🚀 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

Wrong newsgroup.  Here we are more concerned with discussing the
ramifications of Newton [f=dp/dt (p) }  and other basic stuff. Try to
fry out minds with imaginative crap lacking physical substance and you
risk getting "a new one" cut into you by the guys that are working
their asses off to earn an education. I applaud these guys, and I shit
on assholes like you.

Yes, I'm a graduate physicist...a white guy from New Jersey with
physics degrees from Drexel and Princeton, so ridicule that.

Harry C,