2 ms·

I think we can agree to disagree at this point. This is why I think so: The argument that I originally objected to was that it is in "our nature" to develop ev

I think we can agree to disagree at this point. This is why I think so: The argument that I originally objected to was that it is in "our nature" to develop ever more lethal means of warfare. Your objection to this is that (according to game theory) there is no way to stop this, so although it might not be in our genetic nature then it is in the "nature" of game theory (with rational players that might as well be robots). My objection to this stands: you can't know all the parameters of the game even if it probably is possible to retrofit the theory to past events so that it looks all encompassing. In systems as complex as total world history you simply can not pin down all the parameters sufficiently so that you can foresee all possible outcomes - no matter how much one might wish for such powers. It is a temptation that many, perhaps mostly mathematicians, have succumbed to: replacing the world with the model, or the terrain with the map if you will. So, even this kind of "nature" is false, even if less obviously so. I don't expect you to agree, but I think we can agree that this is the point of contention, and since our beliefs are simply different (and I don't expect you to be swayed as a consequence of our little exchange here) there is no use arguing further.

pixl97 3y ago
But you're kind of doing the same thing... You're simply submitting that a model exists where we can all get along, and handwaving why as too complex. Your model is as simply unpredictable as my model is. But with any models where there is a large amount of unpredictability, is you look at model probability. What is more probable? That everyone suddenly starts getting along with no defectors. Or that some groups play along waiting for the right time to defect?
- stareatgoats 3y ago
  I'm not predicting, or saying what is probable, I'm saying that something is not impossible, and pointing out a direction that might be possible and something to strive for. You can call that a model if you like. As a contrast models that use "nature" as a concept are deterministic: referring to human "nature" in terms of warfare is another way of saying that peace is impossible, and therefore meaningless to strive for. It is reflected in the language you used: "(...) can it be avoided [?] (...) And here is the answer you don't want to hear. No. ", i.e. very assertive, as if proven. Now in your latest comment, you start talking about various probabilities instead, which speaks a different language than the one used previously. High probability based on historical and, as such different, circumstances is not same as predicting with absolute certainty what will happen, as I'm sure you agree. Which brings me to reiterate what I said at the start of this thread: It is not part of our unchangeable nature to be ever more destructive towards fellow man. And, I might add: to insist that it is (in our nature) is not only false, it becomes an argument for not exploring the sorely needed avenues for peace that exist.

pixl97 3y ago

But you're kind of doing the same thing... You're simply submitting that a model exists where we can all get along, and handwaving why as too complex. Your model is as simply unpredictable as my model is. But with any models where there is a large amount of unpredictability, is you look at model probability. What is more probable? That everyone suddenly starts getting along with no defectors. Or that some groups play along waiting for the right time to defect?

stareatgoats 3y ago
I'm not predicting, or saying what is probable, I'm saying that something is not impossible, and pointing out a direction that might be possible and something to strive for. You can call that a model if you like. As a contrast models that use "nature" as a concept are deterministic: referring to human "nature" in terms of warfare is another way of saying that peace is impossible, and therefore meaningless to strive for. It is reflected in the language you used: "(...) can it be avoided [?] (...) And here is the answer you don't want to hear. No. ", i.e. very assertive, as if proven. Now in your latest comment, you start talking about various probabilities instead, which speaks a different language than the one used previously. High probability based on historical and, as such different, circumstances is not same as predicting with absolute certainty what will happen, as I'm sure you agree. Which brings me to reiterate what I said at the start of this thread: It is not part of our unchangeable nature to be ever more destructive towards fellow man. And, I might add: to insist that it is (in our nature) is not only false, it becomes an argument for not exploring the sorely needed avenues for peace that exist.