Re: Mind's Eye Re: Good and bad

You words ring true Allan, a background in conflict can build so many
barriers, I've come to regard it as a cognitive tax. Another debt
inequitable perhaps. Where this meets the surveillance and subservience
topic I think is that the mechanisms for lie detection I've heard about
don't differentiate on complex emotional/intellectual causes, false
positives are valuable to extract confessions for punishment and judging
what is far from understood. Mental policing is a nightmare concept to
hear about and should be relegated to the prestige of torture, my
concern is that it can be applied broadly and with little oversight and
drastic mental consequences to the undeserving.

On 3/25/2013 1:56 AM, Allan H wrote:
> the most valuable person I ever had to listen to was myself, because
> if I listen carefully I said to others in reality was speaking about
> myself especially when I was being critical.
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:11 PM, andrew vecsey <andrewvecsey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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> 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> 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> 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 <javascript:> <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 <javascript:>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ashk...@gmail.com <javascript:>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>> ashk...@gmail.com <javascript:>
>>>>>>>>> <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.
>> 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.