[FRIAM] Eternal questions
Steve Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Tue Aug 24 20:09:06 EDT 2021
> '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.)
>
> Nick está teniendo una rabieta... In Spanish. Perfectly parallel to
> the English version.
But if it were more appropriate to say "Nick is *throwing* a fit" would
the idiom transfer to Spanish?
I was literally just (hours ago) discussing the various words for
"strong/hard/firm" in Spanish with the man who helps me around the
property. Our language overlap is not good enough to discuss at the
level that occurs here, but "Fuerte", "Firma" and "Dura" all came to
mind. Given the context, all three fit the conversation (discussing my
choice of a juniper fencepost as a support for a rick of firewood we
were stacking.
Google Translate leads me to believe that "having a fit" is more like
"making an adjustment" while "throwing a fit" is like "launching an
attack". I suspect this represents the fundamental weakness in
automatic translation, not Google Translate alone. It takes a bit of
context or something to realize "throwing a fit" can be dramatic but
need not imply it is directed (attack) at anyone aggresively? It seems
(coincidentally) nuanced to think of "having a fit" as making some kind
of (internal?) adjustment to one's emotional/mental state?
Your own (Frank's) understanding of the context(s) involved
allowed/required you to use "rabieta" (tantrum), though I would ask if
YOU think Nick is "having" or "doing" (or in my lingo "throwing") un
rabieta?
(nod of genial thanks to NST for letting us rib him mercilessly in public).
mascullar balbucear, barbotear, o mascar?
Steve
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 9:37 AM Eric Charles
> <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com
> <mailto: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.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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 <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://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>
>
>
> *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
> <http://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 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
> 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
> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210824/0e1db194/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list