Over the years I’ve not only met folks who do drugs, I’ve met folks who’ve had deep mystical experiences on drugs. They have told me that their drug experiences made them feel sure the physical world we see around us just can’t be all there is — they’ve touched something deeper and more important. When asked how exactly a weird drug experiences could possibly count as evidence on basic physics, they have little coherent to say. It seems their subconscious just told them this abstract conclusion, and they can’t not believe a cocksure subconscious. Even one on drugs.
Those of us who have had plenty of mystical drug experiences but who dismiss them as merely the product of substance induced experiences tend to be a lot less vocal about the whole thing.
"Taking the evolutionary angle a little further, here’s a hostile question for neo-classical economists: “how strong do you think the reasons are for evolution to produce people who at least approximately fit the consistency axioms of neoclassical economics?”"
For my view of some ways in which one might modify neoclassical economics to take account of the implications of Darwinian evolution, see:
The 27-categories are implicit (hidden) within category theory, I already indirectly referred to them in the thread 'Super Watch Dilemna', where I listed 3 ontological axes, each with 3 ontological prims. Each combination of prims ('triple') represents one of the categories.
As to proof, all will be revealed in the fullness of time. The narrative has to unfurl at its own pace, possibly in a series of techno-thriller novels I am writing ;)
The web-page at the link below shows all my symbols for the categories, who can crack the code?
Watson accomplished little of note during almost two decades that separated the discovery of DNA structure and the birth of his first son. In contrast, Crick was married and taking care of an infant at a time of DNA Race. He later had another daughter and while raising his children Crick accomplished several more things of crucial importance for molecular biology.
Ben, for a counter-example on children, James Watson says he wouldn't have accomplished as much if he wasn't single. But who knows how accurate his introspection is.
Eric Falkenstein, yup Bertrand Russell and William James have related similar anecdotes.
mjgeddes, where is the evidence that your intuition is actually any good beyond your claiming it to be so? You say there are 27 categories, so what are they?
"...the economic framework accurately describes how I choose an apple over an orange..."I didn't realise revealed preference could do that. So briefly, what is the mechanism?
Re: "The point is that Bayes/decision theory fails to incorporate consciousness into the model..thus important components of goal-directed systems are missing from the model."
What model do you mean? "Decision theory" refers to a category that includes many types of model about how to make decisions.
But that’s not the point. I’m surprised by how little of this I’ve consciously chosen. While the economic framework accurately describes how I choose an apple over an orange, it has had surprisingly little to say about what has been the most important choice in my life.
You don't choose how much you like apples, and that's a major influence on how many apples you buy. You might not choose how to feel about your children, but you don't really choose how you feel about anybody. Economics is fine with what we happen to like, be it oranges, apples, children, cats, whatever. Econ doesn't even purport to describe why people desire things, so how is this even a challenge to the model?
Lol, okay if you're really against hypocrisy then you'll recognize that this is you saying, "What, a better world without logic?! That's just not logical!"
Wolfers has realized what I did… neoclassical econ, based on the math of Bayes and decision theory, is merely an approximation to a far deeper theory of goal-directed systems. The point is that Bayes/decision theory fails to incorporate consciousness into the model..thus important components of goal-directed systems are missing from the model. The difference from physics is that goal-directed systems are not the subject matter of physics..whereas for econ, features of minds surely influence the model.
So can you provide some arguments for why your theory of economics is better than the neoclassical variety or do we need to be on acid to properly appraise them?
I am surely a walking poster-child of the insight that drug-style 'trips' can achieve!
Wolfers has realized what I did... neoclassical econ, based on the math of Bayes and decision theory, is merely an approximation to a far deeper theory of goal-directed systems. The point is that Bayes/decision theory fails to incorporate consciousness into the model..thus important components of goal-directed systems are missing from the model. The difference from physics is that goal-directed systems are not the subject matter of physics..whereas for econ, features of minds surely influence the model.
Only the drug-induced haze of super-duper ultra-uber intuition is capable of finally apprehending the real answers... the 27 cosmic ontological categories at the heart of it all, the replacement of the notion of 'probability' with 'similiarity', categorization and analogy-making as the core of cognition, a new form of math based on a 'fuzzy category theory', the derivation of Bayes from this more general theory, the total revision of standard economics and so on.
Let this symbol be the sign of the ultimate cosmic category...
that block quote reads as continuous but isn't actually, if compared w/ wolfer's post. i think an ellipsis is probably warranted.
here's an omitted paragraph in wolfer's post i thought added context:
And it’s not for want of trying. Today, I find myself wondering: Is parenthood a constant returns technology? That is: Would a second child bring as much joy as a first? But how could it? Since meeting Matilda, my heart is bursting with joy. Will it explode? Are the returns diminishing then? And if so, how fast? Forget self-interest; I’m not the only stakeholder in this debate. Beyond my better half, there’s Matilda, and the dozens of others she has brought joy to—her grandparents, aunts, uncles, and caregivers. There are the old ladies who smile as she walks down the street, the dads I share a knowing glance with, and all the good that will come from whatever lies ahead for my baby.
to me it sounds like neoclassical theory has some tools to approach the problem, but things get really complicated and confusing. and also your introspectively based model of humans is shaken because your kid has changed you, and now you're open to less self-centered conceptions of human self-interest, which probably complicated things further. maybe economic models don't usually take into account internal human states, but don't economists all the time use introspection to try to grok what people might do in given economic situations?
Perhaps he's not _actually_ as he comes across on OB and he just acts this way to signal lack of gullibility.
Those of us who have had plenty of mystical drug experiences but who dismiss them as merely the product of substance induced experiences tend to be a lot less vocal about the whole thing.
To be fair though, drugs can push you in the other direction too - I know someone who clicked on reductionism while on psychedelics.
"Taking the evolutionary angle a little further, here’s a hostile question for neo-classical economists: “how strong do you think the reasons are for evolution to produce people who at least approximately fit the consistency axioms of neoclassical economics?”"
For my view of some ways in which one might modify neoclassical economics to take account of the implications of Darwinian evolution, see:
http://www.daviddfriedman.c...
The 27-categories are implicit (hidden) within category theory, I already indirectly referred to them in the thread 'Super Watch Dilemna', where I listed 3 ontological axes, each with 3 ontological prims. Each combination of prims ('triple') represents one of the categories.
As to proof, all will be revealed in the fullness of time. The narrative has to unfurl at its own pace, possibly in a series of techno-thriller novels I am writing ;)
The web-page at the link below shows all my symbols for the categories, who can crack the code?
HackersCode
The comparison of psychedelics with parenthood is interesting. Are parents less impressed by LSD than non-parents?
You certainly sound like someone on drugs... ;)
Watson accomplished little of note during almost two decades that separated the discovery of DNA structure and the birth of his first son. In contrast, Crick was married and taking care of an infant at a time of DNA Race. He later had another daughter and while raising his children Crick accomplished several more things of crucial importance for molecular biology.
Ben, for a counter-example on children, James Watson says he wouldn't have accomplished as much if he wasn't single. But who knows how accurate his introspection is.
Eric Falkenstein, yup Bertrand Russell and William James have related similar anecdotes.
mjgeddes, where is the evidence that your intuition is actually any good beyond your claiming it to be so? You say there are 27 categories, so what are they?
"...the economic framework accurately describes how I choose an apple over an orange..."I didn't realise revealed preference could do that. So briefly, what is the mechanism?
Re: "The point is that Bayes/decision theory fails to incorporate consciousness into the model..thus important components of goal-directed systems are missing from the model."
What model do you mean? "Decision theory" refers to a category that includes many types of model about how to make decisions.
But that’s not the point. I’m surprised by how little of this I’ve consciously chosen. While the economic framework accurately describes how I choose an apple over an orange, it has had surprisingly little to say about what has been the most important choice in my life.
You don't choose how much you like apples, and that's a major influence on how many apples you buy. You might not choose how to feel about your children, but you don't really choose how you feel about anybody. Economics is fine with what we happen to like, be it oranges, apples, children, cats, whatever. Econ doesn't even purport to describe why people desire things, so how is this even a challenge to the model?
Lol, okay if you're really against hypocrisy then you'll recognize that this is you saying, "What, a better world without logic?! That's just not logical!"
Wolfers has realized what I did… neoclassical econ, based on the math of Bayes and decision theory, is merely an approximation to a far deeper theory of goal-directed systems. The point is that Bayes/decision theory fails to incorporate consciousness into the model..thus important components of goal-directed systems are missing from the model. The difference from physics is that goal-directed systems are not the subject matter of physics..whereas for econ, features of minds surely influence the model.
So can you provide some arguments for why your theory of economics is better than the neoclassical variety or do we need to be on acid to properly appraise them?
I am surely a walking poster-child of the insight that drug-style 'trips' can achieve!
Wolfers has realized what I did... neoclassical econ, based on the math of Bayes and decision theory, is merely an approximation to a far deeper theory of goal-directed systems. The point is that Bayes/decision theory fails to incorporate consciousness into the model..thus important components of goal-directed systems are missing from the model. The difference from physics is that goal-directed systems are not the subject matter of physics..whereas for econ, features of minds surely influence the model.
Only the drug-induced haze of super-duper ultra-uber intuition is capable of finally apprehending the real answers... the 27 cosmic ontological categories at the heart of it all, the replacement of the notion of 'probability' with 'similiarity', categorization and analogy-making as the core of cognition, a new form of math based on a 'fuzzy category theory', the derivation of Bayes from this more general theory, the total revision of standard economics and so on.
Let this symbol be the sign of the ultimate cosmic category...
Drop some acid, you'll understand all.
that block quote reads as continuous but isn't actually, if compared w/ wolfer's post. i think an ellipsis is probably warranted.
here's an omitted paragraph in wolfer's post i thought added context:
And it’s not for want of trying. Today, I find myself wondering: Is parenthood a constant returns technology? That is: Would a second child bring as much joy as a first? But how could it? Since meeting Matilda, my heart is bursting with joy. Will it explode? Are the returns diminishing then? And if so, how fast? Forget self-interest; I’m not the only stakeholder in this debate. Beyond my better half, there’s Matilda, and the dozens of others she has brought joy to—her grandparents, aunts, uncles, and caregivers. There are the old ladies who smile as she walks down the street, the dads I share a knowing glance with, and all the good that will come from whatever lies ahead for my baby.
to me it sounds like neoclassical theory has some tools to approach the problem, but things get really complicated and confusing. and also your introspectively based model of humans is shaken because your kid has changed you, and now you're open to less self-centered conceptions of human self-interest, which probably complicated things further. maybe economic models don't usually take into account internal human states, but don't economists all the time use introspection to try to grok what people might do in given economic situations?