I see. So you don't know what elasticity of substitution is. Well then,
we have a bigger problem than you not following this particular
argument.
The issue : there is a structure to the arguments here that you are not
following, and I could see that you weren't seeing it from the
beginning.
The concern : the elasticity of substitution is a rather precise concept
and until one understands the calculus and the mathematical derivation
of this concept, there is no point in proceeding further. So really,
none of these rejoinders ("Bzzt"," It would help if you would start
making sense." et cetera) were necessary (since they indicate your lack
of understanding of my responses, not mine of yours), and no response to
them is required of me. I am concerned about the implication here that
there is a problem on my part, when, in fact, the problem lies
elsewhere.
The economic concepts I am talking about ('elasticity of substitution',
et cetera) are nice compact ways of thinking about certain things, but
they are absolutely foundational. As a start, one could begin by reading
the work of the Carnegie School on this matter. In particular, I am
thinking of the work of Herbert Simon. Herbert Simon dealt quite a bit
with this topic of the substitution of men and women with machines.
--- In [email protected], Eugen Leitl <eugen@...> wrote:>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:03:28AM -0000, Anand Manikutty wrote:
>
> > Yes, but the theoretical argument from the elasticity of
substitution
>
> The argument is empirical. I don't know what elasticity of
substitution is.
>
> > obviously takes individual's preferences with respect to
procreation,
>
> Sexual selection is an integral part of Darwinian evolution.
>
> > reproduction, behavior with respect to relatives, et cetera into
>
> Still fishing for relevance in your reply, see nothing so far.
>
> > account. You should have taken this into account before framing your
> > reply.
>
> It would help if you would start making sense.
>
>
> > > Please don't top-post and please trim your replies (message
unchanged
> > > below).
> > You should reply to my theoretical response on the elasticity of
> > substitution since the idea of a mailing list, including this one,
would
> > be to build upon discussion, and so if you would like to build upon
the
> > discussion up to the present, you should respond to the theoretical
> > responses made up to this point. You should not presume to know what
Taj
> > is saying there.
>
> Bzzt.
>
> > The specific point(s) made to other people are contingent upon their
own
> > theory of Technological Singularity. This is because there is no
>
> There is no theory other than a positive feedback loop as the core
driver,
> and a few plausible scenarios illustrating how positive feedback
> emerges and accelerates.
>
> > academically peer reviewed theory of Technological Singularity (a
> > canonical theory, so to speak) that one can point to. Or if you and
Taj
>
> Say, are you a philosopher? You sure sound like one.
As for your question on me being a philosopher, there is no harm in me
admitting that I have some competency in philosophy, but to appreciate
the arguments, you would need to understand the literature in economics
and organizations, not philosophy. That said, many of the world's
leading philosophers (and religious thinkers) - Moses, Jesus, Mohammed,
the Buddha - would most likely not follow this argument either, and so
if it is any consolation, you and Deepa are in good company.
In fact, I wish those philosophers were around so that I could convert
them. My process of conversion is an amazingly enjoyable one and is
nothing more than the process of Gnana yoga ("the yoga of knowledge"). I
would especially enjoy converting Jesus to my way of thinking, I think.
AnandP.S. This is another overarching theoretical response and so one is
unable to strictly observe the top-post consideration (it has always
been a consideration in Internet forums, not a requirement) since the
theoretical considerations are paramount.
> > have agreed upon a canonical theory, you should let me know so that
I am
> > on the same page. I would expect this canonical theory to have a
central
> > set of hypotheses which have been verified empirically using the
regular
> > standards for hypothesis testing. Anand
>
> Doesn't history of technology, particularly recent one strongly
suggest
> positive feedback is happening, at least in multiple areas?
>
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
>
