[MD] Social level for humans only

[Krimel]

[Adrie]
So i'm honoring you by stating you are the opposite of an idiot.

[Krimel]
I am the opposite of insulted.

[Adrie]
i do not know wat is triggering you sometimes in your negative events,
supressing your own quality.

[Krimel]
It's a long story that seems to be ending badly.


[Adrie]
Now , maybe you are asking yourself  as for why i did, or do not engage in
Chaostheory / determinism.

[Krimel]
It had crossed my mind since you seem a clever sort.

[Adrie]
I do not believe in chaos, there is no chaos, chaos is a pattern of infinite
differentiation.
Determinism came upon chaostheory, just to get rid of the chaosidea.
Determinism is mostly used by creationists to avoid the
paths of GR, R, QP,EVOLUTIONTHEORY, etc , the path of proof , or the pathway
of good hypothetical models.

[Krimel]
The thing about scientific theories is they don't care what you believe. 

[Adrie]
Chaos, i do not believe in it , honestly, nor in the creator.
Determinism is low-entry to please the audience.

In Science , Krimel, in physiks, uncertainty is a certainty, a proven
certainty.

[Krimel]
So science agree with my take on the MoQ?

But let me point out that the oldest parts of the Mythos. The first stories
of most of the world's civilizations tell the story of order triumphing over
chaos. Check it out, Greek Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew even Aztec.

[Adrie]
models are attempts to observe the order hidden under the cloths of what we
expierience as chaos.

[Krimel]
Right models are conceptual structures, illusions that we use to filter in
static patterns of value and create meaning.

[Adrie]
you'r a differentiated thinker , Krimel,with interests in many field and a
wide-scala of visions, you do not have to search for a product.
you can handle all products...and you can enter all products,...why ditch in
simplifications?

[Krimel]
Thanks, I think that's even better than being the opposite of an idiot.

[Adrie]
I like to  talk about cephalopods a well, will step on nobody's foot.

[Krimel]
I figured out long ago I don't have the math skills to get a serious about
physics so I leave cosmology to cosmologist. I listen in as best I can but
what I hear from them is they are still thinking about it. So until they
have more to say I will leave them to it.

But I did hear and interesting squid story yesterday. In his lectures on
Philosophy of Mind John Campbell was talking about a behavioral theory of
consciousness that says the consciousness is behavior. So if you say you are
sad and you are frowning that _is_ sadness. Your private mental states _are_
what you do. Even if you could conceal your outward emotion responses we
could read your mental states by seeing which neurons are firing. So for
example, pain is correlated with the firing of Group C- nerve fibers and we
could say that when those fibers fire.

But says Campbell what about the squid? It when injured it gets injured it
behaves as though it has pain. But it doesn't have Group C fibers so either
it can't have pain or pain can't be Group C firing.

I'm still thinking about that one but I suspect it has to do with function.
After all any animal must be equipped with some kind of approach avoidance
system. Like amoebas in vinegar it has to have something to motivate it away
from low quality. 

BTW, that is also somewhat true of organic molecules. One of the things that
makes biochemistry work is the some molecules are hydrophilic and some
hydrophobic. Molecular love and hate relationships apply to oil as well.
Some we get these interesting complex relationships between water and fats
and molecules in love hate relationships imagine the probabilities! 

That is a very clear way to talk about this if we are following Dennett's
idea of the intentional stance. It is a useful way to communicate. But if we
were to take such talk seriously and attempt to justify our liberties
philosophically that would be going too far. 

Seriously, love molecules? 

But what about oxytocin?