> to analyse the earliest beginnings of "instinctual" behavior to find explanations that did not require an ad
>hoc resort to EITHER "inborn programming" OR "thinking purposefully".
Did not get that one. Guess an embryo has a load of programs.
For me loads branching in and out the third emotion generator seemed
like what some call instinctive, but I did not get them in very well,
seemed to far away, and not that interesting for me at that time.
The main emotion generators seemed to have primary and secondary
programs. On LSD the first can be altered in height if you get at the
base program, and secondary ones in and out depending on what it is
sometimes quite rapidly.
Since to me the primary ones and the instinct ones seem inborn,
that leaves secondary ones, but I am not sure why anyone would want to
go via intinctual stuff instead of going straight for the secondary
ones and perceive what they are all connected with, wich
(simplified)could be instinct & primary stuff or other secondary
(... BTW, concerning ORing, is thinking purposefully inborn
>>How far down the tree can you assume that?
A film about (?) Commodo Warans still caused readouts.
The few times I saw frogs they puzzled me. Like outer similarity with
"very many missing inner echoes". Some birds and I did understand
each other O.K. enough.
Guess part communication with others might depend on your magic skills
and if as a baby and child your parents sense censored you or not.
Maybe we who are within the limbic system are having quite some
But on a level even if someone were very different,
maybe we would find each other interesting anyway.
Maybe that's why I lack understanding why that is so important.
>Well, do you think that jealousy is something other than the product of
I assume so.
>If so, we need to end our discussion here, because we
>will never find any point of connection.
(I take it you are not into telepathy.)
> But what's not necessarily true is that we have some
>specific organizational feature, like a "jealousy" nucleus, that fish
>just plain don't have.
I suggest trying to dock into your basolateral amygdala some day and
take "a look around".
>> That common experience is what makes language translation possible.
So I could bnot translate something that I have not experienced that
you are telling me about in English into my language?
>you should rely on common sense.
Literally I might have to know which common senses.
Most here when I scan them a little are sense censored.
Meaning they are not even using a hundred of their senses.
Sharing common senses does not mean that the other one is using them
and that for me it is correct to assume that old common senses are
used by the other one.
>>Cats are not social animals in general.
Guess a lot of those I met just looked like cats but were not cats
according to that definition.
Many cats when they hunt bring the food for the herd.
Also when they ate many tended to leave food.
I observed many other social acts.
>>Complexity of behavior is no indicator of higher levels of conciousness.
I do not even get what higher levels of consciousness means.
Is that if I areas segregate and one can run segregated and joined at
will? Or staying "conscious" in dreaming? Or is that if a person
learns astral travelling and can contact another person who is far
away? Or link into telepathic group joinings? Or link with beings
quite different from here and not from here? Or when someone learns
to reprogram own I or other I hardware and tests many different
settings? Or something else?
Is reaching enlightenment and often transiting into according energy
stages a higher level of consciousness or an older setting of the own
conscious areas and others, and with that maybe a lower level, or is
the term "higher" level wrong there and it should just be levels of
conscious with an area and level setting indication? ...
The Art of Vagueness. :-)