tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5014075006969917149.post3326900593587483651..comments2024-03-17T05:58:44.116+08:00Comments on Economic Policy: How I ThinkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5014075006969917149.post-68711639861481657812010-10-11T16:38:02.690+08:002010-10-11T16:38:02.690+08:00All-in-one unified economic modeling of the impact...All-in-one unified economic modeling of the impacts of globalization, resource scarcity, climate change, graying demographics, BRIC emergence, west-east power shift, trade geopolitics, integrated market mechanism, new financial order, government finance, sustainable development, social network markets...? <br /><br />The world awaits either etheorist or the Santa Fe Institute to produce it.<br /><br />Meanwhile....rimming the target:<br /><br />http://is.gd/fWEJS<br />http://is.gd/fWFX8<br /><br />Submit a formal title so that a better search can be attempted. <br /><br />Btw, for want of an email address, you are denying yourself all of the world's best. Any field. The following is comparatively....nothing: http://is.gd/fWJ4Udiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07344215359798747231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5014075006969917149.post-62383959844270952862010-10-11T15:02:10.035+08:002010-10-11T15:02:10.035+08:00This does look like my type of book.
Unfortunate...This does look like my type of book. <br /><br />Unfortunately (and happily), I have outgrown meta-criticism by weaning myself off those mathematically elegant models by being fully immersed in the real world.<br /><br />There should be a new theoretical approach for economics based on big solid discrete changes.<br /><br />We are now in the world of big colossal transformational changes. Any thing like that, Neil?etheoristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412913576145631384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5014075006969917149.post-5474046129677681692010-10-09T00:23:47.222+08:002010-10-09T00:23:47.222+08:00..and:
http://is.gd/fRy0v..and:<br /><br />http://is.gd/fRy0vdiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07344215359798747231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5014075006969917149.post-6593094534724762422010-10-07T12:46:18.480+08:002010-10-07T12:46:18.480+08:002/2
Having thus reversed ourselves into a corner ...2/2<br /><br />Having thus reversed ourselves into a corner of our own making, what is the way out? <br /><br />If we next use our brains, none. We will never know whether mind exists or what it will reveal. <br /><br />If we next use our emotions, we will have to first ask whether our emotions are exclusively constructed from our thoughts. <br /><br />If the answer is yes, we have only infused brain with itself to make mind. But something made only of itself is but itself. We are back into the corner. <br /><br />If the answer is no, we will have to ask first whether that is but a trick played by our own brains on us in order to overcome its own paradoxical dilemma. For again we will never know that the minds we have borrowed from time will yield the real total truth.<br /><br />And then, just as we are sinking into our moment of darkest despair, a nightingale sings and a small pencil of light enters from the shutters.<br /><br />Trying to ignore that it was probably a light from the headlamps of an oncoming car, we suddenly remember one other property of nature - quantum tunneling.<br /><br />A thing tunnels through a barrier to another place instantaneously.<br /><br />Our logically ruled brains suffer a leap of faith. So we next ask what is faith? Something we believe in independent of observations. And how is faith sustained? When observations incrementally reinforce the faith. If observations reinforce faith, how can faith be independent of observations, someone with better things to do, asks?<br /><br />Do and find out, replies Goethe (“The deed is everything, the glory is naught.”)<br /><br />In a manner of speaking, our lives are short. We go about every day moving physical things commanded by the thinking processes of our brains. <br /><br />To be efficient while hoping to be effective but consistently individualistic, we hone those processes to make selections which thus create preferences whose defense evokes other 'things' called emotions. We then add emotions to logical thought processes and call it all intuition in a new process which reflects our faith that there is something around that is bigger and less mundane that the sum of all parts.<br /><br />Occasionally, when we least expect it, observations come rolling like a ball to our feet to say that the emotion of faith is not without comprehensible foundation. In other words, like quantum tunneling, faith proves itself.<br /><br />Which remains to ask whether Bastick would have agreed to the taking of such liberties. He said intuition has 20 properties. Do you have time?<br /><br />Here they are:<br /><br />quick, immediate, sudden appearance;<br />emotional involvement; preconscious process; contrast with abstract reasoning, logic, or analytic thought; influenced by experience;understanding by feeling--emotive not tactile;<br />associations with creativity; associations with egocentricity;<br />intuition need not be correct; subjective certainty of correctness;<br />recentering; empathy, kinesthetic or other; innate, instinctive knowledge or ability; preverbal concept; global<br />knowledge; incomplete knowledge; hypnogogic reverie; sense of relations; dependence on environment; and, transfer and transposition.<br /><br />After that, it is time to warm up yesterday's left-overs and then go out to make some 'observations'.<br /><br />If we are pure in heart, we don't need much to get on to the next day. But that is small consolation for not being able to make it happen for others to get more so that they will suffer less.<br /><br />Suffering is the basal diet of all human life. Thinking hardly changes anything. Mercifully, the wheel of life turns until one doesn't know it will soon be over.diannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07344215359798747231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5014075006969917149.post-70464773060039857872010-10-07T12:45:52.193+08:002010-10-07T12:45:52.193+08:00We seem not to have made much progress about how w...We seem not to have made much progress about how we think since the days of the ancients. <br /><br />Even with modern-day dipole scanning of our brain processes using technologies like magnetic resonance imaging, the same questions remain to be answered with sufficiently wide and proof-secured acceptability.<br /><br />Maybe that's because we have only one tool, our brains. When we think about thinking, we use our brains to try and crowbar out an answer about something beyond how our tool has constructed our thoughts.<br /><br />We are trying to project our brain into a different concept called mind. Yet the formulation of that concept is made using the electrochemical processes of the brain. If these processes are found wanting or limited by individual disposition and nature, how can we then know the concept of mind so constructed and its output is the truth and nothing but the full truth?<br /><br />We may therefore, logically, conclude that at best we as mortals are only availed partial truths at our respective moments. <br /><br />Which means that if we can accumulate partial truths submitted by all members of the entire human race and then sum them integrally over all times, we should be able to approximate closer and closer to a total truth.<br /><br />Therefore the total truth will only be revealed to us if we as mortals are also totally unified as one. <br /><br />Which may thus explain why the sages untethered their selves to try and embrace unity in order to find a pathway to a/the total truth revealed to a/the total mind.<br /><br />With that 'thought' as the backdrop, let us return to the matter of thinking. <br /><br />We start with a question. Is it a range of frequencies? <br /><br />When we sleep-dream, our brains generate multiple images which may have logical memory constructs but are presented in semi-incoherent order. <br /><br />When we day-dream, the coherence solidifies a bit like the transition from pure flow liquid to semi-crystalline liquid; we willfully construct a logical story and the force of that will, so apparently absent in sleep-dreaming, seems to emanate from some emotion or desire. <br /><br />When we think normally, such as me writing this, and you reading it (with utter contempt), the frequency of ordering becomes more stable, like a solid. And while the emotions may still be around, they are willfully placed in the backburner so that focus can be made on symbolizations, in this case words, associated with ideas held together by the common rules of logic and communication.<br /><br />Therefore to get to the total truth without having to appeal to the entire human race to unify, we should individually be looking for the right pathway frequency of thinking.<br /><br />But there is a problem. Heisenberg said we cannot precisely determine both position and momentum at the same time. Only one at the expense of the other. Which seems to say we cannot absolutely predict in advance any event in the physical world. Or if we try to measure something, it changes so that we can never get to the essential property of a thing. <br /><br />But the only world we know is about things. That's why we put premium on ideas. But ideas are symbolic representations of outputs from our thinking processes which in turn are abbreviated tools to reach a total truth which cannot be determined precisely.diannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07344215359798747231noreply@blogger.com