[FRIAM] Eternal questions

[Frank Wimberly]

Hans Moravec told me that when he was researching robot navigation his
robots with vision would go quickly down a hallway but would slow down as
they approached the stairway at the end.  He said it looked like they were
scared but what was really happening was that they had a lot more
computation to do and so slowed down.  This was before 1980.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 6:55 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, EricC, pragmatist, what is the meaning of the expression “I have fear
> of X”?
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:00 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions
>
>
>
> EricC, your overall frame I fully agree with.  I was sort of hoping you
> would find the fog annoying enough to want to clear some of it.
>
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2021, at 12:36 AM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.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.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:48 AM <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
>
> 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> *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>
> *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> <
> 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
>
> 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> *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>
> *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> <
> 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
>
> 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> *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>
> *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> wrote:
>
> "In today’s AI universe, all the eternal questions (about intentionality,
> consciousness, free will, mind-body problem...) have become engineering
> problems", argues this Guardian article.
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/10/dogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fscience%2f2021%2faug%2f10%2fdogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence&c=E,1,0zM4mCzKmbes0weZLeJCmVy6dAfDvfYxSyHKpvl-aa8-hwd84lMymcY9HHVsp4jXbWOCjmb3kQDLfcwUGjHCouKd8sNTTfFuQtv62vY-RfAsXg,,&typo=1>
>
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,USKWJzhBjgjJh7B-0LkOfSd3nemyd1czMDhazLKVBZtafmJNbogUKdBckMq8YDhHys57cq3edfUxouOPaNKkqPHN7BSB2_jSqY2nj0PnsWO4&typo=1>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQIZirvod42goqmNxnJBxEDkNQZgDx4-Cpp9h61g27SR8pmXJ_MMfIylqQDG-apIDYJ41YBK5dlfDvP0mcsA7tgQfSN_fX8GOBstoJ7bRsPqllS8Hti8YhbPnto,&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,W-ArAxIKQNrM-7j3cHCB7DvRKs598JN3aWrygvNoMFhZMfHBdCpRnINnr__3jjhPqyWLiXzRL9KRjVJqtjeAAqtCaNq5qf7Ix3B4AjcEzvp4LWtuE0_bNYs00g,,&typo=1>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-pDsdi2AM5J35lPLI_g3-LtyM-BJTNkO0LNOJk2N-zEMrFYJAuMsizuSyrQ7ah2EPXAXyuv9FarhQ-3FZOuytwgV2gtKas1n43TbWDgKajH-&typo=1>
> un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,MzWtukTHxTmO0o4T4K75ZC6zy8h-gQojlN_6BSajavsHHOIC9hTMR8rjRvM4bWXKVt05qr4hoH2_sIH0XXVCaG4M61FBfWSeFBC6EOnQSCYDf-SZ&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,t5Vd_UMHRAMj63ikH0-cOAr7pxIW_XRAEXTZXCbAclW2tPEeUJHS7SstrpQmDgjUyzeW0mVLy-LmuIF58gw1_1tcSuaylib5tGj2zgHAqJE7&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,FZcVsD_n3OF9seVbMhIp-U9xWM0w3jdlAvleHfq0uAtpJdhPsEQ3Zzkw0-Q1OiKAuele4Q8X02QPfoLlpZEAYVdAAmywCfyP3v68hTjIZ51QMmzABLXwjk8KxWw,&typo=1>
> un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,BFllSC-pZ0weFNqjV1iB-w3DR43rvvcmxiYfCh3Inlzi3UOaC9v0gh67rb1SPyCmQIqhrg8ev1C7TSKyRr6rbt_1hS-Cky5ClbwSki3p&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lWRd3h5zEi_Sd3v9P1_NsGjaV_yXFovGQ-t8djjh-BNY8-KmDoPieLQWC8sugjPgglUTHnntK67jLtccS-k24YihXM8lbfVJ0LhKe0F-QUg-&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,flS_j978ae9MJ9aTyQMdRX9QPpBeRviscU7FwC6H8HMzGkD0PeBx05oCiqaP9n92HSn5pDirRUuaLmvuM0Q9_CTwIxEhV_U0NRASDpQr&typo=1>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,5GMtnfr2PjINLbXPugaEHa2KzrZ8QeRZ8Fe8G5DISdR-nk9ocFc6vKTQszJW70dKjdeihL5QlcWMi_y2Vs99M7PzpYWuGJYUKsmT_ySE&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,tR4HQ-eToVIOrt0-92wo0x-79GdMaObPEpyLG3kKLUl2pfYbdRBA-af2J3fk84jEh2zoJ-Ei77uEJ5OQm0PdnouWygocalLP01mLEhGfm6LBFrzZKk_SNsIK&typo=1>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,5Kyb9IOfzrYEjL-Y1HIVmg3g0Sw5LDkQXX96HFEBI-1bPD1E61LaDdHNRksRpkQbvES67QNX5EQyDxTdB76mFfLi-iZ3440-553M4JNKZVroRico4a5np5gx&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,J_cCLnHrRXYWpal0aIWE5jY_tZ-i7qBExhwkrjUCliJbs_RwzLCteWKL_GHHbDaL7GI-6HnMuJYG7sddthRvThePdXXSp9DRpIuih2BXRszLZShpvHyO&typo=1
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research:  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210824/0febcbdb/attachment.html>