[FRIAM] Eternal questions
David Eric Smith
desmith at santafe.edu
Tue Aug 24 16:00:14 EDT 2021
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.charles at 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.
> <mailto:echarles at american.edu>
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:48 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at 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-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at 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 at redfish.com <mailto:friam at 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, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at 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-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at 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 at redfish.com <mailto:friam at 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, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at 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-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 6:04 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at 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 <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at 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/ <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 <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 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 <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 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/ <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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210825/0017bbf8/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list