Russ, I would make a slight change to "in practice" instead of "in principle"
So, in practice as currently implemented, an LLM can't respond to any question that requires more than a fixed finite number of steps. On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, 1:10 PM Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yann Lecun points out that an LLM will take the same number of steps to > construct its response to any input. So, in principle, an LLM can't respond > to any question that requires more than a fixed finite number of steps. > > -- Russ > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, 10:19 AM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote: > >> What questions can’t a LLM in principle respond? >> >> >> >> And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?” >> >> And you may ask yourself, “How do I work this?” >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Nicholas >> Thompson >> *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2024 10:09 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be >> "mystery...deeper".T >> >> >> >> Marcus, >> >> >> >> I agree with you that your two conditions >> >> >> >> i*f 1) it had continuous real time training and 2) the training was >> coupled to the physical world through an array of sensors.* >> >> >> >> necessary for a system to be conscious. but unless you assert these >> conditions define a conscious system, you leave begging the question of >> what sort of experiences would lead you to assert that such a system is >> conscious. If, on the other hand, you do take these condition to be >> defining, then the statement that such a system is conscious is a >> tautology, without empirical implication. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:50 PM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> >> wrote: >> >> Some supercomputer networks an effective radix of 64. Blue Gene Q had >> five-dimensional real torus for connectivity. These network fabrics are >> typically autonomous remote DMA systems that are configured so that >> processors do not have to intervene in data transfers. >> >> Extreme ultraviolet lithography systems can fabricate 100 layers for a >> digital processor. >> >> >> It seems to me a LLM would have a sort of consciousness if 1) it had >> continuous real time training and 2) the training was coupled to the >> physical world through an array of sensors. >> >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West >> *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2024 9:00 AM >> *To:* friam@redfish.com >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be >> "mystery...deeper".T >> >> >> >> Two separate responses: >> >> >> >> first to Steve—Personally, I do believe in the spectrum of >> "consciousness" you suggest with, perhaps a nuance. One contributor tot he >> spectrum is simply quantity; a quanta has 1 'bit' of consciousness, an >> octopus has Domegegemegrottebyte (real thing according to Wikipedia) >> 'bits'. A more significant contributor is "organization." Molecules with >> differing numbers of atoms of the same elements, organized differently, >> have very different properties and behaviors. A human and an octopus might >> have the same number of bits of consciousness, but the organization of >> those bits (in an N-dimensional space) is radically different. >> >> >> >> This means it may be possible to say that some threshold quantity and >> and organization results in entities being included in the set of >> generically conscious things, it is unlikely we will ever be able to say >> that Consciousness-Human is identical to or even similar to >> Consciousness-octopus. >> >> >> >> BTW: much of my antipathy to AI claims arises from this perspective. A >> machine very well might have the requisite number of 'bits' of >> consciousness from the material of which the embodying machine is composed >> (and the fact that every 1/0 bit of the executing code has a 'bit' of >> consciousness) and those bits will be 'organized' sufficiently to join the >> generic set; but machine consciousness will never equate to human >> consciousness. My objections to machine "intelligence" comes from the fact >> that machines do not have the N-dimensional organization of humans or >> octopi. >> >> >> >> to Nick— >> >> >> >> Beware blatant anthropomorphism (applied to both Dave and Dusty) >> >> >> >> Dave is sleepy and calm. >> >> Dusty is anxious and afraid. >> >> Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security. >> >> Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed. >> >> Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her >> back and lets her stay as she is. >> >> Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep. >> >> >> >> Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series >> of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between >> the two and absent that state the interactions and 'feelings; as presented >> would not have occurred. But, perhaps Dave is just an (occasionally) good >> Buddhist showing Dusty the same respect he would express to any living >> being? >> >> >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, at 7:02 PM, steve smith wrote: >> >> >> >> Nick - >> >> >> >> (of course) I've larded up my usual style of response below (maybe only >> for my own need to "express" the buildup of mental-pus that comes with >> everything I hear here and elsewhere) but to save you (and anyone else who >> cares) the burden of parsing a few dozen lines of back-and-forth, I offer >> the punchline. If you are curious about how I came to said (vaguely) >> concise punchline you can read the rest after the <horizontal line> element >> below: >> >> >> >> A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of things you >> would acknowledge as "conscious" between the two extrema (perhaps) of a >> (presumably apex-complex) human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or >> a brane or a string-loop or some abstract monad? B) if yes, what are the >> implications of this? or C) why does quantizing "conscioiusness" into >> "humans like me" and "every other bit of life" feel necessary, useful or >> appealing? >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> If FriAM typical discourse is the Thunderstorm, is this a (weak) cuddle? >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Steve, >> >> >> >> The scale of your response alone suggests that it cannot be baby steps. >> >> Thus recognizing it was more of a baby (naive) pentathalon (long, arduous >> and multi-modal) hellride of a traverse through the implied space. >> >> >> >> I guess I am proposing a method here, one inn we work outward from an >> evocative experience to explore our understandings of contraversial >> concepts, and that we do it in relatively short bursts. >> >> yes, let us extrude short strands of noodle and see how they criss-cross. >> >> >> >> *Dusty comes to cuddle with David when she hears thunder.* >> >> *Does Dusty love David?* >> >> Dave (or does he self-identify as David?) loves Dusty and finds Dusty's >> cuddling sufficiently similar/familiar to his own cuddling to attribute it >> to love if he is in the mood to do so. >> >> If yes, what else would you expect Dusty to do with respect to David. >> given you have made that attribution. >> >> If no, what more would have Dusty have to do, before you would make such >> an attribution. >> >> Qualified yes... Dusty could cower under the bed, leaving Dave to >> choose to coax Dusty out and cuddle Dusty, giving Dusty the "love" or at >> least comfort which Dave would offer as the closest cross-species >> expression of love he knows how to offer in this moment. Dave loves Dusty, >> Dusty dog-loves Dave. They are reciprocal but asymmetric in quality, even >> if either would give their lives for the other? >> >> I would like to respond to an inference that there is something >> patronizing about my insisting on a method, as if I think you need >> thought-therapy and I am the guy to give it. >> >> If in fact you were to have intended (consciously or not) as patronizing, >> I take it as an gesture of love, of filial empathy, of generous guidance >> from someone who has been around at least as many trees as I have... I >> definitely need or seek thought/spiritual therapy/guaidance from every >> quarter, including this one. >> >> In reply, I only would say that if somebody were willing to ask me short, >> to-the-point questions about my thinking on any matter and explore >> carefully my answers, I would eternally grateful. I might even cuddle >> with them in a thunderstorm. >> >> I would choose to give you this level of fine-grain attention around your >> fascination with vortices in the context of meteorology (and other domains) >> more than this domain, but if this is the one you prefer (for the moment), >> let me ask a short, three-part but to-the-point question (and leave it to >> you to ignore the fecundly laden pregnant assumptions hidden by the implied >> simplicity of the construction): >> >> *A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of things you >> would acknowledge as "conscious" between the two extrema (perhaps) of a >> (presumably apex-complex) human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or >> a brane or a string-loop or some abstract monad? B) if yes, what are the >> implications of this? or C) why does quantizing "conscioiusness" into >> "humans like me" and "every other bit of life" feel necessary, useful or >> appealing?* >> >> Steve >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> NIck >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:05 PM steve smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: >> >> Nick - >> >> I'm glad you acknowledged (in another branch of this thread?) the >> "grumpiness" aspect of your initiation/participation in this thread. Your >> analogy around thought/feeling "expression" and that of pimple popping is >> in fact very apt if a bit graphic. I do think many of us want this >> apparently deeply thorny/paradoxical problem to be easier than it is? And >> the plethora of complexly subtle dis/mis-agreements on language around >> consciousness, intelligence, cognition, (self) awareness, qualia >> complicates that yet more. >> >> I don't know if my own baby-steps are helpful, given that my >> background/perspective might align more with DaveW than most others here >> (I'm very sympathetic with a pan-consciousness perspective)? maybe it >> parses as baby-babble more than baby-steps... >> >> I missed most of this (and related) threads but am surprised at where >> this seems to be going. I always associated consciousness with subjective >> experience and not necessarily with self awareness. The "hard problem of >> consciousness" is qualia, not self-awareness. No? An AI agent cannot >> understand language on anything other than a superficial basis because it >> has no idea what, for example "wet," means. Nevertheless, it will be quite >> good at stringing words together that say coherent things about wetness. An >> AI agent has no *idea *about anything. At the same time, an AI agent >> will be quite good at creating coherent statements about very many things. >> Just because an AI agent is able to create coherent statements does not >> mean that those statements reflect the agent's ideas--since it has no ideas. >> >> >> >> Russ's point here is a good pivot point for me in this conversation if >> it is possible to make the pivot. It may not be. >> >> Knowing and Knowing-About: >> >> I use the former to be the quality of qualia... not easily >> formalizeable nor quantifiable nor with obvious models which are not >> intrinsically subjective. "Knowing-About" is for me reserved for the >> formalized models of "facts about the world and relations between ideas" >> and when I say "formalized" I don't preclude storytelling or the highly >> vilified "just so stories". >> >> Formalized mathematical, statistical, logical models with digital >> computer simulations (or analog electronic, mechanical, hydraulic, >> pneumatic "circuits" or "systems") are "knowing about"... a steam train >> for example embodies "knowing about" converting carbon-fuel into linear >> motion across long distances, carrying heavy loads by way of many >> repeatable mechanisms... the implementation and operation of such a >> device/system is a "proof" in some sense of the design. >> >> On top of that design/system are other design/systems (say the logic of >> Railroad Robber Baronages) upon which yet other systems (say >> Industrial-revolution era proto-hyper-capitalism) on top of which rides >> trans-global corporatism and nationalism in their own "gyre and gimbal" >> with a in intra-stellar and eventually inter-stellar variation in the sense >> of Asimov's Foundation and Empire or perhaps for the youth culture here >> (under 60?) George Lucas' Star Wars Empire or Roddenberry's Star Trek >> Federation vs ??? >> >> Consciousness: >> >> A the lowest level consciousness or perhaps proto-consciousness registers >> for me as "having a model of the world useful for guiding behaviour toward >> surviving/thriving/reproducing/collectivizing". This permeates all of >> life from somewhere down at the single-celled >> bacteria/archaea/fungi/phyto-thingies/ up to and through >> vertebrates/mammals/hominids/sapiens >> >> On the reflection of whether my cat or dog, or the hummingbirds outside >> my window or the mice trying to sneak back into my house have >> "consciousness", or even more pointedly the mosquito I slapped into a blood >> (my blood by the way) spot on my forearm last night, have >> "consciousness"... while each of these appear to have a "consciousness" I >> know it to be variously more or less familiar to my own. My elaborate >> (unfettered?) imagination allows me to make up (just so?) stories about how >> cetaceans, cephalapods, jellyfish all variously have aspects of their >> "consciousness' that I could (do?) recognize (empathize with?). So I >> would want a multivalued function with at least two simple scalars: >> Familiarity-to-Me(Conscioiusness) and Potency-of(Consciousness), pick your >> scale... my identical twin or maybe conjoined twin might max out on the >> first scale while a nematode or a bacterium might trail off toward nil on >> the first AND second scale. And beyond the scale of organic life into >> artificial life and beyond, the "familiarity" of a glider or oscillator in >> the GameO'Life or the braided rings of Saturn, even less significant but >> not zero? The Potency-scale seems to be something like *agency* which >> feels absolute for most of us except Robert Sapolsky while the *agency* of >> an electron or neutrino seems registered at *absolute zero*, though the >> Quantum Consciousness folks maybe put it at max and our own more an >> illusive projection of that? >> >> The idea of "collective individuation" (e.g. mashup of Eleanor Ostrom's >> collectives and Jung's individuation) suggests that perception, cognition, >> intelligence, even consciousness may well be a collective phenomena. Our >> organs, tissues, cells, organelles, macromolecules, CHON++ molecules, >> atoms, baryons/fermions, quarks, strings, branes are on a loose hierarchy >> of diminishing Familiarity-Consciousness and Potency-Consciousness. I'm >> more interested (these days) in the emergent collective consciousness of >> the noosphere and perhaps the symbiotic culture of humanity and >> life-at-all-scales (SCHLAAS?) it feels wild and science-fictiony to >> assert that earth's biosphere has already (in the last 150 years) conjured >> a nervous system, a global-brain (ala Francis Heylighen: Global Brain >> Institute) >> >> https://globalbraininstitute.org/ with "our own" Bollen, Joslyn, >> Rodriguez still on the Board of Technical Advisors. I scoffed at this >> somewhat 25 years ago (mostly because of the hubris of "Global" and >> "Brain"). >> >> OK Nick, so not "baby steps" more like a hyper-baby's mad dash through an >> obstacle course or maybe a pentathalon? I tried shunting all this to >> George Tremblay IVo but he referred me to Gussie Tumbleroot who cheered me >> on on my careening ideational orbits. >> >> Gurgle, >> >> - Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Russ Abbott >> >> Professor Emeritus, Computer Science >> >> California State University, Los Angeles >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:30 AM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Glen, >> >> >> >> This is a test to illustrate somethiing about Gmail to Nick. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 4:37 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215003085 >> >> >> >> >> >> On July 9, 2024 2:04:29 PM PDT, Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> >> wrote: >> >> Maybe I should not be replying, as I do believe my dogs (and your cat if >> you have one) are conscious. >> >> >> >> I have not experienced a Vulcan Mind-Meld with either of my dogs, so I >> cannot say with certainty they are conscious—I must infer it from >> observations: >> >> 1- interactions with other dogs would seem to indicate they "remember" >> past interactions and do not require the same butt-sniffing protocol with >> dogs they have met at the park frequently. Also they seem to remember who >> plays with who and who doesn't. "That ball is not mine, this one is." >> >> 2-they modify their behavior depending on the tenor, sharpness, and >> volume of barks, ear positions, tail wagging differences, by the other >> dogs; e.g., "that's enough." >> >> 3-They do not communicate to me in English, but seem to accept >> communication from me in that language—not trained responses to commands, >> but "listening to conversations" between myself and Mary and reacting to >> words (e.g., dog park) that are exchanged in those conversations. Mary and >> I are totally sedentary and speaking in conversational tone, so pretty sure >> there we are not sending 'signals' akin to training words, training tone of >> voice. >> >> 4-they seem to remember trauma, (one of our dogs spent three days with >> dead owner before anyone knew the owner was deceased and will bite if >> anyone tries to forcefully remove him from my (current bonded owner) >> presence. >> >> 5-seek "psychological comfort" by crawling into my bed and sleeping on my >> shoulder when the thunderstorm comes. >> >> >> >> *All of these are grounded in anthropomorphism—long considered a deadly >> error by ethologists.* (Some contemporary ethologists are exploring >> accepting and leveraging this "error" to extend our understanding of animal >> behavior.) >> >> >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> >> While I find all the ancillary considerations raised on the original >> thread extremely interesting, I would like to reopen the discussion of >> Conscious as a Mystery and ask that those that join it stay close to the >> question of what consciousness is and how we know it when we see it. Baby >> Steps. >> >> >> >> Where were we? I think I was asking Jochen, and perhaps Peitr and >> anybody else who thought that animals were not conscious (i.e., not aware >> of their own awareness) what basis they had in experience for thinking >> that.. One offering for such an experience is the absence of language in >> animals. Because my cat cannot describe his experience in words, he >> cannot be conscious. This requires the following syllogism: >> >> >> >> Nothing that does not employ a language (or two?) is conscious. >> >> Animals (with ;the possible exception of signing apes) do not employ >> languages. >> >> Ergo, Animals are not conscious. >> >> >> >> But I was trying to find out the basis for the first premise. How do we >> know that there are no non-linguistic beings that are not conscious. I >> hope we could rule out the answer,"because they are non-linguistic", both >> in its strictly tautological or merely circular form. >> >> >> >> There is a closely related syllogism which we also need to explore: >> >> >> >> All language using beings are conscious. >> >> George Peter Tremblay IV is a language-using being. >> >> George Peter Tremblay IV is conscious. >> >> >> >> Both are valid syllogisms. But where do the premises come from. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Frank Wimberly >> >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/140+Calle+Ojo+Feliz+Santa+Fe,+NM+87505?entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/140+Calle+Ojo+Feliz+Santa+Fe,+NM+87505?entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> 505 670-9918 >> >> >> >> Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
