One approach that I've rarely caught in a class is a teacher taking a no
BS approach to the material. It seems useful to have a frank historical
perspective on what motivates the theories or breaches the old
paradigms, perhaps a creative excursion into cultural universals. Maybe
picking a few wacky examples of applied economics and let them get a
good laugh, then show parallels with their culture to get them thinking.
One example is ancient civilizations using up natural resources, then
looking over the forecasted impact of the US aquifers bottoming out.
Suddenly the conservationists don't sound as alarmist, is there a word
for the "Oh shit!" pedagogic method? No offense but economics sounds
boring in itself, but your thoughts here make it sound interesting. Are
you allowed to hint to the class when you think something is little more
than an academic publishing circle jerk?
Hmm, what you've said about 'distorting filters' has me wondering if I
missed gabby's point. You lost a book and I was born.. :D
On 3/27/2013 7:28 PM, archytas wrote:
I've just read a book that says neo-classical economics is just an
ideology forced down our throats by the vile rich - actually the whole
book probably says less than that as the authors won't call a spade a
spade. Gabby seems to have read he book too. It came 30 years too
late. I could have missed all those research methods classes and
worried less about feeling economics was a load of junk that could
only make sense to Monty Python's dead Norwegian Blue parrot. Perhaps
economists have just discovered the archive of my lecture notes, lost
on a bus in Lancaster in 1983? I seem to remember they advocated
swapping one set of distorting filters for another and mentioning the
term paradigm a lot. Big data was barred as positivist - a term I
loosely translated as 'guileless scientist like you Neil'. You had to
call data 'capta' to be in with the crowd that mistakenly thought it
was the in crowd, socially constructed facts from thin air I
interpreted as a source for green hydrocarbon production and taught me
to spell phenomenological.
On Mar 25, 10:02 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
The Big Picture via distorting filters onto Big Data?
2013/3/24 andrew vecsey <[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
...
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.
