Methinkshe
-
Posts
5,315 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Methinkshe
-
-
I think the modern definition for the phenomenon you describe would be a "meme". I have no problem with such phenomena. Of course they exist as emergent properties of the physical thought processes across individual human brains that underpin them. But that's the point. You appear to be implying that some "things" do not need physical existence underpinning them at any level. So if they have no physical existence of any kind (either in distributed or singular form) at any physical level, then I would be very interested to hear your actual definition of what form their existence does take?
As it happens I am extremely interested in cultural emergent properties of the cumulative physical operations of individuals' brains. Much more, in fact, than those lower level physical operations themselves. It's just important to remember that emergent properties cannot exist without an underlying physicality to support them. The same is not true the other way around.
At a lower level still. Atoms can exist without brains. The reverse is not the case. This doesn't make brains unimportant (obviously! ). They just represent a higher level of physical organisation.
Emergent informational properties are real phenomena that can be described as existing as real physical patterns of neuronal organisation across human brains. It is important to be able, when describing any phenomena, that it must always be possible to describe it in terms of having an underlying physicality to it at some point. In other words, in the case of "memes", "concepts" or any other "cultural" phenomena, there must, at some point, be a physical medium by which they propagate. Otherwise, you get into very dodgy territory from a rational standpoint
The observer/communicator/processor of the concept (neuronal patterns) cannot at the same time BE the concept. I can allow that an understanding of, say, the concept of "joy" has a physical existence in terms of neuronal patterns based on individual experience/memory, but the concept itself remains abstract and without physicality. The concept itself has a non-material existence that is evidenced only in its communicablity to another rational being.
If a concept is a property of the brain then it is simultaneously observer and observed which cannot be true.
-
All quiet on the Western Front at the moment.
With the amount of issuance they're proposing (and it seems to be growing every day) there are going to be plenty of stormy days ahead.
This is going to have legs for the simple reason that they don't know how to stop spending.
Cheers! Please keep us informed. I find your posts helpful and instructive.
Remarque, eh? Good book.
-
If Steve did say that (I didn't get that meaning) then he'd be wrong.
Abstractions and physical things are fundamentally different from physical quantities - by definition. Abstractions are independent of units, physical quantities are not. A physical system can implement an abstraction - but the abstraction is, by its very nature, distinct.
Maybe I have misunderstood, but what I took from Steve's posts was that he was claiming that even abstractions can be given concrete existence via reference to common neuronal patterns.
Needless to say, I disagree.
-
When this financial collapse comes fully, we in the West have enormous scope for scaling our lives back. We are not living on the bread line. I have just been down the supermarket. It dawned on me down there just how many of the goods on the shelves were luxury items, expensive brands, sweets, chocolate etc.. You could easily cut half the crap out of the place and still have more than enough 'necessities' to have a happy and fulfilled life. I am in Sweden by the way, I'm sure the scope for scaling back on unnecessary items is even greater in the states. Just look how f4cking fat they are.
That's because you are thinking linearly. Your are congratulating yourself on how you could cut back and economise, yet not recognising the potential for a total cessation of supplies in the supermarket.
Having to pay double for everything won't be the end of us. It'll mean we'll be forced into living a more reasonable life style, less holidays, eat less meat, less luxury electronic items, cheaper smaller cars etc. We didn't have half this stuff a few years ago and we were quite happy then.It won't be just "having to pay double for everything" it will be having to pay double and treble and quadruple for everything because there is a shortage or even total absence. You are dwelling in the realms of choice; I am thinking absence.
The real problem is the unemployment that will be created, because as people scale back spending jobs in unnecessary industry will go.That's a symptom, albeit one which will feed on itself to contribute to the meltdown which I fear - far and above any possible shortage of oil 50 years hence.
It makes me laugh that before this crisis broke all you heard on the news was climate change this, climate change that, we have to scale back our activities to save the planet etc. etc. Then this happens, which is great news for the climate because they'll be less industry and pollution as a result. But the irony is everyone is running around crying about it (apart from me - I've bought gold).I've never subscribed to the climate change scare. What does concern me is the fragility of our financial/monetary system and our dependency on electricity, which I fear is susceptible to sudden collapse as opposed to a gentle re-alignment.
The truth of the matter is we can make do with less, but we are all greedy and there are too many of us on this planet. Some people have to die or be happy living at a subsistence level (third world subsistence farming or tiny benefit cheque in the west) while only a privileged minority enjoy a reasonable standard of living. A return to feudalism is the key, hopefully my gold will ensure I can pay a private army to keep me in the position I am accustomed to.
Sure we can. I've been managing on "less" for years. It's a way of life for me. I have always been very careful of everything, not the least because from principle I abhor waste or excess when I know that so many in this world struggle to even find enough to eat and stay alive.
However, I get what you're saying about it being impossible to predict the future. We're probably both wrong. That super volcano under Yosemite National Park might pop tomorrow and take us with it. Sh1t, I'll have wasted the last few hours of my life on here
Lol!
Good to find some point of agreement!
-
No, I have said that concepts and other intellectual abstractions reside in human brains in the form of neuronal firing patterns. This is absolutely physically the case. However, at the moment we lack the technology to directly measure such patterns (actually we do have the technology to witness simple neuronal patterns. Unfortunately, it usually involves significant brain damage to do so). That doesn't mean they don't exist.
What you appear to be saying is that abstractions can (eventually, given technological ability to measure) be nailed down to pysicalities thus making redundant any concept of faith or confidence. They will all boil down to sequential firings of neurons that will exhibit communal patterns so as to confirm a pyhsicality at the base of every abstraction.
Have I correctly understood your thinking?
-
Then you have moved from a postion of claiming that abstracts have physical existence within common neuronal brain patterns to admitting that no such thing exists and thus, abstracts remain beyond physical determination.
Edited to add "physical" to qualify "existence" in line 1.
-
The thing about commonly held neuronal patterns is that they are never completely identical. Moreover, barring some pretty impressive improvements in brain scanning technology, there is no practical way of establishing the level of similarity between different patterns. The only way we can infer such similarity is by external communication. If both of us agree that a given amount of money X is worth a given amount of commodity Y, then we have (in the context of that that commodity and that commodity alone) implicitly agreed that our neuronal patterns of the abstract relationship between money and that particular commodity is the same (or thereabouts). No more and no less.
Then you have moved from a postion of claiming that abstracts have existence within common neuronal brain patterns to admitting that no such thing exists and thus, abstracts remain beyond physical determination.
-
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought everyone knew the dollar is not really backed by gold. It was from Bretton Woods to 1971, but since 1971 even the dollar is pure fiat... is that not the case, hardly a secret?
We're not talking about whether the dollar is backed by gold but whether paper gold is backed by physical gold.
It appears that more paper gold has been sold than is physically available or, worse still, than even exists.
-
Russia and Argentina have had financial meltdowns in recent years. Are they mired in anarchy? No. They had a rough time for a bit and are the poorer for it, but life as they know it didn't end completely. They still have cars, planes, rockets (in Russia's case). They're certainly not living a pre-industrial revolution life.
Admittedly, this time the whole world, to varying extents, is threatened with being dragged down in this crisis. But we got through 2 World Wars without the march of industrial progress being threatened, this will be no different. Unless it ends in WW3 of course, hopefully MAD will prevent this.
No more oil on the other hand, then we really will be heading back towards pre-industrial revolution time. Via the end of a few nukes I imagine, as we fight to the death for the last scraps.
I find it strange and interesting that where I am optimistic, you are pessimistic, and where I am pessimistic, you are optimistic.
Who can account for the vagaries of human beliefs? For that is where we are - beliefs - because both of us is trying to understand the future.
-
your too nice to be stoopid.
....and you are too much of a charmer...
Flattery will get you everywhere!
-
Cover in the competitive auction was 2.26.
Market seems happy with the result so far (that can often change). Yield has backed off to 3.72.
Panic over or postponed?
-
I thought a concept was abstact by definition.
cashless society? impossible....like the paperless office as touted by Tommorrows World.
Yep - see above edit. Noticed my stupidity as soon as I'd posted.
-
money is not abstract.
I can swap 6 nice free range eggs from the lady up the road for £1 coin.
£1=6 free range eggs.
I said: the CONCEPT of money has become abstract.
Edit: Concepts are always abstract so that was a bit of meaningless tautology. What I meant to express is that our present communal understanding of money has moved from symbolic/representational of a physical reality, to the symbolism itself becoming the reality - very dangerous ground
Sure, you can still swap a £1 coin for your half-dozen eggs, but where it matters - like in large financial transactions - money is just figures winging their electronic way across the globe.
Those of us who still resort to £1 coins are a little anachronistic, I fear, and will soon be seen off by a 100% cashless society where all that matters is your credit rating........and that will probably have political overtones - subscribe to the monetary system of the day or be outlawed...............but that's another story.
-
Do you have to pay tax on barter?
No. Unless I've missed a NuLab trick.......................
-
Forgive my retardedness, but wtf is that article saying?
In doughnut terms, like I just came from the social as an apprentice like.
TFH
It's a bit melodramatic, isn't it?
But what I took from it is that more paper gold has been sold than actually exists physically, so there's aggro ahead..
-
Money is anything that is exchanged between two people that has perceived value...note, coin, chicken or egg, it can also be a product or service.
I will sew your curtains if you will paint my window.
Actually, that's barter.
Money has become an abstract concept where labour/goods are represented by figures on a screen. Formerly there was a relationship between money and commodities - but that has ceased to be.
The problem with abstracts is that by definition (because they cannot be touched, heard, felt, smelt, seen) they are faith-based and uniquely comprehended by each and every individual.
Which makes our current concept of money very susceptible to a crisis of confidence/faith.
-
It may (or may not) trigger a CDS event on the SUBORDINATE DEBT.
In any case the market entirely expects the subordinate debt to be impaired, so it is no news.
But it certainly won't trigger a CDS event on the senior debt, which is what really matter.
Would it be too much to ask you to explain why?
My ignorance needs to be addressed...........
Thanks in anticipation.
-
I understood your point. The thing is I disagree to a large extent. Yes, the world is in a mess financially and the West is going to have to take a big hit and realise we are all much poorer than we'd like to be sooner or later. People will earn less, unemployment will be high, things won't be like the good old days for many, but it won't be the end of the civilised world. Unless the West, especially the US, throws it's toys out of the pram and uses some of it's military might, as a last resort to maintain it's standing in the world.
Running out of oil on the other hand, that really is a much bigger problem and will definitely cause global war.
Fair enough.
I guess it's a matter of opinion which poses the greater threat - running out of oil before a replacement has been found, or a global financial meltdown that catapults us back to pre-industrial revolution.
-
Non-intrinsically-useful things (e.g. pieces of paper with ink on them) that are commonly held by people to abstractly represent the the relationship between the exchange value of other things that are useful do exist.
The abstract relationship, itself, that these non-intrinsically-useful things represent, exists only as a commonly held neuronal pattern in people's heads.
So, as long as you consider commonly held neuronal patterns to physically exist, then yes, money physically exists.
Or, for the shorter version.....
It exists as long as people believe it exists.
Neuronal sequences exist, but is there any way of proving that commonly held neuronal patterns exist?
For instance, if we ask for an explanation of the word "money" we will get a different answer from every person. Moreover, extremes of explanation would be evident if one were to ask, say, a five year old child and a ninety year old.
Doesn't that in itself negate any "commonly held neuronal pattern"?
-
The important question is; will it trigger credit default swaps?
Does a deferrment equate to a credit default event?
I'll bet the powers-that-be will find a way to make sure it doesn't!
-
It's nice to know the experts don't know either. Anyway, if they claimed to know they did I would probably distrust what they had to say...
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/05/28...ancial-markets/
A quick comment from John Kemp on Wednesday’s Treasury sell-off:
Benchmark 10YR US Treasury bonds continued to sell off heavily yesterday, sending yields to the highest level since Nov 2008.
The adjustment in the US Treasuries market is THE story in financial markets, and will wash across all other asset classes.
The key question is how to interpret it:
(1) Is this simply an unwinding of the unsustainable “bubble” that had emerged in US Treasuries during the flight from risk, that is now gradually deflating as risk aversion ebbs. If so, the movement should be fairly limited and could be interpreted as part of the “normalisation” of financial conditions.
(2) Is it the start of a flight away from Treasuries as fears about inflation and record issuance and debt levels trigger a fundamental reassessment — in which case the move could be much larger and far more destabilising.
Either way, this is the single most important story for all asset classes at the moment — with washover into FX as well as equities and commodities.
I like your explanation best - bond market indigestion!
-
I think we're both right - I didn't explain clearly.
The symbols 's' for shilling and 'd' for pence derive from the Latin solidus and denarius.
The '£' sign developed from the 'l' for 'libra'.
A 'quid' is what a Paper pound was referred to - not a gold 'sovereign' pound!
Okay.
Although there still seems to be some debate about the origins..........
Not the most authoritative link - sorry - just me being lazy.
Anyway, the salient point I wanted to make was that they were all measures of weight.
-
Right on! It's not our problem man, let future generations take the hit, let's party like there's no tomorrow. Oh, hang on a minute, isn't that how we got into this mess?
You miss the point; the supply of cheap oil, expensive oil or bath-oil won't be a problem for future generations unless we manage to sort out the financial mess we've got ourselves into. It'll be a total irrelevance.
In 50 years time our grandchildren will be grubbing for a living like Ethiopian subsistence farmers do today - unless we sort out this mess.
-
£ sh p = derived from Latin-ROMAN names for the means of exchange
There is some uncertainty as to the origin of the term "pound sterling". Some sources say it dates back to Anglo-Saxon times, when coins called sterlings were minted from silver; 240 of these sterlings weighed one pound, and large payments came to be made in "pounds of sterlings". [7] Other references, including the Oxford English Dictionary, say a sterling was a silver penny used in England by the Normans, and date the term to around 1300. For more discussion of the etymology of "sterling" see Sterling silver.
Does Money Really Exist?
in House prices and the economy
Posted
Yes, I can see that your philosophy requires that everything has its origin in matter and that people are autonomous, independent beings, self-activated and self-referential.
To admit that a concept has its origin outside the human brain and is evidenced only in expression/communicability between rational beings, would be to allow a non-material cause which would blow apart your materialistic philosophy.