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-over-junk- dna-claim
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 pleasure. Bad news
> > > > over good
> > > > news. Why
> > > > does "bad" overshadow "good", immorality over
> > > > morality, despair
> > > > over hope, pessimism over optimism. Why does
> > > hate
> > > > appear to be
> > > > more powerful than love? Why is greed louder
> > > than
> > > > generosity. Why
> > > > is destruction of war so much faster than the
> > > > building
> > > > power of
> > > > peace. Why can one little lie destroy a
> > > > lifetime of
> > > > trust. Why are
> > > > lies more influential than truth. It all seems
> > > > so one
> > > > sided. Why
> > > > is that?
>
> > > > --
> > > > ---
> > > > You received this message because you are
> > > > subscribed to
> > > > the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
> > > >
>
> ...
>
> read more »
---
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.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário