You words ring true Allan, a background in conflict can build so many
barriers, I've come to regard it as a cognitive tax. Another debt
inequitable perhaps. Where this meets the surveillance and subservience
topic I think is that the mechanisms for lie detection I've heard about
don't differentiate on complex emotional/intellectual causes, false
positives are valuable to extract confessions for punishment and judging
what is far from understood. Mental policing is a nightmare concept to
hear about and should be relegated to the prestige of torture, my
concern is that it can be applied broadly and with little oversight and
drastic mental consequences to the undeserving.
On 3/25/2013 1:56 AM, Allan H wrote:
the most valuable person I ever had to listen to was myself, because
if I listen carefully I said to others in reality was speaking about
myself especially when I was being critical.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:11 PM, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote:
I do not think that we lie to our self so much as that we only see/hear what
we want to see/hear. Also we tend to say what we think the other persons
wants to hear or say things to hurt other people.
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:46:03 AM UTC+1, rigs wrote:
I am more interested in why we lie to ourselves, suppress reality and
snarl logic in our brains. There are life and death moments of
survival, I suppose, but much of our potential is engineered by family
and culture in order to achieve some sort of control and order. Even
rebels are often little more than a reaction. Pretense and etiquette
are often the same thing.//I must have "lost" my thought re "big
data"/"Big Daddy? as an organizer of human knowledge versus the
present scatterings and specialties.// Yes- I agree most have a gut
reaction- but so do other life forms- it's a survival mechanism. But
it can be distorted.
On Mar 24, 4:12 am, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote:
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-ove...
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
...
read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--
---
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.
--
---
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.
