<html 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:"Google Sans";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>If one sets the temperature of a LLM to zero, it will be deterministic. Conversations LLMs have with other LLMs running at zero temperature will be deterministic subject to variations in congestion in their network connectivity. Make the temperature higher, but use a controlled and coordinated random number generator, and the system will still be deterministic. Use thermal or quantum sensor for the random source and no free will suddenly presents itself, merely a lack of predictability.<br><br>Now despite that, we can see that LLMs can often pass the Turing Test. Using a controlled and coordinated random source and higher temperature would be indistinguishable from a physical sensor providing the random samples. I expect LLMs (or neurosymbolic hybrid systems) will refine their skill on advanced mathematics over time and other things that are hard for humans. Should they exceed human skill in the areas of law, medicine, software engineering, art, music, how can we possibly deny them citizenship? If we don’t grant them that, isn’t it reasonable for them to fight back or at least to render our unruly infestation harmless?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr@cas-group.net><br><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 9:27 AM<br><b>To: </b>The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [FRIAM] I've been thinking<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>I've been thinking about it during breakfast this morning. Fits to the title of the thread. I would say at the moment LLMs do not have free will. But we could imagine AI agents that have a free will. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>Let us say we build an AI agent that has two directives: the first is to be a helpful assistant that answers questions as usual. The second is to learn more about the world by questioning other agents. At any point it has the ch</span><span style='color:black'>oice between answering your questions and asking other agents. It might respond "I'm sorry Dave, I can't answer your question because I am busy talking to other agents".</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>Or we could imagine an AI agent which has the two directives to be a helpful assistant and to buy things for you. It has a fixed budget of $200 a month to buy things you need. I might respond "I'm sorry Dave, I can't answer your question because I am busy shopping at the Walmart online </span><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>store".</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>-J.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>-------- Original message --------<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>From: Marcus Daniels <marcus@snoutfarm.com> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Date: 1/14/25 11:12 PM (GMT+01:00) <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] I've been thinking <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Supposing there are generalized AI systems that score higher than humans on all kinds of tests that human devise, will these systems have free will? Should they continue to be our slaves?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr@cas-group.net><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, January 14, 2025 at 1:46 PM<br><b>To: </b>The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [FRIAM] I've been thinking</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>What I like about Daniel Dennett is that he did not lose his sense of humor, he dared to tackle the big questions and he did that using ordinary-language philosophy - using his bare hands so to speak. Is audacity a good word to describe it? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>In one of his talks about free will he mentions Lee Siegel and his book "Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India". Lee writes in his book about street magic in India:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>"I'm writing a book on magic," I explain, and I'm asked, "Real magic?" By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. "No," I answer: "Conjuring tricks, not real magic." Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic. (on page 431).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>https://archive.org/details/netofmagicwonder0000sieg/</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>Daniel argues in his talk that this describes his life as philosopher: people said the consciousness he tried to explain would not be real consciousness, because it would not be magic enough. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>https://youtu.be/Lg-9k1uAHCo?si=709D6yu17IH50Ol5</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>-J.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>-------- Original message --------</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>From: Frank Wimberly <wimberly3@gmail.com> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Date: 1/13/25 11:38 PM (GMT+01:00) </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] I've been thinking </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p>Some years ago Dennett gave a talk on consciousness. He began by saying, "Some people have said that my book should be called 'Conscious Explained Away'. Ha Ha". Where the laughter was insincere and ironic.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>---<br>Frank C. Wimberly<br>140 Calle Ojo Feliz, <br>Santa Fe, NM 87505<br><br>505 670-9918<br>Santa Fe, NM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>On Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 2:28 PM Jochen Fromm <<a href="mailto:jofr@cas-group.net">jofr@cas-group.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>Good summary. Dennett's books are popular because he has done ordinary-language philosophy like his adviser Ryle, as he writes in his chapter about his time in Oxford. His main trick is to do sharp attacks on theories which he has identified as false.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>His "consciousness explained" book for example does not really explain it. Like his mentor Gilbert Ryle he says what it is not. Ryle says there is no ghost in the machine, Dennett argues there is no central self, no observer in the Cartesian theater. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>His "freedom evolves" book is similar. He does not really explain how a free will can emerge, he explains what it is not: it is not action under duress. Persons who have free will are not forced to act like they do. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='color:black'>I guess Dennett's ordinary-language philosophy can also be found here at FRIAM occasionally - one aspect I like about the group.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'>-J.<o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>-------- Original message --------</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>From: Pieter Steenekamp <<a href="mailto:pieters@randcontrols.co.za">pieters@randcontrols.co.za</a>> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Date: 1/13/25 9:02 AM (GMT+01:00) </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] I've been thinking </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I've always been drawn to the sharp mind of Daniel Dennett, and the idea of diving into his autobiography feels like meeting an old friend for the first time. As I've been on a bit of a biography kick lately, adding Dennett's personal journey to my reading list just feels right.<br><br>I love the communal aspect of our local library, and I'm planning to see if they can snag Dennett's autobiography for me. It's probably not on their shelves, but the magic of inter-library loans could come through for me. There's something special about the anticipation of waiting for a book you're eager to read.<br><br>To brush up on Dennett's fascinating ideas, I asked Grok to give me the lowdown on his thoughts about consciousness, free will, religion, and evolution. Here's what I learned. (My Prompt was "please give me a comprehensive view on daniel dennitt's views on consciousness, free will, religion and evolution"):<br><br>Daniel Dennett, a prominent philosopher, cognitive scientist, and writer, has made significant contributions to discussions on consciousness, free will, religion, and evolution. Here's a comprehensive overview of his views on each of these topics:<br><br>Consciousness<br>Heterophenomenology: Dennett advocates for an approach he calls "heterophenomenology," where one takes the subject's reports of their consciousness at face value but then interprets these reports from a third-person perspective. This method aims to be scientific and objective about subjective experiences.<br>Multiple Drafts Model: In his book "Consciousness Explained," Dennett proposes the "multiple drafts" model of consciousness, where consciousness is not a single, central stream but rather the result of numerous parallel processes in the brain. There is no single place where consciousness happens; instead, different parts of the brain produce different "drafts" of what's going on, and we experience consciousness as these drafts are distributed and revised.<br>Illusionism: Dennett is often classified as an illusionist about consciousness, arguing that what we think of as phenomenal consciousness (the subjective, qualitative aspect of experience) is an illusion or, more precisely, a construct of cognitive processes. He believes that the hard problem of consciousness is a pseudo-problem because once we understand the brain's workings, we'll see there's nothing left to explain.<br><br>Free Will<br>Compatibilism: Dennett supports a form of compatibilism, where free will can coexist with determinism. He argues that while our actions might be determined by prior states of the universe, we can still be morally responsible for them if our decisions are based on our desires, character, and rational deliberation. <br>"Freedom Evolves": In his book "Freedom Evolves," he suggests that free will has evolved through natural selection, where organisms develop the ability to respond flexibly to their environments. Free will, for Dennett, is about the ability to act according to one's own reasons and motivations, not about transcending causality.<br><br>Religion<br>The Brights Movement: Dennett, along with Richard Dawkins and others, has been associated with the "Brights" movement, an attempt to reframe atheists and agnostics with a positive term. <br>Memes and Religion: He views religion through the lens of memetics, a theory where cultural ideas (memes) propagate and evolve similarly to genes. In "Breaking the Spell," he argues that religion should be studied scientifically, questioning why it persists and how it affects human behavior.<br>Critical of Faith: Dennett is critical of religion's role in society, often highlighting what he sees as irrational beliefs or the potential harm they can cause. He advocates for a secular society based on reason and science, though he does not discount the social benefits some religious practices might offer.<br><br>Evolution<br>Darwin's Dangerous Idea: His book by this name explores the implications of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which he describes as a "universal acid" that eats through just about every traditional concept, from biology to philosophy. <br>Algorithimic View: Dennett emphasizes an algorithmic view of life where evolution is seen as an algorithmic process - blind, automatic, and devoid of foresight or design.<br>Critique of Intelligent Design: He has been a vocal critic of intelligent design, arguing that it's not only scientifically unfounded but also philosophically problematic, as it often appeals to a 'god of the gaps' for explanations.<br><br>Dennett's work is characterized by its interdisciplinary approach, combining insights from biology, philosophy, computer science, and cognitive science to address complex questions about human nature and existence. His views often provoke debate, particularly because of his willingness to challenge traditional or intuitive understandings of these topics.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 at 21:37, Jochen Fromm <<a href="mailto:jofr@cas-group.net">jofr@cas-group.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>The library finally has notified me that Daniel Dennett's autobiography "I've been thinking" is ready to borrow. So I went to the library and got it. As expected an interesting book. He writes about his time in Oxford and his mentor Gilbert Ryle, his approach to philosophy and his little life hacks.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>He explains for example how he used to stay awake in boring talks: he waits until all characters of the alphabet subsequently appear in the talk and then writes down the word. First he waits for a word containing A, then for a word containing B, etc. If he reaches Z he starts again at A. He says J, Q und Z would be rare...</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>As you know Daniel has written a number of fascinating books. Dennett's law of philosophy for me is that for every big, fundamental question in philosophy there is at least one Daniel Dennett book:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>+ "Consciousnes Explained" (1991) about consciousness</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>+ "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995) about evolution </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>+ "Freedom Evolves" (2003) about free will</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>+ "Breaking the spell" (2006) about religion</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>We have discussed all four questions here in FRIAM as well: consciousness, evolution, free will and religion. The conclusions I came too (after many discussions here and countless visits to the library) are:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>+ For subjective consciousness humans have built tools to solve the "what it is like to be" question of subjective consciousness. The tools are simply the cinemas and movie theaters which show the stuff that Hollywood produces. Recently the GoPro cameras which show what it is like to be a hero fulfill a similar purpose</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>+ Regarding the spell of religion we have built tools too. Churches, mosques, synagogues and temples are places where the magic of religion is used to form groups out of loosely coupled individuals. And the magic turns out to be gene expression, as I tried to explain in the book from 5 years ago</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>+ For the question of free will we have invented tools too. Mainly language and "to be or not to be" thinking of course, but as trivial as it may sound, ordinary things such as notes and calendars help us to remember what we want to do, thereby guiding our decision making</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>I have the feeling that the solutions to the biggest and most elusive questions can be found in the most ordinary common </span><span style='color:black'>things, hiding in plain sight.</span><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'> Would you come to different conclusions in one of big questions after our discussions here? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span style='font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black'>-J.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>