Hans Moravec told me that when he was researching robot navigation his robots with vision would go quickly down a hallway but would slow down as they approached the stairway at the end. He said it looked like they were scared but what was really happening was that they had a lot more computation to do and so slowed down. This was before 1980.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 6:55 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, EricC, pragmatist, what is the meaning of the expression “I have fear > of X”? > > > > Nick > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:00 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions > > > > EricC, your overall frame I fully agree with. I was sort of hoping you > would find the fog annoying enough to want to clear some of it. > > > > On Aug 25, 2021, at 12:36 AM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > So.... This is JUST a question of whether we are having a casual > conversation or a technical one, right? Certainly, in a casual, > English-language conversation talk of "having" emotions is well understood, > and just fine, for example "Nick is *having *a fit, just let him be." (I > can't speak for other languages, but I assume there are many others where > that would be true.) > > > > If we were, for some reason, having a technical conversation about how the* > Science of Psychology*, should use technical language, then we *might *also > come to all agree that isn't the best way to talk about it. > > > > Until here. > > > > In any case, the risk with "have" is that it reifies whatever we are > talking about. To talk about someone *having *sadness, leads > naturally --- linguistically naturally --- in English --- to thinking that > sadness is *a thing* that I could find if I looked hard enough. It is why > people used to think (and many, many, still do) that if we just looked hard > enough at someone's brain, we would find *the sadness* inside there, > somewhere. > > > > I had to stop a minute to decide how I seem to be thinking about this, > because glib answers would have affirmed what you say, where I think I > would assert there is a substitution. > > > > When I was trying to assert that possession and attribution are different > meanings, I was probably thinking that possession does entail things, > whereas attribution is more predicate-like. I was focusing on the > equivalent implications of “I have brown eyes” and “my eyes are brown”. As > you say, the eyes are things, and both sentences depend on that. So > possession and attribution would be equivalent, or at least very close. I > was focusing on the brownness, the attribute, which is a predicate. > > > > But maybe you are right: maybe the “have” isn’t handling the attribute, > but only control of the objects. Eyes come out of a lego box in several > colors, and I got a brown set of them. > > > > It probably also is the case that it isn’t a thing/non-thing distinction. > For instance, I now “have” five hours to set done some desperately needed > work instead of wasting time writing posts that will never matter, before I > get cut off by the start of a workshop, and that five hours isn’t strictly > a “thing”. > > > > So okay. Maybe I recant my argument that that was what “Have” was > carrying. Not attributes-as-predicates, but either things or non-things as > possessions or affordances that are available to me. > > > > The predicate would be carried by something associated with “to be”. My > eyes are brown. The possession, whether done with a verb or a possessive > morphology, is about the category of the thing or non-thing; the predicate > is about the instance (blue/brown) within the category. > > > > I guess that was all kind of straightforward in the grammar all along, > wasn’t it? Oh well. > > > > That is why it is dangerous in a technical conversation regarding > psychology, because that implication is wrong-headed in a way that > repeatedly leads large swaths of the field down deep rabbit holes that they > can't seem to get out of. > > > > On the one hand, I *have *a large ice mocha waiting for me in the fridge. > On the other hand, this past summer I *had *a two-week long trip to > California. One is a straightforward object, the other was an extended > activity I engaged in. When the robot-designers assert that their robot > "has" emotions, which do they mean? Honestly, I think they don't mean > either one, it is a marketing tool, and not part of a conversation at all. > As such, it does't really fit into the dichotomy above, and is trying to > play one off of the other. They are using the terms "emotions and > instincts" to mean something even less than whatever Tesla means when they > say they have an autodrive that for sure still isn't good enough to > autodrive. > > > > And yeah, what the salesmen of robot dogs say is about as worthy of > serious discussion as what Florida and Georgia politicians say. > > > > Eric > > > > What the robot-makers mean is simply to indicate that the robot will be a > bit more responsive to certain things that other models on the market, and > *hopefully > *that's what most consumers understand it to mean. But not all will... at > least some of the people being exposed to the marketing will take it to > mean that emotion has been successfully put somewhere inside the robot. > (The latter is a straightforward empirical claim, and if you think I'm > wrong about that, you have way too much faith in how savvy 100% of > people are.) As such, the marketing should be annoying to anti-dualist > psychologists, who see it buttressing *at least some* people's tendency > to jump down that rabbit hole mentioned above. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:48 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Eric, > > > > Many points well taken. I am particularly proud of being dope-slapped by > Glen about being overly narrow in my understanding of “inside.” It was, as > he said, a case of my failure to fulfill my obligation as a thinker to > steelman any argument before I try to knock it down. > > > > But let me turn Glen’s steel-man obligation around. Aren’t you made > uneasy when people claim that to be private that which is plainly present > in their behavior? And doesn’t the whole problem of “What it’s like to be > a bat” and “the hard problem” strike you as an effort to make hay where the > sun don’t shine? > > > > If you do share those concerns, and you worry that I have (as usual) > overstated my case, then that’s one kind of discussion; if you don’t share > them at all, then that’s a very different conversation. > > > > My position on “the realm of the mental” is laid out in many of my > publications, perhaps most concisely in the first few pages of Intentionality > is the Mark of the Mental" > <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312031901_Intentionality_is_the_mark_of_the_vital> > . > > > > It’s an old argument, going back to Descartes. Do we see the world > through our minds, or do we see our minds through the world? > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,PqSnBW-DEOhbKkmoRtmTlPSrm4VYVF0RIrT-mQjLogmKaQYpr13xZD0DGEZgrnG7jri6M1b72cv5vXfFJmsRDjDdjMoT_zEQooiKOI46pjI,&typo=1> > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2021 7:47 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions > > > > It’s the right kind of answer, Nick, and I don’t find it compelling. > > > > Put aside for a moment the use of “have” as an auxiliary verb. I can come > up with wonderful reasons why that is both informative and primordial, but > I also believe they are complete nonsense and only illustrate that there > are no good rules for reliable argument in this domain. > > > > Also, I don’t adopt the frame of using the past tense as a device to skew > the argument toward the conclusion you started with. (Now _there_ is a > category error: to start with a conclusion. Lawyer!) > > > > I think probably throughout Indo-European derived languages, “have” is > used to refer to inherent attributes. I have brown eyes. I have eyes at > all. It takes a surprisingly convoluted construction to assert that > someone looking at my face will find two brown eyes there, that doesn’t use > “have” as the verb of attribution. So that’s old, and it is something the > language has really committed to. I think you have to commit unnatural > acts to argue that that is a verb of action. > > > > Possession isn’t even a lot more action-y. I have two turntables and a > microphone. If nobody is trying to take them from me, it is not clear that > I am “doing” anything to “have” them. > > > > (btw, I am not a metaphor monist. I practice polysemy, like the Mormons. > So it seems completely natural that there can be multiple meanings, if > there are any meanings at all, and that distinct ones can use the same word > because they are somehow similar despite not being the self-same.) > > > > It seems to me as if the truest action usage of “have” is one that is not > nearly as baked into the language. If I have lunch, I eat lunch. If I > have a fit, I throw a tantrum. Many circumlocutions available to me. That > also could be quite idiosyncratic to small language branches. I think you > would never, in normal speech, say you “had” lunch in German. You would > just say you ate lunch. (Or in Italian or French either, for that matter.) > These kinds of usages do not seem to me to carry strong cognitive weight. > > > > So it seems to me that the semantic core of “have” is probably > attribution. The legal sense of ownership is probably metaphorical. It > would not _at all_ surprise me if the use both in the auxiliary (widespread > in IE) and in the deictic (French il y a, there is) are deep metaphors > describing either the ambient, or the ineluctable structure of time, with > attributes. > > > > But, back to whether attribution is natural for emotions (or, as good as > anything else, and better than most): > > > > If I “have” a sunny disposition, that seems not far from having brown > eyes. Italian: Il ha un buon aspetto. > > > > If I am having a bad day, that is a little different from having brown > eyes, and perhaps closer to having a black eye. Not an essence that > defines my nature, but a condition I can be in, or “take on". To say, > indeed, that I parse that as a pattern I carry around (as an aspect of > constitution or condition) does not seem category-erroneous to me. > > > > Sure, there are patterns in my behavior: if I take a hot shower and the > water lands on my black eye, I will wince. If you say good morning and I > am having a bad day, I will growl at you. A Skinnerian can say that my > wincing is all there is to my black eye. But a physician would tell me to > put ice on it, and would use the color of the bruise to indicate which eye > I should put the ice on. > > > > These uses of having seem tied up, more closely than with anything else, > with uses of being, as SteveS mentioned. So the be/do dichotomy seems to > determine largely where the verb usages split. > > > > Of course, living is a process, played out on organized structures. > Brains probably look different in eeg and electrode arrays in one emotional > condition than in another, and they probably also have different > neurotransmitter profiles, and maybe other things. Even You probably don’t > want to refer to a neurotransmitter concentration as a “doing”; It is a > variable of state, like a black eye is a state of an eye. You might want > to refer to the brain action pattern as “doing”, but maybe only in the > sense that you refer to the existence of non-dead metabolism as “doing” — > they are both processes. To me, the common language seems to split the be > and the do on brevity, transience, isolation, or suddenness of an > activity. I _am_ surly, and I _do_ growl at you. > > > > If non-black English still preserved the habitual tense, as John McWhorter > claims black American English still does, we might be able to make a > different kind of a distinction, between the pattern or habit as a state, > and the event within it as an act. That might give an even better account > of the split in the common language. > > > > I also want to acknowledge Glen’s points about working through many frames > in a dynamical way. I can’t add anything, but I do agree. > > > > Eric > > > > > > On Aug 24, 2021, at 12:30 PM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> < > thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Now wait a minute! This is the sort of question I am supposed to ask of > you? A question to which the answer is so obvious to the recipient that he > is in danger of not being able to locate it. > > > > Ok, so, their meanings obviously overlap. If you tell me you “had” a > steak last night, I wont assume that it’s available for us to eat tonight: > “had” is serving as a verb of action. The situation is further confused > by the fact that both words are used as helper words, i.e, words that > indicate the tense of another verb. To say that I “have” gone and that I > “done” gone mean the same thing in different dialects > > > > In general the grammar of the two words is different. If you say I had > something, I am sent looking for a property, possession or attribute. If > you say I did something, I am sent looking for an action I performed. So, > there is a vast inclination to make emotion words as a reference to > something we carry inside, rather than a pattern in what we do. This seems > to me like misdirection, a category error in Ryle’s terms. > > > > Does that help? > > > > Mumble, mumble, as steve would say. > > > > Nick > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,JZI_rTsnO4PMxifIK-1Pc4gAtSO08UfA4WqKjx73T4Ek3tY5Xl71BUdt3A807uKgEplYNDHINHuRjmL2qnv7SkO_J10fWv5jebCjhCravg,,&typo=1> > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith > *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2021 4:23 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions > > > > Nick, what’s the difference between having and doing? > > > > I once heard Ray Jackendoff give quite a nice talk on word categories. Of > all of it, the one part I remember the most about is what he said about > prepositions. Even after you are getting right most of the rest of word > usage in a new language (or handling it well with a dumb, rule-based > translator), you are still at sea in the prepositions. Their scopes are > not completely arbitrary, but arbitrary in such large part that speakers > essentially learn them nearly as a list of ad hoc applications. > > > > But when we are in a specialist domain, such as reference to the unpacking > of the convention-term “emotion”, which we all know is a different > specialist domain from car ownership or the consumption of lunch, we know > that verbs are not on any a priori firmer ground than prepositions. Or it > seems to me, we should expect that to be so. > > > > I am struck by how widespread it is in languages to use the same particle > or other construction for possession and attribution. Both in concretes > and in the abstractions that seemingly derive from them. SteveG will like > this one from Chinese if I haven’t messed it up or misunderstood it: youde > you, youde meiyou. Some have it, some don’t. > > > > Performance of an act, being configured in a state or condition, if we use > passphrases rather than passwords, we can discriminate many categories. > > > > So when we use metaphors to expand the scope of reference and discourse > (to eventually shed their metaphor status and become true polysemes once > our familiarity in the new domain is such that, as novelists say, it > “stands up and casts a shadow”), are some of the metaphors more obligatory > than others? Are the psychologists sure they are right about which ones? > Are they right? > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 2021, at 3:06 AM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> < > thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArgh! > > > > How we seal ourselves in caves of nonsense! > > > > And emotion is not something we “have”; it’s something we do. Or, if you > prefer a dualist sensory metaphor, it’s a particular mode of feeling the > world. > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,7HSjAiYZs0TskSYM3z8t3I3vm7JNBV7OyZgHYp-6EjYczSSRW9xIT6typjL4CJpU_atJnKNr9galrl_vRQGGlXHYIX3WqoquVu8Bpe1ntqUc&typo=1> > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2021 6:04 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions > > > > The creators of the Aibo robot dog say it has ‘real emotions and > instinct’. This is obviously not true, it's just an illusion. > > But then, according to Daniel Dennett, human consciousness is just an > illusion. > https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/illusionism.pdf > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fase.tufts.edu%2fcogstud%2fdennett%2fpapers%2fillusionism.pdf&c=E,1,wZyzI4xcowqEH1XfK9Q39EPbwHxfV11-EVaCCROdnuFD-hDpoJBA6vqVkaGgbd-yOuYwvTupjP_Soz_obIbOZjgWkLMocfZEa2BpUqNsBKBy&typo=1> > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 09:18, Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> wrote: > > "In today’s AI universe, all the eternal questions (about intentionality, > consciousness, free will, mind-body problem...) have become engineering > problems", argues this Guardian article. > > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/10/dogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fscience%2f2021%2faug%2f10%2fdogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence&c=E,1,0zM4mCzKmbes0weZLeJCmVy6dAfDvfYxSyHKpvl-aa8-hwd84lMymcY9HHVsp4jXbWOCjmb3kQDLfcwUGjHCouKd8sNTTfFuQtv62vY-RfAsXg,,&typo=1> > > > > -J. > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,USKWJzhBjgjJh7B-0LkOfSd3nemyd1czMDhazLKVBZtafmJNbogUKdBckMq8YDhHys57cq3edfUxouOPaNKkqPHN7BSB2_jSqY2nj0PnsWO4&typo=1> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQIZirvod42goqmNxnJBxEDkNQZgDx4-Cpp9h61g27SR8pmXJ_MMfIylqQDG-apIDYJ41YBK5dlfDvP0mcsA7tgQfSN_fX8GOBstoJ7bRsPqllS8Hti8YhbPnto,&typo=1> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,W-ArAxIKQNrM-7j3cHCB7DvRKs598JN3aWrygvNoMFhZMfHBdCpRnINnr__3jjhPqyWLiXzRL9KRjVJqtjeAAqtCaNq5qf7Ix3B4AjcEzvp4LWtuE0_bNYs00g,,&typo=1> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-pDsdi2AM5J35lPLI_g3-LtyM-BJTNkO0LNOJk2N-zEMrFYJAuMsizuSyrQ7ah2EPXAXyuv9FarhQ-3FZOuytwgV2gtKas1n43TbWDgKajH-&typo=1> > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,MzWtukTHxTmO0o4T4K75ZC6zy8h-gQojlN_6BSajavsHHOIC9hTMR8rjRvM4bWXKVt05qr4hoH2_sIH0XXVCaG4M61FBfWSeFBC6EOnQSCYDf-SZ&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,t5Vd_UMHRAMj63ikH0-cOAr7pxIW_XRAEXTZXCbAclW2tPEeUJHS7SstrpQmDgjUyzeW0mVLy-LmuIF58gw1_1tcSuaylib5tGj2zgHAqJE7&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,FZcVsD_n3OF9seVbMhIp-U9xWM0w3jdlAvleHfq0uAtpJdhPsEQ3Zzkw0-Q1OiKAuele4Q8X02QPfoLlpZEAYVdAAmywCfyP3v68hTjIZ51QMmzABLXwjk8KxWw,&typo=1> > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,BFllSC-pZ0weFNqjV1iB-w3DR43rvvcmxiYfCh3Inlzi3UOaC9v0gh67rb1SPyCmQIqhrg8ev1C7TSKyRr6rbt_1hS-Cky5ClbwSki3p&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lWRd3h5zEi_Sd3v9P1_NsGjaV_yXFovGQ-t8djjh-BNY8-KmDoPieLQWC8sugjPgglUTHnntK67jLtccS-k24YihXM8lbfVJ0LhKe0F-QUg-&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,flS_j978ae9MJ9aTyQMdRX9QPpBeRviscU7FwC6H8HMzGkD0PeBx05oCiqaP9n92HSn5pDirRUuaLmvuM0Q9_CTwIxEhV_U0NRASDpQr&typo=1> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,5GMtnfr2PjINLbXPugaEHa2KzrZ8QeRZ8Fe8G5DISdR-nk9ocFc6vKTQszJW70dKjdeihL5QlcWMi_y2Vs99M7PzpYWuGJYUKsmT_ySE&typo=1> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,tR4HQ-eToVIOrt0-92wo0x-79GdMaObPEpyLG3kKLUl2pfYbdRBA-af2J3fk84jEh2zoJ-Ei77uEJ5OQm0PdnouWygocalLP01mLEhGfm6LBFrzZKk_SNsIK&typo=1> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,5Kyb9IOfzrYEjL-Y1HIVmg3g0Sw5LDkQXX96HFEBI-1bPD1E61LaDdHNRksRpkQbvES67QNX5EQyDxTdB76mFfLi-iZ3440-553M4JNKZVroRico4a5np5gx&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,J_cCLnHrRXYWpal0aIWE5jY_tZ-i7qBExhwkrjUCliJbs_RwzLCteWKL_GHHbDaL7GI-6HnMuJYG7sddthRvThePdXXSp9DRpIuih2BXRszLZShpvHyO&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > -- Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
