[Philosophy] Value

[RainDreamer]

So wait, I thought we were talking about values of things rather than metallurgy or whatever is going on here? I was interested in the previous topic.

[GluttonyReaper]

Next time, just stop buying things when prices rise, they'll fall off due to lack of sales. Problem solved.

Well, I'm not expert on these things, but I don't think you can just stop buying things like food and water when they get too expensive. And I think another thing that seems relevant is what are in reality luxuries being made into necessity by society. Particularly, where I live, things like internet and a form of motorized transport are assumed to be had by everyone by schools and workplaces - as such, they are effectively necessities in a modern landscape for the majority of people in my area. As such, internet companies and petrol companies are quite at liberty to increase prices beyond reasonable levels, because they know people don't really have a choice but to buy anyway.

Another point to make is that it's easy for an intelligent few to exploit the wider community - but it's much harder to coordinate thousands or millions of people to fight back against it. It's all well and good to say that not buying overpriced things will make them drop in price, but one or even a hundred people doing that means nothing in most cases. Getting a significant portion of a consumer base to do this is difficult, to say the least.

[Xannari Ferrows]

You knew the name of it was an arc furnace, yet you have never heard of it before you invented it yourself. Hmm....

What else would it be called? It uses arc plasma, so... Kinda obvious.

Though it does appear that I don't need as much energy as I'm using. This guy is awesome!

- - - Updated - - -

So wait, I thought we were talking about values of things rather than metallurgy or whatever is going on here? I was interested in the previous topic.

Sorry for you being drowned out in their absurdness. Please share your view if you'd like.

[frizzank]

Here is a fun thought experiment on the value of things.

If I said I was going to drop you off in the middle of New York city to live for a month and gave you the choice of having 100 oz of gold or a Swiss army knife? You would pick the gold because you could take it and sell it for enough to buy a thousand knives.

Then if I said I was going to drop you off on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. You would pick the knife and the gold would be almost useless.

The value of stuff is somewhat dependent on our situation, and how useful the object is there. In other situations it's dependent on how much others want that object.

[Xannari Ferrows]

Here is a fun thought experiment on the value of things.

If I said I was going to drop you off in the middle of New York city to live for a month and gave you the choice of having 100 oz of gold or a Swiss army knife? You would pick the gold because you could take it and sell it for enough to buy a thousand knives.

Then if I said I was going to drop you off on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. You would pick the knife and the gold would be almost useless.

The value of stuff is somewhat dependent on our situation, and how useful the object is there. In other situations it's dependent on how much others want that object.

I have never been in a city, so I do not know if I can agree with you confidently on the first one, though in a desert, definitely.

[magnemoe]

Pretty sure it says zinc, but even so again steel takes considerably less energy to melt than aluminium, roughly half as much. I also find that, while possible, very unlikely. It seems much more likely it's either hooked up to much more than two batteries or to the mains. However while melting steel with that is unlikely, though technically possible with incredibly high energy efficiency, melting aluminium just isn't possible. Again, conservation of energy exists.

Steel cost less energy to produce than aluminium however aluminium takes far less energy to melt, this is why aluminium recycling makes so much sense.

[YNM]

Well, I'm not expert on these things, but I don't think you can just stop buying things like food and water when they get too expensive. And I think another thing that seems relevant is what are in reality luxuries being made into necessity by society. Particularly, where I live, things like internet and a form of motorized transport are assumed to be had by everyone by schools and workplaces - as such, they are effectively necessities in a modern landscape for the majority of people in my area. As such, internet companies and petrol companies are quite at liberty to increase prices beyond reasonable levels, because they know people don't really have a choice but to buy anyway.

Another point to make is that it's easy for an intelligent few to exploit the wider community - but it's much harder to coordinate thousands or millions of people to fight back against it. It's all well and good to say that not buying overpriced things will make them drop in price, but one or even a hundred people doing that means nothing in most cases. Getting a significant portion of a consumer base to do this is difficult, to say the least.

They got large because they have a market - comsumers - where only they plays in it as seller. You get the rest. Had they not get a market of their own they won't go that way. As I said, people needs to get more prints out of the available prints, and a market where you're the main player is certainly a really good thing for that to happen.

But the case is the same, every buy/sell agreement means both side values equally much.

[BlueCosmology]

Steel cost less energy to produce than aluminium however aluminium takes far less energy to melt, this is why aluminium recycling makes so much sense.

Not true at all. Infact, famously not so. Anyone with any knowledge of metallurgy knows this to be false, aluminium is very famously energetically difficult to melt.

Aluminium has a very high specific heat and a high latent heat of fusion for a metal.

The melting point of aluminium is ~700C, the specific heat is ~1Kj/kg, the latent heat of fusion is ~500Kj/kg.

Meaning for one kg of aluminium it takes 1200Kj to melt.

Steel has a higher melting point (1400C) but a much much lower specific heat ~1/2, and a much lower heat of fusion ~200Kj/kg.

Meaning for one kg of steel it takes 900Kj to melt

[MunGazer]

Whether or not you really did the melty thing doesn't concern me, I suppose. Even if you'd fabricated the story for the purpose of starting this conversation, I'd probably still chime in regarding the philosophical meaning of value from my point of view.

However, Blue C, I'm not knocking you for questioning it. Due to my lack of knowledge of the subject of metallurgy or melting blocks of aluminum with batteries, I can't really track the progress of that debate or see who's "winning" for lack of a better term.

Alright, now.. I was thinking about value in this context from the "Zen" standpoint. I think of those monks who give up having lots of material possessions, and who practically aren't much different in some aspects than a homeless person. They seem to be a good example of how value can be determined.. subjectively? Does this relate to the earlier post regarding the "subjective theory" of value?

Anyway, using our hypothetical zen monk, we insert him into different thought experiments. Would he, in fact, accept neither the 100 ounces of gold nor the swiss army knife if placed in new york? Clearly most people would opt for the gold and sell it as was mentioned in the post to which that example belonged, but perhaps our zen guy would not value either object. Let's assume he valued having nothing so much that he even turned down food and fasted for a few days, simply meditating the entire time.

Could it be said, then, based on that example, that value is fundamentally linked to perception? I admit this isn't far off, and possibly the same by virtue of economic terms as "Value is how much someone is willing to pay for it". However, I do think it is distinguished from it philosophically to some extent. For instance, the monk is willing to pay 0 tynes for your gold or your knife. But - you see, the willingness to pay or not, how much, or how much even perhaps the monk would give you instead just for offering the items, would seem to be linked to his perception.

So my amateur philosophical rambling ends with an idea that value is based on perception.

Edited June 9, 2015 by MunGazer

[Xannari Ferrows]

I have the weirdest life... I melt things, I play games, I have a garden... And I have an account here...

Perchance our monk here thinks not of the worth of the item, but of the idea of the one offering it? Perspective could say that he believes the offer is an act of generosity, which is priceless. Does that sound good? Yeah, let's go with that.

[vger]

Only a child or person with a mental deficit could claim it's not their fault.

You're trying to remove responsibility from consumers, because apparently consumers are too stupid to make their own decisions. Unless a company or person outright LIES to sell a product, the fault is entirely on the consumer for making the purchase.

Commercials and salesmen lie ALL THE TIME. Where have you been?

But yeah, if you go by the legal definition of lying, it's a rare thing. Trying to prove someone is lying is even more difficult. If someone tells you something as simple as their hair shampoo works, you need a bachelor's in chemistry to prove them wrong.

To be incapable of being fooled in the current age, you need to be an expert in EVERY SINGLE FIELD IMAGINABLE. Have fun with that. See you when you finish your 10000-year college degree.

But that's just the direct lying. Not the countless forms of deception that are not technically lying but are even harder to catch than lying.

Comparing the transfer of the blame for this to children or mentally-disabled. You are a sick individual if you think these two topics are the same. Marketing deception goes light-years beyond any protection that is provided by "common sense."

[MunGazer]

I have the weirdest life... I melt things, I play games, I have a garden... And I have an account here...

Perchance our monk here thinks not of the worth of the item, but of the idea of the one offering it? Perspective could say that he believes the offer is an act of generosity, which is priceless. Does that sound good? Yeah, let's go with that.

Yes, that's possible. So in that scenario, would the monk accept the offer? If he did, which item would he choose? Perhaps since he places a value of 0 on the items themselves, it wouldn't matter which item he chose. Maybe he'd accept the offer and just not do anything with the item that was given to him. For instance, he might smile at the offerer, and hold the 6 pound hunk of gold or the knife in his hands for a while, then sit back down and place the item on the ground and return to his meditation, never touching it again. Or, maybe the monk would try to kindly refuse the offer, much like how many of us do when we feel that someone is being too generous. For instance, if my grandmother offered me all the money in her bank account, which was $700, and that's all she had, I'd turn her down immediately and tell her she needed it much more than I did. Or, maybe the monk would accept the gold, and then go find a beggar and give it directly to him. Zen philosophy can get pretty wild in how it tears down conventional perceptions of things and builds it back up from nothing. I had a little hand book once with lots of zen parables and sayings in it. In one instance (I'm going to paraphrase it since it's been years since I read it), a student was near a pond with some geese in it that suddenly took flight and he said to his master, "Look master, the geese are flying away!" The master promptly grabbed the student's nose, and twisted it, saying "WHEN DID THE GEESE EVER FLY AWAY!?". Another passage said something like "The fundamental delusion of humanity is that I am here and you are there.". Of course, offer these kinds of perceptions of value to a professor of economics and he might scoff at you and tell you that he doesn't have time for such "nonsense".

I also wanted to add a tad of advice for those who are in heated debates. Instead of starting up saying something along the lines of "YOU'RE DEAD WRONG. YOU'RE LYING. YOU'RE ______." etc., which often leads to a flame war, why don't you instead ask the person to clarify something or simply just be more diplomatic or emotionally intelligent with your response to their point of view in general? lol. Shouting louder or in this case typing in larger fonts or attempting to leverage a point through sharp edged vocabulary doesn't necessarily make someone more right than the other.

[BlueCosmology]

I also wanted to add a tad of advice for those who are in heated debates. Instead of starting up saying something along the lines of "YOU'RE DEAD WRONG. YOU'RE LYING. YOU'RE ______." etc., which often leads to a flame war, why don't you instead ask the person to clarify something or simply just be more diplomatic or emotionally intelligent with your response to their point of view in general? lol. Shouting louder or in this case typing in larger fonts or attempting to leverage a point through sharp edged vocabulary doesn't necessarily make someone more right than the other.

Because there really isn't any debate to be had. He is just blatantly lying, and when presented with undeniable evidence of such his rebuttal is to just tell me to go electrocute myself.

[Bill Phil]

Not true at all. Infact, famously not so. Anyone with any knowledge of metallurgy knows this to be false, aluminium is very famously energetically difficult to melt.

Aluminium has a very high specific heat and a high latent heat of fusion for a metal.

The melting point of aluminium is ~700C, the specific heat is ~1Kj/kg, the latent heat of fusion is ~500Kj/kg.

Meaning for one kg of aluminium it takes 1200Kj to melt.

Steel has a higher melting point (1400C) but a much much lower specific heat ~1/2, and a much lower heat of fusion ~200Kj/kg.

Meaning for one kg of steel it takes 900Kj to melt

It's harder to weld aluminum. But only because of how easy it is to burn through it.

I've talked to professional welders about it. You need to use an electrical welder for aluminum. It's easier to control it.

It's not that hard to melt when it's thin. In fact, it's very easy.

[BlueCosmology]

It's harder to weld aluminum. But only because of how easy it is to burn through it.

I've talked to professional welders about it. You need to use an electrical welder for aluminum. It's easier to control it.

It's not that hard to melt when it's thin. In fact, it's very easy.

True, not relevant at all, but true.

[vger]

Of course, offer these kinds of perceptions of value to a professor of economics and he might scoff at you and tell you that he doesn't have time for such "nonsense".

I also wanted to add a tad of advice for those who are in heated debates. Instead of starting up saying something along the lines of "YOU'RE DEAD WRONG. YOU'RE LYING. YOU'RE ______." etc., which often leads to a flame war, why don't you instead ask the person to clarify something or simply just be more diplomatic or emotionally intelligent with your response to their point of view in general? lol. Shouting louder or in this case typing in larger fonts or attempting to leverage a point through sharp edged vocabulary doesn't necessarily make someone more right than the other.

It amazes me that I haven't read any Zen philosophy books yet. That needs to get placed near the top of my "to do" list.

The trouble with the suggestion on asking for clarification though, is that is often wielded as a weapon just like a logical fallacy. Most people who have been involved in multiple arguments about politics, religion, science, ect, have encountered a person who has demanded "evidence." You then do what an intellectual person is expected to. You write out a detailed response, you cite your sources, have all your bases covered, and after a half hour of work, you submit it. Then you get a short-handed response of excuses about why your sources aren't valid, are fueled by an agenda, are lying to protect a conspiracy, etc. In the end, all you've done is lose a half hour trying to explain something to a person who probably had no intention of listening in the first place. Many times, people in arguments will actually demand evidence, not because they want it, but because they want to waste the other person's time.

[Randazzo]

Commercials and salesmen lie ALL THE TIME. Where have you been?

But yeah, if you go by the legal definition of lying, it's a rare thing. Trying to prove someone is lying is even more difficult. If someone tells you something as simple as their hair shampoo works, you need a bachelor's in chemistry to prove them wrong.

To be incapable of being fooled in the current age, you need to be an expert in EVERY SINGLE FIELD IMAGINABLE. Have fun with that. See you when you finish your 10000-year college degree.

But that's just the direct lying. Not the countless forms of deception that are not technically lying but are even harder to catch than lying.

You are referring to "exaggerated claims", and unless you're exceptionally gullible (or a child), you can easily spot these claims. Even if you don't spot them out instantly, you as a consumer should ALWAYS perform due diligence. If you fail to do so and make a purchase based on advertising, that's on you. Period.

Comparing the transfer of the blame for this to children or mentally-disabled. You are a sick individual if you think these two topics are the same.

What two topics?

I'm stating that you would have to be one or the other (though I said "Mental Deficit" which is not necessarily disabled) to be incompetent enough to not be responsible for your decisions. There is no other excuse for being a fool.

A fool and his money...

Edited June 9, 2015 by Randazzo

[Fel]

I also wanted to add a tad of advice for those who are in heated debates. Instead of starting up saying something along the lines of "YOU'RE DEAD WRONG. YOU'RE LYING. YOU'RE ______." etc., which often leads to a flame war, why don't you instead ask the person to clarify something or simply just be more diplomatic or emotionally intelligent with your response to their point of view in general? lol. Shouting louder or in this case typing in larger fonts or attempting to leverage a point through sharp edged vocabulary doesn't necessarily make someone more right than the other.

Too many of you all are trolls. You know a tiny bit of reality and you think you know everything... let alone all the wiki-education that is spread around. Even if I say something that violates everything you know doesn't make me wrong, and if your response is that I am wrong because it violates everything you know that makes you a troll. Even if I am completely wrong, any form of argument that attacks the system as a whole rather than the components of the system is a clear indication that the person making that argument is UNABLE to APPLY the knowledge looked up in a new and different fashion.

BlueCosmology, for instance, talks about the "power" inside a battery. I think he just made those amp hours up (Just as a quick check, I found 11ah on energizer 1209) but the reality is that amp hours isn't the interesting characteristic. Batteries, especially alkalines, aren't linear devices; you can only draw so much from them before you meet internal losses or chemical reaction rate barriers.

Using the "system" BlueCosmology seemed to envision, I would say the interesting characteristic would be if the rate of energy dissipation exceeds that of the energy the batteries are capable of supplying per instant.

It takes 30 seconds to say "Well, you know the system could be setup with 2 lantern batteries due to safety concerns. 10.4V at 150mA (roughly adjusted based on Energizer 1209 datasheet) isn't going to kill you and hence the system is designed to have those batteries replaced until the ingot is formed. But proving that the system will not work in the slightest is something else entirely.

Because there really isn't any debate to be had. He is just blatantly lying, and when presented with undeniable evidence of such his rebuttal is to just tell me to go electrocute myself.

Well, I know a lithium 9V battery can supply 1000mA and I wouldn't hesitate to put my tongue on it... there's just not that much power there.

- - - Updated - - -

So wait, I thought we were talking about values of things rather than metallurgy or whatever is going on here? I was interested in the previous topic.

Sorry, you're a part of the "I can use my own brain, thank you very much" group.

Yes, it is much more interesting, but it requires people to actually THINK! It's annoying how difficult it can be to get people to think... really bloody annoying. Hence we changed topics to something that requires almost zero thought... just someone who looked something up and is prepared to fight until the thread is locked.

[MunGazer]

Hehe, I just thought of another thing regarding the value of things that I find peculiar. A co-worker of mine had recently gotten into bicycling outside on the streets near his home as a way to exercise, and he had paid about $600 for a "decent" bike. It is made of lighter and more durable materials than many cheaper bikes, and is probably much more efficient, reliable, and comfortable to ride than many cheaper bikes available at the lowest common denominator department store (*cough* wal mart). So, he was looking for a bargain on a used bike for his wife on craigslist, which is an internet domain where people buy, sell, and trade things. He found one for $385. He asked her (the seller) what size it was, and she said it was small, and that the bike fit her height of 5'3". This seemed like the right size for his wife, so he asked the seller if she'd take $325 for it. He hasn't heard back from her since.

I pointed out to him that perhaps she was put off by his haggling enough to disengage the entire negotiation, and we laughed and joked about it. Personally, I'd have just given the 385 if I thought it was worth it, because although basic bartering is considered normal by some, I know that others might take offense to it. Of course, there are other possibilities as to what happened.

[vger]

What two topics?

Comparing the inability of a consumer to know when he/she is being deceived, to children/mentally deficient.

When you add it all up, the range between the intelligence of the "assailant" and the victim are exactly the same.

You are referring to "exaggerated claims", and unless you're exceptionally gullible (or a child), you can easily spot these claims. Even if you don't spot them out instantly, you as a consumer should ALWAYS perform due diligence. If you fail to do so and make a purchase based on advertising, that's on you. Period.

...says the sociopath. You know, this would be how the idea of Hell came about, because it was the only way to have a chance at keeping people like you in-check.

Again, you're blaming one person, for not having the ability to be smarter than the combined research efforts of tens of thousands of psychologists. Freaking Social Darwinists.

Edited June 10, 2015 by vger

[Randazzo]

Comparing the inability of a consumer to know when he/she is being deceived, to children/mentally deficient.

When you add it all up, the range between the intelligence of the "assailant" and the victim are exactly the same.

...says the sociopath. You know, this would be how the idea of Hell came about, because it was the only way to have a chance at keeping people like you in-check.

Again, you're blaming one person, for not having the ability to be smarter than the combined research efforts of tens of thousands of psychologists. Freaking Social Darwinists.

You're resorting to hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.

[vger]

You're resorting to hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.

Calling one on a logical fallacy to avoid responding with any intelligence, is itself a logical fallacy. Don't worry though. This discussion will have no impact on the civil right to be a jerk.

[Randazzo]

Calling one on a logical fallacy to avoid responding with any intelligence, is itself a logical fallacy. Don't worry though. This discussion will have no impact on the civil right to be a jerk.

Should you ever choose to overcome the self-inflicted irony of your responses and attempt to respond properly, I'll keep an eye out. Until then, you clearly are not interested in anything but a fight.

[Fel]

Nobody blames the sheep for what happens to the flock. They blame the shepherd.

Only a child or person with a mental deficit could claim it's not their fault.

If I may, this is "Western Ideology" vs "Traditional Ideology" (Or whatever the proper vernacular is).

"Western Ideology" preaches individual freedom over the health of the nation.

"Traditional Ideology" preaches the health of the nation over individual freedom.

NEITHER is inherently bad, NEITHER are absolutely better than the other.

It is bad to be fixated fully on one or the other. Freedom at the cost of longterm security (read the bloody quote) is not a good thing. Small effect security over large effect freedom is also not a good thing. It is always a harmonic balance between the two that leads to fruition, not one overtaking the other.

I pointed out to him that perhaps she was put off by his haggling enough to disengage the entire negotiation, and we laughed and joked about it. Personally, I'd have just given the 385 if I thought it was worth it, because although basic bartering is considered normal by some, I know that others might take offense to it. Of course, there are other possibilities as to what happened.

The problem is bartering in an economy where prices are driven down due to market forces IS offensive. In countries where bartering is the norm the prices are typically inflated, the seller expects to sell lower than the listed price but gain more than the "absolute minimum" price. By choosing to barter when the prices is already being controlled by market forces the only person who profits is you, not the seller. (Well, unless the item is unsellable)

[vger]

Should you ever choose to overcome the self-inflicted irony of your responses and attempt to respond properly, I'll keep an eye out. Until then, you clearly are not interested in anything but a fight.

You certainly made no attempt to deny the being a social darwinist. In fact, you didn't deny anything.

"Western Ideology" preaches individual freedom over the health of the nation.

"Traditional Ideology" preaches the health of the nation over individual freedom.

NEITHER is inherently bad, NEITHER are absolutely better than the other.

No argument there. Though I cannot think of a scenario where individuals lying to other individuals for personal gain is EVER good for the health of a nation. If one can argue that it's alright for people to (insert appropriate profane word here) each other over for personal gain in one way, then there's little to say that many illegal crimes are not equally morally-ambiguous.

I can at least think of cases where this might be good for a governing body to do so. Instead of the alternative, "There's a mass-extinction-sized asteroid one week away from hitting us, and we don't know if we can stop it, but please don't panic." We all know how well that would work...

Edited June 10, 2015 by vger