[Arlo had asked] 1. What it could do differently "then" as opposed to "now"? Give me an example of what a "single animal" could do when it had the ability to respond to DQ, that it can no longer do.
[Platt] A combination of mutation and environment resulted in a particular animal's response to DQ. [Arlo] But what it (the single animal) do "then", when it could respond to DQ, that it can no longer do? [Arlo had asked] 2. When did single animals lose their ability to respond to DQ? Was it when "man" popped up? [Platt] No. It was when animals became static patterns. The man animal represented an increase in versatility and responses to DQ. [Arlo] Now I'm confused. Here you seem to be saying that the "cells" (read each individual cell) could respond to DQ, but the "animal" they formed could not? So let me ask again, was there ever one single animal that could respond to DQ? How did it behave differently? What could that single animal do that it is no longer capable of doing? [Arlo previously] Movement that is the result of "it's better here" is the result of DQ. [Platt] And when does that happen? When the wind blows in a different direction or the tide comes in? [Arlo] The static patterns we perceive as "wind" and "tide" are the result of inorganic patterns of value responding to DQ on the inorganic levels. Needless to say, the repertoire of response on this level is quite limited, but inorganic patterns today behave as they always have. They did not "lose" the ability to respond to DQ. Unless you can kindly point out to me how inorganic patterns behaved differently when they could respond to DQ? But let's just stick with biological patterns (such as animals) for now. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
