From: Patrick Crenshaw (patrick.crenshaw@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 16 2006 - 07:02:32 MDT
And "Maximize the renormalized human utility function!" is?
On 8/16/06, J. Andrew Rogers <andrew@ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
>
> If this thread ever was SL4 material, it certainly is not now.
>
> J. Andrew Rogers
> SL4 Auxiliary List Sniper
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Patrick Crenshaw wrote:
> > I am using the term "intrinsic Value" only as I have defined it and
> > that it is only a physical property. What I would call the derived
> > Value would indeed change.
> >
> > On 8/15/06, Charles D Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Patrick Crenshaw wrote:
> >> > On 8/15/06, Jef Allbright <jef@jefallbright.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 8/15/06, Patrick Crenshaw <patrick.crenshaw@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > I'v...
> >> >
> >> > The intrinsic Value of a particular gram of gold is always the
> >> same,
> >> > but its derived Value depends on its effect on other things.
> >> Obviously
> >> > this would mean that it would have different total Values depending
> >> > upon where it is and what is around it, but the value that
> >> different
> >> > people will put on it in the same context has to do with the
> >> *people*
> >> > being subjective, not the total Value of the gram of gold.
> >> So you're asserting that the intrinsic value of a gram of gold
> >> doesn't
> >> change when you learn a new way to use it (say, electroplating)?
> >>
> >> I question whether, in that case, gold *has* and intrinsic value. If
> >> it's value is changed when you learn, e.g., to make adornments or
> >> trade
> >> goods out of it, then where *is* there any intrinsic value?
>
>
-- Patrick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT