[ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming

[Jef Allbright]

Rafal -

I'm so far into overload with projects here at this moment that the
best I can do is tell you that I think this topic is both important
and subtle and I intend to respond carefully and thoroughly when I
can.  I get that you think I imagine some kind of "emergent"
distinction that actually adds no value in any practical terms.  I
think I get your point of view because I used to be there, and then
discovered a model encompassing it with greater coherence. [Apologies
for the appearance of unsubstantiated arrogance.]  I think there is
real value to the concept of Superrationality and Hofstadter didn't do
it justice and Axelrod and others are too firmly entrenched in an
earlier paradigm.  This topic continues to pop up in the scholarly
journals as variations on a paradox, a sure sign of insufficient
context. ["Oh, there he goes again, with his crackpot "Importance of
Context" tape loop".  At least he didn't use "increasing" even once --
oops.]

Best regards, and  apologies for being presently too overcommited and
under resourced to respond properly.

- Jef

-----------------

On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>  > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>  >  > At 11:23 AM 5/2/2008 -0400, Rafal wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >  >Brainstorm here with us on how to solve the problem of global warming
>  >  >
>  >  >  Fun. You go first.
>  >
>  >  I think Rafal is pointing in a very good direction, but I don't think
>  >  such a solution exists for any such problem in isolation.  It will
>  >  work when a critical amount of the population of persons adopt the
>  >  superrational viewpoint that **within the indefinite scope of an
>  >  uncertain future**, promotion of their individual values is optimized
>  >  by acting in accordance with best-known principles rather than
>  >  expected consequences.
>
>  ### I disagree with the notion of "superrationalism", especially as
>  stated above. Obviously, if you disregard expected consequences, you
>  are very likely to fail at whatever you are trying to achieve, no
>  matter how feel-good your principles are. I am quite familiar with the
>  application of "superrationalism" to trying to develop a meta-analysis
>  of a situation and to find strategies circumventing the weaknesses of
>  existing strategies. Usually, there are strategies which provide
>  limited efficiency due to defection: one cannot join a cooperative
>  effort functioning over the long term because defection over the short
>  term is both possible and rewarding (in terms of e.g. survival
>  fitness, satisfaction of individual desires), thus defectors are not
>  excluded/suppressed, and inevitably destroy the cooperation by
>  outbreeding or otherwise marginalizing cooperators. "Superrationalism"
>  here means the ability to see the limitations imposed by defection,
>  and trying to improve the strategies by dealing with it. If you are
>  successful, you can achieve more in the long term than somebody who
>  doesn't analyze the system as a whole and tries to maximize his
>  utility within the existing framework of strategies. I dislike the
>  term "superrationalism": we don't need it, since it simply refers to
>  rationalism applied consistently and over the long term, rather than
>  something qualitatively different from rationalism. Also, many
>  "superrationalists" only point out the weaknesses of existing
>  strategies, which isn't exactly rocket science, and then hand-wavingly
>  exhort to do something better. Certainly it would be nice if we all
>  were a happy family working together to make each one of us better
>  off, but the really hard issue is finding new solutions that are
>  impervious to defection and work well over long time.
>
>  Still, if you like to talk about "superrationalism", the argument
>  could be made that the libertarian trying to find non-violent and
>  resilient modes of cooperation to supplant the endemic violence
>  surrounding us, is in fact the superrationalist. After all, we are all
>  in it together, we are all suffering because of the widespread belief
>  that violence is a good way of getting things done, and all of us
>  would assuredly be much better off if we could find a way of making it
>  more difficult to inflict. I posited the "libertarian yoke" to
>  stimulate discussion of exactly how it could be done but so far it
>  looks like everybody is stymied, no doubt in part because for us,
>  humans, advocating violence against others is an ingrained habit of
>  thought.
>
>  Rafal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  extropy-chat mailing list
>  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>