<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Algerian;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Marcus, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Would require a conversation. The chance that you and I use either of those words in the same sense is vanishingly small. Both Jon and EricC understand both senses and could mediate, if, and when, anybody has time. Briefly, to me, a goal is that object or state of affairs toward which the organization of behavior points. A function is the selective advantage that the organism gets from pursuing the goal. See page 34 ff, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333455804_SIGNS_AND_DESIGNS">(PDF) SIGNS AND DESIGNS</a>. Genes themselves are intentional devices, in this sense. The genfur X, of course, just makes a protein, which in the context of the developmental complex of which it is part, brings about an organism with trait X. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It’s already 1.30 and I don’t have my socks on. Time to do that. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>n<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nick Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcus Daniels<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 10, 2021 1:25 PM<br><b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Fine, the <span style='font-family:Algerian'>goal </span>is some composition of functions and it is all interdependent. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sure. Of course. Why is this so profound to y’all? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b><a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a><br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 10, 2021 10:20 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Which takes us back to thermostats, intentionality, intensional inexistence, Sober’s epiphomenator, spandrels, and Lorenz’s law: <span style='font-family:Algerian'>The goal is never the function.</span> If you build a bird that measures competing male robins in terms of “brown stick with red fluff” you eventually get an ethologist who gets that bird to attack by providing only brown sticks with red fluff. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>See. It’s all connected. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nick <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nick Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Smith<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 10, 2021 12:30 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>Sometimes all you need is a good aphorism<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p><a href="https://sketchplanations.com/goodharts-law">https://sketchplanations.com/goodharts-law</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p>or maybe boost it up with a cartoon<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p><a href="https://sketchplanations.com/">https://sketchplanations.com/</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>I can't help but wonder if there's an analog of Goodhart's law lurking, here.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On September 9, 2021 2:31:39 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><marcus@snoutfarm.com></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Or they are reprogramming their people to be smarter!<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>(Actually, deCODE is owned by Amgen now.)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Selection is already occurring, so it isn't as if this is some sci-fi thing.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/">https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: Friam <a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 2:12 PM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Aha! This is why Iceland has the highest per-capita fraction of published authors in the world. I had assumed it was the weather….<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>On Sep 10, 2021, at 2:17 AM, Marcus Daniels <a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><marcus@snoutfarm.com></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>That can be screened as well with a large population-wide survey such has been done in the UK or Iceland.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Of course, it is unlikely that complex behaviors will be governed by isolated mutations, so the task is to look for highly predictive motifs (e.g. regular expressions). <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: Friam <a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 10:12 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Ha! Now you're trolling. The answer is: "because the sites that generate reading ability (or whatever) *also* generate other 'abilities'", with "abilities" in scare quotes because many abilities are considered bad ... like the ability of a pimply faced white dude to shoot up a church or blow up a federal building.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>In addition to polyphenism, there's robustness. If more than 1 site generates the same functional ability (reading), then do we write them all? ... just one of them? ... a probabilistically predictive handful of them?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On 9/9/21 10:00 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>So find the sites that correspond to reading ability, or whatever, and WRITE them. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: Friam <a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:51 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I was alerted to this article this morning:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-con">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-con</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>v<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>inced-that-genetics-matters<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>It should delight those amongst us who rant about the "woke". 8^D But it dovetails nicely with the fraught concept of equality in the other thread.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Coincidentally, also on 9/6, the BIAPT announced their early career prize winner Emily McTernan:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.associationfo">https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.associationfo</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>rpoliticalthought.ac.uk%2fbiapt-2021-early-care&c=E,1,Je9MVNdO8lpJQOd<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>6fZwUNe-4z5yuFq0upxNIzMBFjmLFh_h5a63ueVVpd8lkEdWeUx5Xx1RaoPg3T5Ph8YlG<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>0558qqHLZD8-DKeBPEC3YYM,&typo=1<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>er-prize-winner-dr-emily-mcternan/<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>"In her forthcoming monograph, Dr McTernan develops her work on social equality further, to advance a pioneering conceptual account – and robust normative defence – of the phenomenon of ‘taking offence’. Therein, McTernan contends, we should understand taking offence, under appropriate conditions, as a civic virtue rather than a vice, as an emotion that embodies the resistance of social inequalities within a community."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On 9/8/21 8:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>From about a cancer rate of 10% (without mutation) to 50% (with) but it depends on the BRCA variant.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_ca">https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_ca</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>n<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>c<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>er.htm<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm"><https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_c</a><span class=MsoHyperlink><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span class=MsoHyperlink><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm">a</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span class=MsoHyperlink><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm">n</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span class=MsoHyperlink><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm">cer.htm></a></span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>On Sep 8, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Frank Wimberly <a href="mailto:wimberly3@gmail.com"><wimberly3@gmail.com></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'></span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Is the Braca gene that little correlated with breast cancer?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>---<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Frank C. Wimberly<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>140 Calle Ojo Feliz,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Santa Fe, NM 87505<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>505 670-9918<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Santa Fe, NM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 4:57 PM Marcus Daniels <<a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a> <a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> Yeah, it is hard to get excited about “unusual” variance. Modern <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>classification algorithms like gradient boosting make it possible <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to predict phenotypes, and to me that is a lot more interesting <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>(and still possible to deconstruct).____<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> __ __<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> *From:* Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a> <a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com></a>> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 8, 2021 3:53 PM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a> <a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><mailto:friam@redfish.com></a>><o:p></o:p></pre><pre> *Subject:* [FRIAM] gen'fur____<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> __ __<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> Gen'fur this, gen'fur that... and also the realities of biological complexity.... <o:p></o:p></pre><pre> ____<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>