Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The process of play itself, including players' types and ... — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The process of play itself, including players' types and how they change over time, is a better focus for understanding interaction than mere games or game forms alone.

    CausationPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Games do not fully determine their outcomes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Games allow for various styles of play
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Game forms provide the invariant structural constraints that make any process of play intelligible as a game at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without prior specification of rules and payoff functions, 'player types' and 'processes of play' lack the formal grounding needed for rigorous analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Harsanyi's type-space framework itself presupposes a fixed game structure within which types are defined, making structure prior to process.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Personal identity theorists from Parfit onward have shown that appeals to evolving psychological states risk circular regress when used as explanatory foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If player types change over time, the account of interaction loses a stable referent, undermining the causal continuity required for attributing strategic agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityCausation

    Connections

    3 topics

    Truth & Knowledge2 linkedModality & Possibility1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Game forms provide the invariant structural constraints that make any process of...Games allow for various styles of playGames do not fully determine their outcomesHarsanyi's type-space framework itself presupposes a fixed game structure within...
    +3 moreShow less
    If player types change over time, the account of interaction loses a stable refe...Personal identity theorists from Parfit onward have shown that appeals to evolvi...Without prior specification of rules and payoff functions, 'player types' and 'p...

    Similar

    Wilcox (2008) shows that players may be learning new information about...74%When a player's information set is off the path of play, that player's...72%Players in Pure Coordination games need focal points in addition to te...71%Evolutionary game theory models the conditions under which strategies ...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logics-for-games
    View source passageHide passage
    Topics discussed in this section are less standard in the literature than those of the sections before. In an orthodox reading, various of the aspects addressed would not be considered part of game theory proper. The extended agenda followed here has been embraced by van Benthem, Pacuit, and Roy (2011) as a larger program for logic, going under the heading ‘Theory of Play’. The underlying line of reasoning is that games do not fully determine their outcomes, as they allow for various styles of p
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit