🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 26, 2:39 pm, Fabrizio J Bonsignore <djbonsign...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Lets characterize Homo religiosus in this context as a believer in the
> afterlife. Homo religiosus is different from Homo oeconomicus in that
> his decision horizon includes a (potential) eternity. Short term
> maximizing behaviour brakes under this assumption, such that utility
> orderings differ from those of people who dont believe in an eternal
> life or dont care about it. For the religious man, what happens in the
> next, eternal life is more important that what may happen in his
> current, immediate life. This includes an essential opposition in
> value (orderings) between hmo religiosus and oeconomicus that is not
> solved by the market. Homo religiousus will tend to discount at a
> higher value his future eternal life than his current life! So a
> systematic distortion is added to maximizing behaviour where decision
> wont be seen as optimum for current life believers, but will make
> sense for those who believe in perpetuity. This short term suboptimum
> path is not compensated by any _visible_ market...
>
> What matters most is that there is no communication between this life
> and future eternal life. Hoarding for future life doesnt work, as
> there will be no payment that can be anticipated in this life.
> Financial decisions are biased. There is no way for hypothetical
> actors in the future eternal life to engage in commercial activities
> for current life economic agents!
>
> All financing is seen as a perpetuity, as opposed to more measured
> time horizons for investments, particularly human capital investments.
> Because of its nature, capital investment in, say, knowledge for the
> future life make no sense in terms of current life! That is, reading
> religious books or engaging in praying will report no benefit or
> economic activity gains in this life so those activities have to be
> considered as leisure time or consumption time of few goods...
>
> In aggregate terms, even if religion does create a maket, religious
> men following leisure time, non optimum decisions will generate
> widespread underdevelopment....
>
> Note that depending on the particular belief in the afterlife life,
> even antieconomic activities like war, destruction, genocide or
> suicide (satanics) will make sense for the decision maker even if
> total output, both personal or collective is diminished, temporally or
> permanently!
>
> Religious activities like praying can be seen as an investment
> expecting a future payment in the afterlife. From this point of view,
> not producing either goods or services in the normal sense can be
> justified for the individual, to the point of self destruction of the
> individual...
>
> Charity is of course justified thus as it will give revenue (a fixed
> perpetuity) in the afterlife!
>
> (I think I lost another day, second day this weekend and I dont know
> why)
>
> This is taken from the Theory of Beliefs thread:
>
> Lets define a (concurrent) algebra G over all chains of words G:(W,H +
> | _ = )
>
> where W, H are chains of words w1w2w3... h1h2h3... there is a number
> n
> of chains occurring simultaneously. For two simulatneous chains
> w1w2w3... + h1h2h3...  we can define operators in general as:
>
> +: w1h2w3...
> | : w1w2h2w3...
> _: h1h2h3...
> =: (w1h1)(w2h2)(w3h3)...
>
> This algebra expresses telepathic and freudian slips. Operation + is
> the typical freudian slip, where a word is misspelled giving a new
> meaning to the whole phrase, that is, some intended word by the
> speaker is substituted by a word heard consciously or unconsciously
> in
> the hidden channel; this is the typical slip characterized by freud
> as
> giving some unconscious message; note that some freudian slips swap
> words. Operation | intercalates words from the hidden channel in the
> speech of the speaker, the speaker unaware of it; in this case the
> original speech is meaningful, that is, w1w2 w3.... recover the
> original word stream so this operation has a partial inverse
> operator;
> the hidden channel content is expressed by the intercalated words,
> which can be distinguished as they themselves form a separate
> message.
> Operation _ would be total substitution of the speaker s speech; the
> original stream is lost and the hearer can only hear the hidden
> channel, which is true of mediums and trance like states of mind
> (this
> operation can also model the case were there is no underlying speech
> stream but the hidden channel is heard nonetheless as coming from the
> hypothetical speaker). Operation = intends to purpport that both
> channels are heard at the same time by the hearer. Both streams
> occur,
> a schizo hearer would hear both or only the hiddne channel, a normal
> hearer would only perceive once stream. Note that for two streams
> occurring concurrently, some operations may be confused depending on
> the hearer s abilities, so _ and = may be interchangeable, in which
> case they can be used to model threshold conditions. | is
> informative,
> + is misleading to the hearer. In  general there wouldnt be a one to
> one correspondence between two the two streams, so some stocasticity
> (indetermination) has to be assumed for big numbers of operation
> samplings. + may be under control by strong telepaths, strongness
> depending on the relation between the telepath and target, while |
> would be totally indetermined and may or may not be noticed by the
> hearer, though for non schizos would be most informative; some
> unconscious selection by the speaker would take place in selecting
> what words are included in the resulting stream. The last two
> operations would be to blame in coflicts between a target speaker and
> an schizo(phrenic) or normal hearer, as the hearer would get a
> message
> very different from that intended by the speaker, though this effect
> may or may not be in control of the telepath. (this is what I was
> supposed to write yesterday... the other ideas I reserve for later).
>
> Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore

Farbrizio, do you really think anyone is a physical science oriented
newsgroup really gives a rat's fuck bout your thoughts?

Go find a religious newsgroup to hurl your vomit upon.

Harry