Unfortunately, no. My agency does not operate on the basis of an innate, pre-programmed best behavior pattern, it co-develops with me, and I better define it the best behavior I can show, which is not true, of course, but it helps me with my environment. Sorry, who set the task?
2013/3/26 James <[email protected]> > If distortions are the best we can muster lets hope they fit the task at > hand, now what that is and where in environment and identity seems very > defining no? > > > On 3/25/2013 5:02 PM, gabbydott wrote: > >> The Big Picture via distorting filters onto Big Data? >> >> >> 2013/3/24 andrew vecsey <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]**>> >> >> >> 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.<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 >> minds-eye+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<minds-eye%[email protected]> >> >> <mailto:minds-eye%**[email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> >> **>. >> >> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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 >> minds-eye+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<minds-eye%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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 > minds-eye+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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.
