"Is the decision determined by the inputs alone, or does the person making the decision change the outcome?"
If you count the internal feedback loops of the neuronal wiring (generated through previous experiences) also as "inputs" to the final decision making process (which I feel is justified), then the answer to both halves of the question would be "yes". No two humans will do the same thing because no two humans have exactly the same subjective experiences that shape their neural topography.
"Are peoples' actions determined purely by physical processes, or is there something ineffable that has to be considered to explain how people behave?"
Just because we lack the ability to sufficiently track and understand the underlying physical wiring due to the massive complexity that it creates doesn't mean that those physical processes aren't sufficient to answer the question. I think the question IS answerable, theoretically if not currently in practice.
I think it's more subtle than that: it's not that you know the choices that someone will make, it's the fact that you CAN know the choice someone will make in the future means that it is guaranteed to happen and is thus not actually a choice but already pre-determined. You could say it is deterministic...
Monsanto does label their products as GMOs. Their customers see them all the time. That's specifically why they purchase them.
Their customers are farmers. Not you. Monsanto doesn't sell corn to supermarkets. They sell seeds to farmers. There would be no fear if not for the organic industry's obviously successful anti-GMO propaganda smear campaign.
It's because vaccines aren't always 100% effective in 100% of people, nor are they claimed to be. Something that's only 90% effective will likely still protect 99% of the population through herd immunity.
For a better idea of how and why this works, this video provides a pretty good explanation.
Well, it's a typical catch-22: people want these things extremely tested (which they are) and regulated. Testing and regulation is expensive on top of already highly expensive high-tech science R&D. Hence, there's a very, very high barrier to entry in these industries and it's left up to the mega-corps that can afford it.
What would stop a company like Monsanto that sues companies for geting their seed stock contaminated with GMs from suing you for not having paid a license because that jellyfish gene in that GMO Cheeto you ate migrated into your DNA and has shown up on a recent blood test?
Seriously, your biggest argument is that a science fiction series isn't 100% accurate to currently known laws of physics? How far back in the past do you think we'd have to go before our technology would look like magic to them?
The beauty of the Star Trek universe is that people have the capability to define themselves what is meaningful to them and pursue it without having to worry about if they will be able to afford to feed, clothe, and house themselves. For some people, that might be nothing but seeing how many other people they can fuck. I believe for a lot more people, that meaning will come from creative or scientific endeavors.
I'm sorry, but you have some sort of noble-savage view of human beings, or a view that supposes the existence of a soul (i.e a view based on philosophy or religion).
LOL. There aren't enough LOLs in the world for this sentence.
If there really was such a thing as "post-scarcity", or if it were even physically possible, we would still be just another species of animal. We would still be nothing more than biological organisms following our perceived self interest.
Nanotechnology research aims at this very goal with our very biology as proof of concept showing that atomically precise manufacturing is possible, and I believe it's just a matter of when, not if. So we're animals. So what? You think that we're constrained by biology to have no other interests than eating and fucking?
The number of people who would risk their lives for some "meaningful" reason - when there was no material one - in deep space for no material benefit would be in the fraction of single digits.
Star Trek gets away with the no-money concept because it's a post-scarcity society where you can conjure up almost anything from your replicator or holodeck. Even if we did have this technology today, people would still want to do something meaningful with their lives. Money isn't the only incentive for people to work: some people want to accomplish things for their ego, people join an organization such as Starfleet for the feeling of belonging, or even just to alleviate boredom. I would think that on/. of all places, people would recognize that some people do just work for no reason (FOSS anyone?)
Speaking of keyboards (of the musical variety types), it's no longer possible for us to fix some older keyboards because originally the weights under the keys were made of lead because it was dense and the weights could be relatively small. Now these parts aren't available any longer because of lead restrictions, and attempts to replace lead keyweights with steel ones resulted in the keyweights having to be so large to get the same weight (and hence the feel) that they don't fit in older keyboard actions. Sure we don't want kids sticking toys in their mouth that might contain lead, but why make such a broad restriction that it affects something like this?
Because Monsanto doesn't sue farmers who are found with patches of their products in their fields; they sue farmers who intentionally harvest and replant entire crops of Round-Up Ready plants without paying for it. There has been a lawsuit just like you suggested; the entire case was thrown out because the farmers bringing it couldn't provide a single example of where Monsanto has sued innocent farmers; Percy Schmeiser and Vernon Bowman were both found to be intentionally infringing on Monsanto's patents. If you could cite examples to the contrary that actually support your original argument, you would be the first to do so. Ever.
But I guess I'm just stupid for allowing things like "facts" to cloud the issue instead of just spouting out propaganda to stick it to The Man.
It certainly is "not inherently toxic" to humans, as humans are not insects, don't have alkaline guts, and the Cry proteins are incapable of harming humans in the same way that they kill insects by their very nature. I suggest you actually learn something about the very issues you are trying to argue before you suggest others to look up definitions. Simply saying "OMG pesticide!" shows how unfamiliar you are with the entire topic that you're trying to argue, so why should anyone listen to anything you've said at all?
Conventionally bred crops and other plants have NO testing for safety and can and have been harmful. GMO food, OTOH, goes through a variety of tests to show a reasonable level of safety. Why wouldn't a company do this? You think that companies would be ok with insufficient testing that might allow a dangerous product to hit the market, opening them up to a large scale class action lawsuit that could potentially kill that company off?
And personally, I think I should have the right to not be used as a lab rat for such experiments.
You're right; that's why these experiments are done. Using actual lab rats.
Most kenjutsu schools and techniques I have seen teach you to block with the flat side of the blade as a deflective surface, never the sharpened portion. If you know differently, I'd be interested to see any clips, demonstrations, or explanations you might know of. Thanks.
You're right; your one little anecdote shows that cops can't be trusted with guns, and that we should confiscate all guns from all cops immediately. Seriously?
This, of course, forgetting that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. People are happy to call the police when the shit hits the fan, but actually putting security with loaded guns in schools in the first place? That's just crazy/paranoid/expensive/dangerous!
Also, this says absolutely nothing about the ridiculous number of inner cities kids that are killed with guns in their own neighborhoods every day, mostly young black kids killing other young black kids which sparks little-to-no outrage or knee-jerk legislation. So, do we really hate kids getting shot, or only certain groups of kids in certain locations?
The fact that the "every now and then someone goes bonkers and shoots up a bunch of elementary school kids" is such a big huge news item that goes on for weeks shows just how rare this event actually is and in the context of gun crime statistics is... well, insignificant. Sure it has a huge emotional impact because children, but as far as some huge epidemic, it is not. Legislation that affects an entire nation probably should not be made due to emotional knee-jerking. More often than not it does nothing to solve the actual problem but has related negative consequences also.
Slashdot Mirror
If you count the internal feedback loops of the neuronal wiring (generated through previous experiences) also as "inputs" to the final decision making process (which I feel is justified), then the answer to both halves of the question would be "yes". No two humans will do the same thing because no two humans have exactly the same subjective experiences that shape their neural topography.
Just because we lack the ability to sufficiently track and understand the underlying physical wiring due to the massive complexity that it creates doesn't mean that those physical processes aren't sufficient to answer the question. I think the question IS answerable, theoretically if not currently in practice.
I think it's more subtle than that: it's not that you know the choices that someone will make, it's the fact that you CAN know the choice someone will make in the future means that it is guaranteed to happen and is thus not actually a choice but already pre-determined. You could say it is deterministic...
Their customers are farmers. Not you. Monsanto doesn't sell corn to supermarkets. They sell seeds to farmers. There would be no fear if not for the organic industry's obviously successful anti-GMO propaganda smear campaign.
This is false. Monsanto doesn't produce any deliberately made sterile products. It's amazing how often this blatant lie is repeated as fact.
If you think that's bad, wait until the countersuit...
For a better idea of how and why this works, this video provides a pretty good explanation.
Well, it's a typical catch-22: people want these things extremely tested (which they are) and regulated. Testing and regulation is expensive on top of already highly expensive high-tech science R&D. Hence, there's a very, very high barrier to entry in these industries and it's left up to the mega-corps that can afford it.
Biology.
99.99999...% of all species that ever lived have never built a skyscraper either.
Seriously, your biggest argument is that a science fiction series isn't 100% accurate to currently known laws of physics? How far back in the past do you think we'd have to go before our technology would look like magic to them?
The beauty of the Star Trek universe is that people have the capability to define themselves what is meaningful to them and pursue it without having to worry about if they will be able to afford to feed, clothe, and house themselves. For some people, that might be nothing but seeing how many other people they can fuck. I believe for a lot more people, that meaning will come from creative or scientific endeavors.
LOL. There aren't enough LOLs in the world for this sentence.
Nanotechnology research aims at this very goal with our very biology as proof of concept showing that atomically precise manufacturing is possible, and I believe it's just a matter of when, not if. So we're animals. So what? You think that we're constrained by biology to have no other interests than eating and fucking?
These people would probably disagree. Thankfully, not everyone has the same outlook on life as you do.
Star Trek gets away with the no-money concept because it's a post-scarcity society where you can conjure up almost anything from your replicator or holodeck. Even if we did have this technology today, people would still want to do something meaningful with their lives. Money isn't the only incentive for people to work: some people want to accomplish things for their ego, people join an organization such as Starfleet for the feeling of belonging, or even just to alleviate boredom. I would think that on /. of all places, people would recognize that some people do just work for no reason (FOSS anyone?)
Speaking of keyboards (of the musical variety types), it's no longer possible for us to fix some older keyboards because originally the weights under the keys were made of lead because it was dense and the weights could be relatively small. Now these parts aren't available any longer because of lead restrictions, and attempts to replace lead keyweights with steel ones resulted in the keyweights having to be so large to get the same weight (and hence the feel) that they don't fit in older keyboard actions. Sure we don't want kids sticking toys in their mouth that might contain lead, but why make such a broad restriction that it affects something like this?
Something similar happens in Roger Williams' Metamorphosis of the Prime Intellect. Fantastic story, IMHO.
But I guess I'm just stupid for allowing things like "facts" to cloud the issue instead of just spouting out propaganda to stick it to The Man.
[citation needed]
The rest of your comment shows that you do not, in fact, understand.
Yes they are.
It certainly is "not inherently toxic" to humans, as humans are not insects, don't have alkaline guts, and the Cry proteins are incapable of harming humans in the same way that they kill insects by their very nature. I suggest you actually learn something about the very issues you are trying to argue before you suggest others to look up definitions. Simply saying "OMG pesticide!" shows how unfamiliar you are with the entire topic that you're trying to argue, so why should anyone listen to anything you've said at all?
You can use more Roundup, but that's instead of using other, more toxic herbicides. Compared to some other herbicides, Roundup is relatively benign.
[citation needed]
[citation needed] If you mean Seralini's study, that's hilarious.
BWAHAHAHA!
Conventionally bred crops and other plants have NO testing for safety and can and have been harmful. GMO food, OTOH, goes through a variety of tests to show a reasonable level of safety. Why wouldn't a company do this? You think that companies would be ok with insufficient testing that might allow a dangerous product to hit the market, opening them up to a large scale class action lawsuit that could potentially kill that company off?
You're right; that's why these experiments are done. Using actual lab rats.
Most kenjutsu schools and techniques I have seen teach you to block with the flat side of the blade as a deflective surface, never the sharpened portion. If you know differently, I'd be interested to see any clips, demonstrations, or explanations you might know of. Thanks.
You're right; your one little anecdote shows that cops can't be trusted with guns, and that we should confiscate all guns from all cops immediately. Seriously?
Also, this says absolutely nothing about the ridiculous number of inner cities kids that are killed with guns in their own neighborhoods every day, mostly young black kids killing other young black kids which sparks little-to-no outrage or knee-jerk legislation. So, do we really hate kids getting shot, or only certain groups of kids in certain locations?
The fact that the "every now and then someone goes bonkers and shoots up a bunch of elementary school kids" is such a big huge news item that goes on for weeks shows just how rare this event actually is and in the context of gun crime statistics is... well, insignificant. Sure it has a huge emotional impact because children, but as far as some huge epidemic, it is not. Legislation that affects an entire nation probably should not be made due to emotional knee-jerking. More often than not it does nothing to solve the actual problem but has related negative consequences also.