I apparently accidently deleted the entire body of this message before sending. Ah, well. Let’s just stipulate that it was excellent and solved all problems and then forget about it, eh?
N Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: thompnicks...@gmail.com <thompnicks...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 8:54 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Eternal questions EricS, Can I answer quickly because I want to say something but am already late to fix dinner? Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On Behalf Of David Eric Smith Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5:03 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions So, good, but too many dimensions projected onto too few axes: On Aug 24, 2021, at 11:48 PM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote: 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? This seems to me like a conflation, chosen to make an orderly argument impossible because a skew frame precludes it. [NST===><===nst] This is a clear example of the kind of thing we are talking about here. You attribute to me an intention to prevent orderly argument. Given that I deny any such intention, and rather experience myself as trying to reach a point of agreement, or agreement to disagree, if necessary, what precisely are we talking about? I think you see in my behavior a pattern of distraction and dissembling directed toward the very thing I think I am working toward. First and foremost, is that an assertion about my brain? I don’t think so. I think it’s an assertion about my behavior. I am caught in a bind, because my behaviorism requires me to take that assertion seriously. It places me in the position of a geriatric troll, which I don’t want to be. But where do I get to point out that you use my way of understanding intentions against my way of understanding intentions. I also want to point out that the pragmatic implications of being IN a state are quite different from those of having a state inside. I have admit that both statements that something in the organization is mediating the relation that we call “the state”, but that mediator is not the state. The state is the state. Nothing like a good tautology to end angument . I need to think more about markov chains. N If people say they are “in an emotional state”, glossed as “have an emotion”, I don’t conflate that with saying their emotional state is “private” in the sense of “uninferrable from their behavior” that your sentence seems to presume. I take them to be acknowledging that they will respond to conversations about “sense of self”, and “framework of reality” and other such human-conventional formulations, in the same way as anybody would, and that an emotional state is the setting of some subset of the variables in that sense of self or framework of reality. If the setting of their sense of self or their framework of reality didn’t affect things they do, which would then carry mutual information about the settings of those variables, I would be surprised that it was any compelling thing to talk about. People who go on about God impinge on me that way. The thing I would expect is that the inference is incomplete but generally not-insignificant. There is enough inference to make ti a regular thing to talk and to care about; there are enough underdetermined aspects of state to make the concept of “being in a state”, and reporting on it, also non-empty. I would like to lure you out over the suspension bridge far enough to exhibit publicly that you are the kind of guy who would deny the existence of Markov chains. A Markov chain is a state-process model (of whatever) in which something (the “system”) can be in any one of some “states”. Which transitions it can undergo then depend on which state it is in. What chemical reactions can occur in a vessel depend on what chemicals are in the vessel to start with. You can try to insist that there is _no_ content to being in a state except for the content of the events that you can undergo exiting that state, but if you were to make such a claim, then we would be in math-world where we would have to say exactly how much of anything we mean, and there would be right and wrong answers to questions. The right sort of quasi-technical level of this discussion to have, for the capabilities of this list, is the one where, for lots of common processes, it might actually be possible to infer a state from lots of downstream transitions that are possible from it and not from any other state. This is what Jim Crutchfield did for a living for a decade or more at SFI. Even where that is true, however, it can take a long time — potentially even an indefinitely long time — to lock in the inference of the state, whereas for the process itself, “being in” that state has all the same content and is defined instantaneously. It is equally easy, and indeed easier, to make models of systems that have states, but in which after a transition or two some part of the distinction of states is lost, as different states can take you to the same later state, so the system has limited memory. That means there are things that, even in principle, you can’t infer from the downstream timeseries, but, since we are talking about what happens in a model, I can insist it would be an error to say that the state doesn’t exist or that the system wasn’t in it. All this is completely familiar, of course, and one doesn’t need to use math as radar-chaff. Someone shows you a chessboard with pieces set somewhere. That is a state. More than one path of play might have led to it. Earlier stages in the various paths of play would also have had pieces somewhere on the board, and those would also have been states. The fact that you can’t disambiguate them from the later state to which they converged does not imply their nonexistence. God, aa I re-read this, I apologize for being so tedious. It’s not as if I don’t think you know all this, or that where the discussion lives is at a higher level of aggregation, about what is “inside” or “outside” the sense of self or the framework of reality. But the problem there isn’t with the words “inside” and “outside”. Those are the deck chairs on the Titanic. Which I guess takes me to your next sentence. 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? On this I am as negative (I think) as you are. I probably would say it a bit differently. You speak as if you know there isn’t a question. (Or that is how I hear you.) I am perfectly fine with the premise that there is something interesting to ask. Where I think these guys should be is sharply focused on the fact that they don’t know what would constitute a question. I feel like they start with a Chomsky sentence “something-something green dreams sleep furiously” and then argue about what it really means, or claim that computing its truth-value is a “heard problem”. No. It occupies the domain of word-strings that don’t violate rules of syntax, but that also don’t have any semantic referent. Maybe it has priming-correlation with something that would have a semantic referent, and that is what keeps people interested and responsive to it. A kind of eternally unfulfilled tease. My own premise, which does no work and just waits passively for somebody else to have insight, is to suppose that the tools our common language gives us for “analytic” speech about consciousness, the first-person, or whatever, is about as good as a machine for composing Chomsky sentences. We need some other source for generating questions if we are to do better. 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> . I think I have read some parts of your corpus as you have sent it out one the years, but thank you for a specific link again. 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? I spend some part of each week in this conversation with people who speak from the “eastern” POV, so the drill is familiar to me. I don’t understand sentences that set it up as a dichotomy, as if there were some logical system at work here and we knew there were a law of the excluded middle in it. Descartes asserted that “animals” were the equivalent to what would today be called philosophical zombies (or worse). Anyone whose methods arrive at that position is on such a long voyage that I will not wait for his return. We’ll give Descartes credit for unifying algebra and geometry, and call it a legacy. Eric Nick Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,TLYKytRyooc-5IoK5-F48iamDIA87A9rQShznaxgPNjrjlKyOFtedYLtcQ3Tsp8xC4BIaZUaKOzrwCUDz44Fo9Hx1HOMaB4JRdVexaXnRENLxyJ5cqNp&typo=1> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,JZI_rTsnO4PMxifIK-1Pc4gAtSO08UfA4WqKjx73T4Ek3tY5Xl71BUdt3A807uKgEplYNDHINHuRjmL2qnv7SkO_J10fWv5jebCjhCravg,,&typo=1> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,7HSjAiYZs0TskSYM3z8t3I3vm7JNBV7OyZgHYp-6EjYczSSRW9xIT6typjL4CJpU_atJnKNr9galrl_vRQGGlXHYIX3WqoquVu8Bpe1ntqUc&typo=1> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-pDsdi2AM5J35lPLI_g3-LtyM-BJTNkO0LNOJk2N-zEMrFYJAuMsizuSyrQ7ah2EPXAXyuv9FarhQ-3FZOuytwgV2gtKas1n43TbWDgKajH-&typo=1> bit.ly/virtualfriam 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> 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> 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/> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,p2bRAhp3XkO_9hWIIxq68P7WEqvJwuoNPSfz4QX3xT5jOX8l7hHNUj7OCe6sSdyjA_PYtlDUASWb88Zv6A2a5GujVXiHCuubvE0cMlQQZXsE0KvrsbfbMz1Jvg,,&typo=1> bit.ly/virtualfriam 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> 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> 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/> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,CRIaZ1LRbbycySJX_SCroTTyuLx7wTeRsBEvmXFgT_0d9i-cATAbHJPpIL8EekPbyz38jT4I45oHRuK5g1Phn_Un7vNGmEghisJh0OVU8UkX&typo=1> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,CRIaZ1LRbbycySJX_SCroTTyuLx7wTeRsBEvmXFgT_0d9i-cATAbHJPpIL8EekPbyz38jT4I45oHRuK5g1Phn_Un7vNGmEghisJh0OVU8UkX&typo=1 FRIAM-COMIC <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,okOqeLiVdFxh0q6MiE2rLKcK_f2L_Bg2KouWe1jP8eAaBVNvngnrVp8fad3Ja4N3Bb7rfe1UBjj9-rI3johbPazSFO0xWnmnD1gvHGrEQUIZR32-Ur4,&typo=1> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,okOqeLiVdFxh0q6MiE2rLKcK_f2L_Bg2KouWe1jP8eAaBVNvngnrVp8fad3Ja4N3Bb7rfe1UBjj9-rI3johbPazSFO0xWnmnD1gvHGrEQUIZR32-Ur4,&typo=1 archives: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> 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/
