Greg the time/money thingy

[Guest guest]

Gregory Goode wrote:

>

> I was arguing that it is rational to choose the greater amount in (1), and

> also rational to choose the greater amount in (2). Even if you had to wait

> a month or year, and even if the amount difference were only $10, it is

> still rational to choose the greater amount, just like you did in (1).

> Why? Because the passage of pure time itself is not a rational reason to

> prefer a lesser amount of a desired thing. The rational reasons to choose

> (such as choosing the greater amount, the less risky alternative, using the

> money when the needs are most pressing) have nothing to do with time, and

> could occur either now or later. They are other conditions. Time itself

> means nothing and has no rational status.

>

> I think this is a lot different from what you and Marcio were discussing,

> but if it would help, please pass on my info to him!

>

> Love,

>

> --Greg

>

 

Do you also assume that the recipient knows he has no chance of dying during the

waiting period? If so he is not human. Is human rationality

the standard?

 

andrew

 

I guess it also goes without saying this rational human being is not a teenager?

 

Glo

 

------

Old school buds here:

http://click./1/5536/7/_/520931/_/961541663/

------

 

//

 

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and

indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space

of

Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things

arising

from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go

but is

always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to

be

the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

a.

 

To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

www., and select the User Center link from the

menu bar

on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

between digest and normal mode.

[Guest guest]

Glo/andrew,

 

Andrew, the risk of the chooser dying in the interim between choice A and

choice B is assumed in the conditions to be 0.0%. You guys are right.

This stuff is not human, and especially not for teenagers. In philosophy

and economics, the textbook case of the impatient person is the sailor on

shoreleave on payday. But it's not time itself that he's reacting to, but

the uncertainty of his conditions.

 

But in the rarified halls of academia, it is different. Philosophers

create thought-experiments all the time, with no need to be relevant to

everyday life. Maybe this is why there are so few jobs in philosophy!

 

Love,

 

--Greg

 

 

At 09:52 PM 6/20/00 -0400, Gloria Lee wrote:

>Do you also assume that the recipient knows he has no chance of dying

during the

>waiting period? If so he is not human. Is human rationality

>the standard?

>

>andrew

>

>I guess it also goes without saying this rational human being is not a

teenager?

>

>Glo