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 <[email protected]> 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 > 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
