John,

My comments are below.


---John Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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. 

Straw man argument here.  Nope, we plant nothing we just work in
joyous cooperation to plow the field under.  No planting.  No
building.  Just plow the field under.

I do not view competition as a fundamental right, obligation, or duty
(sheesh talk about ascribing a position to a person...amazing how one
can hurl and accusation and in a few posts later do the same thing...).

> <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. 

Nice red herring here.  The question was and still remains...is the
Earth Sentient.  Does it exhibit traits of being self aware, and the
other characteristics that Steven Bissel pointed to in a previous post.

> <snip>
> >
> >Models should be simplistic, complex models are usually worthless as
> >predictive mechanisms.
> 
> Unfortunately nature is not simple. 

Yes it is, but the fact still remains that some of the most useful
models are the most simple models.  Trying to model actual nature is
oxymoronic.

> <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"? 

Wrong again John.  All that ones needs to claim infinite repititions
is that the number of rounds of play is not known with certainty. 
That is you have a positive probability that the game will continue
for at least one more turn.  This is sufficient to invoke the Folk
Theorem and get all the nice "cooperative" outcomes.

> 
> <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

Actually, there are two purposes to martial arts.  The first and
foremost is to pass along knowledge of the combative arts.  The second
and until the last 100 to 150 years self improvement.  Until modern
times, the self improvement part of martial arts was a secondary
benefit that was the result of learning the more esoteric aspects of
the various combat arts.  It was not (at least for Japan) until the
Tokugawa Shogunate that the self improvement aspects of martial arts
started to take on a more central role.

> 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.

Yes its quite sill since a person that has spent considerable time
learning to fight "on the streets" is not so required to state "Hey, I
know how to stomp on your head so you wont wanna get up".

> 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. 

Yes its called ukemi in Japanese.

Steve
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



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