Cellular automata simulations
All 4 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 14, 6:18 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics,sci.math
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Oct 2004 06:18:32 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 14 2004 6:18 am
Subject: Cellular automata simulations
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Taking into account that Economics as a science was born after Adam
Smith's discovery/discussion of the autoorganizative global effects
brought about by the local decision making of a multitude of
independent agents, it is somewhat paradoxic that formal models have
traditionally handled economic phenomena as aggregates, when
individual interaction go beyond two agents involved. This of course
allowed the application of readily available mathematical tools and a
level of abstraction beneficial to the understanding of economic
behavior, but our current (and new) computing power makes feasible the
pursuit and calculation of other classes of models, like the "physic
economics" models or the "intelligent agents" markets some have
pursued. When mathematics fall short, computing takes the lead, with
the advantage that models can be made *arbitrarily* close to the real
thing...
A class of interesting simulation models can be implemented as two
dimension cellular automata, where individual rules for each cell can
be more complex than changing state based on neighbors' states (or
alternatively, considering cells with a continuos infinite space of
states). This class of simulations can be used, for instance, to model
urbanization, real estate values, industry concentration, migratory
phenomena, commerce and transportation and even knowledge diffusion,
in general problems where physical locality is an important issue and
can't be simply lumped into the transportation costs variable and
where some resource is fixed or tends to accumulate or is otherwise
bound to some spatial location. This class of models can enjoy of a
granularity similar to that of wavelets, where very basic
simulations/models would consist of thouroughly square grids while
more complex models would postulate irregular grids and/or vicinity
functions to determine the actual neighbors a particular cell
interacts with, in the limit approaching real world models. Though a
two dimensional space provides a natural and graphical framework for
cellular automata, more abstract dimension spaces might be used.
Research would proceed along the definition and implementation of
suitable sets of rules to model and reproduce states of the world,
later to serve as testing ground for establishing scenarions for
actual decision making and policy setting. Rules may take the form of
complete models, where exogenous variables are defined by the
neighboring cell's state.
For instance, migratory flows may be modelled according to land
values, tax and population levels as state variables, where a given
cell's population variable would change according to neighboring
cells' land values and tax levels. This model can be run for several
different cell models.
Rules need not be handcrafted, instead, they can be cooked through
genetic algorithms/genetic programming. For a suitable framework an
intial and final states-of-the-world can be depictedand then let the
algorithm find the rules, under a suitable representation, for
evolving from the initial to the final state for a predefined number
of intermediate states.
z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message
> Anyhow, think about this: if economic simulation is so simple, how
> come we still don't have a truly accurate general economic simulator?
> Heck, there are STILL discussions about basic economic dynamics
> between neoclassicals, keynesians, monetarists, etc! :)
> Economics is a YOUNG science.
At some point the best model of a phenomena is the phenomena itself.
And Economics dwells in a chaotic universe. Behavior is so complex
that we would need to approach full knowledge to fully model an
economy, which of course is impossible. The best model of Reality is
Reality itself; that is why we use models, Reality as such is just
unwieldy. We itself as biological beings need a model to function in
Reality, and Realityto us is just a model, a sstem of representations,
but not Reality itself, as it is too "big" to handle.
I agree that irrational behavior is more prevalent than assumed by
rational models; question is can it be modelled? To me envious
behavior is "irrational" from a civilized point of view, yet that is
what I observed as norm in a third world country, a possible
explanation for underdevelopment. My hypothesis is that we need
several homo economicus models to approach the diversity of behaviors
observed in a real economy and then observe (or model) their
interaction. Mathematically it is very difficult, but computationally
it is an interesting problem.
Indeed, Economics is truly young, and Computing Science is still
younger. My bet is that the interaction of both, as sciences and
techniques, will lead to a better world, were better means a higher
level of welfare for all. See my other postings: alternatives to homo
economicus, a theory of underdevelopment and the general theory of
general welfares (pompous title, but the idea is to make an impression
8-)
visit ghamac dot org
I provided this ideas since my notes were stolen by my neighbors when I
was living in Mexico city.
Reply
Uncle Al Oct 14, 8:34 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics,sci.math
From: Uncle Al - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:34:24 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 14 2004 8:34 am
Subject: Re: Cellular automata simulations
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
> Taking into account that Economics as a science was born after Adam
> Smith's discovery/discussion of the autoorganizative global effects
> brought about by the local decision making of a multitude of
> independent agents, it is somewhat paradoxic that formal models have
> traditionally handled economic phenomena as aggregates, when
> individual interaction go beyond two agents involved.
[snip crap]
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 19, 5:51 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics,sci.math
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Oct 2004 05:51:10 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 19 2004 5:51 am
Subject: Re: Cellular automata simulations
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
> > Taking into account that Economics as a science was born after Adam
> > Smith's discovery/discussion of the autoorganizative global effects
> > brought about by the local decision making of a multitude of
> > independent agents, it is somewhat paradoxic that formal models have
> > traditionally handled economic phenomena as aggregates, when
> > individual interaction go beyond two agents involved.
> [snip crap]
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Are you crazy? Is this what you are entertained with? Or what does it
mean A thousand words may say more thana a dumb picture...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 19, 8:50 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics,sci.math
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Oct 2004 20:50:14 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 19 2004 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: Cellular automata simulations
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Uncle Al wrote in message ...
> "Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
> > Taking into account that Economics as a science was born after Adam
> > Smith's discovery/discussion of the autoorganizative global effects
> > brought about by the local decision making of a multitude of
> > independent agents, it is somewhat paradoxic that formal models have
> > traditionally handled economic phenomena as aggregates, when
> > individual interaction go beyond two agents involved.
> [snip crap]
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Are you
aware that these threads are being visited by senators and
presidents from most governments of Earth, plus the Vatican, the UN
missions, the FBI, the mexican police, maybe the Yard and assorted
gangsters and fellows? Are you aware that you advertised the beheaded
corpse of a woman?
Reply
Underdevelopment theories: game theory, envy, chaos
Only 1 message in topic
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 20, 10:17 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,utexas.general,seattle.general,la.general,tx.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Oct 2004 10:17:20 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 10:17 am
Subject: Underdevelopment theories: game theory, envy, chaos
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
A game theory model can be tested computationally by simulating lots
of two person games where envious, neutral and cooperative solutions
occur in a fixed proportion (or a variable proportion based on
previous values, total values, etc). It can be controlled with the
same pay matrixes simulated for pure strategies, envious, neutral and
jealous, and the values compared. There are several variations that
can be tried on the same basic idea.
QED. (Quod erat demostrandum.)
For instance: games may be added to the simulation according to global
gains (sum off all game results, GNP); neutral or cooperative
strategies may be used for small gains (both gain), but envious
strategies when gains are too big or disproportionate. Of course, a
"national strategy" would be the probability distribution of
individual strategies of players. And this model can be "filled" by
actual figures (kind of econometrics), for instance, by making
interviews or monitoring current behaviours...
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
If you realized the exercize, you may notice that a strategy where one
loses in order to make another win, (abnegation) also leads to
underdevelopment! The optimum solution is the invisible hand, pursuit
of self-interest to maximize your own gains. But it must not be
confused with doing charity; there is no bussines opportunity there,
in fact it can be seen as the market of good feelings, where one buys
the feeling of being good.
And incidentally this exercize shold show that it is not necessary to
practice arcane mathematics to make economics. Computing can be used
also and pure thought experiments are effective too.
Latinamerican countries follow all 'recipes' of academia and yet fail
to achieve sustained development. Could it be that people actually
*behave* differently from the way people behave in countries that have
achieved development?
Man is supposed to act economically as a self interested (quasi)
rational entity following his own satisfaction without regarding that
of others. But waht if people actually take others into account when
performing economic activities?
My experience trying to make a living in Mexico taught me that the
norm is precisely to take into account the welfare of others, but in a
*negative* way. Competition is normally seen as a zero sum game, I win
what you loose, but I've seen many times behaviour of the type "we
both loose", even when there were known options where both of the
parties would win. More often than not, the party choosing the
loose-loose option would have been the party winning the least in the
win-win option (though sometimes that wouls be true considering nit
the actual payoffs only but total earnings after several games). This
behaviour I call envy.
So it may be that generalized envy lies at the core of the
underdevelopment phenomenon.In countries where wealth has
historically been concentrated in a very few hands ans is not easily
aquired by most, this kind of predatory competition is bound to
happen, particularly if it is preceived that noveau riches will
readily support the statu quo and help keep the socioeconomical
differences. Though laws may be passed to curb down unfair
competition, there remain many opportunities to put obstacles to the
activities of others.
Within firms, envy would keep costs at a higer level for a given
technology due to employees' internal struggles. At hte industry and
interindustry level output would be lower than optimal due to firms'
inefficiencies and lost business opportunities. Generally,
overachievers and efficiency would be punished while underachievement
and slugishness would be rewarded, since that would make others
achievements stand out. The net effect would be an economically
depressed level of output where the economy would reach equilibrium in
a local maximum and that equilibrium would be stable due to the
equalizing effects of envious behaviour, in a similar manner as a
keynesian economy stabilizes at a high unemployment level.
In an envy pervaded economy governmental policies would be less
effective than expected both by officials' missapplication ("all they
need is money") and the reaction of economic agents ("they can be
better than me"), so a classical governmental policy solution to
underdevelopment is not feasible.
What would then break the underdevelopment impasse? As many times has
been pointed out, education is essential, but not in the sense of
spreading technical knowledge but rather with the goal of changing
basic social values to make individuals more cooperative and less
sensitive to people's conditions.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Underdevelopment can be considered as an economy at some
quantity/quality of Chaos. Development would have a lower
quantity/quality of Chaos (disorder). Borders are necessary to keep
the differences, though in the border there should be a very
interesting non-smooth mix of chaotic regions, ie, a more chaotic
system, but only in the fringe (can lead to quiet static dynamic
states). Ideally, the more developed region shoud be "moving" into the
less developed region to absorb and "fix" the state of development
once the differential levels start smoothing out due to economic
interactions of free agents (may depend on institutions). At the
border both levels of development must mix and flux; by moving the
border at a given moment of time the new desired level of development
would be fix and absorned into a sustainable dynamic. Here it is
important to notice that bussiness cycles must be shallower in
developed countries than in underdeveloped countries. Due to the
butterfly effect, underdeveloped (more chaotic) regions must
experiment bigger, more notorious effects for a given disturbance.
(Mexico gets the flu when America sneezes, etc.) Definitely, even
though we can see order in current economies and create deterministic
models, the underlying dynamics are chaotic, the smoothness is only
apparent at the surface as an epiphenoma, like temperature (a single
figure) being the result of the chaotic interaction of molecules.
Developed countries would look as a very well mixed yoghurt, while
underdeveloped economies would look like frappe.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
These cursory analysis can be mathematized. Volunteers?
Search "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" google groups, sort by date
visit ghamac.org /miniface.jpg
I am Danilo J Bonsignore
Reply
The case for and against genius
All 4 messages in topic - view as tree
Maleki Oct 20, 12:06 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics,sci.physics
From: Maleki - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:06:30 -0500
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: The case for and against genius
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
On 5 Oct 2004 06:07:37 -0700, Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> Mendelssohn giving away compositions/themes to his
> friends
I thought he himself stole them from Bach.
Some of Bach's originals were found recently in the
possession of a Jap composer after his death, having
obtained earlier from descendents of Mendelssohn for a
nominal amount of money.
--
khishtan rA Adami arzAn forukht
bud atlas khish rA bar dalgh dukht
"Mowlana"
Reply
Maleki Oct 20, 12:23 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics
From: Maleki - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:23:49 -0500
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: The case for and against genius
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
On 12 Oct 2004 09:26:33 -0500, DAH wrote:
> You should perhaps expand your definition of genious beyond physics.
> Certainly genious manifests in other areas of human endeavor as well.
> Would you know genious when you encounter it?
There should be, at least, as many super intelligent humans
as there are individuals with Down's Syndrome. It is a
statistical thing. There always are humans who are so far
above ordinary ones that there is no way for people to
recognize them as such. I call them "saints". And every once
in a couple of thousand years, or so, an individual can come
around that is far more intelligent than even such saints. I
call them "prophets."
Einstein or Feynman or such, these individuals are not in
another category from ours. They just have certain talents
combined with special elements in their characters
(moralities). That's all it takes to do good science.
Imagine an Einstein with cowardice. Or Feynman with a thirst
for money. They wouldn't have done any of the things they
did in physics.
A saint on the other hand is in another category from us. We
cannot recognize them. They look like us, live like us, die
like us. They do what makes sense to them, and only as much.
So they're usually seen as a "nice guy" or a "good man",
etc. Prophets on the other hand feel themselves obliged to
do something for the rest of humanity. Because they can see
the sense in doing that a bit farther down the road to total
redundance.
--
zamAne khoshdeli daryAbo daryAb
ke dA'em dar sadaf gowhar nabAshad
ghanimat dAno mey khor dar golestAn
ke gol tA hafteye digar nabAshad
"Hafez"
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 20, 8:08 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Oct 2004 20:08:28 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: The case for and against genius
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Maleki wrote in message ...
> On 5 Oct 2004 06:07:37 -0700, Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> > Mendelssohn giving away compositions/themes to his
> > friends
> I thought he himself stole them from Bach.
> Some of Bach's originals were found recently in the
> possession of a Jap composer after his death, having
> obtained earlier from descendents of Mendelssohn for a
> nominal amount of money.
Actually it was Mendelssohn who rediscovered Bach and made him known
in the cultural world. He was kind of forgotten after classicism
turned the main musical current, beginning with Bach`s sons.
Incidentally, that`s a proof that Bach`s music is actually his,
because musical talent and genius are hereditary and his sons turned
great composers, somewhat opaqued by Mozart, though. During the
baroque, because of the musical ideology and technique (counterpoint
is heavy in thematical imitation), themes were more easily shared by
composers and had a life of their own. It changed later with
romanticism and the development of the sonata form, when the theme
became the main carrier of meaning in the composition and not merely
an excuse to build a counterpoint. Themes were seen as the expression
of genius after the sonata form became predominant, rather than the
musical construction per se as in the counterpoint era. After the
romantic era it was harmonic novelty and theme development what became
the expression of genius to be sought. And it was with Stravinsky and
the first moderns that music started to be appreciated as a whole and
not by individual elements, though style and the `invention` of
characteristic rythms acquired more importance. Nowadays musical works
are seen like integrated art works, and it is the piece as a whole
what has become the unit of appreciation and the measure of the value
of a work and a composer.
Danilo J Bonsignore
ghamac.org/documenti/rondop.mid
ghamac.org/guitar/isabelsdeath.mp3
ghamac.org/miniface.jpg
Reply
Maleki Oct 28, 1:36 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics
From: Maleki - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:36:15 -0500
Local: Thurs, Oct 28 2004 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: The case for and against genius
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
On 27 Oct 2004 08:41:27 -0700, Strange Creature wrote:
> Try to teach a student something and notice the
> spark in their eyes when it seems as if they
> have come across a great moment of brilliance,
> when it seems as if they understand what you are
> saying. At least half of the time, if you ask
> them about their understanding, to try to show
> that they have really caught on, you may find
> that at least half of the time, perhaps even
> more, they really haven't caught on at all.
I read somewhere one of Oppenheimer students had the same
view of his teacher. He said the teacher would enchant every
classroom he held and created the impression in everyone
that their knowledge had greatly increased. But each time,
when they would leave the class, they would find out that
they hadn't learnt anything :)
Stephen Jay Gould writings were also similar. I think this
type of people give off way too many words than is
necessary. They try to deliver a scientific report using
literary terms and methods.
--
Ab az Ab tekAn nemikhorad.
Reply
Nerets
Do you think he has the acumen?`
`I do`
> Dan Gam was barely surviving. State help would be cut next month and
> his meager wage as a salesman was barely adequate to cover hotel and
> food, not even transport. Then he went on TV.
> Not that he wanted it, it was not even in his own country, but he knew
> he had been on TV. All his acquaintances were appalled, not believing
> it. And he could hear them. Whether it was telepathy, Big Brother or
> paid agitators, he knew something was wrong. Weird, how in the
> computer appeared his computer`s name and old address...
> People around Dan started commenting his life. They knew too. But for
> each A there was a Z. Then one night he heard it. Nerets.
> What was Nerets? He didn`t know, but it was important. At first he
> wasn`t aware but somehow it related to some repeated phrases that
> would pop out everywhere. Wherever he was there was a raucus (from job
> to hotel, where else?), confusing everything, though clearly he needed
> to know about Nerets. He had to be there, or with them...
> Little by little a smudged picture emerged: Nerets had to do with
> immortality, gods, stars and... the future. He would maintain a log
> with his impressions and the words and phrases he was picking up. Too
> fantastic it seemed and yet... a life of skepticism was being cracked
> by the undeniable corroborations he was getting. But he had enemies
> and his enemies were after him and sent people after him, confusing
> him, threatening. Dan had friends and his friends wanted to conduct
> him to Nerets, to save him from his enemies, but he didn`t know them,
> either the friends or the foes, only the rumors that were reaching him
> from everywhere at the same time. Somehow he was being prosecuted and
> a battle was being fought to define his future.
> The problem was that his enemies, once very mundane, where using him
> to reach the secret of Nerets, one by one, while he was lost trying to
> understand. A group was being formed and his foes, all criminals, were
> desperate to keep him outside. They were going to the future, they
> were going to get all dreams realized, but somehow he had the key to
> it and part of that key was his computer log. By writing to it the
> future would change, the future was in the making and Dan would
> alternatively win and defeat his enemies according to the information
> he was supplying and the deductions he was arriving at.
> Unfortunately he couldn`t distinguish friends from foes. One mistake
> would ruin his life, another one would give him victory. Many strange
> encounters came and go, unable to decide whether to join or not,
> whether it was help or a trap. But his enemies knew well and one by
> one reached the secret and the rewards.
> The Nerets were time travelers and his Nemesis had arrived first. He
> went and came, though it was in his hand whether to grant immortality
> or not, wisdom or savagery. The only fact at the moment is that his
> great foe did go, and having the key to time was fighting him behind
> and beyond. Some battles Dan won, others he lost, lots of people were
> involved, myths and legends were created and destroyed, yet one step
> at a time the Foe was building his revenge.
> Dan Gam decided to keep the secret of immortality from Nerets and let
> them fend by themselves. The rest of his foes reached the group, not
> without destroying his friends and gurus on the way there, and once
> back they would only tell: `You don`t know what he did to you!` Dan
> was left alone, the whole world against him.
> In the end he kept his secrets, his aces. All his friends were
> defeated, destroyed, bribed or otherwise dissapeared from his life.
> His foes achieved a victory. The group left and came back, those who
> remain, for he was the fulcrum and, without him, Utopia turned into
> Hell and evil prevailed...
> Rumors, legends, myths, stories, all mixed and copulated and were
> known by the whole world, mass confusion veiling the nature of the
> battle, while Dan Gam kept fighting to understand what was Nerets and
> have truth and goodness prevail. The future was in the making, he
> knew, he only needed to convince a few people that he hold the aces,
> the keys to the future he negated the Nerets, convinved that the door
> to Nerets was somewhere, in somebody`s hands and he would finally be
> granted the opportunity to go and confront his enemies, and win.
> Dan Gam knew what the Foe had done to him. Still fighting, Dan would
> look in the mirror and see that his face had turned, without ever
> changing, into the very face of Evil... A Lucifer.
ghamac.org/miniface.jpg (part of the story)
ghamac.org/documenti/rondop.mid
ghamac.org/guitar/isabelsdeath.mp3
Danilo J Bonsignore
Search under Fabrizio J Bonsignore, sort by date
Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
All 13 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 3, 6:58 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Oct 2004 18:58:12 -0700
Local: Sun, Oct 3 2004 6:58 pm
Subject: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
If telepathy exists, severe schizophrenics (hearing voices) are very
popular (or impopular) people at the moment or before the illness
starts, while mild schizophrenics would be rather solitary or unknown
people. This can be correlated statistically through clinical
histories.
The idea was of course suggested by A Beautiful Mind. A huge
intelligence, if correlated to a more efficient use of brain
resources, would be more likely to have, lets call it the framework to
tune other minds, independently of the way the signals are transmitted
(see possibility of telepathy in my other posts). If that person goes
famous the quantity of information received through this channel would
be such that a severe schizophrenia would be manifest, although a high
intelligence would be able to handle the information overload without
breaking his ability to interact with others. Given that envy is one
of the most powerful human motives, short of love and downright hate,
a famous or popular person that is receiving the thoughts of others
would receive lots of negative thoughts, most of them envious
appreciations of the true personality. If coupled with a soft
character that depends on what others think, an overload of telepathic
jealous thoughts would lead to suicide, though this can be true even
if there is no overload but the receptive individual is constantly in
the mind of a judging somebody else.
Schizophrenia, or telepathy, may be more common than we admit because
of the fear of being called a schizo, psychotic. It may well be that
successful telepaths learned ways to avoid the extraneous channel from
disrupting their everyday life, while unsuccessful telepaths would
allow telepathy to interrupt their normal lives and would then show
the normal symptoms like speaking alone, distraction, impossibility to
concentrate or understand a conversation, etc.
If the hypothesis holds, schizophrenia can be treated as a neurosis,
an adaptation problem, through social deprivation and/or by distancing
from the community where the individual is well known.
The merit of this hypothesis is that it can investigated by revising
the current accumulated corps of clinical studies through the use of
statistics.
This idea was posted previously in a post that was lost and in the
other thread where I discuss these idea. Please help me protect my
posts and expose plagiarists.
Danilo J Bonsignore
Search `Fabrizio J Bonsignore` in google groups, sort by date
visit ghamac.org
ghamac.org/miniface.jpg
Reply
Xerxes Oct 4, 4:57 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Xerxes - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:57:36 +1100
Local: Mon, Oct 4 2004 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> If telepathy exists, severe schizophrenics (hearing voices) are very
> popular (or impopular) people at the moment or before the illness
> starts, while mild schizophrenics would be rather solitary or unknown
> people. This can be correlated statistically through clinical
> histories.
So you are saying what we all already know. If you are telepathic then
you are a nutcase, loony, and have fallen off your horse.
Anything else ?
Xerxes
Reply
Richard Nacamuli Oct 4, 5:16 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: nacam...@att.net (Richard Nacamuli) - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Oct 2004 17:16:06 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 4 2004 5:16 pm
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
It is possible that a person may become *telepathically* famous; that
his mind might rise to high level in the collective mental community.
He then might exhibit "delusions" of grandeur. I put the word
"delusions" in quotes because this person would be famous only
telepathically so. This would be no problem for a relatively strong
person provided that he was consciously aware that we are telepathic.
If not, he would not understand why, as it is obvious to him, that no
one else can see that he is famous. Similarly, other symptoms of
schizophrenia would also come about not from being telepathic but from
not being aware that one is telepathic and at a loss for understanding
where all of this information is coming from and why others don't seem
to see or understand it. I agree that this would be a neurosis brought
about by the inability to reconcile the physical reality with the
mental reality. But, they are both reality. To a person comfortable
with the notion of telepathy, this poses no special problem. It is the
inability to "see" where it is coming from and probably more
importantly *how* that results in a true mental disorder. It is,
however, a circumstantial disorder like traumatic stress disorder with
the only true remedy being a solid (and courageous) understanding of
the circumstances. As a side note, I believe that the population at
large unintentionally does this to people. I think that they are
looking for minds that can handle this telepathic world and so
"elevates" the occasional (and susceptible) person in an attempt to
pull itself up by its own bootstraps. After all, society would have to
find a person that could understand and manage this situation in order
for it to progress. It is telepathy looking for a home.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 4, 6:55 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Oct 2004 18:55:10 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 4 2004 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If telepathy exists, severe schizophrenics (hearing voices) are very
popular (or impopular) people at the moment or before the illness
starts, while mild schizophrenics would be rather solitary or unknown
people. This can be correlated statistically through clinical
histories.
The idea was of course suggested by A Beautiful Mind. A huge
intelligence, if correlated to a more efficient use of brain
resources, would be more likely to have, lets call it the framework to
tune other minds, independently of the way the signals are transmitted
(see possibility of telepathy in my other posts). If that person goes
famous the quantity of information received through this channel would
be such that a severe schizophrenia would be manifest, although a high
intelligence would be able to handle the information overload without
breaking his ability to interact with others. Given that envy is one
of the most powerful human motives, short of love and downright hate,
a famous or popular person that is receiving the thoughts of others
would receive lots of negative thoughts, most of them envious
appreciations of the true personality. If coupled with a soft
character that depends on what others think, an overload of telepathic
jealous thoughts would lead to suicide, though this can be true even
if there is no overload but the receptive individual is constantly in
the mind of a judging somebody else.
Schizophrenia, or telepathy, may be more common than we admit because
of the fear of being called a schizo, psychotic. It may well be that
successful telepaths learned ways to avoid the extraneous channel from
disrupting their everyday life, while unsuccessful telepaths would
allow telepathy to interrupt their normal lives and would then show
the normal symptoms like speaking alone, distraction, impossibility to
concentrate or understand a conversation, etc.
If the hypothesis holds, schizophrenia can be treated as a neurosis,
an adaptation problem, through social deprivation and/or by distancing
from the community where the individual is well known.
The merit of this hypothesis is that it can investigated by revising
the current accumulated corps of clinical studies through the use of
statistics
.
Danilo J Bonsignore
Search `Fabrizio J Bonsignore` in google groups, sort by date
visit ghamac.org
ghamac.org/miniface.jpg
This idea was posted previously in a post that was lost and in the
other thread where I discuss these idea. Please help me protect my
posts and expose plagiarists
.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 5, 3:26 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Oct 2004 03:26:04 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 5 2004 3:26 am
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
nacam...@att.net (Richard Nacamuli) wrote in message ...
> It is possible that a person may become *telepathically* famous; that
> his mind might rise to high level in the collective mental community.
Of course not. You go famous in REAL life, and that makes people think
of you.
> He then might exhibit "delusions" of grandeur. I put the word
> "delusions" in quotes because this person would be famous only
> telepathically so.
Not famous only telepathically, not necessarily *famous*. Popular. Say
100 people thinking of you? Imagine 100 people speaking at the same
time. Don`t go so far, imagine 10 people speaking at the same time...
> This would be no problem for a relatively strong
> person provided that he was consciously aware that we are telepathic.
> If not, he would not understand why, as it is obvious to him, that no
> one else can see that he is famous.
Bad argument, you confused the order of causation. It doesn`t matter
if other people are aware of the target`s popularity.
>Similarly, other symptoms of
> schizophrenia would also come about not from being telepathic but from
> not being aware that one is telepathic and at a loss for understanding
> where all of this information is coming from and why others don't seem
> to see or understand it.
>I agree that this would be a neurosis brought
> about by the inability to reconcile the physical reality with the
> mental reality. But, they are both reality. To a person comfortable
> with the notion of telepathy, this poses no special problem. It is the
> inability to "see" where it is coming from and probably more
> importantly *how* that results in a true mental disorder. It is,
> however, a circumstantial disorder like traumatic stress disorder with
> the only true remedy being a solid (and courageous) understanding of
> the circumstances.
Or taking steps to destroy your popularity to bring down the level of
noise.
>As a side note, I believe that the population at
> large unintentionally does this to people.
If they deny telepathy and it exists, it doesn`t matter what they
think. But there are philosophies about sinning even by thought...
>I think that they are
> looking for minds that can handle this telepathic world and so
> "elevates" the occasional (and susceptible) person in an attempt to
> pull itself up by its own bootstraps. After all, society would have to
> find a person that could understand and manage this situation in order
> for it to progress. It is telepathy looking for a home.
Last argument... I don`t understand what you are talking about.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 5, 3:31 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Oct 2004 03:31:58 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 5 2004 3:31 am
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Xerxes wrote in message ...
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> > If telepathy exists, severe schizophrenics (hearing voices) are very
> > popular (or impopular) people at the moment or before the illness
> > starts, while mild schizophrenics would be rather solitary or unknown
> > people. This can be correlated statistically through clinical
> > histories.
> So you are saying what we all already know. If you are telepathic then
> you are a nutcase, loony, and have fallen off your horse.
> Anything else ?
> Xerxes
Not a nutcase, lets say a person in a difficult situation. Severe?
Severe all ties to society to bring down the level of noise. Mild? Try
to find the other person. Would you let yourself be found?
Of course, there must be people whose brain is not telepathic at all
but actually *produces* voices. If it is indeed telepathy then at some
point you must find corroborations, informations you can not possibly
know about events you eventually observe in real life.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 5, 4:52 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 5 Oct 2004 04:52:13 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 5 2004 4:52 am
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This explanation also matches the fact that schizophrenia manifests
itself with a characteristic pattern in life according to age. The
older you are the less likely it is you will get `ill`, both because
popularity comes early in life and because the older you are the more
life skills you have to adapt yourself to the phenomenon. The
telepathic ability may be latent the whole life for sensitive
individuals so that people who acquire popularity at age 40, say, have
had time and experience to handle the experience. It must be taken
into account that clinical schizophrenia is usually severe, so a life
of repression of the phenomenon associated to a sudden popularity late
in life would bring about a breakdown of the individual.
This life pattern may also be associated to brain aging as the
necessary brain resources to process the additional information of the
telepathic channel are constantly dwindling, though it must be more a
matter of structure (patterns of neural activation) than of sheer
brain mass what determines the relative ability of an individual to
behave telepathically.
Reply
Michael Gray Oct 5, 5:32 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Michael Gray - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:02:59 +0930
Local: Tues, Oct 5 2004 5:32 am
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
On 5 Oct 2004 04:52:13 -0700, fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J.
Bonsignore) wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>This explanation also matches the fact that schizophrenia manifests
>itself with a characteristic pattern in life according to age. The
>older you are the less likely it is you will get `ill`, both because
>popularity comes early in life and because the older you are the more
>life skills you have to adapt yourself to the phenomenon. The
>telepathic ability may be latent the whole life for sensitive
>individuals so that people who acquire popularity at age 40, say, have
>had time and experience to handle the experience. It must be taken
>into account that clinical schizophrenia is usually severe, so a life
>of repression of the phenomenon associated to a sudden popularity late
>in life would bring about a breakdown of the individual.
>This life pattern may also be associated to brain aging as the
>necessary brain resources to process the additional information of the
>telepathic channel are constantly dwindling, though it must be more a
>matter of structure (patterns of neural activation) than of sheer
>brain mass what determines the relative ability of an individual to
>behave telepathically.
If, as you have been so doggedly suggesting, that some putative
telepathic ability is at least a partial cause to these phenomena that
have been shown to exist, why has it not once revealed itself
directly?
If telepathy only manifests itself in mental illness, what use is it?
Indeed, what is to distinguish it from the illnesses alone?
If nothing, then why posit it as an independent mechanism, when the
world is even more explicable without it?
In short: Why are you assuming the circular logical fallacy of
pretending the reality of telepathy, in order to prove that it must
exist?
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 30, 5:28 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Oct 2004 17:28:56 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 30 2004 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Following the hypothesis of special structures (hardwired, maybe
special receptors in the brain [need of bindings? substances? drugs?])
or patterns of neuronal activation (softwired, trained) making
telepathy possible, which I have called resonators and whose function
is that of processing analogic signals to distinguish the
informational content from noise, it may be inferred that
*only*verbalized*thoughts* would be able to be transmitted
telepathically. There would already be a mapping from one brain to
another, assuming that the ability for languages is innate to the
human brain (Brocca area), and it would be that mapping, analogous in
all human brains, that which would provide the ability to recognize
telepathically transmitted signals, in the sense that it would provide
the templates against which to match (and therefore recognizing) the
signals. Non verbally formulated thoughts, even if transmitted through
whatever carrier it is recquired, would be harder and maybe impossible
to process, as the mappings from brain to brain may differ. In this
sense, the purest the language of a thought, verbal, images (mass
hallucinations?), sounds, emotions, the easier to transmit
telepathically. Empathy may well be telepathic transmission
(induction, reception) of emotions.
This hypothesis can be tested, as I explain in the thread
`Schizophrenia as Neurosis`
(Weird idea: subatomic particles preserving topologic information of
neuronal activations as carriers of signals?)
If you do research this ideas please give credit. Intellectual honesty
is the sign of the successful scientific.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 17, 3:31 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Nov 2004 03:31:44 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 17 2004 3:31 am
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Considering that telepathy may be an innate ability reinforced through
outside stimuli by turning it into the myth of a fearful mental
illness as schizophrenia would hide the fact that it is more extended
than supossed, bt supressed for the fear of being called a mental
case. This allows the possibility of confusing voices heard in the
mind, actually sent by another intelligence, however sporadically,
with real voices heard in the open. This open us up to manipulation,
as by repressing the possibility of an `inner voice` will make us
assume whatever heard was said by somebody near us, and if that is
insulting, a conflict will be started.
I can see this as one of the staff in the homeless shelter (damn
place) suddenly went violent and started pushing people around because
he heard somebody saying something about my mails! He said `I don`t
care nothing about your mails or your (somethng) or nothing, go back
to you chair`, and while I was on the other side of the room he ws
rather violent sitting down people. I`ve told nothing about my mails
in that place, how did he knew it is an issue? I didn`t even think
about them then, and nobody was taling as it was rather late and
lights going off. The man heard a voice inhis head, but he didn`t know
who said so, he simply assumed somebocy did and went violent. Maybe
somebody wanted him to think *I* insuted him with my comment?
Many conficts may have their origin in people hearing voices and not
acepting it happened in their mind, but not as an illness, but as
sheer manipulation of other people, or, assumed telepaths abusing
people under the myth of schizophreina being a grave illness that must
be repressed and denied.
Reply
Ken S. Tucker Nov 17, 3:58 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
From: dynam...@vianet.on.ca (Ken S. Tucker) - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Nov 2004 15:58:40 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 17 2004 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
Pardon top post, I don't agree to Morx's shun list.
And I quite understand your're gropping this NG for
psycho data in your own way.
What happen's to me if I make a calculation mistake
is a I get a whinning in my ear's. I'm supposing
that my small conscious is conflicted with the
large data base i.e. sub-conscious.
I think everyone has a so-called pang of conscious-
ness, when they deliberately cross against their
knowledge base that resides in the sub-con,
((unless they are psychopathic, which is an interesting
pyscho-geodesic)).
In day to day terms, people call that a bad
feeling, it's totally natural, and Darwinian.
What do you want to learn about that?
Ken
PS: Standby for Psycho-dynamics aka
Objective psychology, make it good or
I'm going back to sleep.
Ken S. TUcker
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 30, 12:48 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Nov 2004 12:48:25 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 30 2004 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
dynam...@vianet.on.ca (Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> Pardon top post, I don't agree to Morx's shun list.
> And I quite understand your're gropping this NG for
> psycho data in your own way.
> What happen's to me if I make a calculation mistake
> is a I get a whinning in my ear's. I'm supposing
> that my small conscious is conflicted with the
> large data base i.e. sub-conscious.
> I think everyone has a so-called pang of conscious-
> ness, when they deliberately cross against their
> knowledge base that resides in the sub-con,
> ((unless they are psychopathic, which is an interesting
> pyscho-geodesic)).
> In day to day terms, people call that a bad
> feeling, it's totally natural, and Darwinian.
> What do you want to learn about that?
> Ken
> PS: Standby for Psycho-dynamics aka
> Objective psychology, make it good or
> I'm going back to sleep.
> Ken S. TUcker
Definitely looks like we are in tune...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 30, 12:48 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,sci.skeptic,sci.physics
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Nov 2004 12:48:32 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 30 2004 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: Proof for the existence of telepathy (schizophrenia as neurosis)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
dynam...@vianet.on.ca (Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message ...
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> Pardon top post, I don't agree to Morx's shun list.
> And I quite understand your're gropping this NG for
> psycho data in your own way.
> What happen's to me if I make a calculation mistake
> is a I get a whinning in my ear's. I'm supposing
> that my small conscious is conflicted with the
> large data base i.e. sub-conscious.
> I think everyone has a so-called pang of conscious-
> ness, when they deliberately cross against their
> knowledge base that resides in the sub-con,
> ((unless they are psychopathic, which is an interesting
> pyscho-geodesic)).
> In day to day terms, people call that a bad
> feeling, it's totally natural, and Darwinian.
> What do you want to learn about that?
> Ken
> PS: Standby for Psycho-dynamics aka
> Objective psychology, make it good or
> I'm going back to sleep.
> Ken S. TUcker
Definitely looks like we are in tune
...
Reply
A solution to the war against drugs
Only 1 message in topic
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 31, 5:07 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.culture.italian,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.german,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.canada
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Oct 2004 05:07:38 -0800
Local: Sun, Oct 31 2004 5:07 am
Subject: A solution to the war against drugs
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The war against drugs is lost. Any eternal war is lost. And there is
no way to win this war. Why? Because you *CANNOT* prove you are not a
drug addict. You *CAN* prove if you are an alcoholic or not, simply by
taking a drink and then refraining, with a bottle in front of you. But
how do you prove that you are not a dryag addict? By taking drugs and
then refraining? Argggggg! No way!
What if your old high school friends conspire and tell everybody you
DID use drugs extensively during you youth. Signed testimonies. Yo are
done! You are now an ex addict, subject to `side effects` (see thread
of the sae name under my name). At least WE ARE ALL EX-ADDICTS!!!!
That`s the most we can say and prove by NOT taking drugs. But at any
moment the POLICE can say: `he/she uses drugs` What do you do? You are
driving alone in a highway. You are stopped. By the time you come back
home, there is already a report that you use drugs. What comes next in
your life????
Or smebody, even a policeman, puts some quantity of a substance in
your car, or some powder on your suit, or in your house... How do
youprove it is not yours? By being tortured until it is evident it is
not yours??? BACK TO THE MIDDLE AGES!!!
And worse, yourlife suddenly grinds to a halt and goes to the sink:
somebody spreads the rumor you used drugs. Soon all are convinced of
it. Goodbye opportunities, etc. It may be a policeman who does this,
maybe with reason (can`t prove you comitted a crime and wants to pin
you down, whether he is correct or not, or just because...). Goodbye
life.
But for the police and judges it makes their life easy. Say drugs, the
magic word: you`re done. Anything can be justified by saying drugs.
Mexico wants to extradite somebody? Just needs to fabricate evidence
saying you are a drug seller. Wham!!! There you go...
Now, we don`t want drugs to be sold inthe corner store. No way! Would
happened like with tobacco. So, the only *rational* solution is to
CONTROL THEM.
The proposal consists in emitting a card similar to voting credentials
with picture. You are entitled to buy weekly quantities, under medical
supervision. You can buy from the government or speicalized dealers.
The card is given free of charge by the government, even by the police
itself! The federal police, the DEA. You commit a crime? NO CARD???
Double penalty. A card? How much did you take, which drugs? Is it
enough to commit a crime?, etc.
You would submit to psychiatrical evaluation pryor and... for the rest
of yourlife, or while youhave your card. Age requirements are
enforced. Who would trade the card? Nobody. You pay for it maybe even
with taxes, etc. You can assure quality. No accidents. Not enough for
you? Treatment.
This solution has the advantage that it would expose all players, both
producers and cosummers. Once you ask for a card, you`re marked for
life. Essentially. But then, if well controlled, once you give back
your card, you are free from the stigma. Again, no card? Double
penalty. It would work as a deterrent to curiosity. It would be
accompanied with real information as to the effects, pros and cons, as
all things have two sides.
Budgets need not be lost by the police. Essentially, they would
control it, the federal police, that is. Other resources would go to
treatments, research, information, special gatherings, etc.
Not ALL drugs need be treated this way. Temptatively, only marihuana
and maybe the most innocuous of chemical drugs would be allowed. Doses
would make medical sense. Other drugs would be equally illegal.
Of course, the other solution is WORLDWIDE erradication. Dope and coke
and mushrooms. Chemical drugs would be treated as they are now. My
hypothesis is that most people use drugs other than pot because of its
inavailability. A trick of sellers would be to sell dope and once they
have buyers, artificially reduce supply and augment supply of other
drugs. This trick would no lowork. Many sellers and producers would
opt to go through the governmental, official channel. There would be a
residue of criminals: those would be hunted as usual. But, most
important, addicts wuld be identified. Hypothesis is that few people
NOT CURRENTLY USING drugs would opt NOT TO USE DRUGS. There is a
mystery to them, making them attractive for rebel types and others.
Users would speak more freely of their effects, good and bad, before
they end up intratment for abuse. Abuse would be dminished a lot...
Why I write this? Because it makes sense. And because I may be
incriminated thus.
Any comments about the path of adjustment of prices? I guess they
would remain about the same; the excess in price due to intermediarism
would go to the government as taxes. Other regimes may be possible.
The Human Dilemma
All 5 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 31, 6:17 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Oct 2004 18:17:00 -0800
Subject: The Human Dilemma
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
We cannot escape our primate nature. We order us in hierarchies, the
dominant male driving away the lesser primates to keep as many females
as possible. We contest with each other to establish our place in the
hierarchy. I`m better than you, you`re better than me. And then we
fight til death to defend this truth just found, once and again with
each male, and female we encounter... The human primate. And our world
is ordered.
But over it there`s a thin veneer of rationality. We are all created
equal, we are all equal under the eyes of God. Your rights are my
rights. We`ll dissent, but I`ll defend with my life your right to
express. Just because you are human you deserve respect. Brother.
We are all in the middle. Both statements simultaneously true and
false. Each of them a hell in itself, and in between another hell...
We are not equal, we are different. I am better than you.
We are equal, we are not different. I am better than you.
Love me.
Hate me.
Don`t talk to me.
Talk to me.
We don`t belong together.
We fight together.
You need two to fight and love.
The human dilemma. Where are you?
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 2, 3:10 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Nov 2004 03:10:04 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 2 2004 3:10 am
Subject: Re: The Human Dilemma
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We cannot escape our primate nature. We order us in hierarchies, the
dominant male driving away the lesser primates to keep as many females
as possible. We contest with each other to establish our place in the
hierarchy. I`m better than you, you`re better than me. And then we
fight til death to defend this truth just found, once and again with
each male, and female we encounter... The human primate. And our world
is ordered.
But over it there`s a thin veneer of rationality. We are all created
equal, we are all equal under the eyes of God. Your rights are my
rights. We`ll dissent, but I`ll defend with my life your right to
express. Just because you are human you deserve respect. Brother.
We are all in the middle. Both statements simultaneously true and
false. Each of them a hell in itself, and in between another hell...
We are not equal, we are different. I am better than you.
We are equal, we are not different. I am better than you.
Love me.
Hate me.
Don`t talk to me.
Talk to me.
We don`t belong together.
We fight together.
You need two to fight and love.
The human dilemma. Where are you
?
Reply
MS Nov 2, 5:06 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: MS - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:06:03 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 2 2004 5:06 am
Subject: Re: The Human Dilemma
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Everyone has kill filed you. Why don't you stop wasting your time
posting this?
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> We cannot escape our primate nature. We order us in hierarchies, the
> dominant male driving away the lesser primates to keep as many females
> as possible. We contest with each other to establish our place in the
> hierarchy. I`m better than you, you`re better than me. And then we
> fight til death to defend this truth just found, once and again with
> each male, and female we encounter... The human primate. And our world
> is ordered.
> But over it there`s a thin veneer of rationality. We are all created
> equal, we are all equal under the eyes of God. Your rights are my
> rights. We`ll dissent, but I`ll defend with my life your right to
> express. Just because you are human you deserve respect. Brother.
> We are all in the middle. Both statements simultaneously true and
> false. Each of them a hell in itself, and in between another hell...
> We are not equal, we are different. I am better than you.
> We are equal, we are not different. I am better than you.
> Love me.
> Hate me.
> Don`t talk to me.
> Talk to me.
> We don`t belong together.
> We fight together.
> You need two to fight and love.
> The human dilemma. Where are you?
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 2, 2:58 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Nov 2004 14:58:10 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 2 2004 2:58 pm
Subject: Re: The Human Dilemma
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
MS wrote in message ...
> Everyone has kill filed you. Why don't you stop wasting your time
> posting this?
Because:
a) I don`t know what is to kill file and this appears in google
b) I am not wasting my time, I am expressing myself and saving my life
c) there`s people with the sensibility to appreciate what I posted
d) this is the only way I have to reach people with my work
e) I assume people will read not one, but many of my threads
f) I am exposing a bunch of plagiarists and wise guys who stole my
identity with the help of the Mexican government
So, if this reasons are not enough, I welcome you to examine the rest
of my postings and form a whole picture, if you can...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> > We cannot escape our primate nature. We order us in hierarchies, the
> > dominant male driving away the lesser primates to keep as many females
> > as possible. We contest with each other to establish our place in the
> > hierarchy. I`m better than you, you`re better than me. And then we
> > fight til death to defend this truth just found, once and again with
> > each male, and female we encounter... The human primate. And our world
> > is ordered.
> > But over it there`s a thin veneer of rationality. We are all created
> > equal, we are all equal under the eyes of God. Your rights are my
> > rights. We`ll dissent, but I`ll defend with my life your right to
> > express. Just because you are human you deserve respect. Brother.
> > We are all in the middle. Both statements simultaneously true and
> > false. Each of them a hell in itself, and in between another hell...
> > We are not equal, we are different. I am better than you.
> > We are equal, we are not different. I am better than you.
> > Love me.
> > Hate me.
> > Don`t talk to me.
> > Talk to me.
> > We don`t belong together.
> > We fight together.
> > You need two to fight and love.
> > The human dilemma. Where are you?
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 3, 5:24 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Nov 2004 05:24:13 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 3 2004 5:24 am
Subject: Re: The Human Dilemma
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We cannot escape our primate nature. We order us in hierarchies, the
dominant male driving away the lesser primates to keep as many females
as possible. We contest with each other to establish our place in the
hierarchy. I`m better than you, you`re better than me. And then we
fight til death to defend this truth just found, once and again with
each male, and female we encounter... The human primate. And our world
is ordered.
But over it there`s a thin veneer of rationality. We are all created
equal, we are all equal under the eyes of God. Your rights are my
rights. We`ll dissent, but I`ll defend with my life your right to
express. Just because you are human you deserve respect. Brother.
We are all in the middle. Both statements simultaneously true and
false. Each of them a hell in itself, and in between another hell...
We are not equal, we are different. I am better than you.
We are equal, we are not different. I am better than you.
Love me.
Hate me.
Don`t talk to me.
Talk to me.
We don`t belong together.
We fight together.
You need two to fight and love.
The human dilemma. Where are you
?
Reply
Game theory model of an economy (underdevelopment)
All 7 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 18, 8:41 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ.research
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Oct 2004 08:41:23 -0700
Local: Mon, Oct 18 2004 8:41 am
Subject: Game theory model of an economy (underdevelopment)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> A game theory model can be tested computationally by simulating lots
> of two person games where envious, neutral and cooperative solutions
> occur in a fixed proportion (or a variable proportion based on
> previous values, total values, etc). It can be controlled with the
> same pay matrixes simulated for pure strategies, envious, neutral and
> jealous, and the values compared. There are several variations that
> can be tried on the same basic idea.
QED.
For instance: games may be added to the simulation according to global
gains (sum off all game results, GNP); neutral or cooperative
strategies may be used for small gains (both gain), but envious
strategies when gains are too big or disproportionate. Of course, a
"national strategy" would be the probability distribution of
individual strategies of players. And this model can be "filled" by
actual figures (kind of econometrics), for instance, by making
interviews or monitoring current behaviours...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 19, 5:42 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ.research
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 19 Oct 2004 05:42:06 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 19 2004 5:42 am
Subject: Re: Game theory model of an economy (underdevelopment)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > A game theory model can be tested computationally by simulating lots
> > of two person games where envious, neutral and cooperative solutions
> > occur in a fixed proportion (or a variable proportion based on
> > previous values, total values, etc). It can be controlled with the
> > same pay matrixes simulated for pure strategies, envious, neutral and
> > jealous, and the values compared. There are several variations that
> > can be tried on the same basic idea.
> QED.
Quod erat demostrandum.
> For instance: games may be added to the simulation according to global
> gains (sum off all game results, GNP); neutral or cooperative
> strategies may be used for small gains (both gain), but envious
> strategies when gains are too big or disproportionate. Of course, a
> "national strategy" would be the probability distribution of
> individual strategies of players. And this model can be "filled" by
> actual figures (kind of econometrics), for instance, by making
> interviews or monitoring current behaviours...
If you realized the exercize, you may notice that a strategy where one
loses in order to make another win, (abnegation) also leads to
underdevelopment! The optimum solution is the invisible hand, pursuit
of self-interest to maximize your own gains. But it must not be
confused with doing charity; there is no bussines opportunity there,
in fact it can be seen as the market of good feelings, where one buys
the feeling of being good.
And incidentally this exercize shold show that it is not necessary to
practice arcane mathematics to make economics. Computing can be used
also and pure thought experiments are effective too.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 1, 5:08 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ.research
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Nov 2004 17:08:11 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 1 2004 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: Game theory model of an economy (underdevelopment)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
An asynchronous model where games are created according to previous
measures of econmic activity (assume a grid where potential games
[businesses, negotiations] are null til activated by increases /
decreases in economic activity) can be treated with the tools of
mechanical statistics. The games results can be treated as spins and
the average of the resultant fields can be used as a measure for
development/underdevelopment. What would be the economic
interpretation of the Boltzaman constant? This model can lead to an
interesting applicatio of physic paradigms to the study of whole
economies. Some sort of unification (8)>
Plagiarism can be treated as almost zero sum games. There would a
bigger loss for the true author. Crime can also be treated in this
way.
Reply
cono...@email.rahul.net Nov 2, 11:33 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ.research
From: cono...@email.rahul.net - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:33:43 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Tues, Nov 2 2004 11:33 am
Subject: Re: Game theory model of an economy (underdevelopment)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore writes:
> An asynchronous model where games are created according to previous
> measures of econmic activity (assume a grid where potential games
> [businesses, negotiations] are null til activated by increases /
> decreases in economic activity) can be treated with the tools of
> mechanical statistics. The games results can be treated as spins and
> the average of the resultant fields can be used as a measure for
> development/underdevelopment. What would be the economic
> interpretation of the Boltzaman constant? This model can lead to an
> interesting applicatio of physic paradigms to the study of whole
> economies. Some sort of unification (8)>
> Plagiarism can be treated as almost zero sum games. There would a
> bigger loss for the true author. Crime can also be treated in this
> way.
Boltzmann's constant would be the constant of proportionality in
changes in the energy of the individual agents-probably meaning wealth
or resources in economics. As the individual agents attempt to
maximize their wealth-sometime winning, and sometimes losing-their
wealth would exhibit Brownian motion characteristics, (which often
appears in financial time series,) so the economic equivalent of
Boltzmann's constant in the equations would also be related to
entropy, (Plank's constant in physics,) which would be a measure, in
some sense, of the randomness of the system, meaning predictability,
or uncertainty, (its a self-referential system, where everyone is
basing their decisions on what everyone else thinks everyone else is
going to do-the game-theoretic pay off matrix.) The aggregate wealth
would be constant for zero-sum games, and increase for positive-sum
games.
If the agents are modeled as simple true/false decision makers, (fixed
increment fractal,) as per traditional game theory, then the aggregate
would have Brownian motion characteristics with a Gaussian/normal,
(e.g., binomial,) distribution of the increments over time. If the
agents are allowed to wager a fraction of their wealth, (probably a
much more realistic model of economic systems,) then the aggregate
would have a log-normal distribution of wealth among the agents, and
grow as a geometric progression, (which can use Brownian motion
mathematical infrastructure by taking the logarithm of the time series
of the individual agent's wealth,) which is a reasonable approximation
to the distribution of wealth in societies.
For any particular agent, the magnitude of a boom/bust cycle in wealth
generation would be proportional to the square root of the time into
the cycle. The duration of the cycle would be the error function of
the reciprocal of the square root of the time into the cycle-which is
the probability of the cycle continuing, at least one more time unit,
which is the basis of Black-Scholes-Merton. Its, also, a reasonable
approximation to the boom/bust/business cycles observed in
industrialized economies.
Depending on who is telling the story, of course.
John
--
John Conover, cono...@email.rahul.net, http://www.johncon.com/
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 3, 6:00 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ.research
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Nov 2004 06:00:14 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 3 2004 6:00 am
Subject: Re: Game theory model of an economy (underdevelopment)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
cono...@email.rahul.net wrote in message ...
> Boltzmann's constant would be the constant of proportionality in
> changes in the energy of the individual agents-probably meaning wealth
> or resources in economics.
Capital as energy?
>As the individual agents attempt to
> maximize their wealth-sometime winning, and sometimes losing-their
> wealth would exhibit Brownian motion characteristics, (which often
> appears in financial time series,) so the economic equivalent of
> Boltzmann's constant in the equations would also be related to
> entropy, (Plank's constant in physics,) which would be a measure, in
> some sense, of the randomness of the system, meaning predictability,
> or uncertainty,
Uncertainty/risk is irreducible
>(its a self-referential system, where everyone is
> basing their decisions on what everyone else thinks everyone else is
> going to do-the game-theoretic pay off matrix.)
So, if people *are* envious, all decisions are based on that
assumption and people act enviously, waiting for the other one to act
thus. If everybody expects everybody else to chea, then they all will
try to cheat. But if that particular society is fair, then everybody
will assume the other is fair and act fair, though some will try to
take advantage of it. If there are good laws, the deviants will be
exposed and won't last for long, but if laws are not sufficient or are
badly enforced, then cheaters will have a permanent (profitable)
advantage and cheating will become widespread... Self referential
means also self sustaining; the system self-reinforces itself, either
getting an equilibrium in the fair side, or gravitating to an
equilibrium on the cheating/envious side.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>The aggregate wealth
> would be constant for zero-sum games, and increase for positive-sum
> games.
> If the agents are modeled as simple true/false decision makers, (fixed
> increment fractal,) as per traditional game theory, then the aggregate
> would have Brownian motion characteristics with a Gaussian/normal,
> (e.g., binomial,) distribution of the increments over time. If the
> agents are allowed to wager a fraction of their wealth, (probably a
> much more realistic model of economic systems,) then the aggregate
> would have a log-normal distribution of wealth among the agents, and
> grow as a geometric progression, (which can use Brownian motion
> mathematical infrastructure by taking the logarithm of the time series
> of the individual agent's wealth,) which is a reasonable approximation
> to the distribution of wealth in societies.
> For any particular agent, the magnitude of a boom/bust cycle in wealth
> generation would be proportional to the square root of the time into
> the cycle. The duration of the cycle would be the error function of
> the reciprocal of the square root of the time into the cycle-which is
> the probability of the cycle continuing, at least one more time unit,
> which is the basis of Black-Scholes-Merton. Its, also, a reasonable
> approximation to the boom/bust/business cycles observed in
> industrialized economies.
> Depending on who is telling the story, of course.
> John
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 4, 12:25 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ.research
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Nov 2004 00:25:34 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 4 2004 12:25 am
Subject: Re: Game theory model of an economy (underdevelopment)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> cono...@email.rahul.net wrote in message ...
> > Boltzmann's constant would be the constant of proportionality in
> > changes in the energy of the individual agents-probably meaning wealth
> > or resources in economics.
> Capital as energy?
> >As the individual agents attempt to
> > maximize their wealth-sometime winning, and sometimes losing-their
> > wealth would exhibit Brownian motion characteristics, (which often
> > appears in financial time series,) so the economic equivalent of
> > Boltzmann's constant in the equations would also be related to
> > entropy, (Plank's constant in physics,) which would be a measure, in
> > some sense, of the randomness of the system, meaning predictability,
> > or uncertainty,
> Uncertainty/risk is irreducible
> >(its a self-referential system, where everyone is
> > basing their decisions on what everyone else thinks everyone else is
> > going to do-the game-theoretic pay off matrix.)
> So, if people *are* envious, all decisions are based on that
> assumption and people act enviously, waiting for the other one to act
> thus. If everybody expects everybody else to chea, then they all will
> try to cheat. But if that particular society is fair, then everybody
> will assume the other is fair and act fair, though some will try to
> take advantage of it. If there are good laws, the deviants will be
> exposed and won't last for long, but if laws are not sufficient or are
> badly enforced, then cheaters will have a permanent (profitable)
> advantage and cheating will become widespread... Self referential
> means also self sustaining; the system self-reinforces itself, either
> getting an equilibrium in the fair side, or gravitating to an
> equilibrium on the cheating/envious side.
> >The aggregate wealth
> > would be constant for zero-sum games, and increase for positive-sum
> > games.
> > If the agents are modeled as simple true/false decision makers, (fixed
> > increment fractal,) as per traditional game theory,
I was thinking of two person games where each player chooses between
two strategies Se, Sc, where e is envious and c is cooperative. The
payment matrix is known.
Player 1
Sc Se
Sc [a d]
Se [c c]
Player 2
Sc Se
Sc [b d]
Se [c c]
Player 1 chooses Se whenever the payment of Player 2 conditional to P1
choosing Sc is greater than the payment of P1. Se is chosen if b > a
by P1 so no matter what P2 chooses both arrive to c where c <= 0. d
can be either a win=win or a win-lose value (reflecting differences in
bargain power; should d > 0 choosing Se by one player results in a
less than optimum result). The game solution does not follow a minimax
strategy (the matrixes may assume other forms, the form of the
matrixes may itself be a function of the state of the economy or other
factors reflecting business opportunities [like initial endowments]).
The distribution of optimum strategies in underdeveloped economy would
be, say {Sc: 1/4; Se: 3/4}, while in a normal economy would be more
like {Sc: 8/9; Se 1/9}.
But the matrixes are not necessarily reduced to two strategies, what
counts is that at least one player chooses his strategy with the goal
of not letting the other player receive a bigger payment than what he
will obtain.
> > then the aggregate
> > would have Brownian motion characteristics
(stock exchange)
> >with a Gaussian/normal,
> > (e.g., binomial,) distribution of the increments over time. If the
> > agents are allowed to wager a fraction of their wealth, (probably a
> > much more realistic model of economic systems,) then the aggregate
> > would have a log-normal distribution of wealth among the agents, and
> > grow as a geometric progression, (which can use Brownian motion
> > mathematical infrastructure by taking the logarithm of the time series
> > of the individual agent's wealth,) which is a reasonable approximation
> > to the distribution of wealth in societies.
The stock exchange would be the residue, or the variable of adjustment
of wealth while it `settles` down into the next period distribution of
wealth state.
Danilo J Bonsignore
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > For any particular agent, the magnitude of a boom/bust cycle in wealth
> > generation would be proportional to the square root of the time into
> > the cycle. The duration of the cycle would be the error function of
> > the reciprocal of the square root of the time into the cycle-which is
> > the probability of the cycle continuing, at least one more time unit,
> > which is the basis of Black-Scholes-Merton. Its, also, a reasonable
> > approximation to the boom/bust/business cycles observed in
> > industrialized economies.
> > Depending on who is telling the story, of course.
> > John
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 6, 7:14 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ.research
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Nov 2004 19:14:30 -0800
Local: Sat, Nov 6 2004 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: Game theory model of an economy (underdevelopment)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
cono...@email.rahul.net wrote in message ...
(snip)
> For any particular agent, the magnitude of a boom/bust cycle in wealth
> generation would be proportional to the square root of the time into
> the cycle. The duration of the cycle would be the error function
The stock market is the residue of the economy (as seen from a model)
and is equivalent to an error function. Stock price(`s changes) are
the errors of our appreciations of value under uncertainty. So the
stock market acts as a sensibility indicator of the movement of the
economy. Crashes and booms occur when appreciations of the unseen and
fixed variables of the economy (value) are wrong and this error
becomes apparent.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>of
> the reciprocal of the square root of the time into the cycle-which is
> the probability of the cycle continuing, at least one more time unit,
> which is the basis of Black-Scholes-Merton. Its, also, a reasonable
> approximation to the boom/bust/business cycles observed in
> industrialized economies.
> Depending on who is telling the story, of course.
> John
Reply
A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes)
All 5 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 26, 6:58 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Oct 2004 18:58:22 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 26 2004 6:58 pm
Subject: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This solution has an interesting equilibrium. Given the national state
as the political unit, we would have a three tiered system. Would be :
World Congress
Presidents
National Congresses
Classical Three Powers (democracy) theory postulates a tripartite
system of government where every power helps balance the other three
powers. A typical triangle, a very stable configuration in term of
forces.
Unfortunately, this system is disproportioned and unbalanced due to
the existence of other *three* powers, namely, police, federal police
and army. In terms of CTP theory the army sustains the executive, the
police corps belong to the judiciary system and congresses are sustain
by the (representation of the) people itself. But think in terms of
*real* confrontations of power, that is, the ultimate source of power
which is violence. The reason why coup d`etats are so common and
simple is because the army, once it loses the control of the executive
(that is, the executive no longer controls the army), has the raw poer
to confront and *win*over* the other powers to assume control. A
police corps is no match to an army; they either respect the new
military power or are defeated. And congresses have no power in
itself, unless the people itself is armed, ready and willing to
confront the army (civil war). It is infered that the probability of
civil war is inversely related to the number and quality of arms hold
by the population.
(now, NOW, tell me I use drugs. What comes next?).
A country like the United States has a low probability of going into
civil war, or alternatively, to suffer a coup d`etat, because the
population has the right to own and bear arms. Notice that I say a low
probability. This is never zero,but then it is not very low due to the
ban on assault weapons hold by the population. Any decrease in the
firepower of the people has as a consecuence an increase in the
probability of suffering a coup d`etat, or falling into a military
dictatorship. Permitting the people to hold assault weapons is a
safety against civil war (less likely, as the probability of suffering
casualties, particularly in guerrilla warfare wuold be higher).
Now take the case of Mexico. The population holds no (legal) weapons.
The possibility of a coup d`etat or of suffering a military
ditatorship is very high. In fact, it can be said the Mexican
political system is de facto and virtually a military dictatorship, as
there is nothing that can stop the army in case it choses to oppose
the executive or any other power. This need not be known by the
people; its effects are implicit and are surely taken into account by
politicians and parties. Notice here that a poor police corp only
reinforces the army`s power, nominally that of the executive. It gived
rise to a strong executive with traits of monarchy and messianism.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 31, 4:37 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 31 Oct 2004 16:37:23 -0800
Local: Sun, Oct 31 2004 4:37 pm
Subject: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Civil wars are always a last resource to most country`s dilemmas.
Disciplined violence can be exercised by governments (executive)
against small groups of individuals in very covert ways. Even in
democratic countries, or more so in democratic countries, the secret
services have the tools to monitor noticeable individuals and if
necessary neutralize them. Also the army has the same tools and
capabilities. They (can) act as reinforcers of the system though their
functions are mainly to protect a country`s system against external
destabilizing forces, passively in the case of the army and actively
in the case of secret services and by extensio diplomatic corps. In a
way, these sources of violence are already engaged by external forces,
though in non democratoc forces they lay a more act role in internal
represion.
Quite different is the case of the police corps. Though their tools of
the trade and methods _may_ not be as sofisticated as those of the
army, they nonetheless have the means *and*the*purpose* of exercising
internal repression. This repression is of course governed by laws and
is considered the maximum expression of order in a civilization.
Ideally only those breaking the law are subject to police repression,
but the fact that law is not only *particular*to*each*country* but
also is subject to interpretation by lawyers, attorneys and judges,
the definition of a criminal and criminality not necessarily reflects
what common, ordinary people in a given culture, or for the matter,
across cultures, would consider crime.
A culture-free theory of crime may not be possible, not even recurring
to a notion of individual responsibility, though. Responsible
individuals may fall into little known laws that turns them into
criminals, or into temporary laws suiting particular circumstances,
and also the extent of personal responsibility may not be clear nor
possibe to determine as all the consequences of a single act cannot be
foreseen. This leaves a small but important gap between law and
justice that may be turned against the citizens of any country. Law
and fairness not necessarily go together.
But the police and the judiciary system have the power to declare any
citizen a criminal. It is assumed a balance between the legislative
and the judiciary system. But the gap between law letter and
interpretation leaves enough space for corruption and particular
interests to creep in, giving the police a more immediate power than
that hold by the army or even by criminals. In short, *the police can
turn any citizen into a criminal* by recurring to little known laws,
badly formulated or unenforceable laws, temporary laws meant to
alleviate defficiencies in the executive`s performance,
reinterpretation of laws to suit ulterior motives, access to otherwise
illegal materials, mean intentioned formulation of charges,
prejudices, outright incriminations and many other forms by which the
system can be subverted from within without necessarily breaking
current laws. This power is real and even though not necessarily
perceived by the members of a society it is a constant possibility. In
times of peace, this gives the judiciary power unordinate means to
control the citizens of a country.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 2, 6:03 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Nov 2004 06:03:30 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 2 2004 6:03 am
Subject: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
This is more so as the career of policeman is considered a low level
job. It doesn`t recquire many studies, only basic schooling. It is
assumed, somewhat idealistically, that would be policemen are
motivated by sentiments of social responsibility, honor, care for the
people, justice, order... These are further reinforced by police
schooling and ideology, but the fact is that many (can`t be said that
all, of course) are motivated by a job that is comparatively office
free, physically oriented and doesn`t require inordinate intellectual
effort. It also brings psychological advantages, like the certainty of
automatic respect, the effect of the uniform, a sense of superiority
over criminals, easy authority, the assumption of a paternal figure.
To many, these elements are the right combination to stabilize a
personality and have a career exemplifying the virtues that modern
democratic societies expect from the police. Yet the crude fact is
that policemen are in direct contact with the most dangerous elements
of society, so that in-job training consists of the tricks and
practices of criminality, hardly the best examples of humanity. Given
this knowledge, it is not a surprise that corruption is an issue in
the police corps; they not only acquire the knowledge, but are also in
a position of power to apply that knowledge from within, and in very
subtle ways. Common citizens will be at a loss coping with a corrupt
policeman, or even with an ill humored policeman. And whenever the
system fails to apply to a suspect, or to difficult to prove crimes,
or even to behaviours that look suspicious in the eyes of the police
corps, the spectre of justice applied by policemen (paradox!), may
well become a reality to he detriment of the citizens. Not counting,
of course, that the police corps, as low level paying jobs, are open
to the manipulation of rich interests and political maneuvers that
endanger hones people and, more gravely, outstanding and uncommon
citizens, who by their very deviation of the norm look suspicious to
people trained to spot precisely behaviours that deviate from the
norm, no matter if those behaviours are indeed positive or
malinterpreted. In other words, if he or she stands out, is excentric,
non-conformant, he is automatically suspicious and subject to police
scrutiny, warranted or not. Given human`s psychology and the well
known phenomenon of selective perception, even the most innocent
behaviours can acquire the meaning of crime or cues to crime, like for
instance, assuming drug use from the way people dress. Police forces
are a very important source of standardization in society, a very
ironic effect in modern democratic societies where individuality is
considered (or should be considered) a value. In an institution where
discipline is a must, homogeneicity is sooner or later achieved.
Some, if not all, of this defficiencies can be contrarrested by
forcing policemen to engage in long term, humanistic, culture forming,
enforced studies. A goal should be to make policemen, while taking
care of public order, acquire professional degrees in areas that have
nothing to do with law and order.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 2, 3:19 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Nov 2004 15:19:27 -0800
Local: Tues, Nov 2 2004 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
What cannot be avoided, however, is the possibility of being turned a
criminal and abused by the police. This need not be known by the
individual, in fact, it does not even need to be in file. A policeman
just needs to waive his badge and tell people you are under
investigation. What would you do if a policeman tells you this about a
colleague? Will you ask for further proof (which besides can be
forged)? You won`t want to get into trouble. Of course, informing him
is getting yourself in trouble. What do you think your boss would do
to you if he is being told this by the police? What would happen to
your job? It can be even worse, a policeman can say you are an ex
convict. You can lose your job right away, under any excuse, without
being told that. It is very difficult if not impossibe to prove that
is not true. Nobody can account for every day of his or her existence.
If the police says you have been arrested several times before, how
can you deny it? Your family is no good, they are your family, iy is
assumed they will lie in your behalf to protect you; their testimony
is not valid. Your friends? Unless you live with them or see them
every day will have a doubt, they can hardly attest to it save for
specific dates or periods. They can be incriminated too; the moment
they suspect some kind of police harassment they will stop being your
friends. Having a job is not enough either, you can be arrested on
weekends or during the night. Any individual in a peaceful society may
end up homeless by a few strategic appearances of a corrupt or
interested policeman, or by political manipulation. And given that
humans tend to put before other considerations matters of loyalty to
colleagues, it may be impossible to prove this harassment, as the
policeman will be justified and help before submitting to the will of
an outsider. Some of this possibilities are minimized in the case of
small towns or well integrated communities, or when the police holds
relatioships with the neighborhood (case in which other problems
arise), but in big, impersonal cities, or when the police corp is far
from being in touch with a community, or such sense of community is
nonexistent, not even this cushion can be expected. itizens are
subject to the power of the police even in the presence of well
thought out laws. A ife can be sabotaged by the police...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 6, 9:04 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Nov 2004 21:04:41 -0800
Local: Sat, Nov 6 2004 9:04 pm
Subject: Re: A Theory of World Democracy, World Parliament (Danilo Jose Bonsignore, blue eyes)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
I want to make a digression to discuss the role of the secret
services. Secre services were not accounted for by the original
democracy theory of three powers. Though they belong nominally to the
executive (as the police but that can be discussed later), and their
area of influence is basically external, they enjoy certain
characteristics which, as it happens with the federal police corps,
gives them destabilizing weight when considered inthe system of power
balances of the three power theory.
First and foremost, their directors are: a) out of the political
cycle, b) not elected by the people, c) anonymous (or relatively so)
and d) enjoy long careers. These facts turn them into powerful players
in the balance of powers of a democratic, and for the matter also
autoritarian, system. They are near or on top of top secrets. They can
by their functio authorize and deauthorize any citizen to have access
to positions of influence, including scientific and academic
positions. Though they may relate to the legislative branch, they do
on the executive and viceversa, the executive relies on them for
intelligence, both internal and external; in fact, an executive may be
as ablind or keen as its secret service. The tools and techniques of
the secret services, as well as their access to the highst of
technology, allows them to exercise control and vigilance, but above
all *control* over almost any citizen, including the presidents of
each branch. They can interrupt communications or facilitate them or
put themselves in the middle. Though in a democracy the factibility of
exercising vigilance over all citizens is relatively infeasible (but
for the applicatio of big-brother-like technical capabilities), they
can exercie controland vigilance over key individuals. The secret
services are a fluid organization when compared to the army; the army
is by its very nature hierarchical and relies on the president as
chief as a matter of principle: career militars are trained to accept
and preserve this discipline, so that in relative terms it is easier
for the president to controlthe army than the secret service. The myth
and stereotype is that secret agents (a la James Bond)have permit to
kill, which effectively puts them above the most imortant of laws.
Their acting is (supposedly) in accord to the highest of national
priorities, so they can enjoy of great liberty. Since secret service
officials are close or can be cloe to national secrets, their careers
tend to long in a proportionally inverse relatio to the risks they
take. Also, the secret service has access to the secret parties of the
budget, besides their own budget, and as an organizatio are almost
autoregulated, though the leislativebranch may have some controlling
power. By its very nature any contact with the secret service turns
individuals into members of the elite.(Incidentally, as a side idea to
the hypothesis of schizophrenia being actual thought transfer and
drugs as one of its possible triggers, the secret service may be one
if not the main interested agency in the criminalization of drugs to
avoid the sharing of secrets, though this hypothesis is still pending
scientific statisticl validation). There are also obvious relation
with the SS elites of other countries, both as a matter of their
activity but also in the fluidity of double agents and other
coperative endeavors. There is a mystic of the secret service which is
very important to gain respect for them. And the long careers close to
top secrets or the possibility of acquiring them gives SS officials
the possibility to ammass not only power and influence (knowledge is
power) but also wealth.
All this elements make the secret service enough power to pose as a de
facto power on a par or even above the other three powers of classical
democracy. In a way, it can be said the *REAL*president* of a country
is the head of the secret service, as the president is from their
point of view a transient politician, subject to the requirements of
protecting national security, and may even, in extreme circumstances,
be sequestered by the secret services, as has occurred many times
throughout history with guarding corps, though, in the XXI century, it
can be done in a very subtle and effective ways.
Reply
Principles of Biowar
All 5 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 6, 10:10 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 6 Nov 2004 10:10:02 -0800
Local: Sat, Nov 6 2004 10:10 am
Subject: Principles of Biowar
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
I am not sure if I should post this, but since I made a note in one
mail account and it was definitely hacked, I may as well post some of
these ideas stillunder development, with the assumption that spreading
this knowledge will help NOT to start this kind of wars.
1. A biowar takes place in a different time span than conventional
warfare. It`s time span may be counted anywhere from years to
generations.
2. A biowar can take place anonymously.
3. Biowar is knowledge intensive but unexpensively deployed.
4. Biowar attacks as goals the viability of a population (viability in
humans includes the economic system of the population).
5. The effects of biowar may not necessarily be contained to the
target population. It can backfire.
6. Biowars are indeterminate as their result in time and effects
(complex system).
7. Biowars may be easily started, but difficult to stop.
8. Biowars are very likely to have *unanticipated* side effects.
9. Biowar defense takes place in systems other than the traditional
military.
10. Biowars may be cheap (to start).
11. Biowars may be disguised as commercial wars.
12. Biowars can take place without massive display or movement of
forces.
13. Biowars may have localized strategic goals.
Others principls will be posted as I think of them in the usual
manner.
Reply
Freedom Fighter Nov 6, 11:54 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: "Freedom Fighter" - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:54:05 GMT
Local: Sat, Nov 6 2004 11:54 am
Subject: Re: Principles of Biowar - AIDS?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Does the AIDS epidemic fit this description?
--------------------------
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
news:768f7623.0411061010.869bac9@posting.google.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>I am not sure if I should post this, but since I made a note in one
> mail account and it was definitely hacked, I may as well post some of
> these ideas stillunder development, with the assumption that spreading
> this knowledge will help NOT to start this kind of wars.
> 1. A biowar takes place in a different time span than conventional
> warfare. It`s time span may be counted anywhere from years to
> generations.
> 2. A biowar can take place anonymously.
> 3. Biowar is knowledge intensive but unexpensively deployed.
> 4. Biowar attacks as goals the viability of a population (viability in
> humans includes the economic system of the population).
> 5. The effects of biowar may not necessarily be contained to the
> target population. It can backfire.
> 6. Biowars are indeterminate as their result in time and effects
> (complex system).
> 7. Biowars may be easily started, but difficult to stop.
> 8. Biowars are very likely to have *unanticipated* side effects.
> 9. Biowar defense takes place in systems other than the traditional
> military.
> 10. Biowars may be cheap (to start).
> 11. Biowars may be disguised as commercial wars.
> 12. Biowars can take place without massive display or movement of
> forces.
> 13. Biowars may have localized strategic goals.
> Others principls will be posted as I think of them in the usual
> manner.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 7, 4:11 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Nov 2004 04:11:14 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 7 2004 4:11 am
Subject: Re: Principles of Biowar - AIDS?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Freedom Fighter" wrote in message ...
> Does the AIDS epidemic fit this description?
Certainly, if it was humanly seeded and _not_ a natural occurence. It
affects viability, throughout generations, could not be contained (as
per the historical characterization of being a gay illness), so if it
was seeded (as you question seems to imply) it did backfire, if it is
indeed a biowar it is being solved out of the traditional military, it
required (if) research but was easy to seed and let it spread, etc.
Actually a good example why this kind of war is *really* dangerous and
should not be initiated, in case it was meant as a biowar (against
gays, maybe promiscuous people? I know the argument of it being a
puritanical solution to sexual sin).
And now that you made me think, another characteristic is that biowars
can fought by *ommission*! By `attacking` a population`s viability by
not helping, or maybe by withholding medication (makes me think of the
shortage of lue vaccines). And also, biowars can be initiated by by
agencies *other* than the established government, which can make them
akin to terrorism or turn terrorism into something more than simply
attacking civilian targets.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 7, 9:15 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Nov 2004 09:15:15 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 7 2004 9:15 am
Subject: Re: Principles of Biowar
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
14. A biowar can be effected by omissions affecting the viability of
another population.
Reply
djbonsign...@beethoven.com Dec 16, 2:08 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general, tx.general, seattle.general, la.general, dc.general
From: djbonsign...@beethoven.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Dec 2004 14:08:54 -0800
Local: Thurs, Dec 16 2004 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: Principles of Biowar
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
15. A Biowar can be directed toward a *single* individual or family or
group of individuals, without knowledge of national powers, government
and police.
Reply
End of messages
Help me expose a mafia and save my life
« Older Messages 26 - 27 of 27 in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 7, 9:57 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics,utexas.general,hawaii.politics,soc.culture.spain
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Nov 2004 09:57:18 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 7 2004 9:57 am
Subject: Re: Help me expose a mafia and save my life
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
By the way, while I was living in Mexico, nobody ever went to my
appartments with camera equipment, save the Veracruzans, who could
have taken pictures... I dislike pitures, though I did have a
bigphtographic study taken in 1997 wit my gray suit.
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Copy this to a file called anyname.html and open it up in the browser
> (use double quotes):
>
> Tomorrow will post the solution.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 7, 1:41 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics,utexas.general,hawaii.politics,soc.culture.spain
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 7 Nov 2004 13:41:53 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 7 2004 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: Help me expose a mafia and save my life
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Solution:
16 = number of letters in name
136 (13 and 6) sum of letter indexes without space (25) nor MAC numbers (16, 13, 6)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Copy this to a file called anyname.html and open it up in the browser
> (use double quotes):
>
> Tomorrow will post the solution.
Reply