ellauri096.html on line 55: Michael Scriven (1964) tried to refute predictive determinism (the thesis that all events are foreseeable), by conjuring two players, “Predictor” who has all the data, laws, and calculating capacity needed to predict the choices of others. Scriven goes on to imagine, “Avoider”, whose dominant motivation is to avoid prediction. Therefore, Predictor must conceal his prediction. The catch is that Avoider has access to the same data, laws, and calculating capacity as Predictor. Thus Avoider can duplicate Predictor’s reasoning. Consequently, the optimal predictor cannot predict Avoider. Let the teacher be Avoider and the student be Predictor. Avoider must win. Therefore, it is possible to give a surprise test. This sounds silly. The Predictor can predict that the Avoider double guesses her. Both can fiture out that this will go on and on, until time runs out, and they still just sit on their asses doing nothing. Thing is, you must remember that the players are part of the game, not outside of it as idealists would have it.
ellauri096.html on line 672: Given that the structure of an econometric model consists of optimal decision-rules of economic agents, and that optimal decision-rules vary systematically with changes in the structure of series relevant to the decision maker, it follows that any change in policy will systematically alter the structure of econometric models.[9]
ellauri147.html on line 680:
ellauri181.html on line 539: Miten suhtautuvat arvot ja hyveet toisiinsa? Täysin ennustettavasti tietysti. Valuet on pelin optimal outcomes, virtuet on pelaajien strategiasettejä, jotka toivon mukaan edistävät optimaalisia outcomeja. Jos esim toivoo menestystä bisnixessä, pitää olla bisnisvaistoa, pitää myydä kalliilla ja ostaa halvalla ja kyynärpäillä huomaamattomasti jonossa.
ellauri264.html on line 198: Thus Jacob went back for the vessels to ensure they were used in the optimal way, i.e. by him. Had he not,
ellauri412.html on line 692: Dawkins is right. He says what Darwin told us. One guy's good is the other guy's bad. Rape feels great for the rapist, he would not do it otherwise. The atheist can perhaps categorize rape as undesirable, or unpleasant, or sub-optimal for society. But they have no real basis on which to label it objectively morally wrong. Your moral outrage at that child’s rape belies your atheism, my friend. Well, who needs objectivity, suum quique is quite enough.
xxx/ellauri104.html on line 255: The truth is this: Neurotransmitters are always regulated for optimal performance due to a process called Homeostasis. This is the body's naturally intelligent way of regulating itself by creating a optimal condition using whatever resources is available to the body to make it as healthy as possible. Therefore there is no such thing as too much or too little of neurotransmitters, unless you have a state of malnourishment.
xxx/ellauri104.html on line 257: When the body is in a certain state, be it in sleep, at rest, after a meal, after an emotional state etc, Neurotransmitter levels differ all the time. Measuring them at various states is the right way to do such scientific quantification. But even then, your body is responding to a stimuli and even then, your body is given a set of nutrients to work with to produce the optimal level of Homeostasis of the neurotransmitters. Therefore, understanding Homeostasis and how it works will lead you to understand that the levels of neurotransmitters is not a factor of schizophrenia at all.
8