From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:55:58 +0800
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: FW: Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-960724212138Z-4289@abash1.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: 	tcmay@got.net

>...certainly a Schelling point or evolutionary game
>theory interpretation of what we call "rights" is superior to an
appeal-to-God or "natural rights" interpretation.
........................................................................
.................


So there is the "game theory" interpretation of "rights" as would be
understood by an individual within a group of 2 or more, or a "society"
of many individuals, and then there is the interpretation of how anyone
might interpret the concept even if they were not a member of any
society but lived totally alone in the wilderness?

I don't know why these would be categorized as being part of a "game" -
evolutionary or otherwise.   A game is something that is evaluated
somewhat outside the context of our regular life - a diversion, an
accessory, even if it also can be taken seriously or if it can become a
career for some people.   It is not given the same significance as other
practical pursuits like medicine or engineering, which are intended to
have definite, practical, beneficial results.

Any person normally posseses some ability to determine the propriety to
themselves of certain things in existence:  they  have some measure of
ability to make judgements over what is "right" or "wrong" for humankind
similar to themselves.   Most people develop some sensitivity to the
difference between that which is destructive to the goals & values of
living things versus that which is supportive of them;  most everyone is
expected to improve the ability to think  about these things as they
grow up, even if they don't hold formal arguments with anyone else about
it.   

But people's minds work on overtime and just because they can make
judgements, they therefore do make judgements, and furthermore they
intend that everyone else should accept these same conclusions - they go
into "global mode", expecting that their perspective will be
incontestably valid over all.    

But I wouldn't think that they imagine themselves to be playing a game.
I think they're quite serious about it, and "rightly" so, as the
consequences of these decisions have major effects upon the quality of
their life and happiness.  I think  that to think of these concepts in
terms of game theory is to miss the place of significance which these
decisions have in the life of conscious, self-determining beings like
ourselves; that it doesn't do justice to the need to achieve
correspondence with the facts of life & molecular physics.   

Or,  what's the Prize for these Olympics (and who cares)?

    ..
Blanc

~ Blanc