Quote from: CoinCube on January 26, 2017, 09:43:24 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on January 26, 2017, 09:32:02 PM

This is 3rd or 4th time I am repeating to you that it is self-selection where those who remain are stronger. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

You are trying to fix all of society. I am not. I am just trying to compete. Competition is good. Trying to fix society is evil.

Optimizing voluntary cooperation in no way limits self-selection.

And I didn't claim it would. Why are you always focused on top-down force. I am designing a decentralized paradigm, which will know are more resilient. Of course we do have to also weigh the potential for divergence if there aren't the proper incentives for it to converge on any ordered outcome.

Afaics, you are stuck in old paradigms. Difficult to teach an old dog like you a new trick apparently.

Quote from: CoinCube on January 26, 2017, 09:43:24 PM

Competition is good but the promotion of competition over cooperation is not.

You keep claiming that minimizing defection is maximizing cooperation and afaics that is a non-sequitur.

Minimizing defection actually limits cooperation and promotes top-down failure modes which are rigor mortis. Some coordination results from top-down control, but massive amounts of aliasing error (relative to fitness) also. Satoshi's PoW design suffers from this problem and my solution to fixing it is involved with increasing decentralization and removing that aliasing error.

Maximizing cooperation is a coordination problem. This has to do with Coasian costs. It is an economic and technology issue. For solutions, we need decentralized paradigms such as open source. Religion isn't objective open source. It is unfalsifiable, top-down control.

Quote from: CoinCube on January 26, 2017, 09:43:24 PM

I agree we are repeating ourselves and not moving towards consensus. I propose we wind down this discussion as an intractable philosophical difference.

You are closed-minded and made up your mind before you came to the discussion.

Whereas, I have experimented, failed, and attempted to entertain all points of view over the many years. I am attempting to entertain yours but you aren't giving me much meat to chomp on.

I am willing to listen to cogent arguments. You aren't making detailed cogent arguments, rather just pronouncements.

Societal organization issues are very complex and very difficult. Humans have a very difficult coordination dilemma. We just end up punting and choosing some extant strategy, because creating a new one is unfathomably difficult to achieve. I may be too old and just opt to coast for the remainder of my life.

I was hoping to hear from some who have skin in the game. Not old folks or those who will never raise children. You have skin in the game and I understand the difficulty and the need to make a choice based on probability of success. I don't fault you for that. I do fault you for judging me as evil because of my open-mindedness. People who think they have an absolute truth are closed-minded. There are no absolutes in our universe. Even when I entertain the concept that limiting the role of females is a superior multi-generational hypercompetitive group strategy, it doesn't mean I think it is absolutely true. I believe in a competition of strategies. We won't have a total order.

I've been exposed to strong and weak women in my life in various facets. And my experience has universally been of observing them destroy things. I tried emancipation and giving the keys and watched that crash and burn. Etc.. Whereas, I have observed some stable men in my life (not all though and certainly not including myself).