| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"donquijote1954" |
| Date: |
01 Mar 2006 03:57:47 PM |
| Object: |
My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
Well, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I got good reasons to
say so. He forgot that some in the group don't want the group to
prosper at all, but only to prosper themselves so they can control the
group. Whether you call those the puppeteers or the Hungry Lion is a
matter of preference, but they are very real and occupy high office in
government...
John Nash stated that "Adam Smith was wrong"! "The best result comes
from doing the best for one's self and for the group"!
A Beautiful Mind
http://abeautifulmind.com/
So the HUNGRY LION is wrong in his extreme individualism. We must ALL
do what is best for HUMANITY --without forgetting oneself...
And in that sense my theory is SUPERIOR to the professor's. We must
first TAME THE LION.
THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all, demanded
JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to
have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever,
devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a
lion...
When the HUNGRY LION saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match
for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... (NOTE: Other
monkeys survived him...)
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 02:21:01 PM |
|
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141250267.910508.203670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Well, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I got good reasons to
say so. He forgot that some in the group don't want the group to
prosper at all, but only to prosper themselves so they can control the
group. Whether you call those the puppeteers or the Hungry Lion is a
matter of preference, but they are very real and occupy high office in
government...
John Nash stated that "Adam Smith was wrong"! "The best result comes
from doing the best for one's self and for the group"!
The economic self-interest of individuals, however, did not clash with the
general interest, but was, on the contrary, identical with it, at least as a
general rule. Behind the doctrine of the Physiocrats, and of Adam Smith too,
was the assumption of a natural harmony between self-interest and the
general interest, and of an equilibrium between economic supply and demand,
provided the Natural Order was adhered to. In the words of Condorcet, also
an economic liberal, there existed, in spite of apparent chaos, a "general
law of the moral world which causes the efforts of everyone in his own
behalf to serve the interests of all; and which, despite the apparent
conflict, the common interest demands that everyone should understand his
own interest and be permitted to pursue it without opposition."
The invisible hand:
"Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public
interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support
of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security;
and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the
greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many
other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of
his intention."
Adam Smith:
The Wealth of Nations, Book IV Chapter II
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b4-c2.htm
As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one
another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need
of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion
to the division of labour. In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular
person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity
than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with
his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more
cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From
a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows and arrows grows
to be his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armourer. Another excels
in making the frames and covers of their little huts or movable houses. He
is accustomed to be of use in this way to his neighbours, who reward him in
the same manner with cattle and with venison, till at last he finds it his
interest to dedicate himself entirely to this employment, and to become a
sort of house-carpenter. In the same manner a third becomes a smith or a
brazier, a fourth a tanner or dresser of hides or skins, the principal part
of the nothing of savages. And thus the certainty of being able to exchange
all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and
above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's
labour as he may have occasion for, encourages every man to apply himself to
a particular occupation, and to cultivate and bring to perfection whatever
talent or genius he may possess for that particular species of business.
The difference of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less
than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to
distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not
upon many occasions so much the cause as the effect of the division of
labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a
philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so
much from nature as from habit, custom, and education. When they came into
the world, and for the first six or eight years of their existence, they
were perhaps very much alike, and neither their parents nor playfellows
could perceive any remarkable difference. About that age, or soon after,
they come to be employed in very different occupations. The difference of
talents comes then to be taken notice of, and widens by degrees, till at
last the vanity of the philosopher is willing to acknowledge scarce any
resemblance. But without the disposition to truck, barter, and exchange,
every man must have procured to himself every necessary and conveniency of
life which he wanted. All must have had the same duties to perform, and the
same work to do, and there could have been no such difference of employment
as could alone give occasion to any great difference of talents.
The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter II
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b1-c2.htm
Adam Smith: An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations
1776 Entire Book:
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm
....Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this.
Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the
meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from
one another the far greater art of those good offices which we stand in need
of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker
that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one
another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need
of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion
to the division of labor. In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular
person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity
than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with
his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more
cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From
a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows and arrows grows
to be his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armorer, etc......
From a Niffty Summary of Book I, Chapter 2:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmith-summary.html
....David Hume was more than a philosopher: he was also an accomplished
historian, economist and sociologist - and, by all accounts, he was a really
nice fellow too. David Hume presided over the "Scottish Enlightenment"
(roughly dated from 1740 to 1790) which included Adam Smith,...
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/humebio.htm
18th-century philosophers wrote in the shadow of Newton's towering
accomplishments. David Hume is unabashed about his hopes to develop a
science of mind and society in the image of Newton's science of the solar
system. To that end, he seeks out general laws of individual thought and
action, out of which larger-scale orderly relations will arise, in just the
way that patterns in planetary motion arise from the laws of motion and
gravitation governing individual bodies. Thus Hume traces the rise in prices
and the temporary increase in economic activity that follow an increase in
currency to the perceptions and actions of individuals who first spend the
additional currency.
It then lay to Adam Smith to extend such a method to a systematic Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations and to make explicit an
implication of previous causal inquiries such as those of Hume, the
physiocrats and of many of the mercantilists. That implication (which is
arguably the foundation for all social science) is that the social,
aggregative implications of individual choices are often unintended.
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/papers/enc-617.htm
A Beautiful Mind
http://abeautifulmind.com/
So the HUNGRY LION is wrong in his extreme individualism. We must ALL
do what is best for HUMANITY --without forgetting oneself...
And in that sense my theory is SUPERIOR to the professor's. We must
first TAME THE LION.
THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all, demanded
JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to
have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever,
devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a
lion...
When the HUNGRY LION saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match
for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... (NOTE: Other
monkeys survived him...)
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 04:46:53 PM |
|
|
Immortalist wrote:
John Nash stated that "Adam Smith was wrong"! "The best result comes
from doing the best for one's self and for the group"!
The economic self-interest of individuals, however, did not clash with the
general interest, but was, on the contrary, identical with it, at least as a
general rule. Behind the doctrine of the Physiocrats, and of Adam Smith too,
was the assumption of a natural harmony between self-interest and the
general interest, and of an equilibrium between economic supply and demand,
provided the Natural Order was adhered to. In the words of Condorcet, also
an economic liberal, there existed, in spite of apparent chaos, a "general
law of the moral world which causes the efforts of everyone in his own
behalf to serve the interests of all; and which, despite the apparent
conflict, the common interest demands that everyone should understand his
own interest and be permitted to pursue it without opposition."
Interesting lesson, but didn't see any role for the Hungry Lion in
Smith theory. Throughout history there's been a chief, a pharaoh, a
sheikh, a king or a president who to a greater or lesser degree
procures the lion's share for himself (or herself, to honor feminists)
and ****** the others* if you will, and there lies the problem. So the
whole balance of a true jungle is thrown off-balance and it becomes a
savannah of sorts where the big fish eats the little fish, speaking in
parable of course. Well, sometimes the predator is too successful and
overhunts his (or her) prey to extinction and then he (or she) starves
himself (or herself). And you have such an extreme case happening in
human society, for example in Easter Island...
So the interest of the Hungry Lion and the little animals are at odds
and in that it reminds us of the class struggle. Well, communism turned
out to be as Darwinian as capitalism, but there remains the good old
fashion way of defense of the sardines: In Union there's Strength.
PS: For the record: the hunting lions are female. :)
Easter Island example...
"Greed and the desire for social prestige dictated decisions." (I guess
the Hungry Lion was there too.)
'The article on Easter Island moved me a lot. I could not understand
how some people do not see the obvious parallels between what their
society did and what we are currently doing to the environment. Easter
Island was a virtually inaccessible island in the Pacific Ocean that
was at one point in history populated by a flourishing civilization. As
Ponting describes, Easter Island is "a striking example of the
dependence of human societies on their environment and of the
consequences of irreversibly damaging that environment." The people
were originally Polynesian and arrived at the island by traveling in
double canoes. They created a very advanced society with access to only
a very limited range of resources. The climate of Easter Island made it
difficult to grow most plants, and most of the animals on the island
had been brought by the people. With time though, the people figured
out a simple diet that allowed a large amount of free time leftover.
The people prospered and created a system of family clans each of which
had their own specific religious shrines. Rituals and ceremonies became
central to life on the island and as it was manifested in their
communities, required the building of huge platforms and statues.
Unfortunately, the people on Easter Island failed to consider their
effect on the delicate ecosystem. They completely deforested the island
and were left with even less resources than they had started with. The
separate clans had to guard what little resources they had and became
engaged in continual combat. They people even had to turn to
cannibalism. The groups eventually unable to sustain themselves or the
environment around them.
The story of Easter Island is a shocking one, but what most affected me
were the similarities between then and now. Resources were used without
regards to the future and how they were damaging the environment. Greed
and the desire for social prestige dictated decisions. I would not
doubt that there were people on Easter Island who questioned what the
inhabitants were doing to the environment, but their voices went
unheard. According to Ponting's article, it appears as though the
deforestation happened very suddenly, but I cannot believe that the
people on the island did not notice the dwindling amount of trees
growing on the island. Despite this, they continued to cut them down
for their own selfish needs. This is incredibly similar to what groups
of people have done throughout history. We used wood and deforested
extensively even after we realized it was becoming scarce. Only the
economics of the situation caused people to slow down and it seems like
we will run into the same problems with oil. I wonder what it will take
for humans to realize the damage they are causing the environment and
have this be enough impetus to change the way we run our society.'
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/rpattni1/essay1.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
01 Mar 2006 04:03:55 PM |
|
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141250267.910508.203670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Well, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I got good reasons to
say so. He forgot that some in the group don't want the group to
prosper at all, but only to prosper themselves so they can control the
group. Whether you call those the puppeteers or the Hungry Lion is a
matter of preference, but they are very real and occupy high office in
government...
What are you smoking? And is it expensive?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
01 Mar 2006 04:14:09 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141250267.910508.203670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Well, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I got good reasons to
say so. He forgot that some in the group don't want the group to
prosper at all, but only to prosper themselves so they can control the
group. Whether you call those the puppeteers or the Hungry Lion is a
matter of preference, but they are very real and occupy high office in
government...
What are you smoking? And is it expensive?
See, you realize the beauty of it... ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 03:48:48 PM |
|
|
On 1 Mar 2006 13:57:47 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141250267.910508.203670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Well, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I got good reasons to
say so. He forgot that some in the group don't want the group to
prosper at all, but only to prosper themselves so they can control the
group. Whether you call those the puppeteers or the Hungry Lion is a
matter of preference, but they are very real and occupy high office in
government...
John Nash stated that "Adam Smith was wrong"! "The best result comes
from doing the best for one's self and for the group"!
A Beautiful Mind
http://abeautifulmind.com/
So the HUNGRY LION is wrong in his extreme individualism. We must ALL
do what is best for HUMANITY --without forgetting oneself...
And in that sense my theory is SUPERIOR to the professor's. We must
first TAME THE LION.
THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all, demanded
JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to
have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever,
devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a
lion...
When the HUNGRY LION saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match
for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... (NOTE: Other
monkeys survived him...)
When you can provide the math like Nash did we can discuss your ideas.
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
Probably not.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 04:47:47 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
Probably not.
Now it's hiding in the closet. :(
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 05:06:03 PM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2006 14:47:47 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141339667.448900.43670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
Probably not.
Now it's hiding in the closet. :(
Get it some milk. Or a bowl of beer. They like that, gives them
courage.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 05:37:09 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 14:47:47 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141339667.448900.43670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
Probably not.
Now it's hiding in the closet. :(
Get it some milk. Or a bowl of beer. They like that, gives them
courage.
He wants meat everyday but I give him scraps. "Feed the beast" is the
slogan of the trash collectors.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 05:11:16 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 14:47:47 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141339667.448900.43670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
Probably not.
Now it's hiding in the closet. :(
Get it some milk. Or a bowl of beer. They like that, gives them
courage.
Tuna sandwiches. Everyone knows tigers like tuna sandwiches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 05:38:12 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 14:47:47 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141339667.448900.43670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
Probably not.
Now it's hiding in the closet. :(
Get it some milk. Or a bowl of beer. They like that, gives them
courage.
Tuna sandwiches. Everyone knows tigers like tuna sandwiches.
Wirth fingers and all (and sometimes arms too)...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 05:14:22 PM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2006 15:11:16 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Neil Kelsey"
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> in
<1141341076.250172.56560@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 14:47:47 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141339667.448900.43670@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
Probably not.
Now it's hiding in the closet. :(
Get it some milk. Or a bowl of beer. They like that, gives them
courage.
Tuna sandwiches. Everyone knows tigers like tuna sandwiches.
Yes, but he has a lion in his closet. Tigers are always Hungry but
lions are cowards and need to drink their courage.
Sheesh, kids these days, what do they think about?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 05:40:56 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Tuna sandwiches. Everyone knows tigers like tuna sandwiches.
Yes, but he has a lion in his closet. Tigers are always Hungry but
lions are cowards and need to drink their courage.
Sheesh, kids these days, what do they think about?
The monkey wants go give him banana, but not sure it'll work...
The monkey knowing that the lion is more powerful than him, and knowing
he better use his own weapons, decides to be funny, that being his
natural gift. The story goes like this: The lion roars: "Monkey,
I'm made to eat monkey meat, so you better come down right now."
And the monkey replies very cool: "Mighty King, that's doubtful as
the Bible says you were vegetarian, so you can eat my banana..."
(T-shirts with "You Can Eat My Banana" slogan available now!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
02 Mar 2006 06:10:11 PM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2006 15:40:56 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141342856.381794.13000@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Tuna sandwiches. Everyone knows tigers like tuna sandwiches.
Yes, but he has a lion in his closet. Tigers are always Hungry but
lions are cowards and need to drink their courage.
Sheesh, kids these days, what do they think about?
The monkey wants go give him banana, but not sure it'll work...
Flying monkeys don't eat bananas.
The monkey knowing that the lion is more powerful than him, and knowing
he better use his own weapons, decides to be funny, that being his
natural gift. The story goes like this: The lion roars: "Monkey,
I'm made to eat monkey meat, so you better come down right now."
And the monkey replies very cool: "Mighty King, that's doubtful as
the Bible says you were vegetarian, so you can eat my banana..."
(T-shirts with "You Can Eat My Banana" slogan available now!)
Thanks, but it is too cold for t-shirts. Or monkeys.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
03 Mar 2006 01:11:38 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 15:40:56 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141342856.381794.13000@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Tuna sandwiches. Everyone knows tigers like tuna sandwiches.
Yes, but he has a lion in his closet. Tigers are always Hungry but
lions are cowards and need to drink their courage.
Sheesh, kids these days, what do they think about?
The monkey wants go give him banana, but not sure it'll work...
Flying monkeys don't eat bananas.
I think the flying monkeys will be more likely to reach the bananas
that high. At least better than lions. Then the monkeys can be the best
friends of banana-eating lions.
The monkey knowing that the lion is more powerful than him, and knowing
he better use his own weapons, decides to be funny, that being his
natural gift. The story goes like this: The lion roars: "Monkey,
I'm made to eat monkey meat, so you better come down right now."
And the monkey replies very cool: "Mighty King, that's doubtful as
the Bible says you were vegetarian, so you can eat my banana..."
(T-shirts with "You Can Eat My Banana" slogan available now!)
Thanks, but it is too cold for t-shirts. Or monkeys.
This Flying Monkey will get you warm though...
http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/3132
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
03 Mar 2006 02:23:51 PM |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2006 11:11:38 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141413098.218736.56190@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 15:40:56 -0800, in alt.atheism , "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> in
<1141342856.381794.13000@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Tuna sandwiches. Everyone knows tigers like tuna sandwiches.
Yes, but he has a lion in his closet. Tigers are always Hungry but
lions are cowards and need to drink their courage.
Sheesh, kids these days, what do they think about?
The monkey wants go give him banana, but not sure it'll work...
Flying monkeys don't eat bananas.
I think the flying monkeys will be more likely to reach the bananas
that high.
Got me there.
At least better than lions. Then the monkeys can be the best
friends of banana-eating lions.
The monkey knowing that the lion is more powerful than him, and knowing
he better use his own weapons, decides to be funny, that being his
natural gift. The story goes like this: The lion roars: "Monkey,
I'm made to eat monkey meat, so you better come down right now."
And the monkey replies very cool: "Mighty King, that's doubtful as
the Bible says you were vegetarian, so you can eat my banana..."
(T-shirts with "You Can Eat My Banana" slogan available now!)
Thanks, but it is too cold for t-shirts. Or monkeys.
This Flying Monkey will get you warm though...
http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/3132
Gag! I would rather some poppies.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: the lion is in our governments |
05 Mar 2006 04:44:01 PM |
|
|
This John Nash has a theory wich supports COOPERATION, but doesn't
account for those PREDATORS among us who think they'd lose from such a
civilized behavior. Of course, this is only an illusion since they have
much to gain too from JUSTICE (thus avoiding war or environmental
catastrophe).
His theory is general though and you can apply it anywhere. In my
stories of the jungle, the monkey practices his theory but the selfish
lion does not. Of course, we would have to deal with that lion who some
see in our very governments...
(In lack of a better analysis from him or other experts, I assume my
jungle theory to be true, and the taming of the Hungry Lion necessary.
Well, I always knew the lion was vegetarian...
http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/Hicks_Peaceable_Kingdom.htm)
Can cooperation emerge in a world of self-interested individuals
without central authority?
The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation. - Bertrand
Russell
In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes famously claims that without a central
authority, the life of man would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short'. In a state of nature in which man is competitive,
diffident and vainglorious, cooperation would never be rational and as
a result, mankind would be doomed to a perpetual war of all against
all. Yet we know that cooperation does occur and that our civilisation
is based upon it. Is this due to fear of retribution that the state
will enforce on us if we do not cooperate? Or is it possible for
cooperation between individuals, and consequently societies, to evolve
without this so-called 'Leviathan'. I shall argue in this essay
that it is indeed possible for cooperation to evolve without the need
for a central authority and also under what conditions it will emerge.
(...)
The Evolutionary Account of Cooperation
The main thrust of his argument is that all these aspects of the social
contract have come about due to the process of differential
reproduction in evolutionary biology. To understand this we can take
the example of justice. In an experiment subjects were asked to divide
a dollar among themselves. Not surprisingly, all agreed to a
fifty-fifty split. Skyrms shows us that although this is a Nash
equilibrium based on rational choice theory, it is not the only one. In
fact, there are an infinite number of strict Nash equilibria which it
would be rational to adopt. Skyrms argues that it is the result of
evolutionary dynamics which leads us to adopt this just choice. In the
third chapter, Skyrms focuses on the evolution of what Petr Kropotkin
called Mutual Aid, i.e. cooperation.
(...)
So what are the consequences of these conclusions? The results of the
iterated prisoner's dilemma tournaments show how cooperation could
possibly evolve but does not show that's how cooperation in society
has evolved. The evolutionary account is perhaps more helpful in that
respect. If cooperation can occur without the need for a central
authority, does it make that authority obsolete? Skyrms seems to
suggest that the social contract is created by evolutionary dynamics
and not by the state. Justice, commitment and cooperation can all be
explained by evolutionary biology. Having said that it seems that the
state created by evolution would be very different to the sorts of
states we have now, ruled by government. Whether it would be preferable
or not is another matter.
http://symposia.ilovephilosophy.com/launch/02-01-2006Can-cooperation-occur-without-authority-.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: the cheaters of Nash's game |
08 Mar 2006 02:28:30 PM |
|
|
The lions and his controllers ignore John Nash's theory. They are
probably too hungry and too powerful to be smart and play a fair game.
They are the cheaters of Nash's game...
'As John Nash "said" in A Beautiful Mind "Adam Smith said the best
result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself,
right? Adam Smith was wrong!" Our nation is built on just that Adam
Smith notion, and it's the very reason why the trans-continental
railroads didn't meet up, and why Cable TV still doesn't have 100%
penetration in the US.'
'All big-city mass transportation systems are underfunded and are
either in the midst of raising fares and/or cutting service, or have
recently done so. This is a plague.
The source of this plague is our President and his controllers, who
firmly believe that every touchie on a public transportation seat is a
dollar not being spent on oil for their driveway-entrenched Hummers.
This campaign has been bolstered by the most traditional source of
local campaign financing: people in the road-building business.
Chicago has just put off service cuts and fare increases under the
belief that they will get sufficient aid from the State of Illinois.
We'll see. But to the city's credit, they have been rebuilding their
aging L system one line at a time. The Green Line (Lake / Jackson Park
/ Englewood) has been completely renovated, the Blue Line (Douglas
Park) is almost done, and the Brown line (Ravenswood) is up next.
As for replacing the power system, I'm sure our President was wonderful
plans for that as well.'
Posted by: Mike Gold at December 17, 2004 01:07 PM
"The source of this plague is our President and his controllers"
'I'll agree with you, if you are willing to say "All Presidents and
their controllers." It's not as if Clinton or Carter did fantastic jobs
with Mass Transit, either. And heck, the Big Dig is probably as pro-oil
as you can get, as it makes extra capacity for more Hummers to get on
the road, and that was a Mike Dukakis/Tip O'Neill joint.
As for your last comment, I'm quite sure he doesn't. Niether did Bill
Richardson, when he was in the Department of Energy. Nor did Grey Davis
in California, or anyone trying to get power and water out in the
desert in Arizona. Our nation's infrastructure is being left up to
independant contractors, who are only in it to turn a profit. While
there's nothing inheirently wrong with that, it is a problem that there
is very little incentive to acheive long-term sustainability. Once the
Arizona land rush is over, the developers couldn't care less if the
houses fall down in 10 years, or if water rationing occurs.
As John Nash "said" in A Beautiful Mind "Adam Smith said the best
result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself,
right? Adam Smith was wrong!" Our nation is built on just that Adam
Smith notion, and it's the very reason why the trans-continental
railroads didn't meet up, and why Cable TV still doesn't have 100%
penetration in the US.
I'm unwilling to blame any one administration, as the problem is
systemic. But who have you seen in the last 20 years who has been
willing to change the system?'
Posted by: Londo at December 17, 2004 02:13 PM
http://mikegold.malibulist.com/archives/2004/12/on_birds.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: What should be the optimal group for cooperation? |
14 Mar 2006 02:57:41 PM |
|
|
Conservatives, in their social paranoia, say "the family," socialists
say "the state" (but fail to see the problem with bureaucracies) and
anarchists say "the coop." Well, I'm inclined to the last one since it
provides a group not too small as to be insignificant and not too big
as to be unwieldy. Another argument going for it is that you can try
new economic and social programs without risking the whole of society
suffering from it, say going hungry, the way it happened in Russia.
Kropotkin had it right...
"Kropotkin argues, in his cardinal premise, that the struggle for
existence usually leads to mutual aid rather than combat as the chief
criterion of evolutionary success. ([He] promoted a vision of small
communities setting their own standards by consensus for the benefit of
all, thereby eliminating the need for most functions of a central
government.)"
http://www.marxists.org/subject/sci...s/kropotkin.htm
The results of this poll shall dictate the direction of the next
revolution, because there's one coming, right?
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?postid=1800436#post1800436
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
03 Mar 2006 03:10:20 PM |
|
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
Well, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I got good reasons to
say so. He forgot that some in the group don't want the group to
prosper at all, but only to prosper themselves so they can control the
group. Whether you call those the puppeteers or the Hungry Lion is a
matter of preference, but they are very real and occupy high office in
government...
John Nash stated that "Adam Smith was wrong"! "The best result comes
from doing the best for one's self and for the group"!
A Beautiful Mind
http://abeautifulmind.com/
So the HUNGRY LION is wrong in his extreme individualism. We must ALL
do what is best for HUMANITY --without forgetting oneself...
And in that sense my theory is SUPERIOR to the professor's. We must
first TAME THE LION.
THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all, demanded
JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching, said, "You would have to
have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the Monkey, who was very clever,
devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a
lion...
When the HUNGRY LION saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match
for him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time... (NOTE: Other
monkeys survived him...)
PS: By the way, I feel chased by a lion. Am I all right? ;)
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Think a film will be made of your life any time soon?
W : )
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: My mind is more beautiful than John Nash's |
04 Mar 2006 02:34:35 PM |
|
|
Wordsmith wrote:
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
Think a film will be made of your life any time soon?
W : )
Not really... In order to make it into a Hollywood movie you must not
challenge the core of the system, aka "the jungle"...
He proposes the truth, but only half the truth, never messing with the
very ones who'd oppose these ideas. His ideas and mine are
complementary though since he proves my ideas but I deliver his ideas
to the practical world of politics. Sadly, I wrote to him, and, of
course, he ignored me.
The hope lies in the little animals, to paraphrase Orwell...
"The Next Revolution has a Prophet: Orwell"
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote86
.
|
|
|
| User: "donquijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: the truth and nothing but the whole truth |
05 Mar 2006 11:44:15 AM |
|
|
This is the real world Math professors or Hollywood rarely see. Like a
A' Beautiful Mind' the main character is crazy. Unlike that movie
though the main character, Mr Beale, tells the truth and nothing but
the whole truth. Well, they got rid of him... ;)
'NETWORK' (STARRING WILLIAM HOLDEN, PETER FINCH,
FAYE DUNAWAY, ROBERT DUVALL | 1 9 7 6)
"YOU have meddled with the primal forces of NATURE, Mr. Beale ... There
is no America. There is no Democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and
AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of
the world today ... the world is a BUSINESS, Mr. Beale."
These are the words emitted by the looming, Godlike head of Ned Beatty
as he terrifies cowering Angry Prophet Peter Finch in one of the
greatest confrontations ever captured on celluloid.
Great authors who write about the future invariably stumble onto
prophecy. Paddy Chayefsky, in "Network," the greatest screenplay ever
to remain undestroyed by Hollywood and make it intact to the screen,
hits the Orwellian mother lode.
"Network" rolls over the commercial bulwarks of
television-as-propaganda-machine like a squadron of speed-freak-driven
Panzers. I doubt that such a movie could ever be made today: America
the Corporation is now too comfortable with its evils, far too powerful
and omnipotent not to slap down and bury with its tentacles any attempt
at a "Network II." It's hard to argue, looking at What a Terrible Mess
the News Has Become, that Chayefsky's luminous prophecy has come to
pass. During the Reagan '80s, the editorial integrity of broadcast news
was somehow "deregulated" out of existence: The bottom latch on the
trough was released, leading to a free-fall in which baseborn
mud-slinging and celebrity dog-catching has finally replaced Hard
(Holy-Ghost-of-Edward-R.-Murrow) News.
"Historically, news divisions are expected to lose money. But to our
minds, this philosophy is a wanton fiscal affront to be resolutely
resisted," sayeth Robert Duvall as the spokesman of CAA, the company
that owns the Network in the film. He could be voicing the infotainment
tenets that govern every television network in the country today (even
PBS can't brag that it isn't enslaved by the corporate agenda, now that
Archer Daniels Midland owns the "The News Hour.") Big Brother has
landed, and he wears the face of Ronald McDonald standing in front of a
taut, vinyl American flag.
Faye Dunaway's step-on-your-face ambitious corporate go-getter, Diana
Christenson, suggests to her development team that their fall lineup
include suicides, Mafia executions and terrorist bombings. "The
American people are turning sullen. They've been clobbered on all sides
by Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, depression, they've turned off, shot
up and fucked themselves limp and nothing helps ... the American people
WANT someone to articulate their rage for them." This was outrageous in
the '70s. Today, with "Cops" and "Real Life Home Videos of Bloody
Disasters" on every channel, it isn't even ironic.
Exploitation and tabloid sensationalism is nothing new -- it's the
level of it that's alarming. In the last few years, copycat murderers
imitating "Natural Born Killers," monsters inspired by movies who set
New York token booth clerks on fire, and countless other atrocious
examples of "life imitating art" have become so banal and commonplace
that they barely register a blip on the screen of America's
consciousness anymore. At the end of "Network," Finch's mentally
unstable, arm-waving anchorman prophet -- who throughout the entire
film has been led by his nose like an abused, gypsy-camp bear -- starts
to preach the corporate cosmology of the conglomerate that owns the
Network. In his deranged fashion, he realizes that this is the ultimate
truth. This is too depressing for the American public, and they stop
watching the show. Ultimately, the prophet is vanquished by those who
wish to up the show's ratings.
Only the Unabomber has delivered a similar message since Chayefsky's
masterpiece, and look what happened to him.
March 21, 1997
http://www.salon.com/march97/wilson970321.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
