as the author mentions below, this is his effective internal model, and his sharing it simply offers the opportunity for anyone else to read it, think about it, and take and apply what works for him or her.
that said, for me, it's not so easily applicable to interactions with others, such as with Bob and Alice. for issues in my own peabrain, i can try and logically explore the bases for my emotions, my triggers, and possible alternate solutions, which i can apply at any point in a particular journey or task. i have the ability and choice to attempt to alter my own course, in terms of actions and reactions, any time i start to be plagued by and cognizant of my own discomfort. in interactions with others, however, the applicability is limited. unfortunately, it rests on having the ability to understand the complex nuances of someone else's emotional triggers, subconscious or unconscious, and having some sort of reliable heuristic to predict their reactions and digressions.
personally, i don't have an issue with the simplification to positive/negative outcomes. sort of reduces emotional processing and synaptic fires to binary code, or an electrical circuits with switches and AC current.
my only issue with this has to do with the occasional lapse in recognition of the touch ID. if it can't read your fingerprint several times, it asks for your password code. touch ID is of course not theft-proof, but initially it's a slightly greater obstacle than a simple numeric code.
i pictured a kid having swallowed one, and being unusually attracted to the refrigerator…
i think parents will freak out as a general rule, but parents also have the responsibility not to give toys to their children that are not age appropriate, and/or with which, they cannot be sure their children will play responsibly. i'm sure there are a lot of kids for whom this won't be a problem, and they are seemingly punished for what has happened to others. I sort of resent the mindset that a federal commission should make sure that a commission becomes responsible for drawing parenting guidelines, and that rather than parents stepping up and taking responsibility for supervising and being involved with their children and playtime, the alternative is not to have toys on the market that are more mature in nature. Parents shouldn't have to waste their time teaching their kids to have a greater respect for natural things and toys; we should just simply ban them. You know, to avoid confusion.
Psychological is physical. For instance we can measure things like dopamine levels in the brain related to mood. Psychological outlook is relevant to physical well-being.
There is a distinction, though it's tricky to word. It's about what is a direct effect, and what is an indirect effect.
There is a feedback loop between abstract thoughts and effects on the body, so to make a proper distinction you want to ignore the feedback loop and look at where the inputs are.
A placebo's direct effect is not physical. The direct effect is that first thought that you are receiving treatment, before it even has a chance to affect your mood.
A kidney transplant's direct effect is mostly physical. It's filtering your blood at a rapid pace.
So technically mood has physical effects but by the time you reach that stage you've destroyed the meaning of the term "physical benefit" into meaning just "benefit". Feel free to suggest better terms, but please don't muddle the waters.
Yes, of course. A placebo headache medicine of course does not have the direct effect comparable to aspirin, acetaminophen or ibuprofen. It's direct effect is not physical, because it doesn't have one.
"No physical effect" means the same thing as "no effect", unless we are willing to discuss metaphysical effects.
The indirect effects are somehow the result of the user's expectation that there is a direct effect.
That is to say, "placebo effect" is not "the effect of the placebo object", obviously.
It's the emergent effect of the whole situation of someone being duped with a placebo.
Being duped with a placebo has direct, physical effects, while the placebo object has no effect.
>"No physical effect" means the same thing as "no effect"
See, that's the idea I'm not comfortable with. You are defining the term in a way which renders it basically meaningless, when there is an alternate definition that does have useful meaning.
I didn't say that. I believe that there are psychological benefits that have physical implications, and physical effects with psychological implications… As in depression can result in physical pain, and chronic pain can result in depression.
We don't even have ways in English (probably any language) to speak about internal states without resorting to dualism. The closest we can get is hardware/software analogies.
Wholeheartedly agree. Specific to the actual trial and error, of programming, when I first started learning C++ (a long time ago), I remember the dread of running the debug. Then coming up with a small number of errors in 10's of 1000's of lines of code, and having to comb through to see where I was missing a semi-colon… I think knowing to how to code from ground up is so important. Knowing the fundamentals, and not just knowing how to manipulate someone else's platform. Once you know how to do it, you can make the choice to take shortcuts, but if you start with the shortcuts, and they become unavailable, you're up a creek… I have a web-designer friend of mine that knows how to use Wordpress CSS very well. He can manipulate and research to problem solve. But I'd put dollars to donuts that if I asked him to write a CSS or any other program for that matter from scratch, he wouldn't have the foggiest.
I know this GitHub is geared toward helping students getting ideas up, running, and selling, so toward the latter, it's invaluable, and actually quite generous. I'm still an old fuddy-duddy, and think that it's best to understand how to build the mechanism before buying it off the shelf.
I can't be the only one that did that science experiment as a kid, looking at The Effect of Music on Seed Germination and Plant Growth. I had a control group, a classical music group, and a heavy metal group. Each group of music assigned plants was subjected to an hour of their music per day, and germination/sprouting rates and subsequent plant growth measured. The plants subjected to classical music germinated the quickest, and experienced a statistically relevant greater amount of growth by the end of the experiment period. Clearly, something is there in the response mechanism… Intelligent maybe? (…intelligent prefers classical over heavy metal? ;) )
Or, you can travel in our limousines, which will drop you at the front door, or instead, you may arrange for a cab, which may only drop you off at a designated cab dropping location, conveniently 3.2 miles away from our front door down at the bottom of the hill.
Are we going to treat WiFi according to airspace protocol? Can a company or operation claim ownership to a quasi-physically-contained airspace? Perhaps invoke claims of trespassing by other non-approved, non-financially viable, sources? If you're living/working/visiting under my roof, then my rules, my WiFI.
>Because (1) a jammer is an unlicensed transmitter and (2) jammers do not just jam with discretion they jam for as far as they reach and it is impossible to operate a jammer in such a way that you cover all the territory without extending beyond it in some places.
Jammers can interfere with people's ability to contact emergency services. Obviously in the case of WiFi this is not an immediate concern because 911 is currently reached through a different wavelength, but WiFi is integrating into infrastructure (WoT, etc...) such that jammers can be a real cause for concern (especially if they are operated by poorly trained people).
>If you're living/working/visiting under my roof, then my rules, my WiFI.
What about the scenario where you have an ISP that offers city-wide WiFi to its subscribers. A Marriott is within the bounds of this area, they block access to a service I pay for and they have approval to provide me with. Who is in the wrong?
> Can a company or operation claim ownership to a quasi-physically-contained airspace? Perhaps invoke claims of trespassing by other non-approved, non-financially viable, sources? If you're living/working/visiting under my roof, then my rules, my WiFI.
That's one way to look at it. But it doesn't square with an important fact, namely that under U.S. law, you don't own the RF spectrum, even though RF waves happen to exist "on" "your" property.
Keep in mind that in a civil society, property ownership and the autonomy that goes with it are largely social constructs that can and are limited by the rest of us. Marriott might imagine that it "owns" a conference facility and can do what it wants with it. Certainly for most purposes that's a reasonable approximation of the truth. But: Marriott gets to exclude, say, Alice from walking into the conference facility, not by virtue of some natural right, but solely because the rest of us have tacitly agreed that our police and, ultimately, our armed forces will back Marriott up if it chooses to do so.
(That is, of course, unless Marriott happen to have access to a militia or other armed force; @Rayiner has written about related topics in other threads here.)
And whether Marriott likes it or not, the rest of us, via our duly-elected or -appointed representatives, have decreed:
1. that the public airwaves are no one's private property; and
2. that in certain circumstances, "tying" arrangements, in which a seller requires a purchaser to buy an unwanted product or service B as a condition of being able to buy wanted product or service A, are unlawful --- that is to say, the seller's autonomy in respect of its goods and services only goes so far. [1]
It's therefore not an incoherent argument that Marriott may not require Alice, while in the conference facility, to use only Marriott's expensive WiFi network, as opposed to using, say, the phone in her pocket as a WiFi hotspot of her own.
I agree that the AI component is important to understand. Essentially we're talking about putting everything on a computer system, and installing the same OS on every "machine." One of the problems that I foresee mirrors that of Microsoft, in terms of monopoly, as well as the ongoing debate between PC vs Mac usage. Inevitably, the shared OS maker will have the monopoly, though others may try to dethrone it, or there will be a battle between two to three different systems each competing for market share, and proving almost incompatible with one another… until some Hackers develop a patch.
I would disagree. I know a lot of "normal people," and most use their browser to google or search using their preferred engine or a particular website, as well as load links from emails, or visit websites on the go.
Personally, I'm not sure that using a particular company or product's app really saves me any time. Half the time, the app takes forever to load or is so non-properly story-boarded, that I resort to google anyway. Maybe I'm the outlier.
that said, for me, it's not so easily applicable to interactions with others, such as with Bob and Alice. for issues in my own peabrain, i can try and logically explore the bases for my emotions, my triggers, and possible alternate solutions, which i can apply at any point in a particular journey or task. i have the ability and choice to attempt to alter my own course, in terms of actions and reactions, any time i start to be plagued by and cognizant of my own discomfort. in interactions with others, however, the applicability is limited. unfortunately, it rests on having the ability to understand the complex nuances of someone else's emotional triggers, subconscious or unconscious, and having some sort of reliable heuristic to predict their reactions and digressions.
personally, i don't have an issue with the simplification to positive/negative outcomes. sort of reduces emotional processing and synaptic fires to binary code, or an electrical circuits with switches and AC current.