Gathering Storm

[NicodaMax]

Personally, I believe that deterministic systems based on governing laws of interaction should not apply to human behavior, mainly because such belief systems are in part based on duality and judgment. What's right vs wrong, ying vs yang, emotions vs reason, etc. Mankind should aspire to free itself of such duality.

I believe that things are what they are in terms of how they interact with the surrounding environment, and as for myself, such interaction is based on goals and the frame of reference.

Given a specific environment (life, or a demogame), and a specific (basic) goal (survival, winning) I have to define for myself a methodology (set of rules if you want) that will help me achieve such goal in the most efficient way (such condition is a goal in itself). Efficiency being defined as trying to accomplish my goals with the least effort or cost on my behalf and those who share my environment.

This methodology, being neither emotional nor purely logical, though it manifests itself as both, can and will be somewhat predictable. For example, deception tends to be counterproductive in the long run (this I can’t demonstrate, it's a belief based on experience), thus inefficient, Therefore, you can predict me as being honest and open.

On the other hand, as systems grow in complexity they tend to be chaotic (and they don't need much growth for that) and loose their predictability, though usually staying within certain bounds. Thus, my interaction needs to be flexible and respond to that chaotic nature in a manner that will become less predictable. While I like to enumerate simple rules or make guidelines for myself, I'm aware that one of the most basic is that rules where meant to be broken

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by NicodaMax
Personally, I believe that deterministic systems based on governing laws of interaction should not apply to human behavior, mainly because such belief systems are in part based on duality and judgment.

I've yet to see any links between Determinism and any Duality besides the obvious "It Will/Does Exist" or "It Won't/Doesn't Exist"

What's right vs wrong, ying vs yang, emotions vs reason, etc. Mankind should aspire to free itself of such duality.

1. Which parts of Mankind are you talking about?
The Working classes don't need to think that deeply.
2. What's with the vs.?
The Dualities work because they balance each-other (otherwise one would pwn the other and thus no more duality).
3. Free itself of duality?
What on earth would you replace the Emotions vs Reason duality with? Unless you're talking about replacing the duality with both parts working in unison, at which point most people already have Emotions working with Reason (albeit clumsily).

Given a specific environment (life, or a demogame), and a specific (basic) goal (survival, winning) I have to define for myself a methodology (set of rules if you want) that will help me achieve such goal in the most efficient way (such condition is a goal in itself). Efficiency being defined as trying to accomplish my goals with the least effort or cost on my behalf and those who share my environment.

People do that automatically. It's what we are evolved to do: Accomplish as much as possible while still being Lazy.

deception tends to be counterproductive in the long run (this I can’t demonstrate, it's a belief based on experience), thus inefficient, Therefore, you can predict me as being honest and open.

You're just saying that so that we'll be open and susceptible to your plans, you wily deceptive person.

Thus, my interaction needs to be flexible and respond to that chaotic nature in a manner that will become less predictable. While I like to enumerate simple rules or make guidelines for myself, I'm aware that one of the most basic is that rules where meant to be broken

People do this automatically, also. Adapt to survive.
By the way: you will become less predictable in a predictable manner. =]

[Cort Haus]

I have to say from experience that logic can play a useful role in social interaction too.

My somewhat personal example involves breaking my old habit of picking girlfriends based on emotional fireworks, which would always start well and end badly. Instead I made a logical decision, based on months of good friendship, to go with a girl where our outlook and interests were matched. Of course there was a sexual attraction too, but not the mad, head-over-heels stuff that had ultimately failed in the past. It worked, and ten years later we're still together, stable, very loving and very happy with each other.

So, reason is good for civ, but also for people. As for emotions - my emotions are not particularly useful for civ. The worst civ I have ever played has been emotion-driven.

Man, in the PTWDG1 I was the emotional idiot who blew 19 knights trying to save 6 and finally ended the Great Bobian War. We'd lost anyway, and that final defeat probably didn't make much difference in the long run, but I felt I had disgraced the team and had certainly given our enemies something to jeer and gloat over.

Displays of emotion (which I was not involved in) on the public forum were no good for the game or anyone. Period.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

...........................

FYI, My disrespect of idiots is a Core belief, while my desire to preserve the human species isn't. Makes you think.

[Arrian]

Man, in the PTWDG1 I was the emotional idiot who blew 19 knights trying to save 6 and finally ended the Great Bobian War. We'd lost anyway, and that final defeat probably didn't make much difference in the long run, but I felt I had disgraced the team and had certainly given our enemies something to jeer and gloat over.

Oh, bah! We lost that war once those in charge (myself prominent among them) neglected to protect Toledo2. Once GoW got its Riders around us, RP was cooked, and our hopes for victory (at least in that war) went with them. The final dagger was Legoland's choice to align themselves with GoW/ND, thus removing any possibility of a GS counter-strike at GoW or ND's homeland. We'd already taken a beating, but we could've salvaged something, maybe. Nope, there's a stack of Lego knights!

Your move (which I can't even remember) was probably waaaaaay down on the list, and pales in comparison to the great job you did in keeping GS up and running in the aftermath of the Bobian adventure.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
While this is true,writing that one line statement (hopefully ) causes stormians to consider me as less of a loose cannon, thus increasing the chances of me getting l33t Civ 4 pwndage.

You need to know your audience better it seems. Inconsistant arguments are not the best way to win over people who value consistancy of reasoning.

"Moral" applies damn well to deterministic systems with a large set of predictable beings that defines things as Moral and Immoral.

You stated that because the system is deterministic that your stance is moral, while another stance is immoral. A deterministic system does not support that differentiation. In that sense, the sense you were using it, the system is amoral. (Or if you wish to view it in the opposite manner, omnimoral, encompassing all morals.)

If you want to say that you think something is immoral, and another thing moral, that is fine with me. Just don't try to prove it with explainations about a deterministic system. It refutes that one is different than the other.

Nor would I take issue with your arguments if you didn't assume I was a fatalist.

I do not assume you are a fatalist. Nor did I say that the morality, feelings, self-awareness, self-improvement, desires, change, emotions, logic, realizations, self-control, decisions, act[ions], learning, or growing that people experience are incompatible with a deterministic system. You assumed all of that incorrectly. (They obviously are all the result of the system if it is assumed to be deterministic.)

I said the system is amoral. Morality (as the term was used by you) is relative. A deterministic system can allow for relative assessments, even relative assessments of itself, but it is still not a relative system if that occurs. When you say the system is moral, that is personification of the system, which is allowed (dictacted even) by the system, but is not an accurate description of the system.

[Daddy-O]

Logic was evolved so we could adapt to changing environments and determine our actions so we could best get food / preserve the species / seduce a mate / meet any other goals.

If Logic was invented to seduce a mate and one is a logician; then one has a date on Saturday night.
Hilary Putnam is a logician.
Hilary Putnam is busy this Saturday.

You can't logically determine who you wan't to have sex with, but without sex our species would be extinct, so a logically-based being is thus a failure of a species.

Does anyone else see the obvious intended contradiction in the act of making this argument? Very funny. But, I'll bite anyway.

Sexual desire and attraction, ie. who you want to have sex with, can be quantified with empirical data. Our bodies have been wired to produce emotions and drives based on these logical sets of rules. All beings from bacteria to humans mate reproduce according to quantifiable and logical sets of rules. Known beings are reproductively successful by definition. Therefore, logic-based beings are successful species.

When I rap Modus Ponens, the ladies can't keep their hands off of me.

Oh ya!

*snap snap snap

[Krill]

Bacteria reproduce by binary fission. They don't mate. And even get me started on Fungi...remember that not all species reproduce sexually.

[Daddy-O]

Mate changed to reproduce. But bacteria remain very busy on Saturday nights.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Hmmm....

Note to self, GS is easily distracted from a topic by discussion of the reproductive habits of fungi....

[Arrian]

The level in here is rising to dangerous levels. How about those private forums, eh?

-Arrian

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Arrian


The level in here is rising to dangerous levels. How about those private forums, eh?

-Arrian

At least now we know where the GS members got their high post counts. They SAY it's from discussion about the game, but now we know the truth.

[Daddy-O]

Note to self, GS is easily distracted from a topic by discussion of the reproductive habits of fungi....

DON'T get krill started on fungi, and let's not even get into the reproduction habit of shrimp.

[Daddy-O]

GS = Gathering Spam

[NicodaMax]

I've yet to see any links between Determinism and any Duality besides the obvious "It Will/Does Exist" or "It Won't/Doesn't Exist"

In a deterministic system, every action, or cause, produces a reaction, or effect, and every reaction, in turn, becomes the cause of subsequent reactions. Some deterministic systems are Newton's laws of motion, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, or even behavioral models such as social determinism or it’s opposite, biological determinism. They are all based on the purported existence of two opposites of some kind (opposing forces, or opposing ontological or epistemic categories), hence the term dualism.

Examples of dualisms include action/reaction, self/other, mind/body, male/female, good/evil, active/passive, but what I meant by duality was the classical perceptions of right/wrong, moral/immoral, have/have not, happy/sad, that drives society (or mankind) as a collective.

Btw, What is pwn? Is the use of / instead of vs more accurate?

People do that automatically. It's what we are evolved to do: Accomplish as much as possible while still being Lazy.

People do that automatically at an individual level (or at a family group level), but efficiency should be based on the whole system whenever possible. As you say well say, people adapt to survive. In order to be collectively efficient it can be necessary sometimes to forego personal survival. Not many people are willing to do that. Personally, I don’t know if I would either.

You're just saying that so that we'll be open and susceptible to your plans, you wily deceptive person.

So now you know.

Logic was evolved so we could adapt to changing environments and determine our actions so we could best get food / preserve the species / seduce a mate / meet any other goals.

Therefore, logic-based beings are successful species.

One of the most common misconceptions on the subject of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, or that evolution is necessarily progressive. Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent, complex, or morally worthy than earlier generations.

Evolution is a mechanism that works through a process called Natural Selection, which, by the way, doesn’t necessarily mean that it has to occur naturally. In Natural Selection individuals who possess advantageous genetic traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. The thing is, advantageous is a relative term. A trait that is advantageous in one particular moment may become the cause for extinction as time progresses and the surrounding environment changes.