 do they know that noticing hidden food pictures doesn't produce dopamine activity in the striatum?
Reducing human thought to chemical reactions is like reducing Shakespeare to pigment daubs on paper. We don't experience dopamine activity, we experience hunger.
That's right! It's not my total lack of self-control, it's my gosh-darned brain chemistry!
I know of one bakery that sends it's exhaust fumes out onto the street. I try to avoid it, but sometimes I forget. It's awful. I get pie withdrawal symptoms. My body cramps up and sometimes I just lie there whimpering on the sidewalk. Anyone who has ever suffered from this sickness knows better than to make cheap jokes at the expense of those afflicted. Now that they've isolated the physiology of the disease, let's hope they find a cure.
Mr. Slothrop brings up a good point. If dopamine in certain parts of the brain 'causes' hunger (or attention to hunger), it would do no good at all to 'try' and control your hunger. Your 'trying' would just be another another chemical reaction in your brain, inevitable and soulless as the operation of a natural law.
"Brain chemistry" and activity are the causes of all behavior, as well as the differences in behavior (including self-control).
When they find a specific mechanism, as in this case, the (MSM) headline always seems to imply that they'd previously thought the behavior was caused by magic; Pinker's "Ghost in the machine".
 (X=video games, porn, evil drugs...) because reading that headline permanently changed your brain, too, just like any other experience.
So, does the hunger cause the brain chemistry, or does the brain chemistry cause the hunger? Or does one simply say, the brain chemistry is the (sensation of) hunger?
The whole "brain chemistry" racket does present some basic causality issues, as it's not clear whether strange thoughts produce strange brain chemistry or the reverse.
This is no joke. The EPA has actually issued citations to bakeries for making too much fresh bread smell. It is considered pollution.I have one ancestor who had to get a licence to marry because the bride was only 18, but I can't remember how I found about where to find out the details of their licence.
Now I have the same problem. My 4xG/Gparents were married in 1802 but they were both only born in 1787. So if I'm right they were only 15!! Could they have married at that age even if they got a licence. If YES! where could I look for a copy of their licence. The marriage was in London.
licenses have nothing to do with age, they are issued where one or both parties is not known to the Vicar of the parish in which they wish to marry OR they are issued because the marriage is to be private, without banns for whatever reason (bride pregnant, often, or either party recently bereaved etc.
Marriage age before 1926 was 14 for boys, 12 for girls, with parental permission.
Doesn't Ancestry have the Vicar General index online now?
Before you go chasing licences, you need to see the actual entry in the parish records, which will tell you whether they married by Banns or by licence.Recruiting Lords in your Kingdom?

I hope eventually TaleWorlds implements more ways to recruit vassals and mercenaries into your Kingdom cause right now it’s very tedious to have to find the leader of the clan, persuade them to join you, then pay at least 500k for them to join you. I do like this system because it can get you out of some battles you might not want to fight or convert enemy vassals to your side but passively it can be very grindy. Maybe something like Warband would help with this and just have both systems implemented.

Just a thought I love the game!Illinois -7 Michigan State - Overlay of 1 Point - Illinois has won seven straight. They did endure a two-game losing streak prior to this latest run. MSU is playing UNDER.500 basketball at the moment, winning just four of their last ten. But Michigan has covered the current spread in each of the last nine games of this series. Michigan State stuns Illinois here.
Virginia Tech has won six of the last seven in this series.
Hokies are 6-1 Against The Spread in their last 7 home games.
The road team dog Georgia Tech won in this one.
Villanova won big here while easily covering the spread.
Kansas Jayhawks +3 (Opened at +1.5) Texas Longhorns - 3 Point Overlay (Opened as a 1.5 Poiner Overlay).
This one should be a PICK'EM leaning slightly on Texas.
KU has won their last five overall.
Texas has only won three in their last eight games overall.
The Jayhawks have won eight of the last ten games in this series.
This ended up being a push with Texas winning by 3 points.
Ole Miss is 9-1 Against The spread vs. Mizzou using the current spread.
Missouri lost to Mississippi on the road on February 6.
Ole Miss the road dog won here.I mean, Seattle usually gets most shows. We’re not super ignored. 

But more times than you’d think, an artist will do a tour that’s pretty much “East Coast + Chicago + Texas + California”. And it’s super rough. Or even a full US tour, with California as the only West Coast sites! 

And yes, CA should have multiple shows, it’s a spread out state. It only annoys me when the whole NW is skipped, but Los Angeles gets two shows, then Orange County and San Diego get their own. In Ohio terms — that’s like if Akron and Cleveland and Toledo all got their own shows, but they skipped Cincinnati lolTo the Editor:
Business schools that want to become more engaged with the liberal arts should look to our smaller public universities. As regional institutions, they are often focused on the needs of both community and business.
At Southern Oregon University, where I am dean of arts and letters, each business student is required to have a liberal arts minor. Faculty members work across disciplines to design student projects. And since many students at regional institutions plan to live and raise families in the community, they take ideas and values that affect their communities as seriously as they take business theory.
Edwin Battistella Ashland, Ore., Feb. 8, 2005Continue reading the main story<reponame>LaudateCorpus1/bottender
import Layout from '@theme/Layout';
import React, { FC } from'react';
import Translate from '@docusaurus/Translate';

import Showcase from '../components/Showcase';
import users from '../../data/users';

const Users: FC = () => {
  return (
    <Layout>
      <div className="mainContainer">
        <div className="showcaseSection">
          <div className="prose">
            <h1>
              <Translate>Who is using Bottender?</Translate>
            </h1>
          </div>
          <Showcase users={users} />
          <div className="prose">
            <p>
              <Translate>Is your project using Bottender?</Translate>
            </p>
            <p>
              Edit this page with a{' '}
              <a href="https://github.com/Yoctol/bottender/edit/master/website/data/users.js">
                Pull Request
              </a>{' '}
              to add your logo.
            </p>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </Layout>
  );
};

export default Users;
&gt; I'm not talking about the "you" part, as I too believe that is gone, but could you wake up again with a **different** "you" as you live now? 

If you do believe that the "you" part is gone, i.e. that the particular person who you were is now gone, then **YOU** do not wake up against with a different "you"; the most we could say is that **SOMEONE OR OTHER** wakes up and that this person is like you in qualitative respects (psychological in particular, but we could also say physical), e.g. they are very interested in philosophy, they laugh at dark jokes, and so on and so forth. Maybe this is what you meant. If so, we were already on the same page. I thought we were on the same page in the first paragraph of your post, but the remainder of your post made me seriously question whether we were.

&gt; But here is my question, if you exist now and you came to be from this  complexity in your brain, why can't "you" exist again in an endless  universe, if such a thing exist

The important bit to note is that *your brain*, as a particular object, would not be recreated either. A brain is a set of matter (maybe specifically organic matter) that is organized in a certain functional way (that either constitutes a mind or gives rise to it somehow), and thus not just a set of matter the functional organization of which does not matter. (A set would be something like a set of three particular numbers, e.g.