And ... therefore we are one? I cannot bring the argument here into focus. — Srap Tasmaner

What argument? That is called an analogy. It's an aid to understanding. I have not made an argument at all, so your inability to focus may be due to trying to examine something that is not there.

It's just math. — Srap Tasmaner

You are familiar with the term "rational self- interest"?

The view that I am contradicting is the one that claims that self-interest is rational, whereas altruism is irrational. You know, the founding principle of game theory. — unenlightened

"rational self- interest" — unenlightened

You are misreading this expression. In game theory, economic theory and such, the self and the interest in "rational self-interest" are taken for granted. Being rational here simply means being smart about maximizing personal gain, whatever it may be (e.g. getting out of prison as soon as possible in the famous Prisoners' Dilemma).

So I would like to know who is the actual target of your criticism? Can you give some real examples?

The view that I am contradicting is the one that claims that self-interest is rational, whereas altruism is irrational. You know, the founding principle of game theory. — unenlightened

You have labeled this view as a fallacy, but in contradicting it, you are following the same reasoning pattern. You are taking a different turn at some point, but that turning point is on the same path of reasoning from an is to an ought, so your view is not any less fallacious than the one you are attacking.

Being rational here simply means being smart about maximizing personal gain, — SophistiCat

That is exactly how I am reading it. Perhaps you could to put a little more effort into understanding me, and a little less into telling me where I have gone wrong. I had an essay on the philosophy of game theory on the old site, but I haven't got it now and I've forgotten the references, so you'll have to guess. But the pop culture side is fairly obviously the 'greed is good', 'why should I pay for your children/illness/whatever', selfish gene literalists, Randians, Jordan Peterson acolytes, etc.

your view is not any less fallacious than the one you are attacking. — SophistiCat

I have already made that explicit in the op and again later. I am not arguing for an objective justified morality, I am merely arguing against an objective justified motivation of any other kind. I am putting what you want to do and what you ought to do back on an equal footing, or lack of footing. Lots of people seem to feel that the former has a substantial quality the latter lacks. This is caused by 'myopia', and philosophy should be in the business of noticing that, rather than taking for granted that commonplace intuitions are true.

That is exactly how I am reading it. Perhaps you could to put a little more effort into understanding me, and a little less into telling me where I have gone wrong. — unenlightened

No need to get angry. I am trying to engage with your ideas, but you aren't being very forthcoming. I realize that I may be pushing in a direction that you weren't keen to pursue, but I think that it is important to this question.

I had an essay on the philosophy of game theory on the old site, but I haven't got it now and I've forgotten the references, so you'll have to guess. But the pop culture side is fairly obviously the 'greed is good', 'why should I pay for your children/illness/whatever', selfish gene literalists, Randians, Jordan Peterson acolytes, etc. — unenlightened

Yeah, this is very off-key. Again, economic and game-theoretic modeling doesn't concern itself with rationally justifying goals, much less personal identity. They take agents that pursue their interests as givens and explore the dynamics that arises from these givens. The interests that agents pursue can be anything; I have incautiously mentioned "personal gain," but interests can just as well be altruistic. Game theory has been applied to non-profits and charitable donations, for example. It has also been applied to social sciences and biology. Here is one random example:

Using evolutionary game theory, I consider how guilt can provide individual fitness benefits to actors both before and after bad behavior. This supplements recent work by philosophers on the evolution of guilt with a more complete picture of the relevant selection pressures. — Cailin O’Connor, The evolution of guilt: a model-based approach (2016)

It also bears mentioning that classic adversarial games of the type explored by Neumann and Nash are just one corner of the field. The more interesting game-theoretic scenarios often involve coordination and cooperation.


So I am still waiting for some unambiguous examples of the position that you are criticizing. (Perhaps that position will then become clearer than what I could gather from the hints that you've dropped.)

I'm out of my depth here, but I think the real target is Hobbes (who holds the honorary title of Founder of Game Theory). No coincidence that, in modern times, social contract theory is a branch of game theory (Skyrms, Binmore, et al).

What @unenlightened wants to deny is that the state of nature is a war of all against all.

They take agents that pursue their interests as givens — SophistiCat

Indeed. Bracket off the axioms as conditionals, and I have no quarrel with the mathematics as an abstract theory. But folks will insist on applying the theory, at which point the conditionals are assumed to be factual.

Binmore — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, he was one the guys I took exception to, I think.

What unenlightened wants to deny is that the state of nature is a war of all against all. — Srap Tasmaner

Just so. It is a theory that suits robber barons because their survival depends on keeping society fragmented.

Yes, he was one the guys I took exception to, I think. — unenlightened

An interview with Kenneth Binmore.

In neoclassical economics, when you talk about someone’s rational interest or the maximization of their utility function, it’s their own utility function. But what counts as utility for you might be the well-being of other people. Take St. Francis of Assisi: Utility for him would be feeding the hungry or mending the broken legs of pigeons. — Binmore

... and this leads to...

But suppose the original Mother Theresa wishes to feed the children of Calcutta while Mother Juanita wishes to feed the children of Bogota. And suppose that the international aid agency will maximize its donation if the two saints nominate the same city, will give the second-highest amount if they nominate each others’ cities, and the lowest amount if they each nominate their own city. Our saints are in a PD here, though hardly selfish or unconcerned with the social good. — SEP

The incomprehension here is remarkable. As if an unselfish person is selfish about their unselfishness. It's not that it doesn't happen - its a typical attitude of the social worker more concerned about their own career that the people they are supposed to be helping. Onecan play this game but one does not have to. I would expect the mothers in such a case to resolve their merely technical conflict in short order, or if they are prevented by isolation from doing so, to nominate each others, project. There is no such dilemma possible if one is unselfish.

I thought Binmore made it pretty clear how he would feel about such a scheme. He gives several examples in the interview.

I don't see Kenneth Binmore as one of the bad guys, but I get why someone would.

I don't see Kenneth Binmore as one of the bad guys, — Srap Tasmaner

Nor do I, particularly - I don't know the guy. I don't want to rewrite my old essay here, but the relevance to this thread is that game theory applies to separate utility functions of separate individuals. Communication links us, and separation is (crudely) a form of myopia which is overcome by understanding.

To illustrate this, try and construct a prisoner's dilemma between your left hand and your right hand. It is impossible because they have the same utility function, even if, as might happen, the hammering hand accidentally hits the nail-holding hand on the thumb. It's not that the mathematics of myopia is wrong, it's that it results in myopic decisions and makes, for example, the interests of the environment, impossible to implement.

It's not that the mathematics of myopia is wrong, it's that it results in myopic decisions and makes, for example, the interests of the environment, impossible to implement. — unenlightened

I have a lazy amateur's knowledge of game theory, but I do know there's a substantial literature on the tragedy of the commons -- part of the story of how we got in this mess -- and on the stag hunt, which is about getting people to forego a little individual short-term gain for a much larger collective long-term gain.

Just a little game theory could have been part of the solution. Of course, no one was interested because that would mean giving up a little (okay, in some cases a hell of a lot of) individual short-term gain. Catch-22. That's not the fault of game theory; it's the tragic impulse game theory might have helped us tame, if the right people hadn't blown off people like Binmore.

@unenlightened
Just noticed this thread, been away for a while. Interesting. Western philosophy doesn’t give nearly as much attention to this question as does Eastern thought, as far as I’ve read. What is “you” and what is “not you”? The glass of water on the table is “not you”, apparently. Drink the water, and then it becomes part of “you”... until when? Urination? Until every molecule in that water is expelled? The saying is that there are molecules within you forged in distant galaxies...

The whole issue quickly becomes hazy, which to my mind is a good thing. It seems more natural and real. It is very relative, always changing. The “absolute me” (like you mentioned) goes from a given to a very flexible proposition. Not unlike the findings of quantum physics in general. Matter is not solid, nor is the self which would seem to be on a higher level than a molecule.

And of course our skin is not the limit of “me”. Clothes, personal space (lately much expanded due to virus), possesions... MY family, MY friends, MY spouse. What odd expressions, like they are some kind of possessions. Are we possessed by possessions? If so, maybe because we were first possessed by the idea of absolute separateness.

Do we dare embrace the entire world as ourselves? And not be afraid when the Cosmos embraces us back?

The normal version is 'you can't get an ought from an is', and it is usually used to deny the 'reality' of moral claims. My radical extension is to deny also the 'reality of identity claims:- — unenlightened

I am not sure just what an "identity claim" is for you. Is it a claim that there exists a changeless soul? Or is it a more empirical claim that there are processes of local connection and continuity that evoke and may be transformed into the selves and entities of narrative?

If the reality of processes of local connection and continuity were denied would that not be to deny the reality of all claims whatsoever?

You can't even get a 'you' from an 'is' - the self is a naturalistic fallacy constructed from the limitations of the senses, which do not make any real boundary or change in the world. This means that there is no difference in substance between what one ought to do and what one wants to do, because the 'one' is fictional in both cases.

But isn't what is revealed by the senses the very basis of the whole concept of reality? When you say that there are no real boundaries or change in the world made by the senses, are you not merely saying that such purported boundaries and changes are not themselves perceptible objects? Why should we expect them to be, though, when the senses are not themselves perceptible, but merely their organs are?

In light of what you say it would appear that everything altogether is fictional. And in a way just this could rightly be said, I think. Simply because "the map is not the territory". The sense of this is that we don't perceive the territory at all, but merely conceive it. In that case, though, why single out anything at all for rejection as being "real"?