Reddit reviews Finite and Infinite Games

Your question is flawed. There is no end. A good perspective on this can be found in a great tiny book, "Finite and Infinite Games".

A finite game exists to achieve some sort of end. Getting DJT elected was a finite game, and next election, we'll play a repeated version of that same game. An infinite game exists for the purpose that we keep playing the game. MAGA! is an infinite game--we MAGA! so that we can continue to MAGA!

An infinite game can contain other infinite games and finite games. By its nature a finite game cannot contain an infinite game.

The SJW "movement" is an infinite game of increasingly stratified and divided population groups claiming victimhood status and unearned social superiority from other groups. The SJW infinite game will employ numerous finite games such as "every pet a 'service animal'", "Never question my pronouns", you get the picture. Those are battles launched in order to continue a war on human unity that's sole purpose is to continue and deepen the wounds of that war.

First, I'd like to say I really like your argument. There's a lot of great points here that I think that average person never considers, and they are all the worse for it. This kind of discussion should be something that every educated, informed people should consider in order to truly get at the roots of their own values.

We have a few base assumptions here. Many of which I imagine we'll have lots of overlap in agreement. But some I don't think we will. I'd like to go over them to see where you might find a reason to change your view.

Base assumption #1: "rights" exist.

We're stripping away to some core concepts here. So we need to be very clear on what is a right. Obviously this is not a right as guaranteed by any government as you excluded practical legislation as a goal of this discussion. You're obviously not arguing for any legal rights here, and I agree with that. I hate most forms of eugenics (I'm Jewish by blood (not practice), so my family has a history with it).

What is a right then? I would very much like to here how you outline what a "right" is, before I outline some of what I consider to be core concepts of "rights".

Base assumption #2: morality exists.

This one was kind of funny to me. For this statement:

> It is immoral to force a conscious entity into existence

to be true, you're essentially declaring all of human existence as immoral. Sure, individuals might not take that immoral leap into parenthood, but the species as a whole must reproduce to exist. And to reproduce requires creating consciousnesses that previously didn't exist. We can't obtain consent from beings that don't exist yet.

And since morality only exists because we invented the concept, then you're basically condemning our existence to be perpetually immoral (that's the part I found funny. Not wrong, just funny, because we can't be immoral without existing, but we can't be moral by existing, according to your statement).

I don't think there's anything explicitly wrong about that, but it just seems like a rather useless distinction. It's like defining two colors and then saying "but there's only 1 color in existence". What was the point of defining both colors if only one exists? What's the point of defining our existence as immoral if we literally cannot escape that immorality of existence.

I also don't like absolutes. I think we like to define our world in absolutes, and since reality resists simplicity, those absolutes end up being really unhelpful and destructive. For example: All [this group of people] like [something]. It's rarely helpful and just makes the person saying it look dumb. (There's a great book that has been helping me see the world differently that I highly recommend called Finite and Infinite Games. There's also a free pdf if you just google it.)

My point for bringing this up is that I think it would be better stated to say: All existance of conscious entities start immoral, as they could not consent to being created, but can become moral through the value of their existence.

I don't think all conscious beings are inherently immoral, at least not forever. I see your point that you can't consent to being born, but that doesn't mean you can't retroactively consent. This kind of consent cannot and should not exist in other moral choices (for example, rape cannot be retroactively given consent, nor can that consent be retroactively removed). But I think the unique nature of consciousness could allow for my interpretation.

Base assumption #3: the importance of naturally occurring forces on morality.

This one gets people tripped up all the time, but I don't think you're entirely tripped up on it. The classic (shitty) argument involving the extreme side of things is the banana argument seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

It's also known as The Watchmaker Analogy. It is where significance or importance is placed upon the natural state of something. People have misused this argument for their own ends in all sorts of arguments. This banana fits my hand, therefore it was designed to fit my hand, therefore God exists.

We're, obviously, biologically designed to make babies. But does the fact that making babies is naturally occurring mean it's moral? You seem to have taken the side of a definitive "no". Most people would probably say "yes", also definitively.

Again, I hate absolutes. I think we can find some morality in baby making, and we can find some immorality. You've definitely hit upon the immorality of baby making very clearly, and again, I want to applaud you for that, because I think this should be a more common discussion. But I don't think this one aspect of reproduction (the lack of consent from the consciousness being created) completely overwhelms all of the other aspects of reproduction. Not all of human existence is suffering. All human existence has suffering (I mean, we literally come into this world crying from the pain of taking our first breath), but most of human existence has joy too (I won't say "all" because I'm sure there's plenty of singleton cases we could point out where the human's existence was essentially nothing but pain and suffering. Some diseases really suck.).

And I only point to the continued improvement of human comfort as a sign that humanity can find joy, and prefers it to suffering. The quality of most human lives has improved greatly over the last few hundred years. Plenty new types of suffering has occurred, but I don't think you'd find any sane person that would prefer to live before the industrial revolution.

We strive for a better life. For ourselves. Sometimes for others. But we've found value in living because we have a desire to live longer than before. And in greater numbers. I propose that our strive for improvement shows two things:

1. Suffering exists (because we're trying to escape it).
   
   
2. We're willing to put up with the suffering long enough to try to reduce it.
   
   This, to me, is a non-explicit form of consent to existence. While I agree with you that we cannot consent before we exist, and to be brought into existence is inherently without our consent, I propose that the consent can be earned through use of our existence.

I mean, do what feels right to you. But I'd always advise against pushing anymore.There is no point.

Once you know you're both not there to learn, you're antagonizing without purpose, or you're doing it with purpose (malice).

Last year a mentor of mine gave me this book, http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713, and it changed the way I look at these conversations. I don't always follow the right path, but it helped me see that conversations exist on a field that we set. If you have a debate with someone and you're both playing with the same rules, like trying to find the best policy to solve a problem, then things go well.

But if one of you has a different set of rules, like, defend a belief I know is true against this attack. Then the game falls apart. Imagine playing basketball against someone playing football. You wouldn't "win" or "loose" because neither of you are playing the same game. He might score a touchdown while you're shooting over and over again, and you might both be keeping your own score, but you're not playing a game together... and it'd look foolish to any bystandard.

This is what a conversation like the one you're recounting sounds like.

And, what's worse, if he's playing a game in which the rules include " attack the other person" and at some point you get frustrated and join in attacking him, now you're both playing the same game of just being mean to each other.

Anyways,
take care.

I'd recommend Finite and Infinite Games.

A great general 'how-to' on being a good gamer.

"A finite player plays to be powerful; an infinite player plays with strength."

“No one can play a game alone. One cannot be human by oneself."

“Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.”

Carse gets a bit hippy-dippy but is still chock full of compact truisms that will stick with you and help mold a better gaming outlook.

read finite and infinite games

Two thoughts.

> I don't care who wins either, as long as the game takes place.

Are you James Carse? (His book is a must-read.)

> I could be content picking up litter along the highway too, but it would only be because I gave up on life altogether.

This whole subject reminds me of this talk by Mr. Money Moustache. (aka Peter Adeney.) The sooner you can get rich enough that you don't have to work, the more your work becomes meaningful.

The part at the end of the talk where you compares "work done for love" versus "scammy work" really struck a deep chord with me. The word he pulls out is "authenticity". This guy has it really figured out.

If your values connect to your work, you get meaning from it.

> A FINITE GAME is defined as KNOWN PLAYERS, FIXED RULES, and AN AGREED UPON OBJECTIVE TO WIN; like a football/soccer match.

The rules are fixed, the objective is fixed, and the players are known. You could argue the last point and say the players aren't known in pubs due to smurfing, multiple accounts, and shit like that - but for the sake of argument consider competitive leagues where the players are absolutely known.

The rules frequently change (patches) but during each point the rules are static. Other games update and change rules in sports and e-sports. The objective has never once changed in the history of the game (which is true of almost all games) in Dota it is to destroy the enemy ancient while yours is still alive.

I googled your term to see what in the fuck you're on about with infinite games because I've never heard of that concept in relation to game theory and came up with only one possible source for the term and idea: Finite and Infinite Games by James P Carse. https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713

James' book goes on to list examples and elaborate on what in the fuck an infinite game is. In his own words an infinite game is something without an end - something without a clear objective and that other players can join with ever changing rules. This is a kind of metaphor for life and human relationships. He uses motherhood as an example.

You trying to call Dota an infinite game under this definition is cute, but a complete troll. You argue there are always more Dota games, but that is true of any active sport or game. That logic would imply every single game is infinite which is wrong by the authors own definitions. Claiming that because Dota's rules change it is infinite is equally misrepresented and wrong because they never ever change mid game. Nearly all sports and games have rule changes over time which means that using your own logic any game that has had one rule change is infinite which is wrong again.

If you're not trolling you might have some substance abuse problems (legally obtained or otherwise) or some mental health complications (diagnosed or not). I don't mean that to be an insult either - just an observation that could be helpful but almost certainly won't due to the nature of... lots of things.

This may not be exactly what you're asking for and its merits as a serious philosophical text are questionable but it's a really wonderful little book:

http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713/

hmnnn. i love fantasy as a genre. and self help.
one of my favorite books is Finite and Infinite Games.
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Games-James-Carse/dp/1476731713

I try not to watch anything violent or scary these days. I'm actually just getting back into gaming, and I'm always searching for a new non-violent playstation game to indulge in.