Group action is the origin of representation

Bliss

An individual is an entity capable of independently deciding how to configure its own wealth. An individual’s wealth is the sum of the values of the factors of production it has access to. That is, an individual’s wealth is the sum of the value of the land it can use, the value of the labor it is capable of, and the value of the capital it can acquire.

Every action is an individual configuring its wealth in some way in order to receive some benefit: to walk, even, is to configure in a specific way the capital provided by your body, the labor provided by your self, and the land provided by your position in order to benefit from a changed position.

If an individual has no wealth, it can take no action. More generally, any specific action can only be taken if it is of equal or lower value than an individual’s available wealth. Consequently, the actions an individual can take are limited by the wealth an individual can acquire. In order to take actions that require more wealth than any individual can acquire, individuals who share a desire for action form groups.

Only individuals can take action, so, such that at least one member has the wealth required to take the desired action, every group necessarily redistributes its collective wealth among its members. The individuals in the subgroup entrusted with taking the group action are the natural representatives of the group.

Every representative can be recognized as being an individual entrusted to take the action desired by a group: group action is the origin of representation.

Srap Tasmaner

Consequently, the actions an individual can take are limited by the wealth an individual can acquire. — Bliss

such that at least one member has the wealth required to take the desired action, every group necessarily redistributes its collective wealth among its members. — Bliss

Something's amiss here. In the first quote you do not include the possibility of wealth transfer from others. If you do not change "can acquire" to "can acquire entirely through reconfiguring their own wealth" then representation is simply impossible.

Might be worthwhile comparing your scenario to the stag hunt. That only individuals can take action may not imply that a desired result can only be achieved by an individual acting alone.

Bliss

The assumption is that if that wealth is being transferred to you from another, then you are inherently grouped with that other, with the desired group action being to transfer wealth.

How do you feel about changing "can acquire" to "can independently acquire"?

That only individuals can take action may not imply that a desired result can only be achieved by an individual acting alone. — Srap Tasmaner

My post makes this exact argument, hence the "at least one person" and "individuals in the subgroup". Some desired results certainly require more than one individual - my argument is that the action is taken by individuals in the group, not "the group" itself, and that the individuals entrusted with taking the action are the representatives of the group

Srap Tasmaner

How do you feel about changing "can acquire" to "can independently acquire"? — Bliss

Sure. This is the whole point of the stag hunt, that no individual can be independently acquire a stag.

my argument is that the action is taken by individuals in the group, not "the group" itself, and that the individuals entrusted with taking the action are the representatives of the group — Bliss

Okay, agreed. Individuals act, not groups, yes.

The stag hunt is a case where every member of the group is a representative of the group, in your sense. What is not clear though is whether it can properly be described in your terms. What individual acquires the wealth of another in the stag hunt? You could say all of them; that is, each divides all (or maybe only some?) of his wealth among all the others in helping them each achieve their individual goal of acquiring the stag. But then the net change in wealth of each is zero, as each receives as much as they give -- assuming they start as equals. (Maybe it's worth looking at possible imbalances in the starting conditions. Perhaps for some it is not a net-zero change.) By effecting this net-zero transfer of wealth, they have a chance to effect a non-zero increase in wealth of all, by acquiring the stag.

Bliss

What individual acquires the wealth of another in the stag hunt? — Srap Tasmaner

The answer to that depends on why two people are necessary to hunt the stag. If one person needs to distract the stag while the other person gets a better shot, then the distracter gives up some of his capacity to hunt the stag such that the shooter has an increased capacity to hunt the stag, and the shooter would be the representative. If, however, the stag just needs to be shot with two arrows at the same time instead of one, then the two people need to agree upon a way to coordinate their efforts. In that case, the shooter who signals when it's time to shoot would be assumed to have the wealth of both shooters, and to be the representative.

It's definitely worth looking at imbalanced starting conditions, but I want to have the simple case down fosho before I generalize

Srap Tasmaner

the two people need to agree upon a way to coordinate their efforts — Bliss

But that's the whole issue, just pushed back. Even if there is such an agreement, and even if it is explicit, what guarantee does any member of the group have that any other member will keep to the agreement?

As for the rest, you are focusing on the killing of the stag. Each role in the hunt is a sine qua non of acquiring a stag. Acquiring the stag is the goal, not killing it, so it does not matter who gets to do the killing.

(This is reminiscent of the eternal conflict in FPS games of playing the objective vs. padding your KDR!)

Srap Tasmaner

↪Bliss

We also want to get such coordination without explicit agreements.

I observe, that it will be for my interest to leave another in the possession of his goods, provided he will act in the same manner with regard to me. He is sensible of a like interest in the regulation of his conduct. When this common sense of interest is mutually expressed, and is known to both, it produces a suitable resolution and behaviour. And this may properly enough be called a convention or agreement betwixt us, though without the interposition of a promise; since the actions of each of us have a reference to those of the other, and are performed upon the supposition, that something is to be performed on the other part. Two men, who pull the oars of a boat, do it by an agreement or convention, though they have never given promises to each other. Nor is the rule concerning the stability of possession the less derived from human conventions, that it arises gradually, and acquires force by a slow progression, and by our repeated experience of the inconveniences of transgressing it. On the contrary, this experience assures us still more, that the sense of interest has become common to all our fellows, and gives us a confidence of the future regularity of their conduct: And it is only on the expectation of this, that our moderation and abstinence are founded. In like manner are languages gradually established by human conventions without any promise. In like manner do gold and silver become the common measures of exchange, and are esteemed sufficient payment for what is of a hundred times their value. — Hume, Treatise 3.2.2

Bliss

↪Srap Tasmaner

Why is an absolute guarantee necessary? I'm not sure which part of my argument implies that.

If acquiring the stag is only possible by killing it, then killing it is the action which allows for acquiring it, and is therefore the goal. To continue your FPS example, if the game mode is team deathmatch, then playing the objective is padding your kdr.

"When this common sense of interest is mutually expressed, and is known to both, it produces a suitable resolution and behaviour. And this may properly enough be called a convention or agreement betwixt us, though without the interposition of a promise"

Using my reasoning, these people would be in a group, even if there isn't a "promise". All that is necessary for a group is a common sense of interest mutually expressed, and known to both. Hume puts it better than I do, of course, but that's what I mean by "individuals who share a desire for action form groups" and "agreement". Using my example, even if there's no explicit agreement about one person shooting first, they both need know to shoot if the other does, and that understanding is itself the agreement.

Srap Tasmaner

Why is an absolute guarantee necessary? — Bliss

The issue of guarantee arises when it is suggested that explicit prior agreement solves such problems. It doesn't.

(What's more, in the case of language we need to be able to bootstrap. The main obstacle to explaining the conventional nature of language is that it would be impossible to agree to such conventions until you had a language in which to negotiate an agreement.)

If acquiring the stag is only possible by killing it, then killing it is the action which allows for acquiring it, and is therefore the goal. — Bliss

But I can imagine scenarios in which you kill the stag but do not acquire it. Suppose you drive it into a box canyon and one of your group has the bright idea of rolling a boulder down on it. Picture the boulder with hooves sticking out from under it and imagine the reception this bright idea gets from the rest of the group.

Using my example, even if there's no explicit agreement about one person shooting first, they both need know to shoot if the other does, and that understanding is itself the agreement. — Bliss

The question is whether such an arrangement is adequately described as each transferring some of their wealth (or "capacity for action" I suppose) to the other.

Bliss

↪Srap Tasmaner

While true of course, I'm not sure how those first few things are relevant. Killing is just a word I chose because the supposed intention is to eat the stag. Sure there are ways to kill it without acquiring it, but there isn't a good way to eat it without killing it.

Asking whether the implicitly understood agreement is adequately described by wealth transfer is an interesting question, though. In that case, I think whoever shoots first transfers capacity for action to the other, because, by the first shooters action, he abandons his capacity to kill the stag, and grants the capacity to kill the stag to the second shooter. An analogy is two people who want to date each other, but haven't said anything out loud. The person who makes the first move grants the other the ability to decide, putting himself under that persons power.

Srap Tasmaner

The person who makes the first move grants the other the ability to decide, putting himself under that persons power. — Bliss

That's not bad, but you make the first move with an expectation, possibly mistaken, that the other will reciprocate. An even better way to put this is that you only make the first move if you believe the other wants you to make the first move.

With the stag hunt, the idea is that each is willing to participate if all the others participate. No one is willing to try and hunt a stag alone. Your choice of what to do depends on what you expect others will do; what they will do depends on what they expect you will do. There are mutual expectations and conditional decisions binding all to each and each to all. —When it works, and no one goes chasing a hare.

Bliss

Haha well in reality sometimes I make the move even if I don't believe the other wants me to, just in case I'm wrong. Even if I didn't, at this time I'm not seeing how it relates to my main argument.

According to the stag hunt wiki, every hunter decides individually, so there aren't any actual conditionals. Sure each hunter might make a decision based on what he expects the others to make, but no hunter's decision is conditional on another hunter's decision. There is an outcome where only one hunts the stag.

Srap Tasmaner

↪Bliss

Oh yes, everyone decides. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. But each holds a preference for participating only if all the others participate, and rightly so. It is not rational to hunt stag solo.

Bliss

That is true

Srap Tasmaner

↪Bliss

I'm going to keep thinking about your approach, and I hope you will as well. As things stand, the game theory approach has been the only game in town, so it would be nice to have an alternative.

Really glad you posted this.

Group action is the origin of representation

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions