Re: Mind's Eye Re: Good and bad

Oh, the credits for pointing out the possibility/likelihood of being the subject/object of distortions go to Rigs! Omitting the predicate might have evoked the feeling you could have missed something, but no, you're right, there was no point. 

The "Oh shit!" pedagogic method is called "black pedagogy", not to be mistaken with "black humor", or with the connections to the past that Rigs draws.

Hey Neil, how about "New Shades Of Black" as a book title for the book I have pre-ordered from you? Ok, I admit, I'm not really waiting, I have already started reading. :)

2013/3/28 James <ashkashal@gmail.com>

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 <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Big Picture via distorting filters onto Big Data?

2013/3/24 andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@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> 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 <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

...

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.

--
 
---
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.