust, but this explanation makes it even worse.

[luke warm]

sceptic, on Feb 3 2008, 01:13 AM, said:

Jimmy explain to me by eradicating evil, there will only be good in the world

oh i'm not arguing with you, wayne... i "know" (ie, believe) that to be true, myself... it just surprised me that you believe it... of cousre it's possible we aren't speaking of the same thing (dr. todd has a few good posts on this, iirc)... you see, most people posting here seem to be of the opinion there's no such thing as evil, in a morality sense, because there's no such thing as morality, in an objective sense

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Feb 2 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 2 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

Quote

We cannot allow evil to exist

Without evil, there is no good

you don't really believe that, do you?

What we believe versus what we can do are two different things that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If evil is countered by goodness then it is not a stalemate, it is neutrality. Neutrality, like the absolute summation of everything, is nothing. Nothing includes everything so that the key is to acheive a state of neutrality so that you are able to do whatever is necessary because it is included in that initial state.

We humans are an experiment in existence. Not a failed experiment, yet.

[Winstonm]

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.

My (thinking?) goes like this:

Person 1 can:
A) Be evil
B) Be good

Person 2 can:
A) Be evil
B) Be good

The best rewards are for both to chose B; however, if either choses B, his counterpart can gain an advantage by chosing A; therefore, the default selection would be A/A.

Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 3 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 2 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 2 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

Quote

We cannot allow evil to exist

Without evil, there is no good

you don't really believe that, do you?

What we believe versus what we can do are two different things that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If evil is countered by goodness then it is not a stalemate, it is neutrality. Neutrality, like the absolute summation of everything, is nothing. Nothing includes everything so that the key is to acheive a state of neutrality so that you are able to do whatever is necessary because it is included in that initial state.

We humans are an experiment in existence. Not a failed experiment, yet.

first of all i (and i assue wayne also) wasn't talking about balancing or countering evil with good... i was speaking to the existence of both/either, in an objective sense

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.

My (thinking?) goes like this:

Person 1 can:
A) Be evil
Be good

Person 2 can:
A) Be evil
Be good

The best rewards are for both to chose B; however, if either choses B, his counterpart can gain an advantage by chosing A; therefore, the default selection would be A/A.

Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

imo the 'rewards' are selfish regardless of the choice... why be good? why be other than good? how do you determine good vs. evil, what do you use to measure either by?

in the final analysis we all choose evil, it's just a matter of degree... it isn't about balancing imo, it's hard to say "well on balance so and so lived a good life"... after all, how many 'good' acts counter one evil act, or good thoughts or good intentions, etc

[Al_U_Card]

Balance is the key. Bush is creating quite a bit of "good" for Halliburton, Carlyle Group etc. etc. and quite a bit of evil for Iraq and its people. How about just giving some money to Halliburton to do some construction jobs in Iraq? No need for killing and strife and everyone is better off as balance is maintained. (We the taxpayers take the hit again, of course, but it is a small evil compared to the death and destruction that our malevolent friends in Washington are dishing out.)

[bid_em_up]

Jlall, on Feb 3 2008, 09:44 AM, said:

Post of the year imo

Better than Shubi's? Or just because its a different year now?

[Al_U_Card]

Not even close....the Shoob is in a universe and time of his own...

[Mbodell]

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.
...
Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

Except Prisoner's Dilemma is "solved" to not be evil/evil if the interaction is a repeatable interaction with memory. Then you get strategies like tit-for-tat, and cooperative tit-for-tat which do much better, even just thinking of your own self interest.

But even so evaluating morality from a selfish perspective seems unsatisfactory to me.

[Winstonm]

Mbodell, on Feb 4 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.
...
Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

Except Prisoner's Dilemma is "solved" to not be evil/evil if the interaction is a repeatable interaction with memory. Then you get strategies like tit-for-tat, and cooperative tit-for-tat which do much better, even just thinking of your own self interest.

But even so evaluating morality from a selfish perspective seems unsatisfactory to me.

Again, I am not a student of this concept, but might it be better to alter the concepts to give/take when using selfish/unselfish components?

Perhaps constucted like this:

Give/Give=1 point for each
Give/take=0 points for give and 2 points for take
take/take=1/2 point for each due to damage of conflict

Wouldn't this help explain how selfishness could be viewed as a form of insurance?

Once you get past the basic game, I'm lost - so if there are complex solutions according to game theory, if you wish to contribute I'd need really simple explanations - thanks.

[kenberg]

The problem, I think, with any game theory approach is that self-interest is perceived so differently. The following conversation with a suicide bomber seems possible:

Rationalist: Let us pursue self-interest.
Suicide Bomber: Fine.
Then he pulls the pin.

His interest is killing people. He is pursuing that interest. Not everyone wants a home in the suburbs.