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] <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]> <javascript:>
<mailto:
> > > > > [email protected] <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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<javascript:>
> > > > > > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <javascript:>>
<mailto:
> > > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<javascript:>
> > > > > > <mailto:[email protected]
<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]
<mailto:minds-eye%[email protected]>
<mailto:minds-eye%[email protected]
<mailto:minds-eye%[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]
<mailto:minds-eye%[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]
<mailto:minds-eye%[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.
