---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?

 If it is not possible for a rock to
> be altruistic to a human, it may be possible for a human to be
altruistic to
> a rock. Can't argue effectively on this one since the idea that
rocks have
> the capability to become sentient - rock salt for instance - being
> encorporated into synaptic connections and along nerves - makes
sense. 

If the Earth can be sentient with no justifcation or little
justification for it then so can a rock.  I believe that you and Bryan
are on a slippery slope to having everything being sentient which of
course renders the word meaningless.

> The value in the tit for tat theory of conflict resolution is
primarily
> educational. There are several ways to observe the operational proof
of this
> theory. One is mathematically through game theory. However one
problem is
> that the specification of the decision rules is dependent on
quantification.

Dunno about this one.  The quantification of the payoffs may not be
necessary.

> Humans do not have value systems that operate that way. In fact
humans often
> act according to notions, and ideals without any specification.
Humans are
> much too complex to model accurately in all cases. A cooperative 

Models should be simplistic, complex models are usually worthless as
predictive mechanisms.

strategy is
> often a source of failure in a tit for tat model when the game
reaches a
> certain point. The reason being the decision rules give greater
benefits to

This is not very enlightening in that most strategies fail under the
correct situations.  In the prisoners dilemma the game has to be
repeated infinitely and the discount factor has to be low enough.  So
if the number of repetitions is known with certainty then the
cooperative solution would not result.

> the 'retailator' and inherent in any game model is the assumption
that there
> is one winner. In the market place, in intimate love relations, we
humans 

False.  In the repeated prisoner's dilemma with infinite repetitions
both players get improved payoffs.  Further, there are the class of
non-zero sum games.

do
> not operate on the basis of winning solely. Inherent therefore is
conflict
> as a motive, but conflict is negative in certain situations. But not
all

I disagree, I don't think conflict is the motivation, but is the
result of certain motivations.

> 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.

> 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



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%