Travels and Amanda

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg and all,

 

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:35:28 Gregory Goode wrote:

>The mind, itself one of these slices, seems to slice the wholeness into

>parts. Then the spiritual life is the attempt to put it back together

>again or to experience the wholeness once again.

 

Yeah.... good thing the slices are still parts of

the wholeness, so it is still possible to see and

feel and be the wholeness.

>I was arguing that under idealized conditions, it is irrational

>to choose from impatience. This is called "pure time preference," and I

>was arguing that it is irrational.

 

Thanks for explaining that.

I do see there is a great difference b/n discussing the basis for using numbers

and constructing a

time sequence, and discussing the rationality

in choices of time limited activities.

 

I must have looked with half an eye on the post

where you described what your thesis had dealt with.

Or misunderstood something central.

>For working purposes, I was defining

>rationality as preferring more of a desired object to less of that object.

>For a crude example, take money. Assuming no hidden conditions, if I offer

>you $1000 or $2000, it is rational to prefer $2000.

>

>Imagine the following hypothetical cases. In philosophy you can make up

>any non-real-world example you'd like, since what you're trying to do is

>investigate a concept, not predict what people will really do.

 

I understand that. I didn't know philosophers used

their own minds to set up experiments such as this.

Very interesting.

 

Setting up situations or simulations like these

do sound a bit similar to what other ppl do in the lab,

construct a model of external reality and the

tweak parameters to see where you end up.

There is a need to simplify all but the most important

parameters, otherwise you'll never get any information

out of it. (Scientifically speaking. The question of

whether you get anything useful out of it spiritually speaking is a whole other

question)

>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 I do see your point.

 

I guess interest and inflation over time wouldn't go into this equation at

all...

>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!

 

Yeah, it's pretty different, I realize that now...

 

Although I find it a bit embarassing having misinterpreted what your thesis work

dealth with,

I will nevertheless forward this post to Marcio

and see what the old Macadamia nut says.

 

Thanks again for explaining, Greg.

 

Love,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

 

 

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com