The quality of life game I
It is necessary to clarify the question of how the individual elaborates his survival strategies. Recall that the individual quality of life game (JQVI) is not a real-life description of anyone, but the theorized virtual scenario that the brain of the individual could create by recognizing itself by playing its JQVI. An individual's list of strategies will be short for the sake of simplicity and we do not intend to be a unanimous list. It will only serve to exemplify the JQVI to a possible individual.
How do the authors of this text "capture" the brain's elaboration of any individual? Only by the hypothesis that there is intersubjectivity between us all. That is, what the brains of the authors elaborate must be analogous to what other individual brains elaborate. Of course, anyone who cannot accept this hypothesis cannot continue to read these lines.
This observation is extremely important to, among other applications, avoid misunderstandings.
We will sometimes address a key feature of JQVI that may be present in other types of games. There are two main fundamental rules.
(1) Rule F1. All the rules of the game are never known; some disappear and others appear without control of anyone and without predictability; This process is incessant.
(2) Rule F2. Rules are not laws that all individuals exercise or strictly abide by. These conditions are asymmetrically distributed and determined by the social power of each one. Sometimes rules get confused with individual strategies and this is one of the defining characteristics of JQVI's complexity.
It is part of our research to continually improve the structure of JQVI. Because it is a complex phenomenon, its understanding is always incomplete because the brain itself has limitations and because the individual's real life, something absolutely impossible to capture by any theory, is always motivating the JQVI.
Let us resume our task of analyzing JQVI. Unexpectedly our imagination intuitively captures a vision of fundamental importance. Some more, some less, no matter, in practice all individuals seem to have their moments of loss, all seem to be the victims of unavoidable costs, beyond, of course, what appears to be gains, and this process is incessant. Why?
We then discovered the first rule of JQVI.
Rule 1. Once an individual's heart has started beating, there is no way to stop the process of consuming biological energy. Thousands of heart beats, in the order of 70 ´ 60 ´ 24 = 4,200 ´ 24 @ 100,000 per day, are a huge maintenance cost. The other organs are equally costly in terms of biological cost. The "normal" functioning of the individual's biological system is fundamentally fragile. This condition is the primary source of one's quality of life.
If the functioning of the body seems "normal," then the individual puts it in the background and dedicates himself to the second instance of the JQVI.
Rule 2. Set in the background the functioning of the biological system, the main scene of the JQVI now occupies the position occupied by the individual in the social system.
It is important to note that the “normal” functioning of the biological system does not cease to affect the individual's quality of life, nor does it cease to worry, as it is in the background, and demands continual survival strategies. We cannot analyze here the cases in which the biological system cannot but occupy the foreground. We will focus our attention on the social dimension of the JQVI, but the biological dimension will always be involved as in the strategy. s1 and will often occupy the main scene.
It is important to emphasize the use of mathematical concepts that we have naturally made so far.
For example, mathematical quantifiers such as the terms 'all', 'some', 'exists', etc. Our readers may also perceive other categories of mathematical concepts as 'plus', 'minus', 'continuity', 'system', 'Quantity', 'symmetry', 'asymmetry', 'structure', etc., and therefore consider that it is not because explicit symbols or formulas are not in the text that it is not an analysis of a mathematical game. We recall, once again, that no mathematical game faithfully corresponds to any real phenomenon, and this fact does not discourage us from researching the logic of mathematical games such as the virtual scenario that the individual's brain creates about itself in the world.
To play JQVI, that is, the mathematical idealization of individual life, individuals develop the most diverse strategies. They may be individual, group, military, political, religious, etc. But why, however, does everyone seem to have undesirable losses throughout their lives?
Trying to follow a path as intersubjective as possible, we would say that the cause of everything lies in the animal condition. Animals are made of cells that, in turn, are said to be symbioses of viruses and bacteria. These symbioses, in turn, give rise to symbioses between organs that end up being commanded or administered, or whatever verb you want to use, by a quantum-biological computer called the brain. Billions of years, however, do not erase the fundamental condition that all of this is a consequence and was only possible because of the first cell that one day accidentally swallowed another "discovering" that its internal energy increased by twenty percent thanks to the oxygen present in the cell. swallowed.
In passing, we indicate at this point that we are not preparing for a search for linear evolution where events line up one after another as if they were points on a numerical line. We will come back to this later when we turn to Stephen Jay Gould's ideas that the history of living things is not necessarily progressive and certainly not predictable.
We will imagine social life as a configuration of networks with us influencing each other and all of them complex and interconnected in a complex way. However, this does not prevent us from imagining an evolution of this configuration captured at successive moments without reducing the image to a line with rigidly ordered points.
This process was never stopped once one swallowed the other in the biosphere. Much less is there the slightest chance that this pattern will be neutralized even in the remote future, or at least these authors are unaware of anyone who might have such a glimpse.
Let us then continue to collect, for practical everyday decision-making purposes, rules that are inevitable standards for the living who want to survive in the terrestrial biosphere.
Rule 3. It is not possible to interrupt the process triggered by the absorption of one cell by another and especially the network settings that have been marked by it. The food chain has been inevitable. About the future, we don't know what to say.
In every game, players need to know their opponents and their threatening strategies or not. The same threat may pertain to multiplayer strategies. Who or who are the opponents of an individual on JQVI? Why do some individuals seem to have less quality of life than others? Why do some individuals always seem to be involved in more undesirable costs and losses than others?
It does not take much life experience and thought to imagine at a glance, unable to avoid a chill, that the individual himself is probably an important opponent of himself in the game of life. That is, the individual himself seems to be costly and of poor quality of life for himself. We thus discover an important and natural line of reasoning to investigate individual quality of life from a Game Theory point of view. Immediately, we realize that an opponent of the individual is himself. The individual is more dangerous to himself, for example, than the state.
Rule 4. The individual himself has great power to impair his own quality of life.
This is for several reasons. One is that the individual pilots his own body and therefore can easily steer him against obstacles of a physical or social nature and consequently reap the cost of the collision. Another reason is that he may not notice physical or social “bolides” coming towards him and may not
can deviate in time.
Let us look at the mathematical nature of this statement. It is a clear, quantitative statement that can be
interpreted statistically by sampling and constructing confidence intervals. First, however, it is necessary to define what is meant by 'dangerous to the individual'. We will not go into this detail here, but we note that the acceptance of this notion is intuitive and whatever the definition of this concept, the above statement is statistically plausible, so mathematically.
Would there be other notable opponents of the individual? The answer is yes: the greatest opponent of the individual is Nature! It is with her that, whether we like it or not, we are obliged to play the game of quality of life.
Rule 5. An inhabitant of the earth compulsorily plays the game of quality of life with the most important player in the biosphere, that is, the set of living conditions on the planet. We will call this player Nature or Biosphere.
We then formalized the individual's first important opponents in the JQVI:
Rule 6. The state is another important opponent of the individual's daily quality of life.
However, the biggest source of undesirable costs and losses for the individual is their insertion in human society. For example, your income is a direct function of your social relationship with other individuals and with social institutions.
We can then present the opponent who causes the highest costs to the individual in JQVI.
Rule 7 (Most expensive opponent of the individual). The greatest source of undesirable material and psychological costs and losses for the individual is their insertion in human society. For example, your income is a direct function of your social relationship with other individuals and with social institutions. If you have an insignificant social relationship with other individuals or social institutions, then your income will be negligible and the cost of supporting your life can be tremendous suffering unless you enjoy it. Therefore, the biggest opponent of one's quality of life is the network of other individuals.
Jean Paul Sartre said something like "Hell is the others ...". Paradoxically, the isolated individual would be extinct and that is why it does not exist in isolation. However, the fact that it is not possible for the hominid to exist in the biosphere alone does not mean that its quality of life is a natural consequence of life in society.
The individual alone is no more dangerous to himself than other individuals.
A natural question arises at this point: who or what constitutes the greatest source of danger to the individual?
Beyond this, one of the next important questions to be considered naturally in this line of reasoning is about one's ability to play strategically. What do I need to be a good player, that is, a player who minimizes discomfort and pain, and maximizes the pleasure of living and the quality of my life?
The answer, no doubt, is that I need intelligence. However, this answer immediately implies an inevitable and intriguing question: Is it possible that I am not always able to use intelligence?
We will then examine in the next column this crucial question of intelligence that seems to underlie the performance of the good player.
Back to columns<