Do you like it or love it?
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
z1235, there would be a feedback loop. I fail to see how you draw your conclusion from that.
If a model exists that is able to predict my next thought (or my thought an hour from now), would that model be able to predict my next thought (or my thought an hour from now) assuming my knowledge of those predictions? Just curious.
You guys take things way too seriously.
Let's face it, though: according to an uncontroversial definition of dogmatism, there is a gathering of faithful Austrian methodologists and economists here. That's simply factual, not insulting.
I wouldn't necessarily dispute the title of "dogmatist," since I am usually smeared as being an adherent of "scientism" (and I wouldn't even dispute that label), but that same dogma also means all of my beliefs are, in principle, provisional and revisable.
I'm looking for worthwhile debates, but I'm also looking for happy-go-lucky humor. I don't believe the two are incompatible.
P.S. I'm flattered that you find me breathtaking.
Do you have a link discussing the psychology involved in neuroeconomics?
I wouldn't necessarily dispute the title of "dogmatist
While you are correct to state that the word "dogma" should not be taken as an insult, the word is almost always used in such a way.
I'm looking for worthwhile debates, but I'm also looking for happy-go-lucky humor.
OMG, Me too! Whats your age/sex/location?
Neoclassical:Let's face it, though: according to an uncontroversial definition of dogmatism, there is a gathering of faithful Austrian methodologists and economists here. That's simply factual, not insulting.
What criteria must be met to be classified as dogmatic? Just curious.
I don't.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
This is a LvMI forum, where Austrian methodologists and economists would most likely gather. It's like going to Stormfront and pointing out that there's a lot of racial separatist and neo-Nazis on the forum (or going to RevLeft and pointing out the large amounts of leftist/socialist).
"P.S. I'm flattered that you find me breathtaking."
As usual, you are mistaken.
Jon Irenicus:Neoclassical, what is "utility"?
Mean activity in the medial prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum.
:medial prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum
Which is why people find Pot as a form of utility, but doesn't explain why one person gets a dopamine high off pot, while another gets a high off baseball, and yet another gets an entirely different high skiing. Ultimately all thats been done is you've changed subjective valuation into a series of technical terms which describes a physical location of the brain responsible for letting us know something feels good. IT still does not explain why baseball effects some people while TV effects others. It doesn't explain the preferences or the degrees in preferences. It still does not explain why reading is more of a utility to one man over watching TV, and why for another it's vise versa. Or why in some people there is a balance of the two.
In other words nothing has changed, whatsoever, and you've wasted alot of time thinking you're going to find the answer to life in the ventral striatum! JK :)
Neoclassical: Jon Irenicus:Neoclassical, what is "utility"? Mean activity in the medial prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum.
Relevant: http://lesswrong.com/lw/sr/the_comedy_of_behaviorism/
Why anarchy fails
And how do you know that is "utility"? What is the phenomenon of utility apart from this, how do you identify it, how do you define it? Why is interesting to study it? You're basically doing the equivalent of saying thinking is some activity that goes on in XYZ area, as if there's no mental phenomenon going on in the subject's mind. You may deny it, but denials by themselves are worth sweet f-all, sort of like eliminating the problem to be explained by sweeping it under a rug.
AJ: Neoclassical: Jon Irenicus:Neoclassical, what is "utility"? Mean activity in the medial prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum. Relevant: http://lesswrong.com/lw/sr/the_comedy_of_behaviorism/
AJ, thanks for that link! Some choice quotes in there...
"Let me see if I understand your thesis. You think we shouldn't anthropomorphize people?" -- Sidney Morgenbesser to B. F. Skinner "Oh, you think you're thinking, but that's just a delusion - or it would be, if there were such things as delusions."
"Oh, you think you're thinking, but that's just a delusion - or it would be, if there were such things as delusions."
Biological taxonomy is folklore. These things are just energy fields.
Yeah, I could probably be considered a logical behaviorist. My point is this: what truths can emerge if you don't anthropomorphize people? (Since that trait is, technically, an evolutionary trick to misperceive physical processes.)
Is there a lay-accessible introduction somewhere? Wikipedia's entry is uselessly uninformative and the references are all scholarly.
I would be curious to know whether the psychological wing of neuroeconomics comes from mainstream psychology or evolutionary psychology. If mainstream, then it is a dead end. Evo psych is the future.
Clayton -