Dennis Hackethal

Any explanation of human behavior involving brains and their chemistry can at best be parochial. Since our computers are universal, we know that they could run any algorithm the brain runs. A computer can, in principle – although we don’t yet know how to program it to – run whatever algorithms make a person, including an addict. A computer made of metal and silicon has neither a brain nor hormones nor any other allegedly relevant chemistry, yet it could still simulate an addict. (Here, ‘simulate’ does not mean ‘fake’ or ‘mimic’ – it basically means ‘give rise to’, ‘instantiate’. A computer running such a program would literally contain a person.)

So the prevailing explanation violates computational universality.

The prevailing explanation is immoral because it views people as mindless machines executing commands based on their brain chemistry. That’s dehumanizing. It’s what animals do, but not people.

Prevailing theories

The prevailing theories around addiction (physical and mental) are phrased in terms of physical things. Consider these quotes from a medically reviewed article by the Cleveland Clinic:

[A]ddiction is a disease — it’s a chronic condition. The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) defines addiction as a chronic brain disorder. Addiction doesn’t happen from having a lack of willpower or as a result of making bad decisions. Your brain chemistry changes with addiction.

And:

Behavioral addictions can occur with any activity that’s capable of stimulating your brain’s reward system.

And:

A significant part of how addiction develops is through changes in your brain chemistry.

Substances and certain activities affect your brain, especially the reward center of your brain.

Humans are biologically motivated to seek rewards. […] When you spend time with a loved one or eat a delicious meal, your body releases a chemical called dopamine, which makes you feel pleasure. It becomes a cycle: You seek out these experiences because they reward you with good feelings.

And:

Over time, the substances or activities change your brain chemistry, and you become desensitized to their effects. You then need more to produce the same effect.

In other words, the core of this ‘explanation’ is desensitization: your brain gets used to certain chemicals that feel good, so then you do more of whatever gets your brain those chemicals. A higher dose is required for the same effect.

How is this theory new?

Not a doctor or therapist. This discussion contains no medical advice.

Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.

I see. It’s the hyphen being followed by a space that threw me off. Did you get that from Dutch? I know German has it, too, but I don’t think English does. ‘Zu series’ might work.

Providing the source doesn’t fix the (potential) copyright violation, if that’s what you’re suggesting.

‘Honduran Supreme Court declares zones for employment and economic development (ZEDEs) unconstitutional’

We will update you on news, events, and do longer form write-ups […]

‘longer-form’

[…] on the projects discussed in the talks, […]

You mentioned the talks in the previous sentence. Remove “discussed in the talks” and instead say ‘discussed projects’ or ‘projects that were discussed’.

as we now have many more news sources we didn’t yet know about.

Don’t explain yourself to your readers. Remove this part.

In the coming period, expect us to pick up on many of the talks’ subject matter.

False possessive

Zu- series of popup projects

That hyphen looks out of place.

The Honduran Supreme Court still needs to publish an explanatory addendum on the passed law to explain how (existing) ZEDEs will be dealt with after this ruling.

Passive voice hides accountability. Who will deal with ZEDEs? Use active voice accordingly.

Prospects for Próspera and other ZEDEs look dire and in a recent post […]

The alliteration threw me off a bit here. And if they’re dire they’re not really prospects. ‘Outlook’ might work better here.

lighter taxes and regulations

‘lower taxes and lighter regulations’ (I don’t think taxes can be ‘light’)

achieved via allowing

‘by allowing’