Faked enthusiasm is as easy to spot as fake love. It is like a built in like a lie detector that god created us with. Sounds like a good way to detect lying on the internet. You can call it "god" instead of "big brother".
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:08:39 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote: ..................... > Quite what junk DNA is has raised a big recent controversy - gist at > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/24/scientists-attacked-over-junk-dna-claim > > I agree with rigs that the term is unfortunate. > > ........but I could feign 'enthusiasm' .. > ........' to detect resistance! Even this > .....no employees dumb enough to support > excellence, ...... > if we spent out time pointing such devices at > each other though rigs! Watch out for the first one minute dating > agency providing such! Arghh" . > > On Mar 22, 1:06 pm, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > Junk is an unfortunate adjective- it sounds too random. My guess is > > that further selection takes place in this area which selects the > > strongest marker- or whatever it's called- such in the color of eyes, > > hair, and other characteristics. There are also generational skips in > > play. I have noted other strange echoes of a missing parent such as > > the style of laughter which is a surprise and so many other > > recognitions. At any rate, we are just beginning to sort through the > > data in this one area as in others- I think it is called "big data" > > which will overcome the religious notion of "sins of the father" stuff > > as well as curses and fate and will hopefully allow a more rational > > and postive approach/life choices for each unique individual. But it > > will also cause mischief. > > > > On Mar 22, 5:16 am, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not all DNA code for protein. We have non coding DNA called "junk DNA" > that > > > ensure we are all unique. While normal DNA codes for protein to make, > for > > > example a "nose", junk DNA ensures that we grow a nose that "looks" > like a > > > mixture of our father`s and our mother`s nose. > > > > > On Friday, March 22, 2013 12:36:39 AM UTC+1, Ash wrote: > > > > > > My thoughts didn't include "junk DNA", my thinking on such terms are > > > > mixed in that some genes may not be useful or represent just another > > > > failure point, but also that the supposed junk in one set of > > > > circumstances may prove quite beneficial in others like a backup, an > > > > alternate development chain or complex interdependencies we haven't > > > > observed yet. You may have a connection in mind I haven't gleaned. > > > > > > Developing the market sounds similar but I am trying to root out an > > > > aspect of this that doesn't require jumping to a premature > conclusion, > > > > such as in 'intelligent design', materialism, rigid ontologies or > > > > realism. Thanks for helping me explore here gabby, lets hope some > form > > > > emerges in expression. :) > > > > > > On 3/21/2013 3:57 AM, gabbydott wrote: > > > > > Now that sounds more like you. :) > > > > > What you are describing or asking I now understand/interpret/hear > in > > > > > terms of what I know about what they are trying to find out about > > > > > "junk DNA". Its purpose/function/added value. As for what you > describe > > > > > as another way, I know/experience/see this in what the companies > > > > > describe as "developing the market". We are still on topic, aren't > we? > > > > > > > 2013/3/21 James <[email protected] <javascript:> <mailto: > > > > [email protected] <javascript:>>> > > > > > > > I have a feeling you are being charitable with me gabby > (cringe). > > > > > What you say makes sense, and should add that the intent I > refer > > > > > to is in excess of that needed for mere gene survival fitness. > In > > > > > that sense I consider the adaptations as simulations and the > > > > > excess as breaking the barriers of meta-simulation, or in > another > > > > > way, not just running within time but operating on it by > taking > > > > > advantage of the rules and finding ways to bend them. Now it > is my > > > > > turn to ask, does that make sense [to anyone]? > > > > > > > On 3/20/2013 3:01 AM, gabbydott wrote: > > > > > > > I don't know if this is good or bad, but i hear that you > > > > > haven't just heard about mirror neurons, that this is a > > > > > relatively consciously made up construct, a construct with > > > > > intent or purpose. Also it sounds strange when you say > that > > > > > this neurological mechanism is strange (to you). That's > where > > > > > my "parallel mirror neurons" come into play, i compare > what > > > > > you say with what i have heard you saying before and add > the > > > > > info as well as my judgement on what you say to my > internal > > > > > "Virtualization" of you. The leap is more of a constant > > > > > exercise of differentiating between you and me while > operating > > > > > on the virtualization of each participant, so to speak. > Does > > > > > that somehow make sense to you? > > > > > > > Of course, I could go back to the group website and search > for > > > > > the real data on what you have been saying on neurological > > > > > mechanisms. But this would be a completely new project. > I'd > > > > > have to go back and construct a new image with my > knowledge of > > > > > now. > > > > > > > But since you are still alive and still communicating, I > find > > > > > it much easier and more purposeful to keep on listening to > > > > > what you say, to respond to it, and to rely on you saying, > if > > > > > you disagree. Not a good position for me to be in, more of > a > > > > > survival strategy. Now that's worth a leap into rethinking > > > > > mode. ;) > > > > > > > 2013/3/20 James <[email protected] <javascript:> > > > > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>> <mailto: > > > > [email protected] <javascript:> > > > > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>> > > > > > > > My response was mostly a parallel narrative, my > thinking on > > > > a > > > > > personal level is when does a system of components > > > > > transcend the > > > > > boudaries of automata and begin to engage in the > operations > > > > of > > > > > intent. Where does gene fitness adaptation break loose > into > > > > > something perceiving, interacting, understanding and > > > > > mastering? I > > > > > have heard that our ability to reflect and interact on > an > > > > > intimate > > > > > level arises from a strange neurological mechanism > called > > > > > mirror > > > > > neurons. If this is something like the virtualization > > > > > technologies > > > > > we have been building in technology then with a bit > more > > > > > scale and > > > > > pondering our science may make the leap > logarithmically. > > > > > > > On 3/18/2013 8:15 PM, James wrote: > > > > > > > I see this sometimes too Andrew, and we learn how > our > > > > > internal > > > > > systems and culture drive and shape us, so we can > > > > > create. We > > > > > model from the simplest sensory stimuli on to > > > > > reflections on > > > > > the nature of our existence and what could be in a > > > > > simultaneous simulation of reality. Our world can > be > > > > > full of > > > > > intent, or I should say we experience it thus due > to our > > > > > capacity arising from our nature and drawing > parables > > > > > in the > > > > > mist. It makes me wonder how many levels of > abstraction, > > > > > simulation and foresight are necessary to > represent > > > > > the human > > > > > element. That minds like ours are derived from > nature is > > > > > astonishing and awe inspiring, that we reach so > far > > > > > and yet > > > > > innocence is so fragile, the experience of > awareness > > > > > is far > > > > > from today's science I think. Our synthetic > > > > > counterparts or > > > > > robots will have to wait. > > > > > > > On 3/13/2013 5:35 AM, andrew vecsey wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps we are born into a world filled with > > > > negative > > > > > aspects rather than positive aspects so as to > give > > > > > us a > > > > > direction. We are born small so that we can > grow. > > > > > We are > > > > > born ignorant so that we could know. We are > born > > > > with > > > > > negative aspects so that we could acquire > positive > > > > > ones. > > > > > > > On Monday, January 28, 2013 12:11:39 PM UTC+1, > > > > andrew > > > > > vecsey wrote: > > > > > > > Why do so many of us remember negative > > > > > feelings easier > > > > > than > > > > > positive ones. Pain over pleasure. Bad > news > > > > > over good > > > > > news. Why > > > > > does "bad" overshadow "good", immorality > over > > > > > morality, despair > > > > > over hope, pessimism over optimism. Why > does > > > > hate > > > > > appear to be > > > > > more powerful than love? Why is greed > louder > > > > than > > > > > generosity. Why > > > > > is destruction of war so much faster than > the > > > > > building > > > > > power of > > > > > peace. Why can one little lie destroy a > > > > > lifetime of > > > > > trust. Why are > > > > > lies more influential than truth. It all > seems > > > > > so one > > > > > sided. Why > > > > > is that? > > > > > > > -- > > > > > --- > > > > > You received this message because you are > > > > > subscribed to > > > > > the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
