Just subscribed to your channel and posted a comment about Plurality.
Interested to know how the concept of plurality was engaged in your gaming strategy I am interested in the notion of plurality and motivational bias in algorithms and seeing your video in a playlist that popped up with a video I had posted about plurality in Chord theory for guitar/music made me realise that gaming is where so much of the action in modern thought and abstract theory is these days so I thought I’d ask.
Man has too long forgotten that the earth was given to him for usufruct alone, not for consumption, still less for profligate waste.
-George Perkins Marsh (1801-1882)
“Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.” – John Kenneth Galbraith
The “perchance thing” and “theres the Rub” is from Hamlet by the way. If you have read this far and had trouble remembering thats just my way of saying thank you.
The Critique of Pure Reason (German: Kritik der reinen Vernunft ) by Immanuel Kant, first published in 1781, second edition 1787, is considered one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy. Also referred to as Kant’s “first critique,” it was followed by theCritique of Practical Reason and the Critique of Judgement. In the last section of the introduction (section VII: Idea and Division of a Particular Science, under the Name of a Critique of Pure Reason) Kant states that “… If this Critique itself does not assume the title of transcendental philosophy, it is only because, to be a complete system, it ought to contain a full analysis of all human knowledge a priori.”
Before the time of Kant, it was generally held that whatever knowledge was a priori must be of the nature of an analytic judgment, that is, what is stated in the predicate must already be present in the subject and it is therefore, independent of experience (e.g., “An intelligent man is intelligent” or “An intelligent man is a man”). In either case, the judgment is analytic because it is arrived at by analyzing the subject. Before the time of Kant, it was thought that all judgments of which we could be certain a priori were of this kind: that in all of them there was a predicate which was only part of the subject of which it was asserted. If this were so, we would be involved in acontradiction every time we would try to deny anything that could be known a priori (e. g., “An intelligent man is not intelligent” or “An intelligent man is not a man”). Thus according to the philosophers before Kant, the Law of contradiction is sufficient to establish all a prioriknowledge.
Propaedeutic note to an examination of the Critique of Pure Reason:
The Aristotelean philosophers distinguished two kinds of judgments:
1) Synthetic judgment.- Judgments that are based on a synthesis or putting together of different facts of experience and are therefore considered to be a posteriori. For example, “… The phases of the moon are visible after dark.”
2) Analytic judgment.- Judgments that are based exclusively upon an analysis of the subject without recourse to experience and are therefore considered to be a priori. For example, “… A right line is straight.”
Kant is not entirely satisfied with these conclusions and reasons that there are synthetic judgments a priori such as those of mathematics. Aristoteleans would argue that such judgments are really analytic.
The Soul is SUBSTANCE As regards its quality
it is SIMPLE
As regards the different
times in which it exists,
it is numerically identical,
that is UNITY, not Plurality.
It is in relation to possible objects in space
Jenga of thought paralogisms.
2. That the I or Ego of apperception, and consequently in all thought, is singular or simple, an;3 cannot be resolved into a plurality of subjects, and therefore indicates a logically simple subject — this is self-evident from the very conception of an Ego, and is consequently an analytical proposition.
The future of International Banking. The Economist Online is hosting a month-long forum labelled the ‘Ideas Arena’ on the future of International Banking
Roger Lewis • What an interesting and novel idea. I’ll be following with great interest.
Is there a premise as to what the starting point for considering the future should be.
Will there be any consideration as to who the client is, will the client be considered the institutions themselves or the populations they operate upon or within.
Roger Lewis • Hi Mostafa,
the role of technology is key to running control systems original development of the theory and then practical application of this was done in the 1970’s by Stafford Beer in Chile his work was cut short by General Pinochets putsch.
My interest is one of motivation in the development of performance measures and measures incorporating costs and not just market prices. I am also interested in the ideas of the legal principles of Trust and Trust law and what used to be called Anti Trust legislation. The Future of international Banking needs to consider other industries and what have been loosely termed Stakeholders by recent international leaders such as Tony Blair. I hope that this discussion can be a true discussion starting from the ground up with first principles and motivations examined for efficacy in a wider sense than starting from the premise that Banking has done a good job in the past few decades. My view is that patently it has not and there must be reasons for these failures.
Whilst the remaining state aided international banks may feel that the consolidation or concentration of markets has worked in their favour the net result makes future volatility more likely and not less, over centralisation and lag in key data analysis is a problem for both Government and Banking policies.
There is huge polarisation on this subject as with most others these days This morning I will be reading this interesting blog which puts the case for the present system of money production ( Debt Money) Personally I am in the Honest Money camp regardless of which camp one tends toward a scholarly and intellectually honest discussion of the future of International Banking is more than possible.
I suspect that this blog will reflect the bulk of the Argument for the proposition that the Status Quo is a workable base, I will be considering its essence and making some models based on the motivations behind some of the propositions using technology to make models for predicting outcomes is all well and good the big question is peer review and screening for bias and motivation. Uncertainty exists in all systems the motivation that leads to the action to stimulate the motion are not natural Market phenomena they are man made and motivation becomes even more important when we consider that.