At 05:18 PM 12/12/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>---John Michael wrote:
>> analogy - something here in the discussion lacks focus. Altruism to
>me is an
>> ideal role of conduct for a human because it promotes cooperation as
>opposed
>> to competition that is not constructive.
>
>This seems to be a gross over simplification in my opinion (unless you
>are joking of course...but if you are you forgot your emoticon).
>Competition can be constructive. Also, it is not necessarily the case
>that cooperation is non-destructive. What if I have a friend and he
>comes over and cooperates with me in plowing a large field
>under...didn't we just cooperate to destroy something?
I don't know. Your quesss is as good as mine. Maybe you could offer to plant
hemp in it or sunflowers. Take a quess. Economic fundamentalists like
yourself see competition as a fundamental right, obligation and duty. If you
can get two people to cooperate at competing with the field for no apparent
reason, then albeit.
<snip>
>
>If the Earth can be sentient with no justifcation or little
>justification for it then so can a rock.
A good teacher shows the student a way to learn for himself so that the
student is not dependent on the teacher. Do you happen to know any
justification for sentience in anything? Say a human? What justifies human
sentience? I might be missing something but you have implied some
justification for sentience in something.
<snip>
>
>Models should be simplistic, complex models are usually worthless as
>predictive mechanisms.
Unfortunately nature is not simple.
<snip>
In the repeated prisoner's dilemma with infinite repetitions
>both players get improved payoffs. Further, there are the class of
>non-zero sum games.
The retaliator is better off cooperating up to a certain point. In the end
the retailator can end it all and take all the toys. While infinite
repetitions in a game are possible, they are not in social/cultural/economic
life of humans, and rarely are they in games. The Pavlov model even results
in the same outcome. If two players are cooperators, then the game would
last forever. But that is the whole point, how do we get powerful
non-cooperating players to "cooperate"?
<snip>
>> conflict is solved by one participant winning and the rest losing. I
>would
>> argue that the opposite is true in most cases.
>
>You should try studying martial arts John. In Kashima Shinryu the
>best and highest expression of the art is to resolve conflict by not
>having a conflict.
I not only have tried but have studied martial arts. I like how you make
assumptions before enquiring. I studied karate here in the Kamloops area
with Amiel Repack and Dwayne Shear. Had worked up to a brown belt and used
to know a few katas. The whole purpose of martial arts is to avoid physical
contact and thus conflict. You did not know this. In fact by law I am
required to announce to an assailant that "I know karate" twice in an
attempt to prevent a serious injury because a karate expert is considered to
own a dangerous weapon. I will not tell you how to disable your opponent.
Since learning Karate I have never been afraid of being injured by someone.
It is relatively easy to defend your self from strong untrained fighters
even if the get their hands on you. In fact this is one way to disable them
when they - when they put their hands on you hair and pull you can easily
break their wrists. When I started karate I was 14 and after that I was
never in a fight except one and I was attacked three times but I never even
got a scratch. I had the opponent on the ground three times. He kept coming
at me and he would swing at me and I could easily deflect his swipes and he
soon tired out and fell to the floor. I simply stepped over him, and walkded
away. Having also studied gymnastics, and been a competition skier for a
decade also helps, and having a superior cardiovascular system is great too.
I can fall many feet at high speed and recover without getting hurt, unless
there are large rocks to land on. You just got to know how to roll with the
punches when you fall.
John
>
>> For instance in soccer games the viewer only enjoys the game when
>there is a
>> goal and when the favorite team makes a goal. The results of soccer
>matches
>> in Scotland and other countries provide evidence that when goals are
>not
>> scored, viewer dissatisfaction becomes very high. In fact very
>serious riots
>> have occurred as a result of few goals being scored and fans
>rioting. In
>> hockey for instance there are many goals scored and there are few if
>any
>> riots. In basket ball the same phenomenon appears. In Papua New Guinea
>> football rules have been changed to accomodate the interests of the
>players.
>> The rule is that each team has to make a certain number of
>touchdowns or
>> goals in soccer before the game is ended. In other examples it is not
>> winning that is the most important thing, but playing well.
>
>Don't know where you are going with this soccer vs. hockey issue here.
> Seems to me that both hockey and soccer are forms of competition and
>thus according to you are destructive and should be stopped immediately.
>
>Steve
>
>> a note on nettiquette: remove the long unread portions of previous
>quotes
>> when posting to free up hardrive space
>
>LOL
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|