Got a positive feedback from Daniel – agreeing on all points
Very well done.
We align on so much.
A few quibbles, but I’ll mention just the last one. When you made the statement at 1:47:09 that cells don’t have a Game Theoretic relationship with each other – that is wrong.
They do have a game theoretic relationship with each other, but it is a cooperative game context, not a competitive one. That distinction is really important to get.
Once you start to see the contextual elements that can shift a game space from a competitive to a cooperative modality, then you are starting to play the sort of game I am really interested in.
Once you understand that all emergent levels of complexity are predicated on cooperative spaces, and that competitive spaces actually drive systems to some set of minima on the complexity landscape, then one has a very different sort of view of social evolution, and the threat that markets actually pose.
It is really complex – potentially infinitely dimensional, and some of the major dimensions for cooperation to emerge are:
ability to recognise others and remember interactions;
ability to hold a low discount rate on future benefits;
level of external threats and availability of cooperative mitigating strategies;
ability to detect and remove cheating strategies on the cooperative (which rapidly becomes an ecosystem at every level); etc.
If one is interested in living a very long time, with as much freedom as possible, then it demands of us a cooperative games space (competitive spaces are just too dangerous – always).
With exponential technology, competitive spaces pose existential level risk – to everyone – most particularly those at the top.
And we have to avoid the twin tyrannies – the majority and the minority.
So there is an element of an eternal dance, and an eternal set of expanding responsibilities that come with longevity and freedom – if one is really serious about them.