In a lecture on something called neuroeconomics, Robert Sopalsky offers a concise introduction to game theory. At one point he discusses a hypothetical scenario where a person is offered a choice of saving people by pulling a lever, or by pushing a person in front of a train. (As I remember it, in the latter scenario more people are saved.) He tells us these scenarios are mathematically equivalent. [1.]
Quotes and comments;
- To say ethical strategy A. (moral) is 'mathematically equivalent' to strategy B. (immoral) is nonsensical. You can't talk about ethics and morality in terms of mathematics. That's not what ethics is. Mathematics isn't ethical, and ethics aren't mathematical. How anyone can make such a huge mistake I don't know.
Materialism (being monistic) leads to endless errors; as the human and the non-human must be explained by the same principles. The appeal of game theory is that it gives promise of being able to explain animal behavior in terms of mathematics; and thus gives hope to the dream of being able to explain all things (including human experience) in terms of physics.
Notes;
1. Robert Sopalsky; Biology and human behavior; lecture 12 [Cooperation, competition and neuroeconomics]
- While creationists have done a fair job of reviewing books on evolution, they've done a poor job of keeping up with lecture series such as this. (The Teaching Company alone has many courses on evolution.) I can't remember ever having seen a review of one of them. As courses like these gain in popularity I think this is a lack that needs rectifying.
2. Neuroeconomics appearantly refers to observing the brain while people play these games such as Prisoner's Dilemna.
- I fail to see how these games can possibly be an accurate reflection of the animal world. I think we see here the triumph of the rational over the real.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
