[MD] Social level for humans only

[John Carl]

OK Krimel.  Don't answer my previous question.  Answer Adrie's instead.  You
make a lot of sense when you answer his questions.

Love molecules to you,

John

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

> [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?
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>