Re: Mind's Eye Re: Good and bad

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 <ashkashal@gmail.com <mailto:ashkashal@gmail.com>>
>
> 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 <andrewvecsey@gmail.com
> <mailto:andrewvecsey@gmail.com> <mailto:andrewvecsey@gmail.com
> <mailto:andrewvecsey@gmail.com>>>
>
>
> 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
> <andrewvec...@gmail.com <mailto:andrewvec...@gmail.com>> 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 <rigs...@gmail.com
> <mailto:rigs...@gmail.com>> 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
> <andrewvec...@gmail.com
> <mailto:andrewvec...@gmail.com>> 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 <ashk...@gmail.com
> <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com> <javascript:>
> <mailto:
> > > > > > ashk...@gmail.com <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com>
> <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 <ashk...@gmail.com
> <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com>
> <javascript:>
> > > > > > > <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com
> <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com> <javascript:>>
> <mailto:
> > > > > > ashk...@gmail.com <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com>
> <javascript:>
> > > > > > > <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com
> <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com> <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 »- 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
> <mailto:minds-eye%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:minds-eye%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:minds-eye%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>>.
>
> 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 minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:minds-eye%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
> 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 minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:minds-eye%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
> 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 minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> 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 minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.