home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsh!cbnewsh!tds
- From: tds@hoserve.att.com (Tony DeSimone)
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
- Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
- Message-ID: <TDS.92Nov13134134@qpc1.ATT.COM>
- Date: 13 Nov 92 18:41:34 GMT
- Article-I.D.: qpc1.TDS.92Nov13134134
- References: <1ds1d3INNslq@gap.caltech.edu> <1duupoINN5bl@gap.caltech.edu>
- <1dv0ueINN7mm@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Nov13.172042.22232@udel.edu>
- Sender: news@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (NetNews Administrator)
- Reply-To: tds@hoserve.att.com (Tony DeSimone)
- Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
- Lines: 40
- In-Reply-To: mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu's message of Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:20:42 GMT
- Nntp-Posting-Host: qpc1.ho.att.com
-
- >>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:20:42 GMT, mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy) said:
- Don> Nntp-Posting-Host: pecan.cns.udel.edu
-
- Don> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
- >kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
- >
- >>It seems to me that the most natural mode of human behavior is to act in
- >>one's own self-interest, without particular concern for others. >
-
- >I disagree. I think that a natural morality exists. It is an instinct--a
- >product of evolution that allowed humans to live in groups, thus greatly
- >increasing their survival rate. Of course, in effect (in the long run at
- >least), acting in regard to others is in your best interest, or else you
- >won't get the things you want.
-
- Don> Keith,
- Don> You're right in that this instinct has evolved, but why do
- Don> you chose to call it "natural morality"? It's a loaded term,
- Don> totally inappropriate for describing the phenomenon. If interested,
- Don> read:
- Don> "The Evolution of Strategies in the Iterated
- Don> Prisoner's Dilemma" by Robert Axelrod
- Don> in _Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing_
- Don> (Research notes in artificial intelligence)
- Don> David Lawrence, ed. {ISBN -0-934613-44-3}
-
- An interesting paper along these lines appears in a recent issue of
- Nature. (Sorry, I don't have a good citation, but I just saw it in
- the library's displayed copy yesterday so it's probably the current
- issue.) If I'm remebering it right, Axelrod's work involves
- ``memory'' (remembering how your opponent behaved in the past). The
- new paper is again ``memoryless'' but involves more than pair-wise
- contests, e.g. contests among nine sites on a square lattice. Very
- complicated structures emerge, depending on the particular values of
- the payoffs. One striking configuration showed large groups of
- ``cooperators'' clustered together, with ``conflictors'' surviving at
- the interstices in small numbers.
-
- I'll leave the interpretation to those of you with a more sociological
- bent....
-