In article <932301399.223519 at server.australia.net.au>, "John" <johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> wrote:
>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7mq3vk$l6q at dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
>Since everyone is interested in this of late ...
Oh, great. We have some royal text to look at publicly here.
Lets see.
>EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 14 JULY 1999 AT 14:00:00 ET US
>Contact: John Beckman, Dir. of Public Affairs
>john.beckman at nyu.edu>212-998-6848
>New York University
>NYU researchers uncover the neurobiology of decision-making
>Findings By Glimcher and Platt Challenge Paradigm First Proposed 300 Years
>Ago by Descartes
>How do the brains of humans and animals make decisions - what direction to
>move, what food to eat, where to sleep?
Ok, first we need to define decision, or don't we?
The decisions is based on what?
What are the roots of the decision?
Are they mechanical operation
or inherent intents, connected to the depest roots
of your being?
Isn't that the question here?
> Decision theory, a branch of the
>social sciences developed by economists and psychologists
> to explain behavior,
Ok, so economists, who are only interested in maximization
of the rate of sucking, "developed" the "explanation" of
decision. Good start.
The most corrupt present the picture of some of the most
significant aspects of life.
Now, the psychologists, who deny the very existance
of the subject of their own study,
by denying the existance of a psyche as such,
also "contributed" in this "study".
But psychologists themselves are talking about what?
They are talking about machine aspect of human being
and the same exploitation thereof.
Those cunning pathological liars, seemingly utterly incapable of
comprehending that their entire "science" is a lie.
It is based on a lie.
Either you remove the word psyche from your psycho-sucking-ology,
or you accept
that there is something beyond
the purely mechanical level,
on which you operate.
Psyche-ology is the science about psyche, and what do
you have at the moment with it?
So, the economist, which is corrupt materialist, joined
another conman, standing next to the priest, to "explain"
"behavior", and what is "behavior" on the first place?
> has long proposed that humans and animals decide what to do in a
>given situation by first assessing the relative value
Now they bring in the "value", and how are they going to measure it?
> of each possible option
Incorrect. It is IMPOSSIBLE to consider EACH possible option.
What you have is a certain set of options, based on current
set of beliefs. Those options, that are peddled by the system
and associated peddlers are assumed to be sufficient and complete,
else you would not even be able to begin that "study".
And they are IN-sufficient and IN-complete, you see.
Or are they?
You know the meaning of life, by any humble chance?
You know where we are all going?
Hey, tell ya a secret.
According to the most famous physicist,
you've got about 40 years to go.
At that time, the population will grow to the point,
where it will become COMPLETELY and UTTERLY unsustainable.
And the problem you have
is that the person that asserted that
is one of your most brilliant brains indeed.
And even he himself does not see a solution,
and yet he sees the problem in the most definite
and specific terms.
You wanna go argue with him?
Good luck.
> and then selecting the option which is of greatest value.
To whom?
