Information

The quality of life game III


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 my quality of 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?

The quality of life game II

Let us remember, in passing, that concepts such as the individual, quality of life, etc., refer to elements of the mathematical game JQVI and have nothing to do with any particular human individual or human life as conceived by people. and real entities. Mathematical play can hold analogies to real life and suggest patterns of human reality; however, it is just a mathematical exercise of the brain's ability to create subjective virtual scenarios.

Our goal is, through this exercise, to discover patterns previously imperceptible to the eyes of unarmed mathematics consciousness.

No one can precisely and unambiguously define what the intelligence of the individual is. However, individuals seem to use their intelligence in JQVI systematically. At least that's what they always say when asked or seems to say to themselves.

You are unlikely to find yourself convinced that you are not intelligent. However, it is not unlikely to find an individual who is sporadically convinced that he "committed stupidity." Often there are situations of conflict in which an individual claims to be right about a particular subject and his opponent, who thinks just the opposite, also states the same. How is this possible?

The answer is simple. Paul Dirac mathematically deduced the existence of antimatter, later confirmed in the laboratory by other scientists. Particles and antiparticles, such as the electron and positron, are nowadays a common phenomenon in physics. Why wouldn't anti-intelligence also be a commonplace phenomenon that opposes intelligence? This analogy seems plausible to us. In fact, from this hypothesis it is possible to easily explain as many situations as there are situations of intelligence, only symmetrically opposed. We admit that individuals may have gradations of intelligence and anti-intelligence simultaneously.

What is not easy is determining which individuals are predominantly intelligent and which are predominantly unintelligent. Thus, every individual can be given a dose of intelligence and at the same time a dose of anti-intelligence. At this point, the analogy with matter-antimatter symmetry can be obtained by observing that gains are nullified by losses, and vice versa, while the individual maintains doses of both characteristics.

Thus, a good way to prove this model is for the individual to analyze their situations of gains and losses in quality of life and to verify the simultaneous presence of intelligence and anti-intelligence. In passing, we cite just one trivial example that the reader could easily generalize to other situations. An example is a scene in which an individual tells his friend that he will no longer play football on Sundays because he gets tired of getting hurt. The gains gained through the intelligence that recommends physical exercise were offset by the losses imposed by anti-intelligence to choose a sport based on physical violence.

In our analysis of JQVI we assume that it is impossible to logically determine who is smarter or more unintelligent. In the course of the game, however, this determination occurs unimpeded by the action of the social force. This means that conflicts of this nature are resolved by force, that is, by imposing the interest of the socially strongest individual. Therefore, resentments are always present, although the winner of the conflict often announces that "reason" or "more rational solution" prevailed, or that intelligence prevailed. This pattern is of fundamental importance in JQVI. We will highlight it in the game's rule form.

Rule 8 All individuals, if asked, will say they are intelligent, especially themselves. Rarely will an individual truly be convinced that he has done an unintelligent act. In the inevitable conflicts, the interest of the socially strongest will prevail. Grudges build up as a result of these social solutions, creating new conflicts that, in turn, will be resolved by the same pattern. This process has been dragging on JQVI for many millennia. Conflicts of interest end the death of the individuals involved, or one of them. Living individuals continue the pattern.

Rule 8 does not prevent individuals from using their intelligence to survive and protect themselves from others by trusting that unintelligents are all those who contradict their interest, threaten their integrity, and impose material and psychological costs and losses.

We have selected one more important JQVI strategy.

Strategy s2. It is not advisable to state that the opponent is unintelligent in any situation. But secretly, I must seriously consider this possibility, since the other opposes me in a hostile way. I glimpse possible damage caused by the other, so I need to protect myself intelligently from anti-intelligence strategies. I believe in improving my intelligence to always improve my quality of life. The annoying paradox that if the other uses the same strategy, then either of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong, is ineffective in preventing me from using that strategy. The reason is that nature's evolution has made this selection for my brain and that is the only option I recognize. That is, I prefer to keep the belief that I am the smart one.

So these are the terms we propose in our JQVI analysis to include the "intelligence" feature of players.

A natural and interesting problem that arises is whether the intelligence of scientists and science could not constitute the absolute reference of reality called "intelligence." In the JQVI we are analyzing, this is not possible due to Rule 8.

The most important conflict along the lines of symmetrical intelligence-anti-intelligence duality is that of the opposition between reason and mystification. Who uses reason and who uses mystification to analyze reality? In our analysis of the JQVI we consider mathematics associated with reason in an intimate way. We actually hypothesize that mathematics is the best model of reason.

As an example, we cite an individual's possible opinions on rain. From the point of view of intelligence, that is, reason, or mathematics, the weather conditions are the axioms (or theorems already demonstrated) and rain is the theorem logically deduced from such hypotheses. Symmetrically, from the point of view of mystification, or anti-intelligence, rain is the amount of tears shed by a goddess who was contradicted and rebuked by Zeus, the god of all other gods. We emphasize that it is impossible to resolve this conflict logically, since there is no way to demonstrate that Zeus and the other gods do not exist. Just as there is no way to demonstrate that whenever such weather conditions are present, it will rain. As much as it is proven year after year that this inference is acceptable, no one knows if ever she will be. The authors of this column bet on such an inference, but recognize the logical problem of the impossibility of a rigorous demonstration that they will always win the bet.

During the course of the JQVI an individual will choose one of two opinions. In our JQVI analysis we define intelligence by analogy with meteorological choice for the explanation of rain and anti-intelligence by analogy with mythological choice.

The natural question is whether intelligent acts always generate quality of life (QOL) and, symmetrically, whether unintelligent acts always generate the opposite of QOL. Another hypothesis underlying our analysis is that there is no logical descent from positions of intelligence and anti-intelligence. This is another crucial feature of JQVI. That individual who boasts that he will have a life with more QoL because he made a smart choice may later be disappointed to find that a disastrous consequence ensued and was therefore mistaken about the intelligence of his choice.

Thus, QOL is not necessarily good because the individual was intelligent in a certain decision. Similarly, an unintelligent decision can lead to higher QOL. As an example, we cite the individual who donates part of their money to a church and feels much better, therefore, noting that their QOL has increased. For another individual, this donation may be viewed as unintelligent.

We would say, for simplicity, that unintelligent individuals may also have QOL. QOL is not a logical consequence of intelligence, nor is its opposite a logical consequence of anti-intelligence, simply because these two attributes are relative to the observer and any objective, independent and robust reality behind the observation is uncertain. Synthesizing the role of intelligence in JQVI, we formulated the next strategy that individuals can choose to improve their QoL.

Strategy s3. It is not possible to know if my intelligence will produce more QOL. However, it is the only option I have, provided by brain evolution over millennia, to plan my action in the next instant. If I find that a QOL loss has occurred, then I turn to my intelligence to repair that loss. I still believe that I am intelligent, although I have to eventually repair certain losses.

Back to columns

<