• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

materialism

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
I just figure out all material and mass have some properties in common, no matter how different they seem

they all contain:
mass
energy
shape
size
effect and motion
space


form and function is hard to define

i was thinking about Karl Marx's philosophy of materialism and when i compare different objects they all have these kinds of values
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 1:12 AM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Give that consciousness is embodied, and anyone who disagrees is clearly referring to their own deficiency in that regard, are we ourselves material or simply made of materials?
 

Tenacity

More than methods to the madness
Local time
Today 8:12 AM
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
440
-->
i was thinking about Karl Marx's philosophy of materialism and when i compare different objects they all have these kinds of values
Did you find or derive anything in regards to what that definition of value means in the context of your life?

Given that consciousness is embodied, and anyone who disagrees is clearly referring to their own deficiency in that regard, are we ourselves material or simply made of materials?
How does being material versus being simply made of materials differ?
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
Give that consciousness is embodied, and anyone who disagrees is clearly referring to their own deficiency in that regard, are we ourselves material or simply made of materials?

I am just thinking how humans use and consume materials and resources, and contribute to the economy,a human's relationship with different materials and objects. Whether material is source of philosophy truth over other things i haven't really delve on it. that is a more abstract philosophy.
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
the use value of a certain material really depends on two things

(a) what is possible when the human uses the object/material (possible use and function)

(b) what can the object become and transform into

invention is really coming up with different possible uses of an object/material.
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
question i want to know the answer"

why human use materials and resource

how do humans use materials and resources

why we need certain materials and resources

these are all motivations of why we choose to buy something
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 9:12 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
-->
Marx doesn't really have a 'philosophy of materialism'. His philosophy was the rejection of the metaphysical, but doesn't really give a reason as to why he rejects it. The philosophy he creates is more of a philosophy of history, that society messes up and then gets better again through the ages, until there's a 'communist state'. It's more of a philosophy that lacks metaphysical thought rather than an idea which stems from materialism. Materialism is something that's presupposed without argumentation in his work.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 6:12 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
Give that consciousness is embodied, and anyone who disagrees is clearly referring to their own deficiency in that regard, are we ourselves material or simply made of materials?

Mind uploading.

And identity.

Are people standing waves that can be copy-paste in the present?

If so we can copy from the past patterns that are identical to the person in the past.
---
Two camps exist

  1. exact pattern is the person's identity
  2. the wave must preserve the continuity
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today 2:12 PM
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
513
-->
Location
Your mother's basement
Give that consciousness is embodied, and anyone who disagrees is clearly referring to their own deficiency in that regard, are we ourselves material or simply made of materials?

Being embodied does not make metaphysics irrelevant.

Marx doesn't really have a 'philosophy of materialism'. His philosophy was the rejection of the metaphysical, but doesn't really give a reason as to why he rejects it. The philosophy he creates is more of a philosophy of history, that society messes up and then gets better again through the ages, until there's a 'communist state'. It's more of a philosophy that lacks metaphysical thought rather than an idea which stems from materialism. Materialism is something that's presupposed without argumentation in his work.

This. Marx was also wrong. Nietzsche got it right. Modernity is all the proof I need.

“It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.” - Nietzsche

This comes from Kant, "the thing in itself" absolute objective reality is not accessible to the human mind. e_e time and space as we know it is created in your brain to order reality and make sense of it, to be able to navigate and survive it. An external reality very much exists, but our experience of it is limited & subjective.

the use value of a certain material really depends on two things

(a) what is possible when the human uses the object/material (possible use and function)

(b) what can the object become and transform into

invention is really coming up with different possible uses of an object/material.

The brain synthesizes previously seen possibilities in order to create a possible new use. You can essentially only think of things you have seen be4 and recognize emerging patterns of possibility. This is why there is nothing new under the sun. Every possibility already exists, one just has to become aware of them.

External reality in itself does not only exist as you perceive it, you merely experience what your physical form is equipped to. This means the possibilities humans generate are limited by their form as a species at first and then by the tools they devise to gain further insight into reality.

Mind uploading.

And identity.

Are people standing waves that can be copy-paste in the present?

If so we can copy from the past patterns that are identical to the person in the past.
---
Two camps exist

  1. exact pattern is the person's identity
  2. the wave must preserve the continuity

You don't have access to your subconscious and other processes that make you you. Unless you recreate a 1 to 1 copy of the biological vessel in synthetic form, you won't be you or your past self. The identity will be defined by the new vessel, partially for the above reasons mentioned as well...perception of reality orders (interprets) reality.
 

Tenacity

More than methods to the madness
Local time
Today 8:12 AM
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
440
-->
Give that consciousness is embodied, and anyone who disagrees is clearly referring to their own deficiency in that regard, are we ourselves material or simply made of materials?

I am just thinking how humans use and consume materials and resources, and contribute to the economy,a human's relationship with different materials and objects. Whether material is source of philosophy truth over other things i haven't really delve on it. that is a more abstract philosophy.
the use value of a certain material really depends on two things

(a) what is possible when the human uses the object/material (possible use and function)

(b) what can the object become and transform into

invention is really coming up with different possible uses of an object/material.
question i want to know the answer"

why human use materials and resource

how do humans use materials and resources

why we need certain materials and resources

these are all motivations of why we choose to buy something

(The fields of behavioral economics and consumer psychology can explain and satisfy these questions and especially the very last question at greater breadth / depth.)

In short we all have a mix of subjective and objective senses of the meaning of value and utility, yet we cannot erase the co-dependence of the subject with the object, i.e. an object without a subject, without a use, the use of which is entirely subjective, while not actually useless, may appear useless until the application has been realized.

Materials and resources I view as very different, though even though either one can identify as the other - A material can be a resource, and a resource can be a material, yet subjective associations with each definition when applied in reality can affect which it is considered.

For simplicity and to attempt to answer Cog's question in my own way I'll stick to the original attempts at conceptualization of the meaning and value of being material versus being made of materials while attempting to also answer your questions on motivations towards buying/adoption/purchase decisions in connection to materials.

One area that comes to mind of a modern proliferation of the term "material" is Google's system of Material Design. Before this design system arose (and I clearly and vividly remember this, i.e. what Google looked like before and after the efficient implementation of this highly complex yet beautiful, unique, and scientific representation of design) Google was primarily deemed as being represented as a fun brand perhaps mainly by its' dynamic logo on its' homepage, which acted as a changing art wall. The concept was based on reflecting 3-Dimensional reality on 2D interfaces. It's representation of materials in closer reality to the comfort of what we are used to experiencing in our current realities becomes essentially soothing, yet behind it all there are objective measures for how each user interface or user experience component was created in order to then be scalable across multiple ever-changing devices, mobile and web, and now beyond.

The application of a definitively "more material" effect to existing materials lacking material effects resulting in experiencing a better reality led to the design system's widespread adoption.

When will we choose, then, Material Design over other systems of design when we choose to use products? When will we choose other systems of design over Material Design when we choose to use products? It comes down to science and math, which help to objectify art in a way such that it becomes standardized. Pixel ratios can be altered in order to achieve superior aesthetic resonance. Whatever design system achieves superior aesthetic resonance, whatever materialization of materials helps elicit the response of comfort in reality, is what we will always choose.

We are all made of materials from the beginning of time and before time, even before the beginning of evolution. If the material is the chicken, we are the egg, so to speak. And the cycle continues, and you can continue to argue which comes first if you want.

Yet humans do not aspire to be material - We scoff at it - How can we be defined by objects which are not animated, not lively, like ourselves?

Yet, inherently, we are material and dependent on constant materialization. Without materialization, we would not have innovation, and we would not have advancement and progress within humanity.

Our ability to have consciousness requires that upon self-reflection, we humanize materials in order to materialize materials and materialize humanity, in order to simply progress ourselves as individuals and as a humanity beyond existing limitations.

In fact, we as humanity have become conditioned so much to hate the concept of materials because we fear it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialization

Even merriam webster's dictionary "officially" defines "materialization" as associated with a ghost or apparition, with essentially the displacement of human existence with an everlasting looming spirit.

That's freaky.

I'll just end here, because, why not.

Actually, I mean, if you're open minded, you can see the concept of apparitions or ghosts as spirits or spiritual, and then proceed to redefine the connotation alternatively, however to argue that connotation with the mainstream / public may be far more difficult.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
i was thinking about Karl Marx's philosophy of materialism and when i compare different objects they all have these kinds of values
Did you find or derive anything in regards to what that definition of value means in the context of your life?

Given that consciousness is embodied, and anyone who disagrees is clearly referring to their own deficiency in that regard, are we ourselves material or simply made of materials?
How does being material versus being simply made of materials differ?

Chomsky was a proponent of the idea that complexity arose from basic principles interacting with each other, forming a unique substrate. He thought consciousness arose from basic functions interacting with each other on a complex level that the logistical connexions in the brain become unique from which it was created from. Obviously it breaks the law of conservation of energy, but complexity creates level of abstraction that wouldn't naturally be inferred.

I think I may need to delve deeper on the analogy I'm giving it relating to chemistry: Adding a phosphate or hydrogen molecule to a hydrocarbon chain gives different properties: The hydrocarbon chain can become saturated incapable of a function group becoming bonded to the chain. Adding another Phosphate group to DNA would completely mess up genetic encoding. There are atoms that can only exist in particular states like Hydrogen-7 with 6 Neutrons and it's half life is in 10^20 milliseconds compared to stable tritium with 12 years. Yet H-7 will have different properties than other isotopes and different properties to 6 neutrons and a proton.

Complexity can arise from simple forces interacting with another that are not present in their isolated form. This complexity is an abstraction of interacting fundamental forces.
Consciousness isn't rudimentary, it is based on the interacting of billions of unique entities, all obeying physical laws, but creating something unique from foundational forces.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 1:12 AM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Obviously it breaks the law of conservation of energy, but complexity creates level of abstraction that wouldn't naturally be inferred.
I present to you a board covered in square tiles arranged in a grid, each tile has a white side and a black side. By flipping these tiles we can "draw" simple bitmap images or encode simple messages in a format like Morse code or binary. Now when we do this are we creating something from nothing or merely rearranging what already was? Clearly in the most literal physical sense we are just rearranging tiles, no new matter or energy is being created, however in a more abstract sense we are creating meaning but not information, it is different.

Meaning is the interpretation of information, if you didn't know what Morse code was a message written in Morse would hold no meaning for you, if you couldn't read English these words that I'm writing would have no meaning to you. So although it's true that as matter is comprised of energy, that energy is comprised of information, the creation of meaning does not necessitate the creation of energy thus emergent complexity does not break the law of conservation of energy.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
Obviously it breaks the law of conservation of energy, but complexity creates level of abstraction that wouldn't naturally be inferred.
I present to you a board covered in square tiles arranged in a grid, each tile has a white side and a black side. By flipping these tiles we can "draw" simple bitmap images or encode simple messages in a format like Morse code or binary. Now when we do this are we creating something from nothing or merely rearranging what already was? Clearly in the most literal physical sense we are just rearranging tiles, no new matter or energy is being created, however in a more abstract sense we are creating meaning but not information, it is different.

Meaning is the interpretation of information, if you didn't know what Morse code was a message written in Morse would hold no meaning for you, if you couldn't read English these words that I'm writing would have no meaning to you. So although it's true that as matter is comprised of energy, that energy is comprised of information, the creation of meaning does not necessitate the creation of energy thus emergent complexity does not break the law of conservation of energy.

I was speaking specifically to Chomsky's point, he believed that consciousness was a unique phenomena that could not be quantified by the atoms that comprise neurons, which in turn comprise the anatomy of the brain. He thought consciousness was a product of foundations, that is we cannot be conscious without a brain, but the brain could not be explained solely on the interaction of atoms.

This is what I meant by breaking the law of conservation of energy: Energy cannot be created without input, so consicousness by that logic isn't a unique phenomena, it is based on pre-existing properties bound by physical forces that have interacted with other forces so we can observe synchronicity between said forces. The complexity itself creates layered complexes which seem to have an essence independent of atomic truths but that doesn't seem to be the case: We operate in layers of abstraction for comprehensive ability. His argument resembles that of the god of the gaps argument, that is god in contrast to steady evolution of uni-cellular bodies to multi-cellular, organelles, organisms to eventual self-awareness. His attribution is forgoing the process of understanding the complexity by positing that consciousness is not a product of the deep interreationalship between atomic forces.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
So yes, I agree with you on your point but that point was not the point I was making.
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
(The fields of behavioral economics and consumer psychology can explain and satisfy these questions and especially the very last question at greater breadth / depth.)

My view is that consumer psychology doesn't explain alot of things, and neo classical economics concepts such as marginal utility doesn't explain why we want or need or product or material.

exercepts from economics article in wikepedia.

Classical economics tended to stress the benefits of trade. Its theory of value was largely displaced by marginalist schools of thought which sees "use value" as deriving from the marginal utility that consumers finds in a good, and "exchange value" (i.e. natural price) as determined by the marginal opportunity- or disutility-cost of the inputs that make up the product. Ironically, considering the attachment of many classical economists to the free market, the largest school of economic thought that still adheres to classical form is the Marxian school.

use value and exchange value is displaced by marginal utility and marginal opportunity?



"Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility"[12]:48 Robinson also pointed out that because the theory assumes that preferences are fixed this means that utility is not a testable assumption.


WTH does that even mean?
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
the philosophy of physicalism is closely related to materialism. the opposite of physicalism is spiritualism, idealism or whatever.

physicalism is the arguement that everything is inherently physical in nature and anything extra (metaphysical) or intangible is nonsensical.

the use value of a meterial depends on how on the desire, use, and purpose (function) of the material.

the purpose of an car is transportation

the purpose of a book is to inform you and incrase your knowledge
the purpose of using a computer is to communicate with other people on internet

the purpose of a weapon (sword) is to chop down people and kill enemies

what is this uility of a material and why we buy it depends on desire, use and purpose.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 6:12 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
the philosophy of physicalism is closely related to materialism. the opposite of physicalism is spiritualism, idealism or whatever.

When I read this my head cleared up quite a bit. Usually, I feel powerless and controlled by my circumstances, but I know it is just resistance my brainwaves encounter. Everything is brainwaves, all subjectivity. That is spiritual and physical at the same time, the same feeling. It is control and freedom at the same time. Brain waves can be directed, they're what keeps us alive.

You can feel powerful when you control your external circumstances.
You can feel powerful when you control your internal circumstances.

If either becomes too hard/harsh is when the problem occurs.
I cannot control the external so the internal has problems, and vice versa.

Lack of control and helplessness are tied together.
That is what spirituality is supposed to solve.
Spirituality gives a sense of internal control as I experienced just now.

Idealism is a meta construct of spiritualism. If internal control is possible then it is outside the material. You can ascend from the material (all is matter) and enter luminal consciousness. The physical is said to be all that exists and the spiritual does not.
All spiritual experiences are physical lacking incorporeality.

If all subjectivity is brainwaves then things have to be looked at differently. Waves need a medium so consciousness is only possible if the medium transmits the message. That medium is not material because of how the physical is composed. The physical is quantum and the material is Newtonian.

Brainwaves are nonlocal, entangled and are superpositioned. As long as the waves stay organized, which they do across space and time, a song is being played. Everything is coherent in a quantum physical plain of being.
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
if all materials , resources are not created equal price and value.

obivous, there is a difference in value and price between products and resoruces, and different types of materials.

economics is rooted and based on inequality.

assume in a hypothetical world, all products and materials have the same price and value, it would be some kind of communism, like a house is worth the same as a chair or a paperclip.


i honestly not really concern about anything immaterial or metaphysical at this thread, because its the point of discussion, i am concerned more about physicalism and materialism, and how humans use material and resources in the economy. or the utility value of a certain material .
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
physicalism = materialism, anything beyond is abstract and metaphyiscal

i am interested in the question " what is form?"

labor and work is applied to a material to change its mass, energy, form, state

every material/mass has many possible states, but limited . for example, water can be boiled, cooled down, or remain in room temperture.
 

Tenacity

More than methods to the madness
Local time
Today 8:12 AM
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
440
-->
"Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility"[12]:48 Robinson also pointed out that because the theory assumes that preferences are fixed this means that utility is not a testable assumption.
WTH does that even mean?

(Meant to send this earlier)

Utility is just anything which has value. That value can be subjective.

For example, think of your favorite food.

You can have x amount of food which would leave you feeling 80% full, but not 100% full.

Or

You can have y amount of food which would leave you feeling bloated and uncomfortable.

If you pick x amount of food, perhaps that amount of utility is better because it is more valuable to you compared to the pain and diminishing returns of y amount of food.

But, add in the new information that you are going to work and you know you won’t be able to eat for 6 hours. Your utility might then change based on the assessment that you’ll put up with being bloated for a the greater, y amount of food since you know you’ll be hungry later.

Utility can be applied to anything. It's subjective value of preference. It becomes somewhat more objective and predictable if you’re an economist but even then is it unpredictable.

Economics is objectively subjective due to dependence on multiple factors including human nature, for example, seasonal changes - Prices go up during the holidays due to increased demand and strain on workers, time, etc. Supply and demand values are constantly changing - you might be interested in looking into procurement.
____

Not directly related to your question, leaving it here anyways.
Form, I think has evolved in meaning. We used to value form over function because form itself provided a representation of value. However, function tends to matter more in this day and age when most of our reliance is on connections which can be considered invisible. This creates the effect in which form only matters in instances it serves a purpose, and if it doesn’t, it is recycled (hopefully) then deleted or discarded. That is how form works in economics.
__

why we want or need or product or material.
As I said before - Behavioral Economics answers this and more
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
I just figure out all material and mass have some properties in common, no matter how different they seem

they all contain:
mass
energy
shape
size
effect and motion
space


form and function is hard to define

i was thinking about Karl Marx's philosophy of materialism and when i compare different objects they all have these kinds of values

We haven't really evolved the technology for a particle/molecular replicator / chemical configurator, so until we do that transmutation of one material to another can't be a precedent for an economic system:

"Hey guys, we don't have Beryllium, but we have an abundance of Hydrogen or it's compound Helium, let's get this bread!"

The world and its material are atomical but we cannot harness the objectivity of the world in such a way that values of all objects could be determined objectively.

A utilitarian approach would be the most logical, but economic systems were created to service the individual, which at its core is not a logical system.
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
I just figure out all material and mass have some properties in common, no matter how different they seem

they all contain:
mass
energy
shape
size
effect and motion
space


form and function is hard to define

i was thinking about Karl Marx's philosophy of materialism and when i compare different objects they all have these kinds of values

We haven't really evolved the technology for a particle/molecular replicator / chemical configurator, so until we do that transmutation of one material to another can't be a precedent for an economic system:

"Hey guys, we don't have Beryllium, but we have an abundance of Hydrogen or it's compound Helium, let's get this bread!"

The world and its material are atomical but we cannot harness the objectivity of the world in such a way that values of all objects could be determined objectively.

A utilitarian approach would be the most logical, but economic systems were created to service the individual, which at its core is not a logical system.


i am trying to figure out the common properties in all matter/mass/material, and how they can be modified. what is possible. what does an orange have in common with a water bucket?
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
i really dont believe in neoclasical school of uitlity and subjective theory of value, because its hard to quantify, although the marxian school is not correct either. the cost of production is as correct as uliity. we need a new paradigm.

mass and weight/material have these 3 values, exchange value, production value, and self use value.

although i will look in behavior economics further into depth.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,669
-->
Location
Ireland
I just figure out all material and mass have some properties in common, no matter how different they seem

they all contain:
mass
energy
shape
size
effect and motion
space


form and function is hard to define

i was thinking about Karl Marx's philosophy of materialism and when i compare different objects they all have these kinds of values

We haven't really evolved the technology for a particle/molecular replicator / chemical configurator, so until we do that transmutation of one material to another can't be a precedent for an economic system:

"Hey guys, we don't have Beryllium, but we have an abundance of Hydrogen or it's compound Helium, let's get this bread!"

The world and its material are atomical but we cannot harness the objectivity of the world in such a way that values of all objects could be determined objectively.

A utilitarian approach would be the most logical, but economic systems were created to service the individual, which at its core is not a logical system.


i am trying to figure out the common properties in all matter/mass/material, and how they can be modified. what is possible. what does an orange have in common with a water bucket?

Plastics are made up polymer chains, polymer chains are just hydrocarbon chains made from carbon and hydrogen, there's also adhesives, dye colour, maybe BPA and such. Oranges also comprise of these hydrocarbon chains + oxygen (carbohydrate), and a lot of other small things. I can't break down all the constituents of an orange and their arrangement, chemical bond and R/S molecule, but mainly hydrocarbon chains, proteins (amino acids):

4556

as you can see carbon and hydrogen are present, along with a double and single bonding oxygen molecule and an R group that distinguishes between amino acid types.

Do not fret @sushi, the common properties of all mass is just atoms. It is just particles (or strings vibrating at different frequencies). Sub-atomic particles, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, positrons, electrons..... then chemicals like hydrogen, with 2 hydrogen combining to helium, then rare interactions under set conditions between helium and hydrogen can create lithium.. skip a few logical processes and you get carbon oxygen and nitrogen, these compounds are the building blocks of organic chemistry, these chemicals are embedded in biochemical functions which are subsumed by biological organisms like plants, which are consumed by humans and herbivores. There are a LOT of processes but they are fundamental to the world.
 

gilliatt

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:12 AM
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
425
-->
Location
usa
The truth about Karl Marx was, his whole concept was to deprive man of his right to life, to deny all rights to the man of ability, atone for what man has earned. Marx the mystic, the collectivist, a street corner evangelist, the man of envy. In economic classes, Marxism, Keynesianism- how you know what is wrong with this world. (Get rid of government schools, they are failures as for as people are concerned) there is no masses in my country, we are individualist.)
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
form function effect experience

that is how a human judge a product/object/material before buying it

experience is similar to quality, and purpose (use) is similar to function

experience= quality, purpose= function

for example , to judge whether a house has value or not, you have to look at is form function effect experience. (effect and experience seems to be same, but are different in a way i cant really explain it)
 

Rook

enter text
Local time
Today 2:12 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
2,545
-->
Location
look at flag
How many acres of forest could've been planted with that research grant?
 

sushi

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 12:12 PM
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
1,735
-->
what is the source of value in a material, product, or object

how to define value, and how to create value in a material?
 
Top Bottom