[extropy-chat] game theory and decisions

[Jef Allbright]

Damien Sullivan wrote:

>
>The paradox doesn't 'appear' to rise; it rises.  Limited scope describes some
>situations: single anonymous interactions, first-strike winner-take-all, being
>able to kill your interactee, being able to choose to break relations and run
>away.  I read Axelrod's _The Evolution of Cooperation_ recently, and he talks
>about a possibility of bacteria being sensitive to the health of their host,
>so that they play nice while it is healthy (taking a long-term strategy of
>commensalism or mild parasitism, shedding bacteria over a long time), but
>multiply all out and grab resources when the host gets sick or badly injured,
>figuring the host is going to die soon, it's time to grab what you can and
>run.
>
>  
>
Assuming a coherent universe (bounded or not), there is no true paradox, 
but only situations where a model has insufficient context to encompass 
the problem at hand.  I point this out occasionally because it is hugely 
relevant to the so-called paradoxes involved in discussion of the nature 
of 'self", "free will" and "moral" decision-making.  All scare-quoted 
because typical usage does not correspond with a more encompassing view.

<snip>

>What's my point?  Not sure I have a specific one, other than to elaborate a
>lot on game theory.  Tit-for-tat (or, nice reciprocal cooperation in general)
>is cool, but it's not the end of the story.
>  
>
Yes, an easy supporting example is the way competition at one level is 
seen as cooperation at a higher level of organization.  Similarly, 
diversity is necessary for robust growth of a system--while top-down 
coordination also enhances effectiveness, thus growth within a 
competitive environment (which is every environment if we look at the 
bigger picture.) 

Complementarity, and expanding scope of context, everywhere we 
(subjectively) look.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net