Do you like it or love it?
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
The last time I looked into it it hadn't made very much progress. Is there anything recent of value?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
You seem to like it, but do you even use it? Nearly all of your concrete economic arguments have no reference to a neurological basis. In fact, in practice, you seem to rely on what you call "mentalese" just as much as anyone else does.
Can you see value?
To be fair, if microeconomics is sound, then giving explanations in terms of neurology is unneccesary for most purposes. This is the same reason that chemists can gives explanations of events without reference to physics (it is assumed that the explanations would not contradict eachother).
Grayson Lilburne, I'm comfortable with using language that only targets a non-fundamental resolution of reality; of course, I accept it as crude and scientifically weak.
For the sake of common economic argumentation, I will happily postulate rational actors that are optimizing expected utility; but, I find more value in exploring economic applications of evolutionary game theory (no need for "rationality" there) or in the eliminative materialism possible in neuroeconomics.
Sieben, what is "value"?
Neoclassical:I find more value in exploring economic applications of evolutionary game theory (no need for "rationality" there) or in the eliminative materialism possible in neuroeconomics.
Your post history contradicts that statement. You've said you believe in looking at demonstrated preferences, right? Well, outside of your posts about methodology, you've demonstrated a recurring preference for "mentalese", and not for actually applying evolutionary game theory and neuroeconomics.
Assuming full understanding (model) of your own thinking process, wouldn't your thoughts be affected by the model thus affecting the model back? If I know that input A produces thought B, wouldn't input A + my awareness that it should produce B result in thought C, rendering the model useless?
Neoclassical, what is "utility"?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
z1235, there would be a feedback loop. I fail to see how you draw your conclusion from that.
Grayson Lilburne, what use would it be in an arena dominated by Austrian dogmatists?
Neoclassical:Sieben, what is "value"?
If you're here for sincere debate (and trust me, your own posts have been nothing but breathtakingly dogmatic so far), I'd advised you drop the term.
Neoclassical: Grayson Lilburne, what use would it be in an arena dominated by Austrian dogmatists?
Ah, a lame excuse, in a wrapper of hostility.
I think you should put your economic application money where your methodological mouth is.