Guest guest Posted June 20, 2000 Report Share Posted June 20, 2000 Gregory Goode wrote: > > Dear Amanda, > > Energy represented in numbers... Isn't *any* display of numbers and *any* > geometry also a representation of energy? > > The natural process you described, of slicing unified wholeness into > numeric/energetic parts, is actually part of the *spiritual* process too. > 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. > > You are talking about some pretty deep kinds of time slices here. The > kinds of time slices I was talking about in my academic work are much more > an everyday kind of thing. I was investigating the *rationality* of choice > over time. 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. 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. > > 1. I offer you a choice, right now, of $1,000 or $1,050. > Right now. You take the greater amount, $1,050. > I characterized this as rational. > > 2. I offer you a choice between $1,000 right now or $1,050 > in a week from now. You are under no doubt that you'll > get either amount, should you choose it. You are under > no time crunch of any sort, and there is 0.00% risk or > undertainty or financial interest at play. Which amount > do you take? I characterized the rational choice as > taking the $1,050 in a week. > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.