Most Definitely in Our Name

[jordan179]

Human morality derives from the implications of game theory on sociobiological evolution. All successful social strategies are a variant on "nice tit for tat," which is to say that their basis is to first attempt to cooperate with others, then do as was last done unto oneself. Which is to say, to "retaliate

Comments

[starblade_enkai]

I know what game theory is. And game theory is much too constraining to be considered a 'be-all' and 'end-all' of rational systems modeling. It exists in the world of numbers, while we exist in a world of concepts.

It's not bad for demonstrating specific principles, but the logic of whether the analogy it draws is valid or not still relies ultimately on philosophy.

Besides, we have lots and lots of choices to make every split second of every day of our lives, not necessarily in fundamental categories of choice but in level and style within those categories. While fundamental category leads to fundamental category in a consistent way, the level and style may not necessarily lead to level and style in a consistent way. And every time we have to change category there are factors that may have been level and style in in one category but are part of fundamental category in another, and vice versa.

So every few seconds we have to redo a lot of cognitive steps. Game model may be able to adapt, one day, but it's still in its infancy. Philosophy though is in adolescence in comparison. Not that I'm bashing Game Theory, it's quite useful as a means to some particular end. I'm just saying that those who set the ends, IE philosophers, are much more important than Mathematicians who are into Game Theory.