|
Post by Sigmaleph on Nov 30, 2010 21:00:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I came up with this one myself or read it somewhere, probably the latter. In any case, I know I'm not the first one to think of it. Suppose you're in a fairly typical Prisoner's Dilemma scenario, with a small difference. As always, you can choose to either cooperate or defect with the other participant. If you both cooperate, you both get 3 points, if you both defect, you both get 1 point, if you defect and the other participant cooperates, you get 5 points and the other zero, if you cooperate and the other defects, you get zero and the other 5. You are in separate rooms and cannot communicate with each other in any way. That much is the usual. The difference this time is, the other participant is an exact copy of you. For the sake of avoiding the whole "who's the copy and who the original" thing, you're both copies of the same person, created simultaneously, right before you heard the rules of the game, and have both heard the exact same rules of the game, in the exact same circumstances. You may or may not particularly care for the other copy, that's up to you, but imagine your only objective is to maximise the amount of points you, as in you particular copy, get. What do you choose, cooperate or defect? Also, does this change from what you'd choose if the other participant was a complete stranger?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 30, 2010 21:43:47 GMT -5
With another me? Cooperate. With a stranger? Defect.
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Nov 30, 2010 22:23:36 GMT -5
With an exact copy of me? Co-operate, Being the exact same person I'd have to assume that we'd end up picking the same option, and it's better to both co-operate then both defect.
With a total stranger, I'd probably end up defecting, since if you don't have a clue what the other person might do you're better off defecting. It's the best strategy in a single game when you don't know the person you're dealing with.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 30, 2010 22:29:23 GMT -5
I want the points betrayl will get me. I can only assume the clone does, too. So I'll just betray him & hope he convinces himself to cooperate, & thus be screwed over.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Nov 30, 2010 22:39:32 GMT -5
I don't think I'd be willing to cooperate, I honestly don't trust myself. As such, I'd defect. Hey, a potential of either 1 or 5 points is better then either 0 or 3.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Dec 1, 2010 0:40:25 GMT -5
Defect in both. In the original dilemma, defecting is the only way of potentially avoiding jail time, and I'd rather risk five years in jail than ten. Cooperating, on the other hand, guarantees that I will be seeing some amount of jail time. Similarly, in yours, defecting is the only way to guarantee that you'll get any points. In both the original and modified version, defecting has a better best-case-scenario, and a less crappy worst-case-scenario.
The fact that I'm going up against a duplicate of myself doesn't change anything. The logic remains the same, either way.
|
|
|
Post by mechtaur on Dec 1, 2010 2:06:20 GMT -5
With myself, cooperate. I couldn't really betray myself in such a manner.
With a stranger, I would probably defect. I don't really trust a stranger in these situations and I wouldn't be taking the fall for someone like that.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Dec 1, 2010 5:42:59 GMT -5
Is this a cloning thing? Which one of you is deemed to be the piece of meat for spare parts?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 1, 2010 6:51:32 GMT -5
If I am me and and I am me, then logic stands to reason that we'd make the exact same choice in the exact same scenario. Same brain, same logical processes, same circumstances, same reaction.
If we tried to trick each other, we'd only end up screwing ourselves because we'd try to trick each in the exact same manner, and we'd only get one point.
We'd both choose to cooperate. Because that would earn each of us the maximum possible points.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Dec 1, 2010 8:50:14 GMT -5
No, it's not a cloning thing, I was just bored. (Also it has fun Newcomb's problem implications).
Anyway, as a few already figured, the whole point of going against yourself is not whether you're willing to betray yourself or not. It's that two exact copies in the exact same circumstances will make the same decision. Which rules out all the five-zero scenarios, leaving you to choose between getting either 3 or 1 points.
Against a stranger, though, no matter what the other player chooses, you always get more points by defecting, so assuming the game is not iterated (i.e. you don't expect to play again against the same player) and you only care about points, defecting is the winning move.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Dec 1, 2010 11:02:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't necessarily say that two exact copies would make the same decision. For those of us who are fickle, treating the copy as a stranger is probably the best bet, 'cause in some of my more forgiving moods, I might actually be inclined to cooperate... whereas in my cynical moods, I'd betray the shit out of my clone.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Dec 1, 2010 12:41:38 GMT -5
Doesn't really matter, they're copies made five seconds ago who have so far been exposed to the exact same circumstances. They'll both be in the same mood.
|
|
|
Post by clubmed on Dec 1, 2010 12:56:09 GMT -5
Considering i know the problem for some time, creating this situation now would mean that i know the best outcome. But in any case: cooperate
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 1, 2010 16:23:00 GMT -5
The problem underlying this is that we simply don't know that much about how consciousness works and so we have to essentially guess about the ramifications of our five-second-old clones playing against each other. For instance, if consciousness has a substantial quantum component, which it probably does, then the age of the clones is virtually irrelevant because they will immediately diverge to some extent that could well be greater or lesser than another individual. Even if not, the amount of apparently random noise in the thought processes will almost surely be distinct, meaning that the differentiation would happen more slowly but just as surely even given the same experiences. Admittedly, this is likely only an issue if the game is, as mentioned, iterative, but it could conceivably influence decision-making in a very short timeframe as well.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on Dec 1, 2010 17:18:14 GMT -5
Cooperate. He's me, after all. I would trust myself to not be a dick, and he'd reach the same conclusion. I wouldn't trust a complete stranger.
|
|