[MD] What is SOM?

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> Perhaps you don't find talk of the experiences of rocks and sponges
> confusing. Truth is I don't either. I find them laughable. What is 
> confusing is why anyone would talk that way.


DM: We have to talk some way and each way has implications
and assumptions. How do you want to talk about inorganic forms
of behaviour and activity? Does not 'law' side step how inorganic
patterns behave and feel? What does law mean or even tendency?
Is there someone following laws or preferences. Is your use
of concepts laughable? Please persuade me otherwise. 

[Krimel]
I think that the term experience carries way to much biological baggage to
be applied at the inorganic level. I don't think inorganic entities "behave"
either. But again I am willing to write this off as terminological
preference on my part.

Laws of nature are not what they used to be. In my view a solid natural law
is a Jungian synchronicity that occurs 100% of the time. A Jungian
synchronicity is a meaningful coincidence. It is the meaningful
juxtaposition of two or more events and the meaning we derive from lawlike
synchronicity is causality (in a very loose use of the term). Meaning is the
critical point. Similarly, laws can be expressed as probabilities. I think
probability is a much better term than preference. If it's all the same to
you I would just a soon skip the anthropomorphizing animism discussion.
Suffice it to say you never convinced me it was a good idea and I never
convinced you it wasn't.