Ah, the typical Hipster Zeitgeist self-positioning - please consume
with ironic detachment. No, I don't support artificial sweeteners
(bad). I prefer taking the truth with a grain of salt (good).
2013/3/27 James <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
It seems to me that the task is set between a conditioned identity
that adapts and acquires knowledge about a perceptual environment
mostly subconsciously on one hand and the other is managing an
exchange between acquired directives and the challenge of
inadequacies (even when wicked and intractable problems present
themselves). How the perceptual environment is absorbed I think
has a lot to do with individual traits, but it seems that however
many levels of emergent systems are involved there is interaction,
communication and adaptation of the different layers (levels,
systems, what have you).
Where it gets interesting is that the background gets filled in
while trying to understand and explain the apparent and intuitive.
That space is where I see the identity acting as an agent, but
more than an agent operating within a 'bounded rationality' (per
se) but a construct of multiple motives competing for attention,
recognition, expression underlying the persona or more intimately
self image and ultimately attenuating the brain to operate within
the basic parameters of this environment for better or worse.
This hypothetical view or variations and thinking systematically
helps tame my brain's attenuations, it doesn't seem to be adapted
well to me but I manage to patch things up here and there with
discipline or bypassing circuits. Long ago my world was fire and
ice, now it has to be bridged somehow- reset the task, it is the
same but different with some place shifting.. I am right-brain
dominant gabby, it is fitting to have a sense of irony about my
ideas, especially my earlier message. :)
On 3/26/2013 3:39 AM, gabbydott wrote:
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]> <mailto:[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]>>
<mailto:[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]> <mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
<javascript:>
<mailto:
> > > > > [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <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]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
<javascript:>
> > > > > > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
<javascript:>>
<mailto:
> > > > > [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
<javascript:>
> > > > > > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<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]>>
<mailto:minds-eye%[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]>
<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]>
<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.
