FirstCitizen800 wrote...
IntrepidDeath wrote...
Also, I can see an easy situation when an illogical species could triumph over a logical one. In the prisoner's dilemma, the logical choice for everyone involved is to betray the others, but if they were illogical, and none of them betrayed the others, then everyone benefits. That is, of course, assuming that the primary motivation for all involved in the prisoner's dilemma is personal benefit.
Good point. Also, a lot depends on how 'social' the geth are. Organics tend to hold an interest in both personal survival and the survival of 'the group' and it is not always predictable which will triumph in an organic's calculation. Some will save themselves by letting 'the group' die, others will save 'the group' by letting themselves die. Would a perfectly logical species display this type of unpredictability, or could you predictably determine that either the individual unit or group would come first. Uniformity in preservation priority could prove an exploitable weakness. Also, how does a completely logical being account for and adjust to the illogical actions of others?
Well, once again, all that depends on the perfectly logical beings' starting assumptions. If they assume that survival of the group is paramount, they would likely save the group. If they preferred survival of the individual, then they would put themselves first. However, even if one put the group first in all circumstances, it isn't always easy to say what a perfectly logical being might do. Because the being wouldn't be able to always know all circumstances surrounding a choice of, say, sacrificing itself versus sacrificing some of the group, depending on what information it has available it could make very different choices. Plus, that doesn't even take into account a perfectly logical being that only occasionally prefers itself over the group. The assumptions that such a being bases its logic off of can be ridiculous or arbitrary.
I don't see why a perfectly logical being wouldn't be able to understand and account for, at least as well as we do, the illogical actions of others. Hell, if it doesn't have emotions obscuring its perceptions, it would have an even easier time. Whether it is or isn't capable of understanding something isn't directly dependent on the purity of its logic. Edit: Or rather, I don't see why it would be dependent on the purity of its logic.
Edit 2: I think I'm rambling, so I'm going to sleep.
Modifié par IntrepidDeath, 02 avril 2012 - 09:31 .





Retour en haut




