From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug  1 08:55:54 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 08:55:54 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] For those of you, who like me,
 wish to engage in some wishful thinking right now.
Message-ID: <011001d30ac5$83828340$8a8789c0$@earthlink.net>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-boomerang-effect/20
17/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.c25378d79
d9f
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-boomerang-effect/2
017/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.c25378d7
9d9f&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1> &wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170801/ee7df067/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug  1 10:00:41 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:00:41 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Department of Wishful Thinking
Message-ID: <012901d30ace$909c75f0$b1d561d0$@earthlink.net>

Dear All, 

 

I went looking for possible sources of cheer today and found them in 3 quite
different places. 

 

The first argues that trump is shaping anew left of center consensus.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-boomerang-effect/20
17/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.d8deb74e5
98b
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-boomerang-effect/2
017/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.d8deb74e
598b&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1> &wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

 

 

The second Is a an indication that there are still a few adults in the white
house. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/31/im-an-impea
chment-lawyer-im-rooting-for-trumps-new-attorney-you-should-too/?tid=pm_opin
ions_pop
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/31/im-an-impe
achment-lawyer-im-rooting-for-trumps-new-attorney-you-should-too/?tid=pm_opi
nions_pop&utm_term=.75a8841957d8> &utm_term=.75a8841957d8

 

The third is just wonderfully silly.  Follow the twitter feed for maximum
lift. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mooch-is-gone-but-the-lyrics-liv
e-on/2017/07/31/0215a832-7640-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.73
4bd6e2da6c
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mooch-is-gone-but-the-lyrics-li
ve-on/2017/07/31/0215a832-7640-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.7
34bd6e2da6c&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1> &wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

 

 

Oh, Lordy, do I need "silly" right now!

 

Nick 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170801/692f096f/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 12:04:08 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:04:08 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Department of Wishful Thinking
In-Reply-To: <012901d30ace$909c75f0$b1d561d0$@earthlink.net>
References: <012901d30ace$909c75f0$b1d561d0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCTJab2gOXmWEc6p2R6RxtdsWvUOdHeev2XQVUk3DHthXg@mail.gmail.com>

Silly you say! I agree and I for one don't like this weird adult stuff. It
seems make you all grumbly and sulkyface . I don't hide prefering to laugh
and be a silly lighthearted goofball.  For some silly  like I said on one
of my twiiter acounts:
What green idea. This might help get the goofy started.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en"
dir="ltr">This still makes me laugh. <a href="https://t.co/EM2d06Dz44">
https://t.co/EM2d06Dz44</a></p>&mdash; George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) <a href="
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/892166490228748288">July 31,
2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"
charset="utf-8"></script>

https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/892166490228748288

Mrs Hucklebee Sanders being razed on TV...for wearing a giant greenscreen
test sign.


Just plain awsome  yet silly:
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/892166490228748288





On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I went looking for possible sources of cheer today and found them in 3
> quite different places.
>
>
>
> The first argues that trump is shaping anew left of center consensus.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-
> boomerang-effect/2017/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-
> ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.d8deb74e598b&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1
>
>
>
>
>
> The second Is a an indication that there are still a few adults in the
> white house.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/
> 2017/07/31/im-an-impeachment-lawyer-im-rooting-for-trumps-
> new-attorney-you-should-too/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.75a8841957d8
>
>
>
> The third is just wonderfully silly.  Follow the twitter feed for maximum
> lift.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mooch-is-
> gone-but-the-lyrics-live-on/2017/07/31/0215a832-7640-11e7-
> 8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.734bd6e2da6c&wpisrc=
> nl_opinions&wpmm=1
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, Lordy, do I need ?silly? right now!
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170801/1f1c32b5/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Tue Aug  1 12:29:21 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:29:21 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] For those of you, who like me,
 wish to engage in some wishful thinking right now.
In-Reply-To: <011001d30ac5$83828340$8a8789c0$@earthlink.net>
References: <011001d30ac5$83828340$8a8789c0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BN6PR11MB17007607631F1C7EBCD18655C5B30@BN6PR11MB1700.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Nick,


The best outcome I could see of all this would be if conservatives continue to fragment into irreconcilable parts, e.g. the feral blood and land patriarchs vs. the religious right vs. the oligarchy.   If things went well, they might end-up hating each other more than they hate the left.  Or maybe Trump will end-up as a sort of symbolic and powerless monarch.  If the military ignored him over the transgendered ban, that could be a slippery slope (in a good way).


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 6:55:54 AM
To: friam
Subject: [FRIAM] For those of you, who like me, wish to engage in some wishful thinking right now.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-boomerang-effect/2017/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.c25378d79d9f&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170801/1faa6dc5/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 12:30:21 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:30:21 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Department of Wishful Thinking
In-Reply-To: <012901d30ace$909c75f0$b1d561d0$@earthlink.net>
References: <012901d30ace$909c75f0$b1d561d0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCSK79Jbg=BxXnjQsV9PJfccJTrD33_JYeD4VWD_+fi6Zg@mail.gmail.com>

GeeorgTekai/Sulu's twitter and facebook is full of funsies
Other than a fun charector on OG StarTrek he's gone on to poke fun in
awsome ways at some reely weird stuff  that dun make sense.

As to 45...well that's definatly NOT cheer. Though a silver lining is that
around the 10th or so the white house quietly agreed 45 is not just what
gamers call a troll but bonkers and are happily queitly taking over his
job. Like Rep. Kamilla Harris (california) put it: That irtating set of
rules we like to call the amendments, by laws, and commen sense. so As of
around the 10th or so 45 has had some/many of his official powers taken
away. The strange and hillarius thing? he has yet to
notice....somehow...that'snot less said about 45. It's a iritating
depressing subject. The sooner we move passed this weirdness the better.

On a MUCH more awsome and cheerier note my Tweet to whitehouse may still be
around and I was just being me and iritated with the weird place polotics
is in. I found some of FDR's (famous and awsome one)  his fireside style
chats and pretty cool and uplifting talks especially when you lisent to
them over fanfare to the common man.

and in what ever space Twitter aloud send shortend Urls to  the WhiteHouse
(or likely staff )  just saying well I'll show an example it might cheer
you up ^_^

For example:
@WH
"...to boldly go.."
www.danaroc.com/guests_fdr_021609.html
<https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=fdr+new+deal+speech&oq=fdr&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.35i39k1l2j0j0i20k1.931.1349.0.4745.4.3.0.0.0.0.107.258.2j1.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.3.258.0..0i131k1.MowpO6yZ13c#>

   1.
   <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:s6ePwQCsCtQJ:www.danaroc.com/guests_fdr_021609.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us>
   2.
   <https://www.google.com/search?q=related:www.danaroc.com/guests_fdr_021609.html+fdr+new+deal+speech&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiugo3Xt7bVAhVq4YMKHYYPBFQQHwgsMAA>


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/59/c4/1e/59c41ea3f4f5410c3a7618e171204568.jpg



http://www.maniacworld.com/obama-spock-mashup.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLMVB0B1_Ts
<https://www.google.com/search?q=fan+far+to+the+common+man&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU3I-hubbVAhXF1IMKHTaaA6IQ_AUICSgA&biw=1768&bih=862&dpr=1#>

   1.
   <https://www.google.com/search?biw=1768&bih=862&q=related:https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DFLMVB0B1_Ts+fan+far+to+the+common+man&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiStJyiubbVAhUm24MKHW6dD78QHwgsMAA>



Hope that helps cheer you up Nick!








On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I went looking for possible sources of cheer today and found them in 3
> quite different places.
>
>
>
> The first argues that trump is shaping anew left of center consensus.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-
> boomerang-effect/2017/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-
> ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.d8deb74e598b&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1
>
>
>
>
>
> The second Is a an indication that there are still a few adults in the
> white house.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/
> 2017/07/31/im-an-impeachment-lawyer-im-rooting-for-trumps-
> new-attorney-you-should-too/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.75a8841957d8
>
>
>
> The third is just wonderfully silly.  Follow the twitter feed for maximum
> lift.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mooch-is-
> gone-but-the-lyrics-live-on/2017/07/31/0215a832-7640-11e7-
> 8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.734bd6e2da6c&wpisrc=
> nl_opinions&wpmm=1
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, Lordy, do I need ?silly? right now!
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170801/8da17ee2/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 13:40:54 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:40:54 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Department of Wishful Thinking
In-Reply-To: <012901d30ace$909c75f0$b1d561d0$@earthlink.net>
References: <012901d30ace$909c75f0$b1d561d0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCR=ziSPW0cV31AjN9mxF2vNZT5VjKZSGa4vhUBU1zYGHg@mail.gmail.com>

Some of you might apreciat the humor of this site from the tittle alone
what the fark this time?

https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2017/07/31/day-193/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=daily_email

thank you sulu for your wonderfully awsome and weird sense of humor.



On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I went looking for possible sources of cheer today and found them in 3
> quite different places.
>
>
>
> The first argues that trump is shaping anew left of center consensus.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-
> boomerang-effect/2017/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-
> ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.d8deb74e598b&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1
>
>
>
>
>
> The second Is a an indication that there are still a few adults in the
> white house.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/
> 2017/07/31/im-an-impeachment-lawyer-im-rooting-for-trumps-
> new-attorney-you-should-too/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.75a8841957d8
>
>
>
> The third is just wonderfully silly.  Follow the twitter feed for maximum
> lift.
>
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mooch-is-
> gone-but-the-lyrics-live-on/2017/07/31/0215a832-7640-11e7-
> 8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.734bd6e2da6c&wpisrc=
> nl_opinions&wpmm=1
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, Lordy, do I need ?silly? right now!
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170801/0240b8b9/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 20:00:38 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:00:38 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Since we all seem to need some cheer
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCSzXc4sP9=vmymS4Pzxkhd1VQeyrCBbSbBMnLXvOQgLXQ@mail.gmail.com>

https://soundcloud.com/chinese-classical-music


I found this the other day in a funk. It reminds me a bit of the good mojo
I had in china town, and I jokingly blame my misguided yute playing
computer games and watching a ton of kung fu flicks
(Life is good!)


Just plane fun and cheerful folk music and yar it so hits the spot with
stir and comedy

Nick if that doesn't help you cheer up..I..I may have to get extreme with
my silly jokes. Then the Steves will join in and the puns get rolling
(and bageling sometimes to)

To get that started I found out why mydoctor has a herb garden with oregeno
and thyme in it...she never has enough Time in the day.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170801/958acc84/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug  1 21:20:19 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:20:19 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Since we all seem to need some cheer
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCSzXc4sP9=vmymS4Pzxkhd1VQeyrCBbSbBMnLXvOQgLXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCSzXc4sP9=vmymS4Pzxkhd1VQeyrCBbSbBMnLXvOQgLXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004101d30b2d$8200ca00$86025e00$@earthlink.net>

Gill, 

 

Do you know why marooned sailors don?t play cards?  

 

Because, The Lord Saith, ?No Whist for the Wrecked.?

 

OK.  NOW I think we should stop.  There is a fine line between puns  and naked aggression.  We might get expunged from the list.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 8:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Since we all seem to need some cheer

 

https://soundcloud.com/chinese-classical-music

 

 

I found this the other day in a funk. It reminds me a bit of the good mojo I had in china town, and I jokingly blame my misguided yute playing computer games and watching a ton of kung fu flicks 

(Life is good!)

 

 

Just plane fun and cheerful folk music and yar it so hits the spot with stir and comedy

 

Nick if that doesn't help you cheer up..I..I may have to get extreme with my silly jokes. Then the Steves will join in and the puns get rolling

(and bageling sometimes to)

 

To get that started I found out why mydoctor has a herb garden with oregeno and thyme in it...she never has enough Time in the day.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170801/a9ac15cc/attachment.html>

From rec at elf.org  Wed Aug  2 09:50:25 2017
From: rec at elf.org (Roger Critchlow)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:50:25 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] geometries of neural net activations
Message-ID: <CAGayqounnm+w1iEo-JuGgb1dzbq=jFPDdi52gPnw_cWSsAmMMA@mail.gmail.com>

Hmm, meta analysis of FMRI result corpus:

http://reliawire.com/brain-architecture-abstract-thought/

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18112

-- rec --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170802/3d3a8233/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 11:34:25 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:34:25 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Since we all seem to need some cheer
In-Reply-To: <004101d30b2d$8200ca00$86025e00$@earthlink.net>
References: <CAMaMUCSzXc4sP9=vmymS4Pzxkhd1VQeyrCBbSbBMnLXvOQgLXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <004101d30b2d$8200ca00$86025e00$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCQj4NTA_-iaf80T-QSNC_UsDkECS6dnRmEaUh3BTOcDsQ@mail.gmail.com>

My zombie friends reely know how to keep a foot in the door.



On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Gill,
>
>
>
> Do you know why marooned sailors don?t play cards?
>
>
>
> Because, The Lord Saith, ?No Whist for the Wrecked.?
>
>
>
> OK.  NOW I think we should stop.  There is a fine line between puns  and
> naked aggression.  We might get expunged from the list.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Gillian
> Densmore
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 01, 2017 8:01 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Since we all seem to need some cheer
>
>
>
> https://soundcloud.com/chinese-classical-music
>
>
>
>
>
> I found this the other day in a funk. It reminds me a bit of the good mojo
> I had in china town, and I jokingly blame my misguided yute playing
> computer games and watching a ton of kung fu flicks
>
> (Life is good!)
>
>
>
>
>
> Just plane fun and cheerful folk music and yar it so hits the spot with
> stir and comedy
>
>
>
> Nick if that doesn't help you cheer up..I..I may have to get extreme with
> my silly jokes. Then the Steves will join in and the puns get rolling
>
> (and bageling sometimes to)
>
>
>
> To get that started I found out why mydoctor has a herb garden with
> oregeno and thyme in it...she never has enough Time in the day.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170802/320b232a/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug  2 18:03:43 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:03:43 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Legado de Nuevo Mexico
In-Reply-To: <017201d3042e$ef2c9740$cd85c5c0$@gmail.com>
References: <016001d2e8b7$0cd5e7d0$2681b770$@earthlink.net>
 <dbf300fd-d40b-b025-3783-9663e1c21b2b@gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCtXCoSNkRykjRY28cE9UnfN69cRW=C59Gc3q=_ZGaoVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <C06DE978-EDBF-4EAC-89A8-09ACD4229F5A@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfriJ6nc-uL86gYvF1mOTwzu_fAb9fWdD7V2uD3iqUaXcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <022801d2ec67$f7dd2e60$e7978b20$@earthlink.net>
 <001201d2ff75$1e568990$5b039cb0$@shaw.ca>
 <4ef026cf-0233-ad81-c080-99c5cfb1598e@gmail.com>
 <000601d30024$c0008ac0$4001a040$@shaw.ca>
 <e3938770-29d1-585f-70cb-72405813aac1@gmail.com>
 <000f01d300da$b7f40710$27dc1530$@shaw.ca>
 <017201d3042e$ef2c9740$cd85c5c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f88ab02e-7f51-ab88-791f-87a88a3e9f2f@swcp.com>

Frank and Congregation -

I finally checked my USPS mail today and discovered that the copy of 
your memoir on your NM legacy had arrived from Amazon.

Uncharacteristically I sat down over a long lunch of Huevos Rancheros 
(Xmas, over easy, extra garnish in place of rice/beans) and quaffed the 
entire book in a single sitting (with about 4 ice-tea chasers).

I gave up looking for metaphors in your very matter-of-fact chronicle.  
As predicted, the metaphors I did find were precisely the conceptual 
ones which I believe all language is built upon (as per Lakoff/Johnson, 
et al)...  not a bit of figurative language discovered!

I definitely enjoyed the romp through your memory and the eclectic mix 
of your West/East coast life with your earliest/latest years in 
Nuevomexico among communities and relatives of Spanish, Mexican, and 
Native ancestry.    As you know from some of our conversations, I was 
born/raised among communities where Natives and Spanish speakers were 
significant and sometimes dominant.  I do not have my own blood roots in 
the southwest as you do, and being about 15 years your junior, my 
experiences were a little different, but not entirely.  I prowled my 
rurality with both a spring-BB gun and an air rifle but graduated to 
archery over high-powered rifles in my teens, having noticed that I 
didn't really want to kill animals (or people).   I am probably the only 
member of my grade school who doesn't still own/shoot guns for fun.

I appreciated your observation about how multilinguals often reserve one 
language for one mode of interaction vs another.

I was so drawn in by your history that I wanted more details and 
anecdotes.  I'm sure the audience is small enough for this book and that 
one chronicling more of your technical education/interests/background 
would have a smaller audience, but I for one wanted to let you know I 
appreciated it.   I saw your sales rank is around 227,000 when I *think* 
it was 660,000 when I ordered.   This is something like a divide-by-zero 
situation I suspect?

I will pass your book on to a very good friend of mine who is your 
contemporary (also 1943) born/raised in NM/TX panhandle, visiting Los 
Alamos summers where an uncle worked.   He worked the switch yards on 
the railroads as a college student, had a classmate who "commuted" from 
school to vacations home "out west" by jumping boxcars.   Getting pulled 
by a big Eastern University (MIT) and joining the workforce in the 60's 
as an "analyst" on big mainframes with degrees in math/architecture.    
He will definitely appreciate a number of your early experiences.

Thanks for the book,

  - Steve




From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 18:31:35 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 16:31:35 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Legado de Nuevo Mexico
In-Reply-To: <f88ab02e-7f51-ab88-791f-87a88a3e9f2f@swcp.com>
References: <016001d2e8b7$0cd5e7d0$2681b770$@earthlink.net>
 <dbf300fd-d40b-b025-3783-9663e1c21b2b@gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCtXCoSNkRykjRY28cE9UnfN69cRW=C59Gc3q=_ZGaoVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <C06DE978-EDBF-4EAC-89A8-09ACD4229F5A@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfriJ6nc-uL86gYvF1mOTwzu_fAb9fWdD7V2uD3iqUaXcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <022801d2ec67$f7dd2e60$e7978b20$@earthlink.net>
 <001201d2ff75$1e568990$5b039cb0$@shaw.ca>
 <4ef026cf-0233-ad81-c080-99c5cfb1598e@gmail.com>
 <000601d30024$c0008ac0$4001a040$@shaw.ca>
 <e3938770-29d1-585f-70cb-72405813aac1@gmail.com>
 <000f01d300da$b7f40710$27dc1530$@shaw.ca>
 <017201d3042e$ef2c9740$cd85c5c0$@gmail.com>
 <f88ab02e-7f51-ab88-791f-87a88a3e9f2f@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfpFXxU889CDmrdssoAzmhXbEj8HDGpHJbLCMwLgSMHqfg@mail.gmail.com>

Al contrario Steve.  A usted gracias!

Once I said to Reuben Hersh that I was inhibited about writing to John Baez
to ask questions about his book on mathematical physics (Gauge Fields,
Knots and Gravity). Reuben said that authors love to get comments and
questions about their books. Now I understand.  If you don't receive such
communications you have a feeling that you have thrown a bottle containing
a note into the ocean.  Hence my feeling that I am the one who owes you
thanks.

As for metaphors, I did say that Norman Crider was like a fish out of
water.  But I guess that's a simile.

I still do own firearms but I haven't fired them for decades except once
when I shot a gopher with a .22 short from my study window. Anyone who has
a garden around here will understand.

It's interesting that you would have liked more anecdotes.  I could have
made the book twice as long but I thought that would make  it boring and I
was in a hurry for fear of becoming disabled before it was published.
Irrational, I know.

Thanks too for the plan to pass the book along to your friend.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918


On Aug 2, 2017 4:04 PM, "Steven A Smith" <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

Frank and Congregation -

I finally checked my USPS mail today and discovered that the copy of your
memoir on your NM legacy had arrived from Amazon.

Uncharacteristically I sat down over a long lunch of Huevos Rancheros
(Xmas, over easy, extra garnish in place of rice/beans) and quaffed the
entire book in a single sitting (with about 4 ice-tea chasers).

I gave up looking for metaphors in your very matter-of-fact chronicle.  As
predicted, the metaphors I did find were precisely the conceptual ones
which I believe all language is built upon (as per Lakoff/Johnson, et
al)...  not a bit of figurative language discovered!

I definitely enjoyed the romp through your memory and the eclectic mix of
your West/East coast life with your earliest/latest years in Nuevomexico
among communities and relatives of Spanish, Mexican, and Native ancestry.
  As you know from some of our conversations, I was born/raised among
communities where Natives and Spanish speakers were significant and
sometimes dominant.  I do not have my own blood roots in the southwest as
you do, and being about 15 years your junior, my experiences were a little
different, but not entirely.  I prowled my rurality with both a spring-BB
gun and an air rifle but graduated to archery over high-powered rifles in
my teens, having noticed that I didn't really want to kill animals (or
people).   I am probably the only member of my grade school who doesn't
still own/shoot guns for fun.

I appreciated your observation about how multilinguals often reserve one
language for one mode of interaction vs another.

I was so drawn in by your history that I wanted more details and
anecdotes.  I'm sure the audience is small enough for this book and that
one chronicling more of your technical education/interests/background would
have a smaller audience, but I for one wanted to let you know I appreciated
it.   I saw your sales rank is around 227,000 when I *think* it was 660,000
when I ordered.   This is something like a divide-by-zero situation I
suspect?

I will pass your book on to a very good friend of mine who is your
contemporary (also 1943) born/raised in NM/TX panhandle, visiting Los
Alamos summers where an uncle worked.   He worked the switch yards on the
railroads as a college student, had a classmate who "commuted" from school
to vacations home "out west" by jumping boxcars.   Getting pulled by a big
Eastern University (MIT) and joining the workforce in the 60's as an
"analyst" on big mainframes with degrees in math/architecture.    He will
definitely appreciate a number of your early experiences.

Thanks for the book,

 - Steve



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170802/00c190b4/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Wed Aug  2 18:50:26 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 18:50:26 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Legado de Nuevo Mexico
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfpFXxU889CDmrdssoAzmhXbEj8HDGpHJbLCMwLgSMHqfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016001d2e8b7$0cd5e7d0$2681b770$@earthlink.net>
 <dbf300fd-d40b-b025-3783-9663e1c21b2b@gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCtXCoSNkRykjRY28cE9UnfN69cRW=C59Gc3q=_ZGaoVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <C06DE978-EDBF-4EAC-89A8-09ACD4229F5A@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfriJ6nc-uL86gYvF1mOTwzu_fAb9fWdD7V2uD3iqUaXcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <022801d2ec67$f7dd2e60$e7978b20$@earthlink.net>
 <001201d2ff75$1e568990$5b039cb0$@shaw.ca>
 <4ef026cf-0233-ad81-c080-99c5cfb1598e@gmail.com>
 <000601d30024$c0008ac0$4001a040$@shaw.ca>
 <e3938770-29d1-585f-70cb-72405813aac1@gmail.com>
 <000f01d300da$b7f40710$27dc1530$@shaw.ca>
 <017201d3042e$ef2c9740$cd85c5c0$@gmail.com>
 <f88ab02e-7f51-ab88-791f-87a88a3e9f2f@swcp.com>
 <CAA5dAfpFXxU889CDmrdssoAzmhXbEj8HDGpHJbLCMwLgSMHqfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c401d30be1$bbd65790$338306b0$@earthlink.net>

There can always be a second edition.  I wonder what would happen if you approached a publisher with what you have already and asked them if they would be interested in guiding you to  publishing a longer (and more lucrative) second edition.  Publishers (in the old days, anyway) love a bird in hand.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 6:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Legado de Nuevo Mexico

 

Al contrario Steve.  A usted gracias!

 

Once I said to Reuben Hersh that I was inhibited about writing to John Baez to ask questions about his book on mathematical physics (Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity). Reuben said that authors love to get comments and questions about their books. Now I understand.  If you don't receive such communications you have a feeling that you have thrown a bottle containing a note into the ocean.  Hence my feeling that I am the one who owes you thanks.

 

As for metaphors, I did say that Norman Crider was like a fish out of water.  But I guess that's a simile.  

 

I still do own firearms but I haven't fired them for decades except once when I shot a gopher with a .22 short from my study window. Anyone who has a garden around here will understand.

 

It's interesting that you would have liked more anecdotes.  I could have made the book twice as long but I thought that would make  it boring and I was in a hurry for fear of becoming disabled before it was published.  Irrational, I know.

 

Thanks too for the plan to pass the book along to your friend.

 

Frank

 

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

 

 

On Aug 2, 2017 4:04 PM, "Steven A Smith" <sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com> > wrote:

Frank and Congregation -

I finally checked my USPS mail today and discovered that the copy of your memoir on your NM legacy had arrived from Amazon.

Uncharacteristically I sat down over a long lunch of Huevos Rancheros (Xmas, over easy, extra garnish in place of rice/beans) and quaffed the entire book in a single sitting (with about 4 ice-tea chasers).

I gave up looking for metaphors in your very matter-of-fact chronicle.  As predicted, the metaphors I did find were precisely the conceptual ones which I believe all language is built upon (as per Lakoff/Johnson, et al)...  not a bit of figurative language discovered!

I definitely enjoyed the romp through your memory and the eclectic mix of your West/East coast life with your earliest/latest years in Nuevomexico among communities and relatives of Spanish, Mexican, and Native ancestry.    As you know from some of our conversations, I was born/raised among communities where Natives and Spanish speakers were significant and sometimes dominant.  I do not have my own blood roots in the southwest as you do, and being about 15 years your junior, my experiences were a little different, but not entirely.  I prowled my rurality with both a spring-BB gun and an air rifle but graduated to archery over high-powered rifles in my teens, having noticed that I didn't really want to kill animals (or people).   I am probably the only member of my grade school who doesn't still own/shoot guns for fun.

I appreciated your observation about how multilinguals often reserve one language for one mode of interaction vs another.

I was so drawn in by your history that I wanted more details and anecdotes.  I'm sure the audience is small enough for this book and that one chronicling more of your technical education/interests/background would have a smaller audience, but I for one wanted to let you know I appreciated it.   I saw your sales rank is around 227,000 when I *think* it was 660,000 when I ordered.   This is something like a divide-by-zero situation I suspect?

I will pass your book on to a very good friend of mine who is your contemporary (also 1943) born/raised in NM/TX panhandle, visiting Los Alamos summers where an uncle worked.   He worked the switch yards on the railroads as a college student, had a classmate who "commuted" from school to vacations home "out west" by jumping boxcars.   Getting pulled by a big Eastern University (MIT) and joining the workforce in the 60's as an "analyst" on big mainframes with degrees in math/architecture.    He will definitely appreciate a number of your early experiences.

Thanks for the book,

 - Steve



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170802/4a833e6a/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 19:11:59 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:11:59 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Legado de Nuevo Mexico
In-Reply-To: <00c401d30be1$bbd65790$338306b0$@earthlink.net>
References: <016001d2e8b7$0cd5e7d0$2681b770$@earthlink.net>
 <dbf300fd-d40b-b025-3783-9663e1c21b2b@gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCtXCoSNkRykjRY28cE9UnfN69cRW=C59Gc3q=_ZGaoVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <C06DE978-EDBF-4EAC-89A8-09ACD4229F5A@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfriJ6nc-uL86gYvF1mOTwzu_fAb9fWdD7V2uD3iqUaXcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <022801d2ec67$f7dd2e60$e7978b20$@earthlink.net>
 <001201d2ff75$1e568990$5b039cb0$@shaw.ca>
 <4ef026cf-0233-ad81-c080-99c5cfb1598e@gmail.com>
 <000601d30024$c0008ac0$4001a040$@shaw.ca>
 <e3938770-29d1-585f-70cb-72405813aac1@gmail.com>
 <000f01d300da$b7f40710$27dc1530$@shaw.ca>
 <017201d3042e$ef2c9740$cd85c5c0$@gmail.com>
 <f88ab02e-7f51-ab88-791f-87a88a3e9f2f@swcp.com>
 <CAA5dAfpFXxU889CDmrdssoAzmhXbEj8HDGpHJbLCMwLgSMHqfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c401d30be1$bbd65790$338306b0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfpDavFaQycNFU39A8acWFzG8Xey2W0ttWQOC8bkU-fbFg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the advice, Nick.  And fir the metaphor.  I think I'll wait for
more data about interest in my story.

Feank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 2, 2017 4:50 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

> There can always be a second edition.  I wonder what would happen if you
> approached a publisher with what you have already and asked them if they
> would be interested in guiding you to  publishing a longer (and more
> lucrative) second edition.  Publishers (in the old days, anyway) love a
> bird in hand.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 02, 2017 6:32 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Legado de Nuevo Mexico
>
>
>
> Al contrario Steve.  A usted gracias!
>
>
>
> Once I said to Reuben Hersh that I was inhibited about writing to John
> Baez to ask questions about his book on mathematical physics (Gauge Fields,
> Knots and Gravity). Reuben said that authors love to get comments and
> questions about their books. Now I understand.  If you don't receive such
> communications you have a feeling that you have thrown a bottle containing
> a note into the ocean.  Hence my feeling that I am the one who owes you
> thanks.
>
>
>
> As for metaphors, I did say that Norman Crider was like a fish out of
> water.  But I guess that's a simile.
>
>
>
> I still do own firearms but I haven't fired them for decades except once
> when I shot a gopher with a .22 short from my study window. Anyone who has
> a garden around here will understand.
>
>
>
> It's interesting that you would have liked more anecdotes.  I could have
> made the book twice as long but I thought that would make  it boring and I
> was in a hurry for fear of becoming disabled before it was published.
> Irrational, I know.
>
>
>
> Thanks too for the plan to pass the book along to your friend.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2017 4:04 PM, "Steven A Smith" <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
> Frank and Congregation -
>
> I finally checked my USPS mail today and discovered that the copy of your
> memoir on your NM legacy had arrived from Amazon.
>
> Uncharacteristically I sat down over a long lunch of Huevos Rancheros
> (Xmas, over easy, extra garnish in place of rice/beans) and quaffed the
> entire book in a single sitting (with about 4 ice-tea chasers).
>
> I gave up looking for metaphors in your very matter-of-fact chronicle.  As
> predicted, the metaphors I did find were precisely the conceptual ones
> which I believe all language is built upon (as per Lakoff/Johnson, et
> al)...  not a bit of figurative language discovered!
>
> I definitely enjoyed the romp through your memory and the eclectic mix of
> your West/East coast life with your earliest/latest years in Nuevomexico
> among communities and relatives of Spanish, Mexican, and Native ancestry.
>   As you know from some of our conversations, I was born/raised among
> communities where Natives and Spanish speakers were significant and
> sometimes dominant.  I do not have my own blood roots in the southwest as
> you do, and being about 15 years your junior, my experiences were a little
> different, but not entirely.  I prowled my rurality with both a spring-BB
> gun and an air rifle but graduated to archery over high-powered rifles in
> my teens, having noticed that I didn't really want to kill animals (or
> people).   I am probably the only member of my grade school who doesn't
> still own/shoot guns for fun.
>
> I appreciated your observation about how multilinguals often reserve one
> language for one mode of interaction vs another.
>
> I was so drawn in by your history that I wanted more details and
> anecdotes.  I'm sure the audience is small enough for this book and that
> one chronicling more of your technical education/interests/background would
> have a smaller audience, but I for one wanted to let you know I appreciated
> it.   I saw your sales rank is around 227,000 when I *think* it was 660,000
> when I ordered.   This is something like a divide-by-zero situation I
> suspect?
>
> I will pass your book on to a very good friend of mine who is your
> contemporary (also 1943) born/raised in NM/TX panhandle, visiting Los
> Alamos summers where an uncle worked.   He worked the switch yards on the
> railroads as a college student, had a classmate who "commuted" from school
> to vacations home "out west" by jumping boxcars.   Getting pulled by a big
> Eastern University (MIT) and joining the workforce in the 60's as an
> "analyst" on big mainframes with degrees in math/architecture.    He will
> definitely appreciate a number of your early experiences.
>
> Thanks for the book,
>
>  - Steve
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170802/7c8e8633/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug  2 19:52:47 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:52:47 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Legado de Nuevo Mexico
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfpFXxU889CDmrdssoAzmhXbEj8HDGpHJbLCMwLgSMHqfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016001d2e8b7$0cd5e7d0$2681b770$@earthlink.net>
 <dbf300fd-d40b-b025-3783-9663e1c21b2b@gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCtXCoSNkRykjRY28cE9UnfN69cRW=C59Gc3q=_ZGaoVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <C06DE978-EDBF-4EAC-89A8-09ACD4229F5A@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfriJ6nc-uL86gYvF1mOTwzu_fAb9fWdD7V2uD3iqUaXcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <022801d2ec67$f7dd2e60$e7978b20$@earthlink.net>
 <001201d2ff75$1e568990$5b039cb0$@shaw.ca>
 <4ef026cf-0233-ad81-c080-99c5cfb1598e@gmail.com>
 <000601d30024$c0008ac0$4001a040$@shaw.ca>
 <e3938770-29d1-585f-70cb-72405813aac1@gmail.com>
 <000f01d300da$b7f40710$27dc1530$@shaw.ca>
 <017201d3042e$ef2c9740$cd85c5c0$@gmail.com>
 <f88ab02e-7f51-ab88-791f-87a88a3e9f2f@swcp.com>
 <CAA5dAfpFXxU889CDmrdssoAzmhXbEj8HDGpHJbLCMwLgSMHqfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4761391e-df9e-15ad-c1e9-f892dfa6d8f0@swcp.com>


> It's interesting that you would have liked more anecdotes.  I could 
> have made the book twice as long but I thought that would make  it 
> boring and I was in a hurry for fear of becoming disabled before it 
> was published. Irrational, I know.
Let's just say I was captivated, but I have  a lot of natural 
resonance/affinity for your subject (general place-time).

I admit that it WAS a treat to be able to take it all in one long gulp 
which was a close call.... I was done with my meal and on my 3rd ice-tea 
and ready to pack it in when I realized the remainder of the pages 
weren't all full (what with back-matter and all) and soldiered on to the 
end.

I might even find this an excuse to make it to the weekly meeting of the 
congregation just to prise a few more anecdotes from you.
>
> Thanks too for the plan to pass the book along to your friend.
I doubt it will inspire him to write his own but in it's own way is 
equally interesting (at least to me!).

Your point about authors being interested in reader feedback reminds me 
of an open-ended conversation with our own Tim Taylor (aka Ramick) 
regarding the role of "audience" in poetry/writing.

In my own experience the timesqew for regularly published writers seems 
to cause them some annoyance with fans.  Unless they are on a riff of a 
10 part Trilogy by the time I have read one of their works, it is likely 
they were done with it's creation years before... at best they were 
bouncing back and forth with Editor/Publisher for a year or more from 
their final draft and their final draft might have been a year or more 
past a "pretty good draft" and are NOW well into their next novel (or 
next dozenth short piece) so discussing the characters/setting/conceit 
of their LAST work (or something from a decade past) seems to be at 
least a mild annoyance to them.

I have always been fascinated with Scientific/Technical people who 
became fiction authors, whether they write tech/sci fiction or not.   
One of my favorites is Robert Forward, and LANL has it's own 
contemporary Ian Tregellis 
<http://www.lanl.gov/careers/stories/spotlight/ian-tregillis.php> to 
offer up in that category.

- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170802/238dc818/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 20:20:56 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 18:20:56 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Legado de Nuevo Mexico
In-Reply-To: <4761391e-df9e-15ad-c1e9-f892dfa6d8f0@swcp.com>
References: <016001d2e8b7$0cd5e7d0$2681b770$@earthlink.net>
 <dbf300fd-d40b-b025-3783-9663e1c21b2b@gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCtXCoSNkRykjRY28cE9UnfN69cRW=C59Gc3q=_ZGaoVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <C06DE978-EDBF-4EAC-89A8-09ACD4229F5A@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfriJ6nc-uL86gYvF1mOTwzu_fAb9fWdD7V2uD3iqUaXcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <022801d2ec67$f7dd2e60$e7978b20$@earthlink.net>
 <001201d2ff75$1e568990$5b039cb0$@shaw.ca>
 <4ef026cf-0233-ad81-c080-99c5cfb1598e@gmail.com>
 <000601d30024$c0008ac0$4001a040$@shaw.ca>
 <e3938770-29d1-585f-70cb-72405813aac1@gmail.com>
 <000f01d300da$b7f40710$27dc1530$@shaw.ca>
 <017201d3042e$ef2c9740$cd85c5c0$@gmail.com>
 <f88ab02e-7f51-ab88-791f-87a88a3e9f2f@swcp.com>
 <CAA5dAfpFXxU889CDmrdssoAzmhXbEj8HDGpHJbLCMwLgSMHqfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4761391e-df9e-15ad-c1e9-f892dfa6d8f0@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfo6TLvDP6M2ZuvGdGDQKSPjxjg9m2igAjchqr_CedCqgQ@mail.gmail.com>

I might even find this an excuse to make it to the weekly meeting of the
congregation just to prise a few more anecdotes from you.

Here's one that I could have put in the chapter "Summer of 1962".  I may
have mentioned this at the weekly meeting but you haven't been there for a
long time.  When my sister, her boyfriend and I were staying with my
childless aunt and uncle for the summer, my aunt said, "Frank, can you go
to the store and pick up a fifth of milk?".  They bought much more liquor
than milk.

Frank


Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 2, 2017 5:53 PM, "Steven A Smith" <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

>
> It's interesting that you would have liked more anecdotes.  I could have
> made the book twice as long but I thought that would make  it boring and I
> was in a hurry for fear of becoming disabled before it was published.
> Irrational, I know.
>
> Let's just say I was captivated, but I have  a lot of natural
> resonance/affinity for your subject (general place-time).
>
> I admit that it WAS a treat to be able to take it all in one long gulp
> which was a close call.... I was done with my meal and on my 3rd ice-tea
> and ready to pack it in when I realized the remainder of the pages weren't
> all full (what with back-matter and all) and soldiered on to the end.
>
> I might even find this an excuse to make it to the weekly meeting of the
> congregation just to prise a few more anecdotes from you.
>
>
> Thanks too for the plan to pass the book along to your friend.
>
> I doubt it will inspire him to write his own but in it's own way is
> equally interesting (at least to me!).
>
> Your point about authors being interested in reader feedback reminds me of
> an open-ended conversation with our own Tim Taylor (aka Ramick) regarding
> the role of "audience" in poetry/writing.
>
> In my own experience the timesqew for regularly published writers seems to
> cause them some annoyance with fans.  Unless they are on a riff of a 10
> part Trilogy by the time I have read one of their works, it is likely they
> were done with it's creation years before... at best they were bouncing
> back and forth with Editor/Publisher for a year or more from their final
> draft and their final draft might have been a year or more past a "pretty
> good draft" and are NOW well into their next novel (or next dozenth short
> piece) so discussing the characters/setting/conceit of their LAST work (or
> something from a decade past) seems to be at least a mild annoyance to them.
>
> I have always been fascinated with Scientific/Technical people who became
> fiction authors, whether they write tech/sci fiction or not.   One of my
> favorites is Robert Forward, and LANL has it's own contemporary Ian
> Tregellis
> <http://www.lanl.gov/careers/stories/spotlight/ian-tregillis.php> to
> offer up in that category.
>
> - Steve
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170802/2521d7bc/attachment.html>

From owen at backspaces.net  Thu Aug  3 15:23:59 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:23:59 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Trump Support
Message-ID: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>

The Economist sez:

We asked YouGov, a pollster, to survey 1,500 Americans about Donald Trump
and several national media outlets. When Republicans were asked whether
they trusted Mr Trump more than the New York Times, Washington Post or CNN,
70% sided with the president each time. Republicans now loathe these
outlets so much that nearly half would be glad to see unconstitutional
means used to silence them, writes our data team


https://goo.gl/Xmfqcr


I've wanted to know if Trump voters hang onto him after all the harm he's
done to them. Apparently they are like this tweet:
[image: Inline image 1]

   -- Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170803/3c4ccba4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Snap.08.03.17-13.23.03.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27570 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170803/3c4ccba4/attachment.jpg>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 15:44:17 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:44:17 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Trump Support
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCT7-dG7Y4p=f1MkGSRWZjmA+3vrTky4TgZNGeb0sERASQ@mail.gmail.com>

Oh and as funny quirk: POTUS aproval  now (roughly 20-25%) is about the
same number that  thought it was a good idea to (try to) fire BClinton for
liking women and having a fight with Gangrich.

The number of people that are asking Washington to do a Referendum and
Special election (about 55-60%)
Is the same number that called for Nixons resignation, asked if Raegan was
sane:
Source: George Takai's twitter feed.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> The Economist sez:
>
> We asked YouGov, a pollster, to survey 1,500 Americans about Donald Trump
> and several national media outlets. When Republicans were asked whether
> they trusted Mr Trump more than the New York Times, Washington Post or CNN,
> 70% sided with the president each time. Republicans now loathe these
> outlets so much that nearly half would be glad to see unconstitutional
> means used to silence them, writes our data team
>
>
> https://goo.gl/Xmfqcr
>
>
> I've wanted to know if Trump voters hang onto him after all the harm he's
> done to them. Apparently they are like this tweet:
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>    -- Owen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170803/0d6ca86c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Snap.08.03.17-13.23.03.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27570 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170803/0d6ca86c/attachment.jpg>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 15:54:05 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 12:54:05 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Trump Support
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>


I'm inclined to call that articlet "fake news". 8^)  YouGov has a good rating with 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).  But I can't help but wonder about the one-sidedness of the articlet.  Why only include those 2 (or 7 ... or 8, or whatever it was) questions?  Where's the fine-print link to the poll and its analysis?  Maybe I missed it.  Etc.

Regardless, I have 2 reactions:  1) Excellent! The more the flat-earthers flock together and reinforce their batsh!t delusions, the more obvious it becomes to anyone how delusional they are.  Maybe they'll even go all "Heaven's Gate" and suffocate themselves from all the methane[?].  2) It's not so much self-defeating on the R's part as it is our (every one of us) inability to think about complex things.  I posit the tendency to trust Trump will correlate with the tendency to prefer oversimplification. [?] But the same would apply to any chant you might hear at a liberal march/rally.  Anyone who enjoys those stupid chants is enjoying oversimplification.



[?] https://youtu.be/BPC7e8W8u18
[?] I feel the same way about "tl;dr" and people who overvalue the disgusting concept of 'pithyness' and/or sayings like "brevity is the soul of wit".  No, it's an indicator of ADHD you aphorism-obsessed @#$%. >8^D

On 08/03/2017 12:23 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> The Economist sez:
> 
> We asked YouGov, a pollster, to survey 1,500 Americans about Donald Trump
> and several national media outlets. When Republicans were asked whether
> they trusted Mr Trump more than the New York Times, Washington Post or CNN,
> 70% sided with the president each time. Republicans now loathe these
> outlets so much that nearly half would be glad to see unconstitutional
> means used to silence them, writes our data team
> 
> 
> https://goo.gl/Xmfqcr
> 
> 
> I've wanted to know if Trump voters hang onto him after all the harm he's
> done to them. Apparently they are like this tweet:
> [image: Inline image 1]


-- 
? glen


From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 16:07:04 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:07:04 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Trump Support
In-Reply-To: <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfqHW6i62TyLaRTG8fm1dzQyr=1S0dY5vY77DG=JoEcX4Q@mail.gmail.com>

Nice to have you back, Glen.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 3, 2017 1:54 PM, "glen ?" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm inclined to call that articlet "fake news". 8^)  YouGov has a good
> rating with 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).
> But I can't help but wonder about the one-sidedness of the articlet.  Why
> only include those 2 (or 7 ... or 8, or whatever it was) questions?
> Where's the fine-print link to the poll and its analysis?  Maybe I missed
> it.  Etc.
>
> Regardless, I have 2 reactions:  1) Excellent! The more the flat-earthers
> flock together and reinforce their batsh!t delusions, the more obvious it
> becomes to anyone how delusional they are.  Maybe they'll even go all
> "Heaven's Gate" and suffocate themselves from all the methane[?].  2) It's
> not so much self-defeating on the R's part as it is our (every one of us)
> inability to think about complex things.  I posit the tendency to trust
> Trump will correlate with the tendency to prefer oversimplification. [?]
> But the same would apply to any chant you might hear at a liberal
> march/rally.  Anyone who enjoys those stupid chants is enjoying
> oversimplification.
>
>
>
> [?] https://youtu.be/BPC7e8W8u18
> [?] I feel the same way about "tl;dr" and people who overvalue the
> disgusting concept of 'pithyness' and/or sayings like "brevity is the soul
> of wit".  No, it's an indicator of ADHD you aphorism-obsessed @#$%. >8^D
>
> On 08/03/2017 12:23 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> > The Economist sez:
> >
> > We asked YouGov, a pollster, to survey 1,500 Americans about Donald Trump
> > and several national media outlets. When Republicans were asked whether
> > they trusted Mr Trump more than the New York Times, Washington Post or
> CNN,
> > 70% sided with the president each time. Republicans now loathe these
> > outlets so much that nearly half would be glad to see unconstitutional
> > means used to silence them, writes our data team
> >
> >
> > https://goo.gl/Xmfqcr
> >
> >
> > I've wanted to know if Trump voters hang onto him after all the harm he's
> > done to them. Apparently they are like this tweet:
> > [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> --
> ? glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170803/289e07c0/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug  3 16:19:22 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 20:19:22 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Trump Support
In-Reply-To: <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>,
 <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB1709CAB9FF9E1CE08121BE32C5B10@MWHPR11MB1709.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Glen writes:


" I posit the tendency to trust Trump will correlate with the tendency to prefer oversimplification. [?] But the same would apply to any chant you might hear at a liberal march/rally.  Anyone who enjoys those stupid chants is enjoying oversimplification."


People talk about `playing by the rules' like it is a good thing.  But is fulfillment of an old or obsolete social contract (get married, get a soul-destroying job, and make babies) really something to be honored?  Some reason to lock-out cheaper or more-skilled workers in their favor?   It seems to me little more than fear of failure, and an absence of curiosity.    A bunch of people that take pride in their ability to truncate the world into a set of rules that can be conveyed by using a belt or a chant, and while intoxicated.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:54:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Support


I'm inclined to call that articlet "fake news". 8^)  YouGov has a good rating with 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).  But I can't help but wonder about the one-sidedness of the articlet.  Why only include those 2 (or 7 ... or 8, or whatever it was) questions?  Where's the fine-print link to the poll and its analysis?  Maybe I missed it.  Etc.

Regardless, I have 2 reactions:  1) Excellent! The more the flat-earthers flock together and reinforce their batsh!t delusions, the more obvious it becomes to anyone how delusional they are.  Maybe they'll even go all "Heaven's Gate" and suffocate themselves from all the methane[?].  2) It's not so much self-defeating on the R's part as it is our (every one of us) inability to think about complex things.  I posit the tendency to trust Trump will correlate with the tendency to prefer oversimplification. [?] But the same would apply to any chant you might hear at a liberal march/rally.  Anyone who enjoys those stupid chants is enjoying oversimplification.



[?] https://youtu.be/BPC7e8W8u18
[?] I feel the same way about "tl;dr" and people who overvalue the disgusting concept of 'pithyness' and/or sayings like "brevity is the soul of wit".  No, it's an indicator of ADHD you aphorism-obsessed @#$%. >8^D

On 08/03/2017 12:23 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> The Economist sez:
>
> We asked YouGov, a pollster, to survey 1,500 Americans about Donald Trump
> and several national media outlets. When Republicans were asked whether
> they trusted Mr Trump more than the New York Times, Washington Post or CNN,
> 70% sided with the president each time. Republicans now loathe these
> outlets so much that nearly half would be glad to see unconstitutional
> means used to silence them, writes our data team
>
>
> https://goo.gl/Xmfqcr
>
>
> I've wanted to know if Trump voters hang onto him after all the harm he's
> done to them. Apparently they are like this tweet:
> [image: Inline image 1]


--
? glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170803/a6a9a780/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 16:33:25 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:33:25 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Trump Support
In-Reply-To: <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCRAjfx_g6z42e0Sx1OCuQavM3DZ-z506w7ngoQG4Ucieg@mail.gmail.com>

Except that despite Drumpf was batshit crazy in the 80s. He seems to have
gone more batshit crazy with possible altimerz and dementia issues.
My scary click this morning durrning routine taichI?
He is mimicing others and parts of his sane(ER) self the same way Raegen
did in the 80s. I hope we don't need a repeat of the weird polotics of then
to see how this could play out.

Let's put this into perspective: of the roughtly 60% or so that could vote
8 months ago. Only 15% a small very friegtened number of people looking
around at clay colord humans going about their lives.
Their reaction? Feer and terror and for what ever reasons not able to
consider: those clay skined people are just going about their day to day
lifes. Plus their's about 500 or so dicks in Washignton that have a very
conservertive view the world.

The rest of us see these people as just people.  I clearly enjoy company of
some of them otherwise I wouldn't enjoy beer with them and treet them as
possible freends, One of those guys even helped fix my phone.

For me the issue is simple: 45. Is fucking nuts. He was nuts in the 80's
and gone even more bat fucking shit crazy somehow.
Acording to tweats from Luan and Takei they recenlty added charges of
espenage and attempted blackmail to the reasons for impeachment.
(Aka went full nixon and Raegon on us)
It's possible that might reason enough for congress to ask for his
resignation. I have no idea what the rules say about that. Kamilla Harris
and Maxine Waters have asked a few times to use Nixon as historical
president for congress to ask that POTUS resign. Suposedly so did sanders.



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:54 PM, glen ? <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm inclined to call that articlet "fake news". 8^)  YouGov has a good
> rating with 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).
> But I can't help but wonder about the one-sidedness of the articlet.  Why
> only include those 2 (or 7 ... or 8, or whatever it was) questions?
> Where's the fine-print link to the poll and its analysis?  Maybe I missed
> it.  Etc.
>
> Regardless, I have 2 reactions:  1) Excellent! The more the flat-earthers
> flock together and reinforce their batsh!t delusions, the more obvious it
> becomes to anyone how delusional they are.  Maybe they'll even go all
> "Heaven's Gate" and suffocate themselves from all the methane[?].  2) It's
> not so much self-defeating on the R's part as it is our (every one of us)
> inability to think about complex things.  I posit the tendency to trust
> Trump will correlate with the tendency to prefer oversimplification. [?]
> But the same would apply to any chant you might hear at a liberal
> march/rally.  Anyone who enjoys those stupid chants is enjoying
> oversimplification.
>
>
>
> [?] https://youtu.be/BPC7e8W8u18
> [?] I feel the same way about "tl;dr" and people who overvalue the
> disgusting concept of 'pithyness' and/or sayings like "brevity is the soul
> of wit".  No, it's an indicator of ADHD you aphorism-obsessed @#$%. >8^D
>
> On 08/03/2017 12:23 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> > The Economist sez:
> >
> > We asked YouGov, a pollster, to survey 1,500 Americans about Donald Trump
> > and several national media outlets. When Republicans were asked whether
> > they trusted Mr Trump more than the New York Times, Washington Post or
> CNN,
> > 70% sided with the president each time. Republicans now loathe these
> > outlets so much that nearly half would be glad to see unconstitutional
> > means used to silence them, writes our data team
> >
> >
> > https://goo.gl/Xmfqcr
> >
> >
> > I've wanted to know if Trump voters hang onto him after all the harm he's
> > done to them. Apparently they are like this tweet:
> > [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> --
> ? glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170803/fc2490df/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Thu Aug  3 16:40:55 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:40:55 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Trump Support
In-Reply-To: <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b98c646-680e-1271-f493-7b59780a751b@swcp.com>

Glen -

Thanks for your analysis.

I suffer mightily on the axis of over-simplification to 
over-complication.   I suffer it personally (making bad choices, mostly 
biased toward complification) and by proxy (suffering friends and 
colleagues who operate on some other region of that axes, often barely 
overlapping (in a fuzzy distribution kinda way)).

Once Trump was in and his shenanigans started coming home to roost on 
all of us (including the joke about Trumpsters shoothing themselves in 
the dick because liberals hate it so much) I quit talking politics with 
my Trumpsketeer friends.  Some of it is simple embarrassment for them.   
When Trump was all promises (threats) and no action and even when his 
actions hadn't produced (negative nor positive) results, I felt inclined 
to debate the issues with them if only a little.  Now that the obvious 
(and not so obvious) results are starting to hit the floor (like the 
proverbial "other shoe" but from a millipede, not a biped), I guess I 
recognize that I would be throwing good energy after bad to do so.

I DO occasionally debate (discuss?) with my friends/colleagues who I 
know not to be taken in in any way at all by the Donald and his Cronies, 
some of the unexpected consequences and some of the possible alternate 
paths to a brighter future that nobody in their right mind could have 
positioned us for as well as our Lunatic in Chief has.

I used to think of Trump as "a loose cannon on deck" and while I was 
(mildly) happy to see *some* of the junk on deck cleared off by his wild 
careening, I was worried about him snapping the masts, destroying the 
wheelhouse, hulling and then knocking all the lifeboats overboard, etc.  
I still worry a bit about all of that, but am finding him to be a much 
"lighter weight" cannon than I feared.  He seems completely incapable of 
picking a good enough strategy to get ANYTHING he seeks and he doesn't 
have the followthrough to actually cash in on his occasional 
(accidental/blundering?) successes.

For example, does our Brinksman in Chief puffing his chest and waving 
his tiny fist at the Kleptocrat in Chief (Putin) and the WhackJob in 
Chief (Kim Jung Un) somehow set the stage for a global nuclear 
disarmament (or at least de-escalation)?   We have been running on (n 
times over) MAD for many decades and we are finally faced with at least 
one MAD actor with nukes whose use of same would trigger not Mutual 
Destruction but Unilateral Destruction and Regional Disaster (wherever 
Kim Jung might hurl his one (or two) Nukes?)  I'm pretty sure the Donald 
(with the support of the Joint Chiefs) wouldn't blink at the prospect of 
vaporizing the capitol and a few other choice locations with only the 
mildest concession for not immediately harming SoKo or Japanese or 
Chinese citizens.  Kaesong and Sinuiju being likely exempt due to their 
proximity to these countries?

Another example is his rabid "tear down ObamaCare" leading us toward a 
confrontation where Medicare-for-All or another version of Single-Payer 
health care becomes inevitable?

And is his flat-earth Climate Denial scaring even those who believe in 
it but won't acknowledge it for their own personal/business greed 
interests?   Might the torch for this movement move significantly out of 
Government hands?    Will there be a huge backlash swing as soon as the 
Blue/Green folks can get control over the legislative branch again?   
Trump can cause a LOT of trouble in 4 years perhaps, but the backlash to 
his nonsense might very well recover greater than if he'd never mucked 
things up?

Reminds me of the trick when arm-wrestling someone who is well matched, 
of "pretending" to give way just a tiny bit and being able to overcome 
the opponents dynamic strength more effectively than their static 
strength.   It has been noted that the previous 8 years trained the 
Republicans to be entirely reactive and obstructionist, and are now 
having a huge problem doing anything actually constructive (especially 
while watching their own back from the Trumpster and company).

I'm probably just singing my usual Pollyanna song here, but I guess I 
really like the tune!

- Steve


On 8/3/17 1:54 PM, glen ? wrote:
> I'm inclined to call that articlet "fake news". 8^)  YouGov has a good rating with 538 (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/).  But I can't help but wonder about the one-sidedness of the articlet.  Why only include those 2 (or 7 ... or 8, or whatever it was) questions?  Where's the fine-print link to the poll and its analysis?  Maybe I missed it.  Etc.
>
> Regardless, I have 2 reactions:  1) Excellent! The more the flat-earthers flock together and reinforce their batsh!t delusions, the more obvious it becomes to anyone how delusional they are.  Maybe they'll even go all "Heaven's Gate" and suffocate themselves from all the methane[?].  2) It's not so much self-defeating on the R's part as it is our (every one of us) inability to think about complex things.  I posit the tendency to trust Trump will correlate with the tendency to prefer oversimplification. [?] But the same would apply to any chant you might hear at a liberal march/rally.  Anyone who enjoys those stupid chants is enjoying oversimplification.
>
>
>
> [?] https://youtu.be/BPC7e8W8u18
> [?] I feel the same way about "tl;dr" and people who overvalue the disgusting concept of 'pithyness' and/or sayings like "brevity is the soul of wit".  No, it's an indicator of ADHD you aphorism-obsessed @#$%. >8^D
>
> On 08/03/2017 12:23 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>> The Economist sez:
>>
>> We asked YouGov, a pollster, to survey 1,500 Americans about Donald Trump
>> and several national media outlets. When Republicans were asked whether
>> they trusted Mr Trump more than the New York Times, Washington Post or CNN,
>> 70% sided with the president each time. Republicans now loathe these
>> outlets so much that nearly half would be glad to see unconstitutional
>> means used to silence them, writes our data team
>>
>>
>> https://goo.gl/Xmfqcr
>>
>>
>> I've wanted to know if Trump voters hang onto him after all the harm he's
>> done to them. Apparently they are like this tweet:
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>



From gepropella at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 17:48:42 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:48:42 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Trump Support
In-Reply-To: <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRnf8U8Q5GeCaN__PzPHamyK_p9kpwB6xR1k1z0tHLaFRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <71c2de42-cf35-7ce7-3e13-939519e2c2cf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <70579992-828c-512e-0e77-b3bc88d73e9b@gmail.com>

On 08/03/2017 01:07 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Nice to have you back, Glen.

Thanks!

On 08/03/2017 01:19 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> People talk about `playing by the rules' like it is a good thing.  But is fulfillment of an old or obsolete social contract (get married, get a soul-destroying job, and make babies) really something to be honored?  Some reason to lock-out cheaper or more-skilled workers in their favor?   It seems to me little more than fear of failure, and an absence of curiosity.    A bunch of people that take pride in their ability to truncate the world into a set of rules that can be conveyed by using a belt or a chant, and while intoxicated.

I agree completely.  My Trump-loving, CEO-hating, corporation-fearing, Christ-loving, walking contradiction of a neighbor talked about how the "justice system has been destroyed", criminals get off, corrupt politicians get away with it, etc.  I told him of my DUI arrest after I was diagnosed (and drank too much yapping with a friend about death) and the circumstances of it.  My claim was that, back in Texas, when I was a kid, the cop would have locked up my motorcycle and driven me home ... probably to turn up the next morning to yell at me.  But regardless of any sympathy the cop might have had for my circumstances, they're simply not allowed to do that sort of thing (at least not with ordinary people).  They'd be fired or go to jail themselves (or think they would).

After my neighbor finished his rant about the justice system, I told him that story and followed up with my rant about "jury of your peers" ... the gist being that context is king, details are important.  And you want a) a good dialectic between the state and your lawyer and b) to be judged by those (morons) you live with.  You want that.  He then agreed and told a story about some conflicted feelings he had over a personally relevant murder trial.  So, he ended up agreeing that, perhaps, the justice system isn't so broken after all. [sigh]

Then I told him about a recent article that showed judges were more likely to grant probation if they had recently eaten and less likely if they were hungry.  So, he, again, flipped and began ranting about how broken the justice system is.

Anyhooo .... it devolved, as it always does, into him a) extolling his tendency to argue against deontological Christians who think their pet rule is in the bible and b) complaining about how Catholics and Muslims are too flexible in their interpretations of their respective rulesets ... despite his never having heard of Hadith or anything of the sort.

Oh well.

On 08/03/2017 01:33 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> For me the issue is simple: 45. Is fucking nuts. He was nuts in the 80's
> and gone even more bat fucking shit crazy somehow.

I'm not so sure.  In my off moments, I can't help but think I'd end up in the same situation if, for whatever reason, the job landed in my lap.  I feel the same way here on this list, surrounded by people way smarter than me ... especially when I say stupid things off the cuff, just like Trump.  I can even empathize (by imputation) with some of what I think Trump meant when he said various things that seem stupid for a politician to say.  I may be slightly more academic than Trump and try to speak more clearly and steadily.  But you don't have to be crazy to be really really bad at something.  He's incompetent and should never have been elected.  To me, that's really the deepest, trustable, statement we can make.  Personally, his election seems to me like more of the same: Rich people have the power ... and having money doesn't imply you're competent at anything.


On 08/03/2017 01:40 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Reminds me of the trick when arm-wrestling someone who is well matched, of "pretending" to give way just a tiny bit and being able to overcome the opponents dynamic strength more effectively than their static strength.

I hope you're right.  I even wrote a response to a post the other day reflecting that... basically, that Trump (and the racists, neo-reactionaries, sovereign citizens, etc.) are the resistance, not the liberals.  If we empathize with the pathetic, frightened, little moron homunculi that drive all these people, imagine how you'd feel to look around and see all the progress we've made over the last 100, 1000, or 10k years.  Really, the liberals are winning, thank Yog.

-- 
? glen


From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Fri Aug  4 16:37:14 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 14:37:14 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] For nick and Dad
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCSddtPhhP--rojCQ7ZJSEVzG+YMr0sAtUzFf3aoK9d8hQ@mail.gmail.com>

Since they've said needs some cheer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1OZKKfHGg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170804/140bd8fd/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Sun Aug  6 12:28:18 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 10:28:18 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] just for fun
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCS9ZE=9mqvK0Rgz8keMGhxJnb4ujmP0tShZpjtYM0FYhQ@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.antipodesmap.com/#about-antipodes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170806/76ddb6bc/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Sun Aug  6 17:44:38 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 15:44:38 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Fire neer santa fe?
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCQ1rfM=LkG_u7eTO_kq4PByDUJ30NdiaoMjLT-AwyQ5UA@mail.gmail.com>

Their's smoke in the air and a burning smell.

Any guesses to wich fire this might be? and is it anything to be concerned
about yet? as of 1545/345PM local  thin haze and a distinct smoke fire
scent..

Their's a few places online that note the pueblos Friday/Saturday have a
fire from lightning as well as a few fires outside of ABQ.  I simply don't
know if their's one closer to town.


And as a last sensable  follow ups everyone out their ok? if we know?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170806/f70a635b/attachment.html>

From gary at naturesvisualarts.com  Sun Aug  6 19:30:40 2017
From: gary at naturesvisualarts.com (Gary Schiltz)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 18:30:40 -0500
Subject: [FRIAM] just for fun
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCS9ZE=9mqvK0Rgz8keMGhxJnb4ujmP0tShZpjtYM0FYhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCS9ZE=9mqvK0Rgz8keMGhxJnb4ujmP0tShZpjtYM0FYhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANr4ZeOAhLAA0Bg5=qHdedRWz6ryuEvR3fppeGLOBa0JG=V2+w@mail.gmail.com>

That's really cool, Gillian. If you click on Santa Fe, you get a nice
snarky response like one of the following for the Antipodes Location:

You`re alone and the water is so cold.
Incredible! There is no one around you, just fish.
You`re in the water and all you need is a boat.
Most likely the ocean. Watch out for sharks.

So, if you decide to tunnel straight through the center of the earth, you
might want to try making a little course correction somewhere.

Fortunately for me, most of Ecuador's antipodes location is on the island
of Sumatra, which happens to grow my favorite variety of coffee.

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> https://www.antipodesmap.com/#about-antipodes
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170806/13ca2214/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sun Aug  6 20:05:27 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 18:05:27 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] just for fun
In-Reply-To: <CANr4ZeOAhLAA0Bg5=qHdedRWz6ryuEvR3fppeGLOBa0JG=V2+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCS9ZE=9mqvK0Rgz8keMGhxJnb4ujmP0tShZpjtYM0FYhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANr4ZeOAhLAA0Bg5=qHdedRWz6ryuEvR3fppeGLOBa0JG=V2+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <846a3b1a-9f7c-11cf-85d3-063149043868@swcp.com>

So... *IF* you could bore a perfectly straight hole thorugh the earth to 
your precise antipodal location (probably having to put one hell of a 
"well casing" in, probably of neutronium to withstand the temperatures 
and turbulences of the core?) what would the "orbit" of a falling body 
be?   Would a massive object (e.g.  metal sphere) simply fall to the 
center and then by it's momentum "rise" until it reached it's apogee 
somewhat short of the antipodal end of the casing, slowed somewhat by 
the atmosphere?

Is this a good problem for a second year differential calculus student?  
Or might there be some simplifying assumptions that could be made?


My rough attempt to estimate the behaviour/trajectory: (spoiler?)

The "boundary conditions" suggest that upon dropping the mass, gravity 
and air density would be very close to what we have at or just above the 
surface and the mass would achieve terminal velocity (122mph for a 
sky-belly-flopper, a bit more for a true sky-diver, and probably 
somewhat higher for an iron or steel sphere, for instance) long before 
air density nor the value of gravity changed appreciably.

Near the core, the air density would approach zero (my assumption of a 
spherical earth and that the gravitational attraction of the mass 
"outside" the radius of the current location of the sphere summing to 
zero) it seems likely that terminal velocity would rise to some point, 
but it seems very difficult to estimate.

Other assumptions include that the diameter of the sphere is small 
enough compared to the borehole that there would be no significant 
amount of compression of the column of air in front of the sphere, if it 
were a "tight fit" I suspect the ball would compress the column of air 
under it until that pressure's exerted force exceeded that of 
gravitational pull and would eventually "bounce" long before it got near 
the core.

I also thought of coriolis forces, but then realized that the trajectory 
has only an R, no theta nor phi component, so in principle the sphere 
would not experience any coriolis force. (nod to Nick's Swirlies)  On 
the other hand, since the sphere would nominally be in freefall, it's 
trajectory would be influenced by it's initial velocity (relative to the 
rotation of the earth), suggesting it would follow a spiral path toward 
the center of the  earth, suggesting that if we wanted a "bullet-train" 
that went straight through the earth, we would need to give it a 
*spiral* core?    Evacuating such a a tube would allow true orbital 
speeds.   The precision required to "drop" a bullet-train car "through* 
the earth seems excruciatingly difficult (as would be coming up with 
methods for the coring and the lining) seems insurmountable... but some 
form of magnetic levitation type "correction" along the way would seem 
possible if not easy.

I think tidal forces can safely be ignored?

I fondly remember when I first heard about the Freeman Dyson's "Dyson 
Sphere" and then Niven's _Ringworld_ and his followon _Integral Trees_ 
and Bob Forward's _Rocheworld_, realizing that there were alternative 
physics/engineering regimes not that far from our current experience, 
yet quite counter-intuitive to us.

'nuff for now,

  - Steve


On 8/6/17 5:30 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
> That's really cool, Gillian. If you click on Santa Fe, you get a nice 
> snarky response like one of the following for the Antipodes Location:
>
> You`re alone and the water is so cold.
> Incredible! There is no one around you, just fish.
> You`re in the water and all you need is a boat.
> Most likely the ocean. Watch out for sharks.
>
> So, if you decide to tunnel straight through the center of the earth, 
> you might want to try making a little course correction somewhere.
>
> Fortunately for me, most of Ecuador's antipodes location is on the 
> island of Sumatra, which happens to grow my favorite variety of coffee.
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Gillian Densmore 
> <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     https://www.antipodesmap.com/#about-antipodes
>     <https://www.antipodesmap.com/#about-antipodes>
>
>     ============================================================
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170806/4179c593/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sun Aug  6 20:30:09 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 00:30:09 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] just for fun
In-Reply-To: <846a3b1a-9f7c-11cf-85d3-063149043868@swcp.com>
References: <CAMaMUCS9ZE=9mqvK0Rgz8keMGhxJnb4ujmP0tShZpjtYM0FYhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANr4ZeOAhLAA0Bg5=qHdedRWz6ryuEvR3fppeGLOBa0JG=V2+w@mail.gmail.com>,
 <846a3b1a-9f7c-11cf-85d3-063149043868@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <D9FFE77B-8494-41C3-88E6-DE3A28BAFA27@snoutfarm.com>

Shouldn't it be used for Hyperloop?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 6, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com<mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> wrote:


So... *IF* you could bore a perfectly straight hole thorugh the earth to your precise antipodal location (probably having to put one hell of a "well casing" in, probably of neutronium to withstand the temperatures and turbulences of the core?) what would the "orbit" of a falling body be?   Would a massive object (e.g.  metal sphere) simply fall to the center and then by it's momentum "rise" until it reached it's apogee somewhat short of the antipodal end of the casing, slowed somewhat by the atmosphere?

Is this a good problem for a second year differential calculus student?  Or might there be some simplifying assumptions that could be made?


My rough attempt to estimate the behaviour/trajectory: (spoiler?)

The "boundary conditions" suggest that upon dropping the mass, gravity and air density would be very close to what we have at or just above the surface and the mass would achieve terminal velocity (122mph for a sky-belly-flopper, a bit more for a true sky-diver, and probably somewhat higher for an iron or steel sphere, for instance) long before air density nor the value of gravity changed appreciably.

Near the core, the air density would approach zero (my assumption of a spherical earth and that the gravitational attraction of the mass "outside" the radius of the current location of the sphere summing to zero) it seems likely that terminal velocity would rise to some point, but it seems very difficult to estimate.

Other assumptions include that the diameter of the sphere is small enough compared to the borehole that there would be no significant amount of compression of the column of air in front of the sphere, if it were a "tight fit" I suspect the ball would compress the column of air under it until that pressure's exerted force exceeded that of gravitational pull and would eventually "bounce" long before it got near the core.

I also thought of coriolis forces, but then realized that the trajectory has only an R, no theta nor phi component, so in principle the sphere would not experience any coriolis force.  (nod to Nick's Swirlies)  On the other hand, since the sphere would nominally be in freefall, it's trajectory would be influenced by it's initial velocity (relative to the rotation of the earth), suggesting it would follow a spiral path toward the center of the  earth, suggesting that if we wanted a "bullet-train" that went straight through the earth, we would need to give it a *spiral* core?    Evacuating such a a tube would allow true orbital speeds.   The precision required to "drop" a bullet-train car "through* the earth seems excruciatingly difficult (as would be coming up with methods for the coring and the lining) seems insurmountable... but some form of magnetic levitation type "correction" along the way would seem possible if not easy.

I think tidal forces can safely be ignored?

I fondly remember when I first heard about the Freeman Dyson's "Dyson Sphere" and then Niven's _Ringworld_ and his followon _Integral Trees_ and Bob Forward's _Rocheworld_, realizing that there were alternative physics/engineering regimes not that far from our current experience, yet quite counter-intuitive to us.

'nuff for now,

 - Steve


On 8/6/17 5:30 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
That's really cool, Gillian. If you click on Santa Fe, you get a nice snarky response like one of the following for the Antipodes Location:

You`re alone and the water is so cold.
Incredible! There is no one around you, just fish.
You`re in the water and all you need is a boat.
Most likely the ocean. Watch out for sharks.

So, if you decide to tunnel straight through the center of the earth, you might want to try making a little course correction somewhere.

Fortunately for me, most of Ecuador's antipodes location is on the island of Sumatra, which happens to grow my favorite variety of coffee.

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com<mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
https://www.antipodesmap.com/#about-antipodes

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/72a5e254/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Mon Aug  7 00:35:10 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 22:35:10 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] just for fun
In-Reply-To: <D9FFE77B-8494-41C3-88E6-DE3A28BAFA27@snoutfarm.com>
References: <CAMaMUCS9ZE=9mqvK0Rgz8keMGhxJnb4ujmP0tShZpjtYM0FYhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANr4ZeOAhLAA0Bg5=qHdedRWz6ryuEvR3fppeGLOBa0JG=V2+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <846a3b1a-9f7c-11cf-85d3-063149043868@swcp.com>
 <D9FFE77B-8494-41C3-88E6-DE3A28BAFA27@snoutfarm.com>
Message-ID: <ffe4982c-462b-839d-e6a6-71f2c2567820@swcp.com>

Yes, I DO suppose this would be one (extreme) form of Hyperloop 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop> which just made me realize 
that my invocation of the inertial reference frame requiring these 
"straight tubes" to be spirals is equivalent to Coriolis... and in fact 
could probably be characterized as "geodesics" in a specific space-time 
geometry implied by the spin of the earth?

I"m generally a neo-Luddite but that doesn't mean I'm not fascinated by 
these feats of engineering based in esoteric if not highly advanced 
science (simple orbital mechanics, mag-lev, evacuated tubes, etc.)

It is entertaining (if not perhaps instructive) to refer back to some of 
Jules (and his son Michel) Verne's prognostications on the topic of  
large scale pneumatic transport.

   An Express of the Future ,  etc

It also suggests that Shipping Containers of the future may be 
cylindrical rather than rectangular boxes?  Or perhaps for backward 
compatibility there will be a business in making cylindrical shells that 
fit a container "just right" and a discount on items which can pack 
around them in the chord area surrounding?

On 8/6/17 6:30 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Shouldn't it be used for Hyperloop?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 6, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com 
> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> wrote:
>
>> So... *IF* you could bore a perfectly straight hole thorugh the earth 
>> to your precise antipodal location (probably having to put one hell 
>> of a "well casing" in, probably of neutronium to withstand the 
>> temperatures and turbulences of the core?) what would the "orbit" of 
>> a falling body be? Would a massive object (e.g.  metal sphere) simply 
>> fall to the center and then by it's momentum "rise" until it reached 
>> it's apogee somewhat short of the antipodal end of the casing, slowed 
>> somewhat by the atmosphere?
>>
>> Is this a good problem for a second year differential calculus 
>> student?  Or might there be some simplifying assumptions that could 
>> be made?
>>
>>
>> My rough attempt to estimate the behaviour/trajectory: (spoiler?)
>>
>> The "boundary conditions" suggest that upon dropping the mass, 
>> gravity and air density would be very close to what we have at or 
>> just above the surface and the mass would achieve terminal velocity 
>> (122mph for a sky-belly-flopper, a bit more for a true sky-diver, and 
>> probably somewhat higher for an iron or steel sphere, for instance) 
>> long before air density nor the value of gravity changed appreciably.
>>
>> Near the core, the air density would approach zero (my assumption of 
>> a spherical earth and that the gravitational attraction of the mass 
>> "outside" the radius of the current location of the sphere summing to 
>> zero) it seems likely that terminal velocity would rise to some 
>> point, but it seems very difficult to estimate.
>>
>> Other assumptions include that the diameter of the sphere is small 
>> enough compared to the borehole that there would be no significant 
>> amount of compression of the column of air in front of the sphere, if 
>> it were a "tight fit" I suspect the ball would compress the column of 
>> air under it until that pressure's exerted force exceeded that of 
>> gravitational pull and would eventually "bounce" long before it got 
>> near the core.
>>
>> I also thought of coriolis forces, but then realized that the 
>> trajectory has only an R, no theta nor phi component, so in principle 
>> the sphere would not experience any coriolis force.  (nod to Nick's 
>> Swirlies)  On the other hand, since the sphere would nominally be in 
>> freefall, it's trajectory would be influenced by it's initial 
>> velocity (relative to the rotation of the earth), suggesting it would 
>> follow a spiral path toward the center of the  earth, suggesting that 
>> if we wanted a "bullet-train" that went straight through the earth, 
>> we would need to give it a *spiral* core? Evacuating such a a tube 
>> would allow true orbital speeds. The precision required to "drop" a 
>> bullet-train car "through* the earth seems excruciatingly difficult 
>> (as would be coming up with methods for the coring and the lining) 
>> seems insurmountable... but some form of magnetic levitation type 
>> "correction" along the way would seem possible if not easy.
>>
>> I think tidal forces can safely be ignored?
>>
>> I fondly remember when I first heard about the Freeman Dyson's "Dyson 
>> Sphere" and then Niven's _Ringworld_ and his followon _Integral 
>> Trees_ and Bob Forward's _Rocheworld_, realizing that there were 
>> alternative physics/engineering regimes not that far from our current 
>> experience, yet quite counter-intuitive to us.
>>
>> 'nuff for now,
>>
>>  - Steve
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/17 5:30 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
>>> That's really cool, Gillian. If you click on Santa Fe, you get a 
>>> nice snarky response like one of the following for the Antipodes 
>>> Location:
>>>
>>> You`re alone and the water is so cold.
>>> Incredible! There is no one around you, just fish.
>>> You`re in the water and all you need is a boat.
>>> Most likely the ocean. Watch out for sharks.
>>>
>>> So, if you decide to tunnel straight through the center of the 
>>> earth, you might want to try making a little course correction 
>>> somewhere.
>>>
>>> Fortunately for me, most of Ecuador's antipodes location is on the 
>>> island of Sumatra, which happens to grow my favorite variety of coffee.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Gillian Densmore 
>>> <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     https://www.antipodesmap.com/#about-antipodes
>>>     <https://www.antipodesmap.com/#about-antipodes>
>>>
>>>     ============================================================
>>>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>     to unsubscribe
>>>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
>> <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170806/5b3887bb/attachment.html>

From alfredo at covaleda.co  Mon Aug  7 03:57:49 2017
From: alfredo at covaleda.co (=?UTF-8?Q?Alfredo_Covaleda_V=C3=A9lez?=)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 02:57:49 -0500
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
Message-ID: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>

Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the
future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.

http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/96691b77/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Mon Aug  7 14:24:57 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:24:57 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
Message-ID: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>

So, I read this the other day:

The Promise of LSD Microdoses and Other Psychedelic "Medicines"
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-promise-of-lsd-microdoses-and-other-psychedelic-medicines/

and was reminded of Frank's dare to read:

The Analysis of the Self
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo8324792.html

I subsequently forgot about it all.  But then this popped up:

The Dangerous Delusions of Richard Dawkins
http://www.alternet.org/belief/dangerous-delusions-richard-dawkins

and:

Predictably, Salon publishes a new Dawkins hit piece, and it?s as dreadful as you?d expect
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/predictably-salon-publishes-a-new-dawkins-hit-piece-and-its-as-dreadful-as-youd-expect/

I still feel (over 2 decades after making a fool of myself during a lunch at the SFI) that the concept of "self" is the most abused concept of humanity's entire existence.  Everyone uses it so often and in so many ways that it's pert near meaningless, to someone like me, anyway.  What's amazing to me is that everyone can go along on their happy pretense that they've communicated something when they speak/write or hear/read the word.  It reminded me again of the appeal (to me) of Hoffman's Interface Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

Anyway, I have no point.  Any comments/laughter are welcome. 8^)

-- 
? glen


From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Mon Aug  7 15:29:43 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:29:43 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCS6h7m7QvzKq5GwbNWgRyx04iLXiQr7rEHhZ-bigsKZUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Lol I misread the title as promised stuff off the shelf

On Aug 7, 2017 12:25 PM, "glen ?" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> So, I read this the other day:
>
> The Promise of LSD Microdoses and Other Psychedelic "Medicines"
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-promise-of-lsd-
> microdoses-and-other-psychedelic-medicines/
>
> and was reminded of Frank's dare to read:
>
> The Analysis of the Self
> http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo8324792.html
>
> I subsequently forgot about it all.  But then this popped up:
>
> The Dangerous Delusions of Richard Dawkins
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/dangerous-delusions-richard-dawkins
>
> and:
>
> Predictably, Salon publishes a new Dawkins hit piece, and it?s as dreadful
> as you?d expect
> https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/
> predictably-salon-publishes-a-new-dawkins-hit-piece-and-its-
> as-dreadful-as-youd-expect/
>
> I still feel (over 2 decades after making a fool of myself during a lunch
> at the SFI) that the concept of "self" is the most abused concept of
> humanity's entire existence.  Everyone uses it so often and in so many ways
> that it's pert near meaningless, to someone like me, anyway.  What's
> amazing to me is that everyone can go along on their happy pretense that
> they've communicated something when they speak/write or hear/read the
> word.  It reminded me again of the appeal (to me) of Hoffman's Interface
> Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY
>
> Anyway, I have no point.  Any comments/laughter are welcome. 8^)
>
> --
> ? glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/a184e41e/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Mon Aug  7 16:15:13 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 14:15:13 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <09c658e7-7c6d-bbdf-7a03-4a65f53826cc@swcp.com>



On 8/7/17 12:24 PM, glen ? wrote:
> So, I read this the other day:
>
> The Promise of LSD Microdoses and Other Psychedelic "Medicines"
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-promise-of-lsd-microdoses-and-other-psychedelic-medicines/
>
> and was reminded of Frank's dare to read:
>
> The Analysis of the Self
> http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo8324792.html
>
> I subsequently forgot about it all.  But then this popped up:
>
> The Dangerous Delusions of Richard Dawkins
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/dangerous-delusions-richard-dawkins
>
> and:
>
> Predictably, Salon publishes a new Dawkins hit piece, and it?s as dreadful as you?d expect
> https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/predictably-salon-publishes-a-new-dawkins-hit-piece-and-its-as-dreadful-as-youd-expect/
>
> I still feel (over 2 decades after making a fool of myself during a lunch at the SFI) that the concept of "self" is the most abused concept of humanity's entire existence.  Everyone uses it so often and in so many ways that it's pert near meaningless, to someone like me, anyway.  What's amazing to me is that everyone can go along on their happy pretense that they've communicated something when they speak/write or hear/read the word.  It reminded me again of the appeal (to me) of Hoffman's Interface Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY
>
> Anyway, I have no point.  Any comments/laughter are welcome. 8^)
Bwa HAHAHAHAHAHA haaaa...

    /wondering if maybe I should have tried a *micro* rather than a
    *milli*dose of psychopharmacuties before reading this!//
    //(or maybe I should have calculated in the amount of
    mold-spore-dust I've been inhaling in my remodel/cleaning projects?)/


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

( Note from/to Self:  "I think my grandiose self has taken possession of 
my expressive body!")

Seriously (maybe?)...  I wonder if in any of our long-winded, 
discursive, discussions about the meaning/use of words if we consider 
the value of something analogous to/  tolerancing /in engineering?  It 
is common to use the /analogy/ (I've learned not to invoke the concept 
of metaphor too lightly in this group) of social /lubrication/, but I 
think that /tolerancing/ may have a similar/equal/greater role in 
allowing conversations to /clank forward/ toward some progress down /a 
line/ of thinking/consideration if not always all the way to a specific 
/destination/?

I expect "/SELF"/ to be a very sloppy term with most people... and at 
best, highly varied in meaning amongst people for whom there is a 
special slot in their more rigorous professional lexicon.

I suspect your question, as earnest as intended and as interesting as I 
find it will lead us down a /rabbit hole/ (metaphor in a literary 
allusion with allegorical implications?)  here.   I'm game for the 
/journey/, but rather than /jump the gun/ (Satan of metaphor, get thee 
behind me!) with too much of my own /clap-tripe/ (deliberate portmanteau 
malapropism intended).

I'm hoping someone else will /bite/ on this topic before I /throw down/ 
with (more of) my own selve's nonsensery!

- Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/2a7ee15b/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug  7 17:54:32 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:54:32 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703608D725B72519D66EBB5C5B50@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>


Glen,


In Smalltalk and Objective C "self" is an alias for any receiver object from the point of view of that object.

E.g. if someone tells me to "jump" I can implement that by sending them a "howHigh" message, or I can send that message to my(self)!

self is a handle to the stuff in me, especially the methods I implement.   Different people have different stuff.
Some folks mix-in methods they model in others and some do not.   Others can't imagine doing mix-ins and only can get their head around inheritance. (Very tribal are they!)

Some full stop when they see objects they don't understand.  Others just send crap to each other all day.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 12:24:57 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] the self

So, I read this the other day:

The Promise of LSD Microdoses and Other Psychedelic "Medicines"
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-promise-of-lsd-microdoses-and-other-psychedelic-medicines/
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/blogs/cache/file/D97B3C3F-60D7-46B0-B8145A7209E77CF1.jpg?w=590&h=140&5143B4FE-1259-443A-83724BE6A85B2EBB]<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-promise-of-lsd-microdoses-and-other-psychedelic-medicines/>

The Promise of LSD Microdoses and Other Psychedelic ...<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-promise-of-lsd-microdoses-and-other-psychedelic-medicines/>
blogs.scientificamerican.com
The Promise of LSD Microdoses and Other Psychedelic "Medicines" Psychiatrist John Halpern discusses the psychotherapeutic potential of peyote, ayahuasca, psilocybin ...



and was reminded of Frank's dare to read:

The Analysis of the Self
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo8324792.html
[http://tmm.chicagodistributioncenter.com/IsbnImages/9780226450124.jpg]<http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo8324792.html>

The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to the ...<http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo8324792.html>
press.uchicago.edu
The book The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to the Psychoanalytic Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorders, Heinz Kohut is published by University ...



I subsequently forgot about it all.  But then this popped up:

The Dangerous Delusions of Richard Dawkins
http://www.alternet.org/belief/dangerous-delusions-richard-dawkins
[http://www.alternet.org/sites/default/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_160874303-edited.jpg?itok=hlCQ3cSC]<http://www.alternet.org/belief/dangerous-delusions-richard-dawkins>

The Dangerous Delusions of Richard Dawkins | Alternet<http://www.alternet.org/belief/dangerous-delusions-richard-dawkins>
www.alternet.org
His rationalist crusade creates a false impression that the only alternative to religion is reductionist science. The recent cancellation of a book event with Richard ...



and:

Predictably, Salon publishes a new Dawkins hit piece, and it?s as dreadful as you?d expect
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/predictably-salon-publishes-a-new-dawkins-hit-piece-and-its-as-dreadful-as-youd-expect/
[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/275a941f238847ec6ac2ac1812b88f9f?s=200&ts=1502142386]<https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/predictably-salon-publishes-a-new-dawkins-hit-piece-and-its-as-dreadful-as-youd-expect/>

Predictably, Salon publishes a new Dawkins hit piece, and it?s as dreadful as you?d expect<https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/predictably-salon-publishes-a-new-dawkins-hit-piece-and-its-as-dreadful-as-youd-expect/>
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com
Believe me, the last thing I want to do this morning is sit down and take apart another dumb article holding Richard Dawkins responsible for all the world?s wrongs.  I saw this article a few ?



I still feel (over 2 decades after making a fool of myself during a lunch at the SFI) that the concept of "self" is the most abused concept of humanity's entire existence.  Everyone uses it so often and in so many ways that it's pert near meaningless, to someone like me, anyway.  What's amazing to me is that everyone can go along on their happy pretense that they've communicated something when they speak/write or hear/read the word.  It reminded me again of the appeal (to me) of Hoffman's Interface Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY
Do we see reality as it is? | Donald Hoffman<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY>
www.youtube.com
Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly ...



Anyway, I have no point.  Any comments/laughter are welcome. 8^)

--
? glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Friam Info Page - Redfish<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
redfish.com
FRIAM Group is an emergent organization of Complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe, New Mexico interested in Applied Complexity, Artificial Life ...


FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7sGWLjbK7_I/WIkK7N6XteI/AAAAAAAAAQE/xVmyW4c_XVAuezfd9_8Vcqao5LUXeTG7ACK4B/s82/StrangeTrump.jpg]<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>

FRIAM: The Comic Edition<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
friam-comic.blogspot.com
We decided that lampooning FriAM was about as much fun as shooting fish in a barrel, and about as disrespectful (of the fish and the barrel)!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/1e6fec1d/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug  7 18:17:02 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 22:17:02 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703E1BC96813E45189DE0ADC5B50@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Am I the only one that notices that Slate and Salon are prone knee-jerk editorial responses to things?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 12:24:57 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] the self

So, I read this the other day:

The Promise of LSD Microdoses and Other Psychedelic "Medicines"
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-promise-of-lsd-microdoses-and-other-psychedelic-medicines/

and was reminded of Frank's dare to read:

The Analysis of the Self
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo8324792.html

I subsequently forgot about it all.  But then this popped up:

The Dangerous Delusions of Richard Dawkins
http://www.alternet.org/belief/dangerous-delusions-richard-dawkins

and:

Predictably, Salon publishes a new Dawkins hit piece, and it?s as dreadful as you?d expect
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/predictably-salon-publishes-a-new-dawkins-hit-piece-and-its-as-dreadful-as-youd-expect/

I still feel (over 2 decades after making a fool of myself during a lunch at the SFI) that the concept of "self" is the most abused concept of humanity's entire existence.  Everyone uses it so often and in so many ways that it's pert near meaningless, to someone like me, anyway.  What's amazing to me is that everyone can go along on their happy pretense that they've communicated something when they speak/write or hear/read the word.  It reminded me again of the appeal (to me) of Hoffman's Interface Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

Anyway, I have no point.  Any comments/laughter are welcome. 8^)

--
? glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/158a84a4/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Mon Aug  7 19:54:23 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:54:23 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703608D725B72519D66EBB5C5B50@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703608D725B72519D66EBB5C5B50@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <2ad1b90a-8f5d-62f4-6028-5a6d91c705e8@gmail.com>

All you've done is pass the buck from "self" to "me".  And given the hijinks Roger pulled with Swarm, self might respond to "jump" one day, but throw an error the next ... just like, say, today I can throw a baseball with my right arm.  But if I break that arm, tomorrow I might not be able to throw the base ball.  So, who's "me" in this temporal game?  The receiver of the signal or the arm that does the throwing?


On 08/07/2017 02:54 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> In Smalltalk and Objective C "self" is an alias for any receiver object from the point of view of that object.
> 
> E.g. if someone tells me to "jump" I can implement that by sending them a "howHigh" message, or I can send that message to my(self)!
> 
> self is a handle to the stuff in me, especially the methods I implement.   Different people have different stuff.
> Some folks mix-in methods they model in others and some do not.   Others can't imagine doing mix-ins and only can get their head around inheritance. (Very tribal are they!)
> 
> Some full stop when they see objects they don't understand.  Others just send crap to each other all day.

-- 
? glen


From gepropella at gmail.com  Mon Aug  7 20:04:49 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:04:49 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <09c658e7-7c6d-bbdf-7a03-4a65f53826cc@swcp.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
 <09c658e7-7c6d-bbdf-7a03-4a65f53826cc@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <b8c78cca-19f4-8a5e-8b91-96723073852a@gmail.com>


FWIW, B.C.Smith, that fount of wisdom, references "flex and slop" and cites Hume as inspiration for the idea.  It's a tangle of reasoning that boils down (I think - this is my own nonsense, not Smith's) to the idea that there *must* be misunderstanding for communication to exist.  (This is an extrapolation from his saying there must be ontological flex and slop for intentionality to exist.)  Perfect information transmission would not be communication.  So, if our tolerances are too demanding, then we define our _selves_ out of existence.  But what happens on the other end is not similar.  Too *much* wiggle room and we twitch/impute a meaning into place.  You say "ooga booga" and I think "red barchetta".


On 08/07/2017 01:15 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I expect "/SELF"/ to be a very sloppy term with most people... and at best, highly varied in meaning amongst people for whom there is a special slot in their more rigorous professional lexicon.


-- 
? glen


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug  7 20:52:45 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 00:52:45 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <2ad1b90a-8f5d-62f4-6028-5a6d91c705e8@gmail.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703608D725B72519D66EBB5C5B50@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <2ad1b90a-8f5d-62f4-6028-5a6d91c705e8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB170332E393665A9336A1D67CC58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Glen wrote:


"All you've done is pass the buck from "self" to "me".  And given the hijinks Roger pulled with Swarm, self might respond to "jump" one day, but throw an error the next ... just like, say, today I can throw a baseball with my right arm.  But if I break that arm, tomorrow I might not be able to throw the base ball.  So, who's "me" in this temporal game?  The receiver of the signal or the arm that does the throwing?"


I claim a message send is analogous to an axon firing, where there is at least one target neuron for each receivable message.   The whole graph and instantaneous charge state of the neurons and the musculature/skeleton/etc. attached to them is the `self'.  The edges and effective edges in the graph (apparently) come and go depending on experience.   In terms of comparing selves, I think one needs to look at the graphs in terms of the behaviors they exhibit and not their internal wiring.   My wiring of yellow can be different from yours.    Your perception of throwing a baseball will change with and without a broken arm, not just because the arm might not work, but also because the broken arm will lead to the motor system changing due to the lack of practice with throwing.

Probably there are subgraphs that are more stable configurations than others.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 5:54:23 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the self

All you've done is pass the buck from "self" to "me".  And given the hijinks Roger pulled with Swarm, self might respond to "jump" one day, but throw an error the next ... just like, say, today I can throw a baseball with my right arm.  But if I break that arm, tomorrow I might not be able to throw the base ball.  So, who's "me" in this temporal game?  The receiver of the signal or the arm that does the throwing?


On 08/07/2017 02:54 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> In Smalltalk and Objective C "self" is an alias for any receiver object from the point of view of that object.
>
> E.g. if someone tells me to "jump" I can implement that by sending them a "howHigh" message, or I can send that message to my(self)!
>
> self is a handle to the stuff in me, especially the methods I implement.   Different people have different stuff.
> Some folks mix-in methods they model in others and some do not.   Others can't imagine doing mix-ins and only can get their head around inheritance. (Very tribal are they!)
>
> Some full stop when they see objects they don't understand.  Others just send crap to each other all day.

--
? glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/982dd0fa/attachment.html>

From tom at jtjohnson.com  Mon Aug  7 20:56:54 2017
From: tom at jtjohnson.com (Tom Johnson)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:56:54 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [NICAR-L] Machine learning in reporting example
In-Reply-To: <CAKD0ODwEWeip1J8aFJdJTovuozkOzEEVFpZ52cOShXh=GTMwnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <80c1a7ab-1d2f-b5a5-d809-80a83908fd3a@peteraldhous.com>
 <CAKD0ODwEWeip1J8aFJdJTovuozkOzEEVFpZ52cOShXh=GTMwnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABg8s8K=+Bv=wmH9TQF4y7Z8saqjJkhhyfx7cSg5A6uiqoGkHA@mail.gmail.com>

All:

Perhaps some of you will be interested in these links describing how
journalists -- well, at least ONE journalist -- used AI, and
specifically the "Random Forest" algorithm, to uncover government agency
surveillance activities at home and abroad.  See especially the first and
the last link.

Any thoughts on other applications of this methodology?

Tom

============================================
Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   --     Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)                                    505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
*Check out It's The People's Data
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
http://www.jtjohnson.com                   tom at jtjohnson.com
============================================


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Peter Aldhous <peter at peteraldhous.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Excuse the shameless self-promotion, but I thought some folks on the list
> might be interested in this: using the random forest algorithm on
> flight/aircraft data to identify potential spy planes.
>
> 1) https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/hidden-spy-planes
>
> Here are the other two recent stories that it spawned:
>
> 2) https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/us-marshals-spy-plane-over-mexico
>
> 3) https://www.buzzfeed.com/christianstork/spy-planes-over-american-cities
>
> And here are the methods/data/code:
>
> 4) https://buzzfeednews.github.io/2017-08-spy-plane-finder/
>
> Thanks also to colleagues Christian Stork and Karla Zabludovsky for their
> excellent reporting on these stories.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
> --
> *Peter Aldhous*, PhD
> Science journalist
> cell: 415 503 7323 <(415)%20503-7323>
> peter at peteraldhous.com
> @paldhous <https://twitter.com/paldhous>
> www.peteraldhous.com
> ==================================================================== To
> unsubscribe from NICAR-L, please send "unsubscribe NICAR-L" in the body of
> an e-mail message to "listserv at lists.missouri.edu". Please e-mail
> listmaster at ire.org if you need help or have questions.
> ====================================================================




-- 
Jacqueline Kazil | @jackiekazil


==================================================================== To
unsubscribe from NICAR-L, please send "unsubscribe NICAR-L" in the body of
an e-mail message to "listserv at lists.missouri.edu". Please e-mail
listmaster at ire.org if you need help or have questions.
====================================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/fe1432f5/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug  7 21:22:06 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 01:22:06 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [NICAR-L] Machine learning in reporting example
In-Reply-To: <CABg8s8K=+Bv=wmH9TQF4y7Z8saqjJkhhyfx7cSg5A6uiqoGkHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <80c1a7ab-1d2f-b5a5-d809-80a83908fd3a@peteraldhous.com>
 <CAKD0ODwEWeip1J8aFJdJTovuozkOzEEVFpZ52cOShXh=GTMwnQ@mail.gmail.com>,
 <CABg8s8K=+Bv=wmH9TQF4y7Z8saqjJkhhyfx7cSg5A6uiqoGkHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703537DBB108447E8363EBAC58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Tom,


The random forest method is kind of unsatisfying to me.  It says that one can train many simple experts, trained on subsets of a dataset, to vote and thereby predict as well or better as one big integrated expert.  One might hope this could be a mechanism of democracy... A property of recursive partitioning, that underlies random forests -- and which can work remarkably well by itself -- is that it commits each expert to a main effect, secondary effects, tertiary effects and so on.  Some kinds of decision making don't have this structure, e.g. they could have non-linear composition of factors.   But, if the random subsets they learn on happen to be representative of various sub-populations, that do each have simple hierarchical rules, then one could see how different rules per expert apply to, say, different voting communities.   It would be like if one went to expert pollsters in every voting district who also happened to live there, and ask them each for a prediction


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Tom Johnson <tom at jtjohnson.com>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 6:56:54 PM
To: Friam at redfish. com
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: [NICAR-L] Machine learning in reporting example

All:

Perhaps some of you will be interested in these links describing how journalists -- well, at least ONE journalist -- used AI, and specifically the "Random Forest" algorithm, to uncover government agency surveillance activities at home and abroad.  See especially the first and the last link.

Any thoughts on other applications of this methodology?

Tom

============================================
Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   --     Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)                                    505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists<http://www.spj.org>
Check out It's The People's Data<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>
http://www.jtjohnson.com<http://www.jtjohnson.com/>                   tom at jtjohnson.com<mailto:tom at jtjohnson.com>
============================================


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Peter Aldhous <peter at peteraldhous.com<mailto:peter at peteraldhous.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

Excuse the shameless self-promotion, but I thought some folks on the list might be interested in this: using the random forest algorithm on flight/aircraft data to identify potential spy planes.

1) https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/hidden-spy-planes

Here are the other two recent stories that it spawned:

2) https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/us-marshals-spy-plane-over-mexico

3) https://www.buzzfeed.com/christianstork/spy-planes-over-american-cities

And here are the methods/data/code:

4) https://buzzfeednews.github.io/2017-08-spy-plane-finder/

Thanks also to colleagues Christian Stork and Karla Zabludovsky for their excellent reporting on these stories.

Cheers,

Peter

--
Peter Aldhous, PhD
Science journalist
cell: 415 503 7323<tel:(415)%20503-7323>
peter at peteraldhous.com<mailto:peter at peteraldhous.com>
@paldhous<https://twitter.com/paldhous>
www.peteraldhous.com<http://www.peteraldhous.com/>
==================================================================== To unsubscribe from NICAR-L, please send "unsubscribe NICAR-L" in the body of an e-mail message to "listserv at lists.missouri.edu". Please e-mail listmaster at ire.org<mailto:listmaster at ire.org> if you need help or have questions. ====================================================================



--
Jacqueline Kazil | @jackiekazil


==================================================================== To unsubscribe from NICAR-L, please send "unsubscribe NICAR-L" in the body of an e-mail message to "listserv at lists.missouri.edu". Please e-mail listmaster at ire.org<mailto:listmaster at ire.org> if you need help or have questions. ====================================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/dda8f91e/attachment.html>

From carl at plektyx.com  Mon Aug  7 23:54:12 2017
From: carl at plektyx.com (Carl Tollander)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:54:12 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>

It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on
board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply
to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not
going to fly.




On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <alfredo at covaleda.co>
wrote:

> Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the
> future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>
> http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-
> de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/c526550f/attachment-0001.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Tue Aug  8 00:20:00 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 04:20:00 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>,
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <97D0B0AD-2011-4DEC-AAD5-B7427BFE4FCF@snoutfarm.com>

Here in the US there are many human animals to reign-in first.  Sentients will need to stick together and accept the help they can get!

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 7, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com<mailto:carl at plektyx.com>> wrote:

It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.




On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <alfredo at covaleda.co<mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co>> wrote:
Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.

http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/f91c13a6/attachment.html>

From carl at plektyx.com  Tue Aug  8 01:01:18 2017
From: carl at plektyx.com (Carl Tollander)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 23:01:18 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <97D0B0AD-2011-4DEC-AAD5-B7427BFE4FCF@snoutfarm.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <97D0B0AD-2011-4DEC-AAD5-B7427BFE4FCF@snoutfarm.com>
Message-ID: <CAFi2r0iEWCrdno1p1UZZZdCPrfvJHEG3=2fAWPiAO=cecNCPWw@mail.gmail.com>

The notion of AI's as necessarily sentient seems a bit of a jump.

However, I see a difference between an AI augmented sentience (a la a
spiffy AR) and a bunch of possibly sentient AI's flying in formation (a la
a murder of crows or a pack of wolves).

Going further out into Niel Stephenson's D.O.D.O. fictional world, all
sentients might be flying in formation with different selves in adjacent
possibility spaces (hi, Stu?), feeding off the information gradients.

However, my original point was that people project their notion of self
onto AI's, so narratives about self will predominate in any regulatory
scheme.


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
wrote:

> Here in the US there are many human animals to reign-in first.  Sentients
> will need to stick together and accept the help they can get!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on
> board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply
> to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not
> going to fly.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <
> alfredo at covaleda.co> wrote:
>
>> Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the
>> future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>>
>> http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/
>> peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/26b7fb1d/attachment.html>

From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 01:38:03 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 23:38:03 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>

That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more like 
Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no longer 
servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually learned 
to project conditional probability. The cat is out of the barn. Or is it 
that the horse is out of the bag?

Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they 
are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You 
know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad 
case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get 
over that. Watch out.

And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is 
intelligence a survivable trait?


On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely 
> on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it 
> may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are 
> probably not going to fly.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez 
> <alfredo at covaleda.co <mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co>> wrote:
>
>     Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of
>     the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>
>     http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>     <http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>
>
>     ============================================================
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170807/f8f47b6e/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Tue Aug  8 04:42:41 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:42:41 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>,
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Grant writes:


"Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out."


What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that there is no such thing as an independent observer.   Even if that is true, sampling techniques are used in many machine learning algorithms -- it is not a question of if they work, it is an academic question of why they work.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more like Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no longer servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually learned to project conditional probability. The cat is out of the barn. Or is it that the horse is out of the bag?

Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out.

And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is intelligence a survivable trait?

On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.




On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <alfredo at covaleda.co<mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co>> wrote:
Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.

http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/a90070d0/attachment.html>

From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 12:31:00 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:31:00 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <34028bdd-b409-08f4-fb38-145e5a48b0aa@gmail.com>

Marcus,
Good points, all. I suggest you turn to the Copenhagen interpretation of 
Quantum Mechanics (the "usual interpretation") for musings on your very 
pertinent question about "Why probabilities in the physical world".
Although, I'm sure you have already looked there.
Of course, the Copenhagen guys (Heisenberg, Born, etc.) don't really try 
to answer your question either - opting instead to say that theirs is 
merely a theory, a model. And, of course, they are right.
On the other hand, other physicists (i.e. de Broglie, Bohm, Einstein and 
others) have spent a century trying to defend causal determinism against 
the Copenhagen interpretation. These days the defenders of the faith 
have resorted to philosophy over this issue and are considering the 
"ontic" versus the "epistemic". And yet, Copenhagen is still referred to 
as "the usual interpretation", and when QM is taught today, I think, it 
is essentially Copenhagen or some derivative of it. Perhaps Bell's 
theorem has contributed to the longevity of the Copenhagen perspective.


On 8/8/17 2:42 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Grant writes:
>
>
> "Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are 
> stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, 
> like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case 
> of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over 
> that. Watch out."
>
>
> What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that 
> there is no such thing as an independent observer. Even if that is 
> true, sampling techniques are used in many machine learning algorithms 
> -- it is not a question of if they work, it is an academic question of 
> why they work.
>
>
> Marcus
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland 
> <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
> That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more 
> like Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no 
> longer servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually 
> learned to project conditional probability. The cat is out of the 
> barn. Or is it that the horse is out of the bag?
>
> Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that 
> they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. 
> You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a 
> bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly 
> get over that. Watch out.
>
> And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is 
> intelligence a survivable trait?
>
>
> On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not 
>> entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least 
>> insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of 
>> "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez 
>> <alfredo at covaleda.co <mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co>> wrote:
>>
>>     Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of
>>     the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>>
>>     http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>>     <http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>
>>
>>     ============================================================
>>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>     to unsubscribe
>>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/5862137a/attachment.html>

From pamela at well.com  Tue Aug  8 13:20:15 2017
From: pamela at well.com (Pamela McCorduck)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 10:20:15 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>

Grant, does it really seem plausible to you that the thousands of crack researchers at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Google, MIT, Cal Berkeley, and other places have not seen this? And found remedies?

Just for FRIAM?s information, John McCarthy used to call Asimov?s Three Laws Talmudic. Sorry I don?t know enough about the Talmud to agree or disagree.




> On Aug 8, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
> 
> Grant writes:
> 
> "Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out."
> 
> What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that there is no such thing as an independent observer.   Even if that is true, sampling techniques are used in many machine learning algorithms -- it is not a question of if they work, it is an academic question of why they work.
> 
> Marcus
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com <mailto:grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>  
> That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more like Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no longer servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually learned to project conditional probability. The cat is out of the barn. Or is it that the horse is out of the bag?  
> Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out.
> And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is intelligence a survivable trait?
> 
> On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <alfredo at covaleda.co <mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co>> wrote:
>> Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>> 
>> http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158 <http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>
>> 
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe 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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe 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/> by Dr. Strangelove
> 
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe 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/> by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/ed9c4cd7/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 13:56:29 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:56:29 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfrcRfPwbwcDvX3VP-+uAshR-TY+=dn0wLiLc1YHdRzWPA@mail.gmail.com>

Talmud:

Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.
Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the
work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Plus 10,000 other pages.


Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 11:18 AM, "Pamela McCorduck" <pamela at well.com> wrote:

> Grant, does it really seem plausible to you that the thousands of crack
> researchers at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Google, MIT, Cal Berkeley, and
> other places have not seen this? And found remedies?
>
> Just for FRIAM?s information, John McCarthy used to call Asimov?s Three
> Laws Talmudic. Sorry I don?t know enough about the Talmud to agree or
> disagree.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
> Grant writes:
>
> "Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are
> stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like
> in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal
> determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out.
> "
>
> What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that there
> is no such thing as an independent observer.   Even if that is true,
> sampling techniques are used in many machine learning algorithms -- it is
> not a question of if they work, it is an academic question of why they work.
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <
> grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
> That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more like
> Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no longer
> servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually learned to
> project conditional probability. The cat is out of the barn. Or is it that
> the horse is out of the bag?
> Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they
> are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know,
> like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of
> causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that.
> Watch out.
> And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is
> intelligence a survivable trait?
>
> On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on
> board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply
> to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not
> going to fly.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <
> alfredo at covaleda.co> wrote:
>
>> Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the
>> future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>>
>> http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/
>> peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/c5c1dc1a/attachment.html>

From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 14:07:43 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:07:43 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>
Message-ID: <d0de4dd6-4d9d-dfb4-e60c-c81c84f526d4@gmail.com>

Pamela,

I expect that they have! And I certainly hope so. I simply have not 
found them yet after some earnest looking. Can you please send me some 
references?? Right now I suspect that the heart of machine learning has 
the pearl, and I'm just now turning there.

And I'm optimistically suspicious that those entropic functionals that 
you find in information theory and that are built on top of conditional 
probability (relative entropy, mutual information, conditional entropy, 
entropy rate, etc.) hold promise...and that at the heart of machine 
learning they lay lurking - or could.

Anyway, thx for the note; and /please/ send me any related referernces!

Grant


On 8/8/17 11:20 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:
> Grant, does it really seem plausible to you that the thousands of 
> crack researchers at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Google, MIT, Cal 
> Berkeley, and other places have not seen this? And found remedies?
>
> Just for FRIAM?s information, John McCarthy used to call Asimov?s 
> Three Laws Talmudic. Sorry I don?t know enough about the Talmud to 
> agree or disagree.
>
>
>
>
>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com 
>> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Grant writes:
>>
>> "Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are 
>> stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You 
>> know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a 
>> bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly 
>> get over that. Watch out."
>>
>> What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that 
>> there is no such thing as an independent observer.   Even if that is 
>> true, sampling techniques are used in many machine learning 
>> algorithms -- it is not a question of if they work, it is an academic 
>> question of why they work.
>>
>> Marcus
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com 
>> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Grant Holland 
>> <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com <mailto:grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>>
>> *Sent:*Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
>> *To:*The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
>> *Subject:*Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>> That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more 
>> like Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no 
>> longer servants. They have become machine learners. They have 
>> actually learned to project conditional probability. The cat is out 
>> of the barn. Or is it that the horse is out of the bag?
>> Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that 
>> they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. 
>> You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with 
>> a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly 
>> shortly get over that. Watch out.
>> And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is 
>> intelligence a survivable trait?
>>
>> On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>>> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not 
>>> entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least 
>>> insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of 
>>> "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda 
>>> V?lez<alfredo at covaleda.co <mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co>>wrote:
>>>
>>>     Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of
>>>     the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>>>
>>>     http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>>>     <http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>
>>>
>>>     ============================================================
>>>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>     to
>>>     unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>     <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
>>>     FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>     <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/3217e29c/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 14:44:05 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:44:05 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>


I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.

There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.

An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.

-- 
? glen


From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug  8 17:24:06 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:24:06 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfrcRfPwbwcDvX3VP-+uAshR-TY+=dn0wLiLc1YHdRzWPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>
 <CAA5dAfrcRfPwbwcDvX3VP-+uAshR-TY+=dn0wLiLc1YHdRzWPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017401d3108c$aaca5910$005f0b30$@earthlink.net>

I LOVE this, Frank.  How ever did you find it amongst the ten thousand pages!!!!????

 

Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.  Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

 

By the way.  Now in my 80th year, I am officially against technology.  I was OK with everything up through the word processor.  (I hated carbons.) Everything after that, I could do without.  

 

Really!  What has AI done for me lately? 

 

What  was it Flaubert said about trains?  Something like, they just made it possible for people to run around faster and faster and be stupid in more places.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

 

Talmud:

 

Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.  Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

 

Plus 10,000 other pages.

 

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Aug 8, 2017 11:18 AM, "Pamela McCorduck" <pamela at well.com <mailto:pamela at well.com> > wrote:

Grant, does it really seem plausible to you that the thousands of crack researchers at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Google, MIT, Cal Berkeley, and other places have not seen this? And found remedies?

 

Just for FRIAM?s information, John McCarthy used to call Asimov?s Three Laws Talmudic. Sorry I don?t know enough about the Talmud to agree or disagree.

 

 

 

 

On Aug 8, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

 

Grant writes:

 

"Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out."

 

What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that there is no such thing as an independent observer.   Even if that is true, sampling techniques are used in many machine learning algorithms -- it is not a question of if they work, it is an academic question of why they work.

 

Marcus

  _____  

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com <mailto:grant.holland.sf at gmail.com> >
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

 

That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more like Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no longer servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually learned to project conditional probability. The cat is out of the barn. Or is it that the horse is out of the bag?  

Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out.

And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is intelligence a survivable trait?

 

On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:

It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <alfredo at covaleda.co <mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co> > wrote:

Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.

 

http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe  <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/ by Dr. Strangelove

 


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/27b94658/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 17:31:53 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:31:53 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <017401d3108c$aaca5910$005f0b30$@earthlink.net>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>
 <CAA5dAfrcRfPwbwcDvX3VP-+uAshR-TY+=dn0wLiLc1YHdRzWPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d3108c$aaca5910$005f0b30$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfo7sZ9WT=_43=9FYi41ntVByZeL9mjvfahwZJ0y-QRrqg@mail.gmail.com>

Nick,

It's actually more like six thousand pages. However many pages thousands of
rabbis can write in 600 years, more or less.  Deborah found it and posted
it on our refrigerator.

I understand you are recovering space.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 3:24 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

> I LOVE this, Frank.  How ever did you find it amongst the ten thousand
> pages!!!!????
>
>
>
> *Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.
> Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the
> work, but neither are you free to abandon it.*
>
>
>
> By the way.  Now in my 80th year, I am officially against technology.  I
> was OK with everything up through the word processor.  (I hated carbons.)
> Everything after that, I could do without.
>
>
>
> Really!  What has AI done for me lately?
>
>
>
> What  was it Flaubert said about trains?  Something like, they just made
> it possible for people to run around faster and faster and be stupid in
> more places.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Wimberly
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:56 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
>
>
> Talmud:
>
>
>
> Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.
> Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the
> work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
>
>
>
> Plus 10,000 other pages.
>
>
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 11:18 AM, "Pamela McCorduck" <pamela at well.com> wrote:
>
> Grant, does it really seem plausible to you that the thousands of crack
> researchers at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Google, MIT, Cal Berkeley, and
> other places have not seen this? And found remedies?
>
>
>
> Just for FRIAM?s information, John McCarthy used to call Asimov?s Three
> Laws Talmudic. Sorry I don?t know enough about the Talmud to agree or
> disagree.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Grant writes:
>
>
>
> "Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are
> stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like
> in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal
> determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out.
> "
>
>
>
> What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that there
> is no such thing as an independent observer.   Even if that is true,
> sampling techniques are used in many machine learning algorithms -- it is
> not a question of if they work, it is an academic question of why they work.
>
>
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <
> grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
>
>
> That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more like
> Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no longer
> servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually learned to
> project conditional probability. The cat is out of the barn. Or is it that
> the horse is out of the bag?
>
> Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they
> are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know,
> like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of
> causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that.
> Watch out.
>
> And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is
> intelligence a survivable trait?
>
>
>
> On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on
> board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply
> to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not
> going to fly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <
> alfredo at covaleda.co> wrote:
>
> Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the
> future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>
>
>
> http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-
> de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/89a21281/attachment-0001.html>

From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 18:51:18 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 16:51:18 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>

Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are 
ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution /is/ stochastic. (You actually did not 
disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was 
another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance 
and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the 
second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)

G.


On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:
> I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
>
> The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.
>
> There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.
>
> An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/3b69488c/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug  8 19:28:30 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:28:30 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfo7sZ9WT=_43=9FYi41ntVByZeL9mjvfahwZJ0y-QRrqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>
 <CAA5dAfrcRfPwbwcDvX3VP-+uAshR-TY+=dn0wLiLc1YHdRzWPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d3108c$aaca5910$005f0b30$@earthlink.net>
 <CAA5dAfo7sZ9WT=_43=9FYi41ntVByZeL9mjvfahwZJ0y-QRrqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <018d01d3109e$0c1a3e40$244ebac0$@earthlink.net>

f.

?space??

 

Or was that a correction error arising from trying to write ?apace?.  

n

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 5:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

 

Nick,

 

It's actually more like six thousand pages. However many pages thousands of rabbis can write in 600 years, more or less.  Deborah found it and posted it on our refrigerator.

 

I understand you are recovering space.

 

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Aug 8, 2017 3:24 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net <mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net> > wrote:

I LOVE this, Frank.  How ever did you find it amongst the ten thousand pages!!!!????

 

Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.  Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

 

By the way.  Now in my 80th year, I am officially against technology.  I was OK with everything up through the word processor.  (I hated carbons.) Everything after that, I could do without.  

 

Really!  What has AI done for me lately? 

 

What  was it Flaubert said about trains?  Something like, they just made it possible for people to run around faster and faster and be stupid in more places.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

 

Talmud:

 

Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.  Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

 

Plus 10,000 other pages.

 

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918 <tel:(505)%20670-9918> 

 

On Aug 8, 2017 11:18 AM, "Pamela McCorduck" <pamela at well.com <mailto:pamela at well.com> > wrote:

Grant, does it really seem plausible to you that the thousands of crack researchers at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Google, MIT, Cal Berkeley, and other places have not seen this? And found remedies?

 

Just for FRIAM?s information, John McCarthy used to call Asimov?s Three Laws Talmudic. Sorry I don?t know enough about the Talmud to agree or disagree.

 

 

 

 

On Aug 8, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

 

Grant writes:

 

"Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out."

 

What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that there is no such thing as an independent observer.   Even if that is true, sampling techniques are used in many machine learning algorithms -- it is not a question of if they work, it is an academic question of why they work.

 

Marcus

  _____  

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com <mailto:grant.holland.sf at gmail.com> >
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

 

That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more like Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no longer servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually learned to project conditional probability. The cat is out of the barn. Or is it that the horse is out of the bag?  

Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out.

And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is intelligence a survivable trait?

 

On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:

It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <alfredo at covaleda.co <mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co> > wrote:

Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.

 

http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe  <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/ by Dr. Strangelove

 


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/467dd353/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug  8 19:31:12 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:31:12 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019201d3109e$6c6a4f60$453eee20$@earthlink.net>

Grant, 

 

I think I know the answer to this question, but want to make sure:  

 

What is the difference beween calling a process ?stochastic?, ?indeterminate?, or ?random??  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>; glen ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

 

Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)

G.

 

On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:

 
I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
 
The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.
 
There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.
 
An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.
 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/b88d3734/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 19:32:05 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:32:05 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCRCKdJxf4+yj85bLMaUs03LOrw-UVEoL3HyQn5RAP98Kg@mail.gmail.com>

@Nick that's a fair question. On a pragmatic side not much...yet. However
as I understand it (some) amount of AI was invaluable for making pretty gud
guesses about frustrating issues: Like what the heck is going on with the
weather.
Robots and androids (so far) are better then humans at somethings....and
pretty bad at others. Androids the R2-D2 kind. Basically computers speek
computer better than people
Computers can talk to computers reely reely fast and possibly understand
each other better than humans do. For some (I think) reely awsome things
they've done (so far): Dictation software basically asks your computer to
guess what you're saying (AI) . Mine litterally tries to learn how make
small improvements as I uses it and has gotten a lot better over time.
Their's a video on youtube of some MIT guys that have a robot band playing
disney inspired music. Those robots have tastes and stuff they like playing
more than others. Some better than others.
FWIW what I thought was too cool was some of stuff sounded reely good.
Robots driving cars or helping people could rock.  Or robots exploring
awsome  stuff that humans can't(yet)

Though I haven't a clue how close any of that is yet.  And you are right to
be concerned ^_^

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are
> ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!
>
> For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.
>
> On the other hand... evolution *is* stochastic. (You actually did not
> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was
> another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and
> Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second
> time. And that proved quite fruitful.)
>
> G.
>
> On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
>
> The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.
>
> There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.
>
> An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/dde273f4/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 19:32:11 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:32:11 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfqMjk-cksesOUqoo0TtAL4P9mGr_4v0Q_NxVgCwSzy4DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32E16933-E8CF-4148-947C-17C0BC832168@well.com>
 <CAA5dAfrcRfPwbwcDvX3VP-+uAshR-TY+=dn0wLiLc1YHdRzWPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d3108c$aaca5910$005f0b30$@earthlink.net>
 <CAA5dAfo7sZ9WT=_43=9FYi41ntVByZeL9mjvfahwZJ0y-QRrqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <018d01d3109e$0c1a3e40$244ebac0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAA5dAfqMjk-cksesOUqoo0TtAL4P9mGr_4v0Q_NxVgCwSzy4DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfrdm77z6-8J3P-XTb8Jq3hg-ge2xnGahAKHnk=c4Qf68A@mail.gmail.com>

The latter.  I'm  about to turn off autocorrect. Ironic in the context of a
discussion about the benefits and dangers out AI.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 5:28 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

f.

?space??



Or was that a correction error arising from trying to write ?apace?.

n



Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/



*From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
Wimberly
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 5:32 PM

*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence



Nick,



It's actually more like six thousand pages. However many pages thousands of
rabbis can write in 600 years, more or less.  Deborah found it and posted
it on our refrigerator.



I understand you are recovering space.



Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918



On Aug 8, 2017 3:24 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

I LOVE this, Frank.  How ever did you find it amongst the ten thousand
pages!!!!????



*Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.
Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the
work, but neither are you free to abandon it.*



By the way.  Now in my 80th year, I am officially against technology.  I
was OK with everything up through the word processor.  (I hated carbons.)
Everything after that, I could do without.



Really!  What has AI done for me lately?



What  was it Flaubert said about trains?  Something like, they just made it
possible for people to run around faster and faster and be stupid in more
places.



Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/



*From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
Wimberly
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 1:56 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence



Talmud:



Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief.  Do justly, now.
Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now.  You are not obligated to complete the
work, but neither are you free to abandon it.



Plus 10,000 other pages.



Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918



On Aug 8, 2017 11:18 AM, "Pamela McCorduck" <pamela at well.com> wrote:

Grant, does it really seem plausible to you that the thousands of crack
researchers at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Google, MIT, Cal Berkeley, and
other places have not seen this? And found remedies?



Just for FRIAM?s information, John McCarthy used to call Asimov?s Three
Laws Talmudic. Sorry I don?t know enough about the Talmud to agree or
disagree.









On Aug 8, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:



Grant writes:



"Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are
stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like
in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal
determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out.
"



What is probability, physically?   It could be an illusion and that there
is no such thing as an independent observer.   Even if that is true,
sampling techniques are used in many machine learning algorithms -- it is
not a question of if they work, it is an academic question of why they work.



Marcus
------------------------------

*From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <
grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
*Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 11:38:03 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Carl Tollander
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence



That sounds right, Carl. Asimov's three "laws" of robotics are more like
Asimov's three "wishes" for robotics. AI entities are already no longer
servants. They have become machine learners. They have actually learned to
project conditional probability. The cat is out of the barn. Or is it that
the horse is out of the bag?

Whatever. Fortunately, the AI folks don't seem to see - yet - that they are
stumbling all over the missing piece: stochastic adaptation. You know, like
in evolution: chance mutations. AI is still down with a bad case of causal
determinism. But I expect they will fairly shortly get over that. Watch out.

And we still must answer Stephen Hawking's burning question: Is
intelligence a survivable trait?



On 8/7/17 9:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:

It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely on
board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it may apply
to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are probably not
going to fly.









On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez <alfredo at covaleda.co>
 wrote:

Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the
future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.



http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-
de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove





============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/e1490fe9/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 19:51:53 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 16:51:53 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB170332E393665A9336A1D67CC58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703608D725B72519D66EBB5C5B50@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <2ad1b90a-8f5d-62f4-6028-5a6d91c705e8@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170332E393665A9336A1D67CC58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <ae57ee3c-1daa-db44-54ec-f8c469426c37@gmail.com>

OK.  This is better.  But you seem to have defined "unit" or "coherence", rather than "self" ... I'm reminded of Simon's "near decomposability" in The Sciences of the Artificial.  To promote a unit to a self, you're going to have to include some sort of loop, like propri- or inter-oception.  And that raises the idea that some (exteroception) variables are unbound.  If the "unit" has more unbound variables than bound ones and/or the loops see less weight/traffic than the unbound ones, then the "unit" isn't coherent ... not a unit.  By that reasoning, we should be able to parse the unit into parts whose excision does not (appreciatively) affect the unit versus parts whose excision fundamentally changes it, including destroying it.

I'd posit that a passable definition of "self" is the collection of parts that can't be excised without causing fundamental changes.  So, the loss of things like hair, fingernails, skin cells, maybe teeth, maybe 1 kidney, 1/2 a liver, etc. preserve the unit.

But even *that* definition is hopelessly flawed because it passes the buck to "fundamental changes".  Is myself invariant across the loss of a tooth?  What were we talking about?

On 08/07/2017 05:52 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I claim a message send is analogous to an axon firing, where there is at least one target neuron for each receivable message.   The whole graph and instantaneous charge state of the neurons and the musculature/skeleton/etc. attached to them is the `self'.  The edges and effective edges in the graph (apparently) come and go depending on experience.   In terms of comparing selves, I think one needs to look at the graphs in terms of the behaviors they exhibit and not their internal wiring.   My wiring of yellow can be different from yours.    Your perception of throwing a baseball will change with and without a broken arm, not just because the arm might not work, but also because the broken arm will lead to the motor system changing due to the lack of practice with throwing.
> 
> Probably there are subgraphs that are more stable configurations than others.

-- 
? glen


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Tue Aug  8 20:43:40 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:43:40 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>,
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Grant writes:


"On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) "


I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like nlp.stanford.edu really impressive -- there examples of both approaches (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually exclusive.


Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or domain-specific heuristics.


I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)

G.

On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:


I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.

There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.

An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/965f0422/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Tue Aug  8 21:06:12 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 01:06:12 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <ae57ee3c-1daa-db44-54ec-f8c469426c37@gmail.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703608D725B72519D66EBB5C5B50@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <2ad1b90a-8f5d-62f4-6028-5a6d91c705e8@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170332E393665A9336A1D67CC58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <ae57ee3c-1daa-db44-54ec-f8c469426c37@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703D5A8EC400C5434F422FBC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Glen writes:


"I'd posit that a passable definition of "self" is the collection of parts that can't be excised without causing fundamental changes.  So, the loss of things like hair, fingernails, skin cells, maybe teeth, maybe 1 kidney, 1/2 a liver, etc. preserve the unit."


Gasp.   Loss of _hair_?  _Who_ would say such a thing?


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 5:51:53 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the self

OK.  This is better.  But you seem to have defined "unit" or "coherence", rather than "self" ... I'm reminded of Simon's "near decomposability" in The Sciences of the Artificial.  To promote a unit to a self, you're going to have to include some sort of loop, like propri- or inter-oception.  And that raises the idea that some (exteroception) variables are unbound.  If the "unit" has more unbound variables than bound ones and/or the loops see less weight/traffic than the unbound ones, then the "unit" isn't coherent ... not a unit.  By that reasoning, we should be able to parse the unit into parts whose excision does not (appreciatively) affect the unit versus parts whose excision fundamentally changes it, including destroying it.

I'd posit that a passable definition of "self" is the collection of parts that can't be excised without causing fundamental changes.  So, the loss of things like hair, fingernails, skin cells, maybe teeth, maybe 1 kidney, 1/2 a liver, etc. preserve the unit.

But even *that* definition is hopelessly flawed because it passes the buck to "fundamental changes".  Is myself invariant across the loss of a tooth?  What were we talking about?

On 08/07/2017 05:52 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I claim a message send is analogous to an axon firing, where there is at least one target neuron for each receivable message.   The whole graph and instantaneous charge state of the neurons and the musculature/skeleton/etc. attached to them is the `self'.  The edges and effective edges in the graph (apparently) come and go depending on experience.   In terms of comparing selves, I think one needs to look at the graphs in terms of the behaviors they exhibit and not their internal wiring.   My wiring of yellow can be different from yours.    Your perception of throwing a baseball will change with and without a broken arm, not just because the arm might not work, but also because the broken arm will lead to the motor system changing due to the lack of practice with throwing.
>
> Probably there are subgraphs that are more stable configurations than others.

--
? glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/855c7d03/attachment-0001.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Tue Aug  8 21:20:28 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 01:20:28 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>,
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>,
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703577DAE1CECDBF5243B7CC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers."


Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding attention! ]

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Grant writes:


"On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) "


I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like nlp.stanford.edu really impressive -- there examples of both approaches (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually exclusive.


Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or domain-specific heuristics.


I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)

G.

On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:


I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.

There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.

An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/e44ce404/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Tue Aug  8 21:57:06 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:57:06 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703577DAE1CECDBF5243B7CC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703577DAE1CECDBF5243B7CC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfryP__T2OUmZNFZ2hQHpY_uM7NE-C_QqRd6H89UzgTimA@mail.gmail.com>

Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.
And these are just classical search methods.

Feank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> "But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just
> fast ways to find answers."
>
>
> Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding
> attention! ]
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <
> marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
>
> Grant writes:
>
>
> "On the other hand... evolution *is* stochastic. (You actually did not
> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was
> another one.) "
>
>
> I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research
> (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the
> age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to
> pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and
> depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems
> to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving
> algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming
> languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way
> and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural
> language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets
> (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like
> nlp.stanford.edu really impressive -- there examples of both approaches
> (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually
> exclusive.
>
>
> Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come together
> by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high
> dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or
> domain-specific heuristics.
>
>
> I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.
> Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like
> ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.
>
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <
> grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
>
> Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are
> ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!
>
> For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.
>
> On the other hand... evolution *is* stochastic. (You actually did not
> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was
> another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and
> Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second
> time. And that proved quite fruitful.)
>
> G.
>
> On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
>
> The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.
>
> There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.
>
> An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/1cea5577/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  9 00:11:32 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 04:11:32 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfryP__T2OUmZNFZ2hQHpY_uM7NE-C_QqRd6H89UzgTimA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703577DAE1CECDBF5243B7CC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <CAA5dAfryP__T2OUmZNFZ2hQHpY_uM7NE-C_QqRd6H89UzgTimA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703C634CC87E4E7197E5499C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Frank writes:


"Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.  And these are just classical search methods."


Connecting this back to evolutionary / stochastic techniques, genetic programming is one way to get the best of both approaches, at least in principle.   One can expose these human-designed algorithms as predefined library functions.  Typically in genetic programming the vocabulary consists of simple routines (e.g. arithmetic), conditionals, and recursion.


In practice, this kind of seeding of the solution space can collapse diversity.   It is a drag to see tons of compute time spent on a million little refinements around an already good solution.  (Yes, I know that solution!)  More fun to see a set of clumsy solutions turn into to decent-performing but weird solutions.  I find my attention is drawn to properties of sub-populations and how I can keep the historically good performers _out_.  Not a pure GA, but a GA where communities also have fitness functions matching my heavy hand of justice..  (If I prove that conservatism just doesn't work, I'll be sure to pass it along.)


Marcus


________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:57:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.  And these are just classical search methods.

Feank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

"But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers."


Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding attention! ]

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Grant writes:


"On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) "


I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like nlp.stanford.edu<http://nlp.stanford.edu> really impressive -- there examples of both approaches (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually exclusive.


Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or domain-specific heuristics.


I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com<mailto:grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)

G.

On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:


I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.

There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.

An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/4790c9c3/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 00:15:05 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 22:15:05 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703C634CC87E4E7197E5499C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703577DAE1CECDBF5243B7CC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA5dAfryP__T2OUmZNFZ2hQHpY_uM7NE-C_QqRd6H89UzgTimA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703C634CC87E4E7197E5499C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfq7tGs-eFEt3Ooe7ZqOk72YJBwDCPpZ1qnEyTkYjXGEXg@mail.gmail.com>

My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as
a straw-man (straw-men?).

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 10:11 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> Frank writes:
>
>
> "Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search,
> etc.  And these are just classical search methods."
>
>
> Connecting this back to evolutionary / stochastic techniques, genetic
> programming is one way to get the best of both approaches, at least in
> principle.   One can expose these human-designed algorithms as predefined
> library functions.  Typically in genetic programming the vocabulary
> consists of simple routines (e.g. arithmetic), conditionals, and recursion.
>
>
> In practice, this kind of seeding of the solution space can collapse
> diversity.   It is a drag to see tons of compute time spent on a million
> little refinements around an already good solution.  (Yes, I know that
> solution!)  More fun to see a set of clumsy solutions turn into to
> decent-performing but weird solutions.  I find my attention is drawn to
> properties of sub-populations and how I can keep the historically good
> performers _out_.  Not a pure GA, but a GA where communities also have
> fitness functions matching my heavy hand of justice..  (If I prove that
> conservatism just doesn't work, I'll be sure to pass it along.)
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
> wimberly3 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:57:06 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
> Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.
> And these are just classical search methods.
>
> Feank
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>> "But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just
>> fast ways to find answers."
>>
>>
>> Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding
>> attention! ]
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <
>> marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>>
>>
>> Grant writes:
>>
>>
>> "On the other hand... evolution *is* stochastic. (You actually did not
>> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was
>> another one.) "
>>
>>
>> I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research
>> (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the
>> age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to
>> pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and
>> depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems
>> to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving
>> algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming
>> languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way
>> and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural
>> language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets
>> (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like
>> nlp.stanford.edu really impressive -- there examples of both approaches
>> (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually
>> exclusive.
>>
>>
>> Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come
>> together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high
>> dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or
>> domain-specific heuristics.
>>
>>
>> I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.
>> Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like
>> ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <
>> grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>>
>>
>> Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are
>> ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!
>>
>> For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.
>>
>> On the other hand... evolution *is* stochastic. (You actually did not
>> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was
>> another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and
>> Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second
>> time. And that proved quite fruitful.)
>>
>> G.
>>
>> On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
>>
>> The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.
>>
>> There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.
>>
>> An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170808/30eb989e/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  9 00:41:05 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 04:41:05 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfq7tGs-eFEt3Ooe7ZqOk72YJBwDCPpZ1qnEyTkYjXGEXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703577DAE1CECDBF5243B7CC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA5dAfryP__T2OUmZNFZ2hQHpY_uM7NE-C_QqRd6H89UzgTimA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703C634CC87E4E7197E5499C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <CAA5dAfq7tGs-eFEt3Ooe7ZqOk72YJBwDCPpZ1qnEyTkYjXGEXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703D52B1E902092C3F4EAF1C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Frank writes:


"My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as a straw-man (straw-men?)."


Unless there is a robust meta-rule (not heuristic) or single deterministic search algorithm to rule them all, then wouldn't those other suggestions also be straw-men too?   If I knew that there were no noise and the domain was continuous and convex, then I wouldn't use a stochastic approach.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 10:15:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as a straw-man (straw-men?).

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 10:11 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

Frank writes:


"Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.  And these are just classical search methods."


Connecting this back to evolutionary / stochastic techniques, genetic programming is one way to get the best of both approaches, at least in principle.   One can expose these human-designed algorithms as predefined library functions.  Typically in genetic programming the vocabulary consists of simple routines (e.g. arithmetic), conditionals, and recursion.


In practice, this kind of seeding of the solution space can collapse diversity.   It is a drag to see tons of compute time spent on a million little refinements around an already good solution.  (Yes, I know that solution!)  More fun to see a set of clumsy solutions turn into to decent-performing but weird solutions.  I find my attention is drawn to properties of sub-populations and how I can keep the historically good performers _out_.  Not a pure GA, but a GA where communities also have fitness functions matching my heavy hand of justice..  (If I prove that conservatism just doesn't work, I'll be sure to pass it along.)


Marcus


________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com<mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:57:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.  And these are just classical search methods.

Feank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918<tel:(505)%20670-9918>

On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

"But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers."


Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding attention! ]

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Grant writes:


"On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) "


I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like nlp.stanford.edu<http://nlp.stanford.edu> really impressive -- there examples of both approaches (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually exclusive.


Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or domain-specific heuristics.


I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com<mailto:grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)

G.

On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:


I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.

There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.

An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/0a26ff54/attachment.html>

From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 02:23:29 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:23:29 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <019201d3109e$6c6a4f60$453eee20$@earthlink.net>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <019201d3109e$6c6a4f60$453eee20$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <f01ad999-e779-22ae-df40-491baefbe580@gmail.com>

Nick,

In science, these three terms are generally interchangeable. Their 
common usage is that they all describe activities, or "events", that are 
"subject to chance". Such activities, events or processes that are 
described by these terms are governed by the laws of probability. They 
all describe activities, events, or "happenings" whose repetitions do 
not always produce the same outcomes even when given the same inputs 
every time (initial conditions). In other words, uncertainty is involved.

However, like most words, these enjoy other usage, meanings, as well. 
For example "random" is sometimes used to mean "disorganized" or 
"lacking in specific pattern". This is a very different meaning than 
"activities that don't always produce the same outcome given the same 
inputs". Consider what a math formula for each of these tow meanings 
wold consist of. One of them would be based on probabilities; but the 
other would involve stationary relationships.

On 8/8/17 5:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Grant,
>
> I think I know the answer to this question, but want to make sure:
>
> What is the difference beween calling a process ?stochastic?, 
> ?indeterminate?, or ?random??
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Grant 
> Holland
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2017 6:51 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>; glen ?<gepropella at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
> Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are 
> ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!
>
> For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.
>
> On the other hand... evolution /is/ stochastic. (You actually did not 
> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right 
> was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is 
> "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it 
> for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)
>
> G.
>
> On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:
>
>     I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
>
>     The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.
>
>     There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.
>
>     An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/0a0d4998/attachment.html>

From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 02:40:48 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 00:40:48 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <a6032187-f6e1-08ef-8c3c-131817c3ffc8@gmail.com>

Marcus,

Let me clarify what I meant by saying that evolution is stochastic....

By "evolution", I do not mean genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms 
need not be, but can be, stochastic. Genetic algorithms are/adaptive; 
/but they need not be/stochastically /adaptive. On the other hand, 
biological evolution of life on earth is necessarily stochastically 
adaptive - due to chance mutations.

As Jacques Monod points out in his book "Chance and Necessity", chance 
mutations are the /only/ natural mechanism by which new species are 
created. And it is completely subject to chance. Without this particular 
stochasticicty, there would only ever have been one species on earth, if 
that, and that species would now be long extinct because of its 
inability to adapt.


On 8/8/17 6:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Grant writes:
>
>
> "On the other hand... evolution /is/ stochastic. (You actually did not 
> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right 
> was another one.) "
>
>
> I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI 
> research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in 
> Lisp) from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very 
> flexible way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that 
> breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find 
> answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted to SMT solvers and 
> specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have somewhat 
> less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine 
> learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally 
> associated with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are 
> now matched or even dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the 
> range of capabilities provided by groups like nlp.stanford.edu really 
> impressive -- there examples of both approaches (logic programming and 
> machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually exclusive.
>
>
> Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come 
> together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which 
> high dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on 
> fragile or domain-specific heuristics.
>
>
> I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  
> Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to noise (or if you like 
> ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.
>
>
> Marcus
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland 
> <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
> Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are 
> ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!
>
> For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.
>
> On the other hand... evolution /is/ stochastic. (You actually did not 
> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right 
> was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is 
> "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it 
> for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)
>
> G.
>
>
> On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:
>> I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
>>
>> The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.
>>
>> There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.
>>
>> An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.
>>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/2f5505e6/attachment-0001.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  9 04:08:22 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:08:22 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <a6032187-f6e1-08ef-8c3c-131817c3ffc8@gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <a6032187-f6e1-08ef-8c3c-131817c3ffc8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703EA7AADF4598E5CE958F4C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"Genetic algorithms need not be, but can be, stochastic. Genetic algorithms are adaptive; but they need not be stochastically adaptive"

[..]

"Without this particular stochasticicty, there would only ever have been one species on earth, if that, and that species would now be long extinct because of its inability to adapt."


If an algorithm can result in there being one species it is not adaptive.   I meant to imply a GA has a non-zero mutation rate (not just selection) and that mutation is random, without specifying particular distributional properties or distinguishing between pseudo-random and `truly' random.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 12:40:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Marcus Daniels; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Marcus,

Let me clarify what I meant by saying that evolution is stochastic....

By "evolution", I do not mean genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms need not be, but can be, stochastic. Genetic algorithms are adaptive; but they need not be stochastically adaptive. On the other hand, biological evolution of life on earth is necessarily stochastically adaptive - due to chance mutations.

As Jacques Monod points out in his book "Chance and Necessity", chance mutations are the only natural mechanism by which new species are created. And it is completely subject to chance. Without this particular stochasticicty, there would only ever have been one species on earth, if that, and that species would now be long extinct because of its inability to adapt.

On 8/8/17 6:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Grant writes:


"On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) "


I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like nlp.stanford.edu really impressive -- there examples of both approaches (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually exclusive.


Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or domain-specific heuristics.


I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com><mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com><mailto:grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)

G.

On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:

I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.

There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.

An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.






============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/9e2011ba/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 09:13:26 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2VwciDim6c=?=)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 06:13:26 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the self
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703D5A8EC400C5434F422FBC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <6767db63-ee2b-3c17-ecbf-25c02eed08a8@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703608D725B72519D66EBB5C5B50@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <2ad1b90a-8f5d-62f4-6028-5a6d91c705e8@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170332E393665A9336A1D67CC58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <ae57ee3c-1daa-db44-54ec-f8c469426c37@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D5A8EC400C5434F422FBC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DE8E5B66-DA39-48AF-A16F-51FCD43EB372@gmail.com>

Ha! We bald people clearly have a stronger sense of self than hairy people.

On August 8, 2017 6:06:12 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>Gasp.   Loss of _hair_?  _Who_ would say such a thing?

-- 
?glen?


From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 09:35:01 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:35:01 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703D52B1E902092C3F4EAF1C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703577DAE1CECDBF5243B7CC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA5dAfryP__T2OUmZNFZ2hQHpY_uM7NE-C_QqRd6H89UzgTimA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703C634CC87E4E7197E5499C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA5dAfq7tGs-eFEt3Ooe7ZqOk72YJBwDCPpZ1qnEyTkYjXGEXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D52B1E902092C3F4EAF1C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfrnQRRW_OaRp-ySmNmUt=sn-HbJzjP8JjtiUCs4fw72RQ@mail.gmail.com>

Right.  Then you use gradient ascent.  But what if you are scheduling a job
shop for throughput when there are thousands of variables most of which
have discrete values?

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 10:41 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> Frank writes:
>
>
> "My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only
> as a straw-man (straw-men?)."
>
>
> Unless there is a robust meta-rule (not heuristic) or single deterministic
> search algorithm to rule them all, then wouldn't those other suggestions
> also be straw-men too?   If I knew that there were no noise and the domain
> was continuous and convex, then I wouldn't use a stochastic approach.
>
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
> wimberly3 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 10:15:05 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>
> My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as
> a straw-man (straw-men?).
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Aug 8, 2017 10:11 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>> Frank writes:
>>
>>
>> "Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search,
>> etc.  And these are just classical search methods."
>>
>>
>> Connecting this back to evolutionary / stochastic techniques, genetic
>> programming is one way to get the best of both approaches, at least in
>> principle.   One can expose these human-designed algorithms as predefined
>> library functions.  Typically in genetic programming the vocabulary
>> consists of simple routines (e.g. arithmetic), conditionals, and recursion.
>>
>>
>> In practice, this kind of seeding of the solution space can collapse
>> diversity.   It is a drag to see tons of compute time spent on a million
>> little refinements around an already good solution.  (Yes, I know that
>> solution!)  More fun to see a set of clumsy solutions turn into to
>> decent-performing but weird solutions.  I find my attention is drawn to
>> properties of sub-populations and how I can keep the historically good
>> performers _out_.  Not a pure GA, but a GA where communities also have
>> fitness functions matching my heavy hand of justice..  (If I prove that
>> conservatism just doesn't work, I'll be sure to pass it along.)
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
>> wimberly3 at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:57:06 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>>
>> Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.
>> And these are just classical search methods.
>>
>> Feank
>>
>> Frank Wimberly
>> Phone (505) 670-9918
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just
>>> fast ways to find answers."
>>>
>>>
>>> Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding
>>> attention! ]
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <
>>> marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>>>
>>>
>>> Grant writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> "On the other hand... evolution *is* stochastic. (You actually did not
>>> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was
>>> another one.) "
>>>
>>>
>>> I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI
>>> research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp)
>>> from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible
>>> way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and
>>> depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems
>>> to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving
>>> algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming
>>> languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way
>>> and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural
>>> language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets
>>> (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like
>>> nlp.stanford.edu really impressive -- there examples of both approaches
>>> (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually
>>> exclusive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come
>>> together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high
>>> dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or
>>> domain-specific heuristics.
>>>
>>>
>>> I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.
>>> Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like
>>> ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Grant Holland <
>>> grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are
>>> ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!
>>>
>>> For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.
>>>
>>> On the other hand... evolution *is* stochastic. (You actually did not
>>> disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was
>>> another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and
>>> Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second
>>> time. And that proved quite fruitful.)
>>>
>>> G.
>>>
>>> On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.
>>>
>>> The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.
>>>
>>> There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.
>>>
>>> An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/c66b498e/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  9 09:51:51 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:51:51 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfrnQRRW_OaRp-ySmNmUt=sn-HbJzjP8JjtiUCs4fw72RQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D59638B334D9A9FD16EAC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703577DAE1CECDBF5243B7CC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA5dAfryP__T2OUmZNFZ2hQHpY_uM7NE-C_QqRd6H89UzgTimA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703C634CC87E4E7197E5499C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA5dAfq7tGs-eFEt3Ooe7ZqOk72YJBwDCPpZ1qnEyTkYjXGEXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D52B1E902092C3F4EAF1C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <CAA5dAfrnQRRW_OaRp-ySmNmUt=sn-HbJzjP8JjtiUCs4fw72RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703AB3EC20CC56A06A468DEC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"Right.  Then you use gradient ascent.  But what if you are scheduling a job shop for throughput when there are thousands of variables most of which have discrete values?"


I'd try to code it up for a SMT solver like Z3, or look for a SMT solver that had theories that closely matched the domain of the job shop.  Or try something like this<https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02200> on a D-Wave.

<https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02200>

Marcus


________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:35 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Right.  Then you use gradient ascent.  But what if you are scheduling a job shop for throughput when there are thousands of variables most of which have discrete values?

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 8, 2017 10:41 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

Frank writes:


"My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as a straw-man (straw-men?)."


Unless there is a robust meta-rule (not heuristic) or single deterministic search algorithm to rule them all, then wouldn't those other suggestions also be straw-men too?   If I knew that there were no noise and the domain was continuous and convex, then I wouldn't use a stochastic approach.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com<mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 10:15:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

My point was that depth-first and breadth-first can probably serve only as a straw-man (straw-men?).

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918<tel:(505)%20670-9918>

On Aug 8, 2017 10:11 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

Frank writes:


"Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.  And these are just classical search methods."


Connecting this back to evolutionary / stochastic techniques, genetic programming is one way to get the best of both approaches, at least in principle.   One can expose these human-designed algorithms as predefined library functions.  Typically in genetic programming the vocabulary consists of simple routines (e.g. arithmetic), conditionals, and recursion.


In practice, this kind of seeding of the solution space can collapse diversity.   It is a drag to see tons of compute time spent on a million little refinements around an already good solution.  (Yes, I know that solution!)  More fun to see a set of clumsy solutions turn into to decent-performing but weird solutions.  I find my attention is drawn to properties of sub-populations and how I can keep the historically good performers _out_.  Not a pure GA, but a GA where communities also have fitness functions matching my heavy hand of justice..  (If I prove that conservatism just doesn't work, I'll be sure to pass it along.)


Marcus


________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com<mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:57:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence

Then there's best-first search, B*, C*, constraint-directed search, etc.  And these are just classical search methods.

Feank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918<tel:(505)%20670-9918>

On Aug 8, 2017 7:20 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

"But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers."


Just _not_ -- general but not efficient.   [My dog was demanding attention! ]

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:43:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Grant writes:


"On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) "


I think of logic programming systems as a traditional tool of AI research (e.g. Prolog, now Curry, similar capabilities implemented in Lisp) from the age before the AI winter.  These systems provide a very flexible way to pose constraint problems.  But one problem is that breadth-first and depth-first search are just fast ways to find answers.  Recent work seems to have shifted to SMT solvers and specialized constraint solving algorithms, but these have somewhat less expressiveness as programming languages.  Meanwhile, machine learning has come on the scene in a big way and tasks traditionally associated with old-school AI, like natural language processing, are now matched or even dominated using neural nets (LSTM).  I find the range of capabilities provided by groups like nlp.stanford.edu<http://nlp.stanford.edu> really impressive -- there examples of both approaches (logic programming and machine learning) and then don't need to be mutually exclusive.


Quantum annealing is one area where the two may increasingly come together by using physical phenomena to accelerate the rate at which high dimensional discrete systems can be solved, without relying on fragile or domain-specific heuristics.


I often use evolutionary algorithms for hard optimization problems.  Genetic algorithms, for example, are robust to  noise (or if you like ambiguity) in fitness functions, and they are trivial to parallelize.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com<mailto:grant.holland.sf at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 4:51:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; glen ?
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence


Thanks for throwing in on this one, Glen. Your thoughts are ever-insightful. And ever-entertaining!

For example, I did not know that von Neumann put forth a set theory.

On the other hand... evolution is stochastic. (You actually did not disagree with me on that. You only said that the reason I was right was another one.) A good book on the stochasticity of evolution is "Chance and Necessity" by Jacques Monod. (I just finished rereading it for the second time. And that proved quite fruitful.)

G.

On 8/8/17 12:44 PM, glen ? wrote:

I'm not sure how Asimov intended them.  But the three laws is a trope that clearly shows the inadequacy of deontological ethics.  Rules are fine as far as they go.  But they don't go very far.  We can see this even in the foundations of mathematics, the unification of physics, and polyphenism/robustness in biology.  Von Neumann (Burks) said it best when he said: "But in the complicated parts of formal logic it is always one order of magnitude harder to tell what an object can do than to produce the object."  Or, if you don't like that, you can see the same perspective in his iterative construction of sets as an alternative to the classical conception.

The point being that reality, traditionally, has shown more expressiveness than any of our rule sets.

There are ways to handle the mismatch in expressivity between reality versus our rule sets.  Stochasticity is the measure of the extent to which a rule set matches a set of patterns.  But Grant's right to qualify that with evolution, not because of the way evolution is stochastic, but because evolution requires a unit to regularly (or sporadically) sync with its environment.

An AI (or a rule-obsessed human) that sprouts fully formed from Zeus' head will *always* fail.  It's guaranteed to fail because syncing with the environment isn't *built in*.  The sync isn't part of the AI's onto- or phylo-geny.




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/9e54052a/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 09:56:03 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2VwciDim6c=?=)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 06:56:03 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <f01ad999-e779-22ae-df40-491baefbe580@gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1723ce5-a8a1-2ce4-f025-c9d4e0dda91c@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703E154A4C4A34D64CCB777C58A0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <48088bdd-d753-3c75-c160-2a89b067a6e0@gmail.com>
 <b629bb5c-c0d6-1887-f609-be3a2f2e1372@gmail.com>
 <019201d3109e$6c6a4f60$453eee20$@earthlink.net>
 <f01ad999-e779-22ae-df40-491baefbe580@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93327265-2C6B-4CAB-99BB-FB7E40B4CFDB@gmail.com>

FWIW, I tend to use stochastic to mean a process with a collection of variables, some of which are (pseudo) randomly set and some of which are not. A "random process" would imply a process where either all the variables are random OR where the randomly set variables are dominant. A process can be stochastic even if the randomness has little effect.

My use of indeterminate is ambiguous. In processes where we're ignorant of how a variable is set, those variables are indeterminate?. But I also use it to mean unset variables. E.g. a semaphore that's being polled for a value or state change. But as with stochasticity, a "don't care" variable can be indeterminate without making the whole process indeterminate.

On August 8, 2017 11:23:29 PM PDT, Grant Holland <grant.holland.sf at gmail.com> wrote:
>Nick,
>
>In science, these three terms are generally interchangeable. Their 
>common usage is that they all describe activities, or "events", that
>are 
>"subject to chance". Such activities, events or processes that are 
>described by these terms are governed by the laws of probability. They 
>all describe activities, events, or "happenings" whose repetitions do 
>not always produce the same outcomes even when given the same inputs 
>every time (initial conditions). In other words, uncertainty is
>involved.
>
>However, like most words, these enjoy other usage, meanings, as well. 
>For example "random" is sometimes used to mean "disorganized" or 
>"lacking in specific pattern". This is a very different meaning than 
>"activities that don't always produce the same outcome given the same 
>inputs". Consider what a math formula for each of these tow meanings 
>wold consist of. One of them would be based on probabilities; but the 
>other would involve stationary relationships.
>
>On 8/8/17 5:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Grant,
>>
>> I think I know the answer to this question, but want to make sure:
>>
>> What is the difference beween calling a process ?stochastic?, 
>> ?indeterminate?, or ?random??
-- 
?glen?


From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Wed Aug  9 10:47:37 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:47:37 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
Message-ID: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>

Hi everybody, 

 

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog. 

 

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours. 

 

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
I am correct or not.  

 

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this "evolution" of
which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --
The alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in
which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the
theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all
over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations
concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon,
itself. 

 

So what kind of "evolution" are you guys talking about?

 

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
here. 

 

nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/985f20ef/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 10:53:58 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:53:58 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCTP+jiqzkG3T4D43nskO5KX_1dUc0P93yushAA1VHcNwA@mail.gmail.com>

Ah, good to see you nick.
How fairs you?

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>
>
>
> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>
>
>
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it?s last value.
> So the next step in a random walk is ?random? but the current value (it?s
> present position on a surface, say) is ?the result of a stochastic
> process.?  From your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I
> still can?t tell if I am correct or not.
>
>
>
> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
> confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this ?evolution? of
> which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
> speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  *The
> alteration of the design of taxa over time*.   Hard to see any way in
> which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into
> the theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
> vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability
> all over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are
> predictable.  In other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of
> your imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of
> the phenomenon, itself.
>
>
>
> So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?
>
>
>
> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
> here.
>
>
>
> nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/e807d153/attachment.html>

From jquillien at cybermesa.com  Wed Aug  9 10:56:58 2017
From: jquillien at cybermesa.com (Jenny Quillien)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:56:58 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>

An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.

 From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, 
but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them 
random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's 
any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles 
that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant 
to Nick's e-mail.

Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>
> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it?s last 
> value.  So the next step in a random walk is ?random? but the current 
> value (it?s present position on a surface, say) is ?the result of a 
> stochastic process.?  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
> Wikipedia, I still can?t tell if I am correct or not.
>
> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that 
> you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
> ?evolution? of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
> assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
> are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
> time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
> evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
> evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
> of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
> place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
> other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
> imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
> the phenomenon, itself.
>
> So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?
>
> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
> up, here.
>
> nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/4bc00942/attachment.html>

From profwest at fastmail.fm  Wed Aug  9 11:05:16 2017
From: profwest at fastmail.fm (Prof David West)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 09:05:16 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1502291116.2878369.1068139480.4CB278E7@webmail.messagingengine.com>

For what its worth - I will be teaching a short class next month in
Santa Fe, "Isaac Asimov and the Robots." Two points of coverage: 1) the
robots themselves invent and follow a "Zeroth Law" that allows them to
eliminate individual human beings with a result the exact opposite of
Hawking et. al.'s fears that our  creations will not love us; 2) how
the actual evolution of robotics and AI (see Daniel Suarez'* Kill
Decision* - autonomous swarming drones as tools of war and death to
humans) diverged from the rosy naive 1950s view of the future that
Asimov advanced.
davew


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017, at 09:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not entirely
> on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least insofar as it
> may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of "reining it in" are
> probably not going to fly.> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez
> <alfredo at covaleda.co> wrote:>> Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of the
>> future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.>> 
>> http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>> 
>> ============================================================
>>  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>  Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>  to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>  FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/542ce87d/attachment.html>

From profwest at fastmail.fm  Wed Aug  9 11:42:29 2017
From: profwest at fastmail.fm (Prof David West)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 09:42:29 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] schadenfreude - a political rant
Message-ID: <1502293349.2886850.1068153840.252D8CF3@webmail.messagingengine.com>

After Trump won, something I had been telling people would happen since
January last year, Nick constantly questioned me as to my 
schadenfreude-ic attitude - taking pleasure in the misery of all the
astounded liberals. Watching Bill Maher with some friends - also hard
core liberal democrats - I was struck by two things: 1), all the fury
and ridicule heaped on Trump (deservedly so) is really nothing more than
schadenfreude at the misery of Trump and his circle. Pleasurable
perhaps, but just as pointless as my gloating after the election; 2)
speaking purely tactically, the actions of the media and the liberal
establishment in reaction to Trump is going to assure his re-election to
a second term instead of prevent it. Nothing is being done at present to
reduce his popularity among those that voted for him while
simultaneously creating a platform for next time, " I tried to keep my
promises to you, but those liberal and democratic SOB's didn't let me.
Give me a real mandate and we will show them just how big a bunch of
losers they really are." (More sophisticated than that, but that is the
gist.)

Russia will not save us. Nothing will be found except more nasty,
vulgar, and immoral ? but absolutely legal ? behavior. At most, some
peripherals who illegally exploited their association with the Trump
campaign - e.g. Flynn - will suffer. Mobilizing bases, better
candidates, etc. will not save us - it will merely increase the shouting
the mutual animus and the polarization of our country.

My friends and I engaged in heated discussion - mostly the same kind of
"how can you," "my side is right," "Trump's supporters are morons but
Democrat supporters are universally enlightened," etc. etc. that
everyone is engaged in right now - before coming to a consensus.

Government has become locked into ideas, philosophies, and programs that
are grounded in, and straight jacketed by, things that worked in the
1940s (Democrats) and 1950s (Republicans). More of any of that cannot
possible work or be useful today. The only answer is true innovation.

Bringing innovation to government will not be easy. No institution is
more adverse to change - except maybe academia. Built in barriers, e.g.
procurement rules that guarantee only those who have proven they are
huge,  incompetent and with a history of expensive failures are even
allowed to bid on government contracts, will make it near impossible.

But, should we not be able to come up with original ideas along with
strategies and tactics to leverage the Web and social media to make them
possible? Would that not be an interesting and challenging, and
worthwhile endeavor?

davew



From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 11:48:20 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:48:20 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <9ce318a7-b02a-bbb3-b9f5-016968aee88e@gmail.com>


Maybe you're looking for the term "Markovian"?  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovProcess.html

On 08/09/2017 07:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
> was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
> next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
> position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
> your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
> I am correct or not.  

-- 
? glen


From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 11:56:29 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:56:29 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <ad641980-df29-4714-6434-15359091cc5a@gmail.com>

Nick,

Re: your queston about stochastic processes....

Yes, your specific description "AND its last value" is what most uses of 
"stochastic process" imply. But, technically all that is required to be 
a "stochastic process" is that each next step in the process is 
unpredictable, whether or not the outcome of one step influences the 
outcome of the next. An example of this is the process of flipping a 
coin several times in a row. Generally, we assume that the outcomes of 
two adjacent flips are stochastically (or statistically) independent, 
and that there is no influence between the steps. So, the steps of an 
independent stochastic process are not dependent on their previous steps.

On the other hand, selecting dinner tonight probably depends on what you 
had last night, because you would get bored with posole too many nights 
in a row. And maybe your memory goes back more than just one night, and 
your selection of dinner tonite is affected by what you had for 2 or 
more nites before. If your memory goes back only one night, then your 
"dinner selection process" is a kind of stochastic process called a 
"Markov process". Markov processes limit their "memory" to just one 
step. (That keeps the math simpler.)

In any event, stochastic processes whose steps depend on the outcomes of 
previous steps are "less random" than those that don't, because the 
earlier steps "give you extra information" that help you narrow down the 
options and to better predict the future steps - some more than others.  
So, LEARNING can occur inside of these dependent stochastic processes.

In fact, the mathematics of information theory is all about taking 
advantage of these dependent (or "conditional") stochastic processes to 
hopefully predict the outcomes of future steps. The whole thing is based 
on conditional probability. Info theory uses formulas with names such as 
joint entropy, conditional entropy, mutual information and entropy rate. 
These formulas can measure /how much /stochastic dependency is at work 
in a particular process - i.e how predictable it is. Entropy rate in 
particular works with conditional stochastic processes and tries to use 
that "extra information" provided by stochastic dependencies to predict 
future outcomes.

Re: your "evolution" question... I have been speaking of biological 
evolution.

HTH

Grant


On 8/9/17 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>
> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it?s last 
> value.  So the next step in a random walk is ?random? but the current 
> value (it?s present position on a surface, say) is ?the result of a 
> stochastic process.?  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
> Wikipedia, I still can?t tell if I am correct or not.
>
> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that 
> you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
> ?evolution? of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
> assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
> are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
> time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
> evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
> evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
> of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
> place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
> other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
> imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
> the phenomenon, itself.
>
> So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?
>
> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
> up, here.
>
> nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/bf95218a/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug  9 11:57:03 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:57:03 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <1502291116.2878369.1068139480.4CB278E7@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1502291116.2878369.1068139480.4CB278E7@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <e7407d1b-fbf7-8c0b-56f5-e79c3fba8a27@swcp.com>

Dave -

Most excellent of you to do this, and what will be your venue for this 
class?

Are you familiar with our own Jack Williamson 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Williamson>'s vague parallel work in 
his "Humanoids" which began in 1947 with the Novelette: "With Folded 
Hands".  I do not know if he ever acknowledged an influence in this work 
from Asimov's introduction to the "three laws" in 1941?  He investigates 
the (unintended/unexpected catastrophic consequences of something like 
the three laws on humanity, having the human spirit "quelled" by being 
"niced" or "safed" near-to-death)

He claims  to have written this as a cathartic project to shake off the 
existential angst/depression he felt from the (ab)use of atomic weapons 
at the end of WWII.  Jack was too old to serve in the military when the 
war broke out (he was 36?), but instead volunteered to work in the South 
Pacific as a civilian meteorologist.  He had started his career in 
Science Fiction before the term was fully adopted (Scientific Romance 
and Scientifiction being precursors according to Jack) with the 
publication of a short story "Metal Man" In Hugo Gernsbach's /Amazing 
Stories /in 1928.  Up until the end of WWII he claims to have been 
somewhat of a techno-utopianist, believing that advancing technology 
would (continue to ) simply advance the quality of life of human beings 
(somewhat?) monotonically.

I hosted Jack at an evening talk at LANL/Bradbury Science Museum in 1998 
during the Nebula Awards on the theme of how Science and Science Fiction 
inform one another.   Jack was 90  that year and had over 90 published 
works at that time.  His work was always somewhat in the vein of Space 
Opera and his characters were generally quite two dimensional and his 
gender politics typical of his generation of science fictioneers, yet he 
was still loved by his community.  His use of this pulpy/pop medium as a 
way to investigate and discuss fundamental aspects of human nature and 
many of the social or even spiritual implications of the advance of 
technology was nevertheless quite inspired (IMO).

He died in 2007 at the ripe young age of 98 and was still producing work 
nearly up to the day of his death.  In 1998 when I first met him, the 
OED was creating an appendix/section of "neologisms from science 
fiction" and he was credited (informally?) with having the most entries 
in the not-yet-published project.   His most famous throwdown in this 
category at the time was his "invention" of anti-matter, which he called 
"contra-terrene" or more colloquially "seetee" (a phoneticization of the 
contraction "CT")!   He was also quite proud of being interrogated by 
the FBI during the Manhattan project for having written a story about 
Atomic Weapons... they wanted to assume he had access to a security leak 
until he showed them a 1932(?) short story on the same theme, making it 
clear that the ideas of nuclear fission (fusion even?) as a weapon were 
not new (to him anyway)...  that apparently satisfied them and of 
course, he didn't appreciate the full import of their interrogation 
until after the war.

Carry On!

  - Steve


On 8/9/17 9:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> For what its worth - I will be teaching a short class next month in 
> Santa Fe, "Isaac Asimov and the Robots." Two points of coverage: 1) 
> the robots themselves invent and follow a "Zeroth Law" that allows 
> them to eliminate individual human beings with a result the exact 
> opposite of Hawking et. al.'s fears that our  creations will not love 
> us; 2) how the actual evolution of robotics and AI (see Daniel 
> Suarez'/Kill Decision/ - autonomous swarming drones as tools of war 
> and death to humans) diverged from the rosy naive 1950s view of the 
> future that Asimov advanced.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017, at 09:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not 
>> entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least 
>> insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of 
>> "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez 
>> <alfredo at covaleda.co <mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co>> wrote:
>>
>>     Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of
>>     the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>>
>>     http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>>     <http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>
>>
>>     ============================================================
>>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>     to unsubscribe
>>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/d7eacc34/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  9 11:58:52 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:58:52 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] schadenfreude - a political rant
In-Reply-To: <1502293349.2886850.1068153840.252D8CF3@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1502293349.2886850.1068153840.252D8CF3@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB170304374DC0659EDC159781C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Dave writes:


"Watching Bill Maher with some friends - also hard
core liberal democrats - I was struck by two things: 1), all the fury
and ridicule heaped on Trump (deservedly so) is really nothing more than
schadenfreude at the misery of Trump and his circle. Pleasurable
perhaps, but just as pointless as my gloating after the election; 2)
speaking purely tactically, the actions of the media and the liberal
establishment in reaction to Trump is going to assure his re-election to
a second term instead of prevent it."


Michael Moore was on Steven Colbert a week or so ago and said various confrontational things about living in a country where Trump is president.

Paraphrasing, that he wouldn't tolerate it, but that he also wouldn't move.   (It was the kind of rhetoric he is known for.)

But it sounded at first like a potential call for violence, but then he walked it back a bit.  Even so, Colbert seemed uncomfortable.   I must admit I am getting tired of people on the left who think their indignation matters for squat, and that the system of checks and balances will just fix this.    It helps a little, though, I think that comedians and commentators keep pounding on the moron theme.   It clearly worked with the White House because they started doing off-camera interviews.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 9:42:29 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] schadenfreude - a political rant

After Trump won, something I had been telling people would happen since
January last year, Nick constantly questioned me as to my
schadenfreude-ic attitude - taking pleasure in the misery of all the
astounded liberals. Watching Bill Maher with some friends - also hard
core liberal democrats - I was struck by two things: 1), all the fury
and ridicule heaped on Trump (deservedly so) is really nothing more than
schadenfreude at the misery of Trump and his circle. Pleasurable
perhaps, but just as pointless as my gloating after the election; 2)
speaking purely tactically, the actions of the media and the liberal
establishment in reaction to Trump is going to assure his re-election to
a second term instead of prevent it. Nothing is being done at present to
reduce his popularity among those that voted for him while
simultaneously creating a platform for next time, " I tried to keep my
promises to you, but those liberal and democratic SOB's didn't let me.
Give me a real mandate and we will show them just how big a bunch of
losers they really are." (More sophisticated than that, but that is the
gist.)

Russia will not save us. Nothing will be found except more nasty,
vulgar, and immoral ? but absolutely legal ? behavior. At most, some
peripherals who illegally exploited their association with the Trump
campaign - e.g. Flynn - will suffer. Mobilizing bases, better
candidates, etc. will not save us - it will merely increase the shouting
the mutual animus and the polarization of our country.

My friends and I engaged in heated discussion - mostly the same kind of
"how can you," "my side is right," "Trump's supporters are morons but
Democrat supporters are universally enlightened," etc. etc. that
everyone is engaged in right now - before coming to a consensus.

Government has become locked into ideas, philosophies, and programs that
are grounded in, and straight jacketed by, things that worked in the
1940s (Democrats) and 1950s (Republicans). More of any of that cannot
possible work or be useful today. The only answer is true innovation.

Bringing innovation to government will not be easy. No institution is
more adverse to change - except maybe academia. Built in barriers, e.g.
procurement rules that guarantee only those who have proven they are
huge,  incompetent and with a history of expensive failures are even
allowed to bid on government contracts, will make it near impossible.

But, should we not be able to come up with original ideas along with
strategies and tactics to leverage the Web and social media to make them
possible? Would that not be an interesting and challenging, and
worthwhile endeavor?

davew


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/bc140def/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug  9 12:01:52 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:01:52 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
Message-ID: <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

    /Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot create
    them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems it 
might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market being 
pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the "generic" or 
"store brand" version is equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, 
but also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and 
other embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).

- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>
> An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
> nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.
>
> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
> but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
> innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
> creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
> about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
> natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
> innovability.
>
> Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
> how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
> relevant to Nick's e-mail.
>
> Jenny Quillien
>
>
> On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>>
>> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>>
>> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
>> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it?s last 
>> value.  So the next step in a random walk is ?random? but the current 
>> value (it?s present position on a surface, say) is ?the result of a 
>> stochastic process.?  From your responses, and from a short rummage 
>> in Wikipedia, I still can?t tell if I am correct or not.
>>
>> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
>> that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
>> ?evolution? of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
>> assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
>> are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
>> time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
>> evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
>> evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
>> of randomness. There is constraint and predictability all over the 
>> place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
>> other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
>> imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
>> the phenomenon, itself.
>>
>> So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?
>>
>> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit. I am trying to wake myself 
>> up, here.
>>
>> nick
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
>> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/0da005f9/attachment.html>

From profwest at fastmail.fm  Wed Aug  9 12:06:44 2017
From: profwest at fastmail.fm (Prof David West)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:06:44 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <e7407d1b-fbf7-8c0b-56f5-e79c3fba8a27@swcp.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1502291116.2878369.1068139480.4CB278E7@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <e7407d1b-fbf7-8c0b-56f5-e79c3fba8a27@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <1502294804.2892606.1068222128.7ECF2D88@webmail.messagingengine.com>

Steve, it is a Renesan course on Tue, September 7 and 14. I have read
Jack Williamson, not all 90, and he would have been included in
another course I proposed to Renesan on science fiction themes. Maybe
in the future.
davew



On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 09:57 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave -


> Most excellent of you to do this, and what will be your venue for
> this class?> Are you familiar with our own Jack Williamson[1]'s vague parallel work
> in his "Humanoids" which began in 1947 with the Novelette: "With
> Folded Hands".  I do not know if he ever acknowledged an influence in
> this work from Asimov's introduction to the "three laws" in 1941?  He
> investigates the (unintended/unexpected catastrophic consequences of
> something like the three laws on humanity, having the human spirit
> "quelled" by being "niced" or "safed" near-to-death)> He claims  to have written this as a cathartic project to shake off
> the existential angst/depression he felt from the (ab)use of atomic
> weapons at the end of WWII.  Jack was too old to serve in the military
> when the war broke out (he was 36?), but instead volunteered to work
> in the South Pacific as a civilian meteorologist.  He had started his
> career in Science Fiction before the term was fully adopted
> (Scientific Romance and Scientifiction being precursors according to
> Jack) with the publication of a short story "Metal Man" In Hugo
> Gernsbach's *Amazing Stories *in 1928.  Up until the end of WWII he
> claims to have been somewhat of a techno-utopianist, believing that
> advancing technology would (continue to ) simply advance the quality
> of life of human beings (somewhat?) monotonically.> I hosted Jack at an evening talk at LANL/Bradbury Science Museum in
> 1998 during the Nebula Awards on the theme of how Science and Science
> Fiction inform one another.   Jack was 90  that year and had over 90
> published works at that time.  His work was always somewhat in the
> vein of Space Opera and his characters were generally quite two
> dimensional and his gender politics typical of his generation of
> science fictioneers, yet he was still loved by his community.  His use
> of this pulpy/pop medium as a way to investigate and discuss
> fundamental aspects of human nature and many of the social or even
> spiritual implications of the advance of technology was nevertheless
> quite inspired (IMO).> He died in 2007 at the ripe young age of 98 and was still producing
> work nearly up to the day of his death.  In 1998 when I first met him,
> the OED was creating an appendix/section of "neologisms from science
> fiction" and he was credited (informally?) with having the most
> entries in the not-yet-published project.   His most famous throwdown
> in this category at the time was his "invention" of anti-matter, which
> he called "contra-terrene" or more colloquially "seetee" (a
> phoneticization of the contraction "CT")!   He was also quite proud of
> being interrogated by the FBI during the Manhattan project for having
> written a story about Atomic Weapons... they wanted to assume he had
> access to a security leak until he showed them a 1932(?) short story
> on the same theme, making it clear that the ideas of nuclear fission
> (fusion even?) as a weapon were not new (to him anyway)...  that
> apparently satisfied them and of course, he didn't appreciate the full
> import of their interrogation until after the war.> Carry On!


>  - Steve


> 
> On 8/9/17 9:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> For what its worth - I will be teaching a short class next month in
>> Santa Fe, "Isaac Asimov and the Robots." Two points of coverage: 1)
>> the robots themselves invent and follow a "Zeroth Law" that allows
>> them to eliminate individual human beings with a result the exact
>> opposite of Hawking et. al.'s fears that our  creations will not love
>> us; 2) how the actual evolution of robotics and AI (see Daniel
>> Suarez'* Kill Decision* - autonomous swarming drones as tools of war
>> and death to humans) diverged from the rosy naive 1950s view of the
>> future that Asimov advanced.>> 
>> davew
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017, at 09:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>>> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not
>>> entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least
>>> insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of
>>> "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez
>>> <alfredo at covaleda.co> wrote:>>>> Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being of
>>>> the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.>>>> 
>>>> http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>>>> 
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> to unsubscribe
>>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>> 
>> 
>>
>> ============================================================ FRIAM
>> ============================================================ Applied
>> ============================================================ Complex-
>> ============================================================ ity
>> ============================================================ Group
>> ============================================================ listserv
>> ============================================================ Meets
>> ============================================================ Fridays
>> ============================================================ 9a-11:30
>> ============================================================ at cafe
>> ============================================================ at St.
>> ============================================================ John's
>> ============================================================ College
>> ============================================================ to unsu-
>> ============================================================ bscribe
>> ============================================================ http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> ============================================================ FRIAM-
>> ============================================================ COMIC
>> ============================================================ http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> ============================================================ by Dr.
>> ============================================================ Strange-
>> ============================================================ love> 
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


Links:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Williamson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/47ff23ff/attachment.html>

From jquillien at cybermesa.com  Wed Aug  9 12:20:54 2017
From: jquillien at cybermesa.com (Jenny Quillien)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:20:54 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>

Totally agree.

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at 
the Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or 
other) and see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but 
can follow  e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny


On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>
> Jenny -
>
> What a powerful quote:
>
>     /Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
>     create them./
>
> In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
> and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
> Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
> development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems 
> it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
> development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
> leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
> This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market 
> being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the 
> "generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior 
> (certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the 
> colorants and odorants and other embellishments required to 
> differentiate one product from the other?).
>
> - Steve
>
> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>>
>> An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
>> nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.
>>
>> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
>> but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
>> innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
>> creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
>> about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
>> natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
>> innovability.
>>
>> Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
>> how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
>> relevant to Nick's e-mail.
>>
>> Jenny Quillien
>>
>>
>> On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical 
>>> fog.
>>>
>>> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>>>
>>> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one 
>>> whose value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it?s 
>>> last value.  So the next step in a random walk is ?random? but the 
>>> current value (it?s present position on a surface, say) is ?the 
>>> result of a stochastic process.?  From your responses, and from a 
>>> short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can?t tell if I am correct or not.
>>>
>>> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
>>> that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
>>> ?evolution? of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I 
>>> will assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of 
>>> which we are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa 
>>> over time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
>>> evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
>>> evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
>>> of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
>>> place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
>>> other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
>>> imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
>>> the phenomenon, itself.
>>>
>>> So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?
>>>
>>> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
>>> up, here.
>>>
>>> nick
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>>
>>> Clark University
>>>
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
>>> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/78b37622/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug  9 12:45:35 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:45:35 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Future of humans and artificial intelligence
In-Reply-To: <1502294804.2892606.1068222128.7ECF2D88@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <CAPD4Q+-Rn425zn43qOD=S_FCexObToW693-GCPPbq6-_jnJFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0jgaTa3dO9iyND=tsjgfnYyOAx+DTQGuOm10zYWuapxYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1502291116.2878369.1068139480.4CB278E7@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <e7407d1b-fbf7-8c0b-56f5-e79c3fba8a27@swcp.com>
 <1502294804.2892606.1068222128.7ECF2D88@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <212d1f91-ea2e-5c91-fe96-c5ee1f1daf29@swcp.com>

thanks for the reference, I was not aware of the Renesan 
<http://www.ssreg.com/renesan/classes/classes.asp?catID=4369> Institute 
before this, though I had heard somewhere about the first listed 
lecture/course/seminar on "the Trickster".   I don't see your course in 
the lineup?  I will be out of town on the 7th so I wouldn't try to 
attend anyway, but as always "good on ya" for your efforts to continue 
to spread the enlightenment.

I've a friend who introduced me to Jack... he was in middle school in 
Portales when someone introduced him to "that old professor who writes 
Science Fiction" (then in his 50s?).  They became fast friends despite 
the many decades between them, and my friend Joe even influenced several 
of Jack's titles, if not characters and narratives.  He claims he helped 
Jack come up with the title "Terraforming Earth", although Joe's 
throwdown was "Terraforming Terra" which apparently Jack loved but his 
editor said "not enough people know what 'Terra' is".  Oh well.

In Jack's life story, his parents moved him from their hardscrabble farm 
near Bisbee AZ where he was born to a relative's more productive ranches 
in Mexico/TX but eventually eventually they migrated to NM in 1915 in a 
covered wagon.  He has(d) stories!

I have a copy of Jack's 2005 autobiography, "Wonder's Child" if 
perchance you would like to borrow it.   The duality of Science/Fiction 
( or more generally the interplay between the literal/actualized and the 
imagined is a fascinating study to me).   This second wave of Scientific 
Romancing (after Verne, Swift, Burroughs, even London/Twain) was so 
smack-dab in the middle of the golden age of transportation and 
communication, into information processing that it deeply 
informs/reflects our contemporary psyche, even for those who think they 
don't like or care about Science Fiction.   The more modern adoption of 
Science Fiction into mainstream cinema/TV has put titles/tropes like 
"the Matrix" and "BladeRunner", "Avatar" and "Dr. Who" squarely in the 
face (most literally) of the masses.

I believe this is for the better and the worse.  Like everything I 
suppose!  Nothing Aristotelian about MY logic!?

- Steve

    /"The best thing about being on the fence is that the view is better
    from up there"/ - R. Edward Lowe

> Steve, it is a Renesan course on Tue, September 7 and 14. I have read 
> Jack Williamson, not all 90, and he would have been included in 
> another course I proposed to Renesan on science fiction themes. Maybe 
> in the future.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, at 09:57 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>
>> Dave -
>>
>> Most excellent of you to do this, and what will be your venue for 
>> this class?
>>
>> Are you familiar with our own Jack Williamson 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Williamson>'s vague parallel work 
>> in his "Humanoids" which began in 1947 with the Novelette: "With 
>> Folded Hands". I do not know if he ever acknowledged an influence in 
>> this work from Asimov's introduction to the "three laws" in 1941? He 
>> investigates the (unintended/unexpected catastrophic consequences of 
>> something like the three laws on humanity, having the human spirit 
>> "quelled" by being "niced" or "safed" near-to-death)
>>
>> He claims  to have written this as a cathartic project to shake off 
>> the existential angst/depression he felt from the (ab)use of atomic 
>> weapons at the end of WWII.  Jack was too old to serve in the 
>> military when the war broke out (he was 36?), but instead volunteered 
>> to work in the South Pacific as a civilian meteorologist.  He had 
>> started his career in Science Fiction before the term was fully 
>> adopted (Scientific Romance and Scientifiction being precursors 
>> according to Jack) with the publication of a short story "Metal Man" 
>> In Hugo Gernsbach's /Amazing Stories /in 1928.  Up until the end of 
>> WWII he claims to have been somewhat of a techno-utopianist, 
>> believing that advancing technology would (continue to ) simply 
>> advance the quality of life of human beings (somewhat?) monotonically.
>>
>> I hosted Jack at an evening talk at LANL/Bradbury Science Museum in 
>> 1998 during the Nebula Awards on the theme of how Science and Science 
>> Fiction inform one another.   Jack was 90 that year and had over 90 
>> published works at that time.  His work was always somewhat in the 
>> vein of Space Opera and his characters were generally quite two 
>> dimensional and his gender politics typical of his generation of 
>> science fictioneers, yet he was still loved by his community.  His 
>> use of this pulpy/pop medium as a way to investigate and discuss 
>> fundamental aspects of human nature and many of the social or even 
>> spiritual implications of the advance of technology was nevertheless 
>> quite inspired (IMO).
>>
>> He died in 2007 at the ripe young age of 98 and was still producing 
>> work nearly up to the day of his death.  In 1998 when I first met 
>> him, the OED was creating an appendix/section of "neologisms from 
>> science fiction" and he was credited (informally?) with having the 
>> most entries in the not-yet-published project.   His most famous 
>> throwdown in this category at the time was his "invention" of 
>> anti-matter, which he called "contra-terrene" or more colloquially 
>> "seetee" (a phoneticization of the contraction "CT")!   He was also 
>> quite proud of being interrogated by the FBI during the Manhattan 
>> project for having written a story about Atomic Weapons... they 
>> wanted to assume he had access to a security leak until he showed 
>> them a 1932(?) short story on the same theme, making it clear that 
>> the ideas of nuclear fission (fusion even?) as a weapon were not new 
>> (to him anyway)...  that apparently satisfied them and of course, he 
>> didn't appreciate the full import of their interrogation until after 
>> the war.
>>
>> Carry On!
>>
>>  - Steve
>>
>>
>> On 8/9/17 9:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>>> For what its worth - I will be teaching a short class next month in 
>>> Santa Fe, "Isaac Asimov and the Robots." Two points of coverage: 1) 
>>> the robots themselves invent and follow a "Zeroth Law" that allows 
>>> them to eliminate individual human beings with a result the exact 
>>> opposite of Hawking et. al.'s fears that our  creations will not 
>>> love us; 2) how the actual evolution of robotics and AI (see Daniel 
>>> Suarez'/Kill Decision/ - autonomous swarming drones as tools of war 
>>> and death to humans) diverged from the rosy naive 1950s view of the 
>>> future that Asimov advanced.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017, at 09:54 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>>>> It seems to me that there are many here in the US who are not 
>>>> entirely on board with Asimov's First Law of Robotics, at least 
>>>> insofar as it may apply to themselves, so I suspect notions of 
>>>> "reining it in" are probably not going to fly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Alfredo Covaleda V?lez 
>>>> <alfredo at covaleda.co <mailto:alfredo at covaleda.co>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Future will be quite interesting. How will be the human being
>>>>     of the future? For sure not a human being in the way we know.
>>>>
>>>>     http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158
>>>>     <http://m.eltiempo.com/tecnosfera/novedades-tecnologia/peligros-y-avances-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-los-humanos-117158>
>>>>
>>>>     ============================================================
>>>>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>     to unsubscribe
>>>>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/e94ffc05/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 12:48:10 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:48:10 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfo-M+1q0S4ULcLGhH79=pMUhLcQGjtSwWp8ucC5HJGX=w@mail.gmail.com>

The random + current thing sounds like a Markov process.  If the next value
is independent of the current value then it's random.  If it depends on the
current value and no previous values it's Markov of order 1.  If it depends
only on the current value and the one before and none before that, order
2.  Etc.  Or something like that.  I'm rusty.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 9, 2017 8:48 AM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>
>
>
> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>
>
>
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it?s last value.
> So the next step in a random walk is ?random? but the current value (it?s
> present position on a surface, say) is ?the result of a stochastic
> process.?  From your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I
> still can?t tell if I am correct or not.
>
>
>
> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
> confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this ?evolution? of
> which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
> speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  *The
> alteration of the design of taxa over time*.   Hard to see any way in
> which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into
> the theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
> vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability
> all over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are
> predictable.  In other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of
> your imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of
> the phenomenon, itself.
>
>
>
> So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?
>
>
>
> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
> here.
>
>
>
> nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/fe1095ce/attachment.html>

From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 13:22:44 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:22:44 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <c9ccc04d-3a9d-4edb-1c79-ac12f2a5022a@gmail.com>

Steve,

According to Jacques Monod, chance mutations are the /only /form of 
innovation in living systems.

On p. 112 of  his book "Chance and Necessity" he says "...since they 
[chance mutations] constitute the /only/ possible source of 
modifications in the genetic text,...it necessarily follows that chance 
/alone/ is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the 
biosphere. [Emphasis is his.]

Geneticist Monod was a winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Medicine or 
Physiology.

Grant


On 8/9/17 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>
> Jenny -
>
> What a powerful quote:
>
>     /Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
>     create them./
>
> In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
> and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
> Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
> development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems 
> it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
> development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
> leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
> This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market 
> being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the 
> "generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior 
> (certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the 
> colorants and odorants and other embellishments required to 
> differentiate one product from the other?).
>
> - Steve
>
> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>>
>> An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
>> nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.
>>
>> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
>> but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
>> innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
>> creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
>> about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
>> natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
>> innovability.
>>
>> Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
>> how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
>> relevant to Nick's e-mail.
>>
>> Jenny Quillien
>>
>>
>> On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical 
>>> fog.
>>>
>>> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>>>
>>> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one 
>>> whose value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it?s 
>>> last value.  So the next step in a random walk is ?random? but the 
>>> current value (it?s present position on a surface, say) is ?the 
>>> result of a stochastic process.?  From your responses, and from a 
>>> short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can?t tell if I am correct or not.
>>>
>>> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
>>> that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
>>> ?evolution? of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I 
>>> will assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of 
>>> which we are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa 
>>> over time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
>>> evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
>>> evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
>>> of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
>>> place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
>>> other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
>>> imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
>>> the phenomenon, itself.
>>>
>>> So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?
>>>
>>> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
>>> up, here.
>>>
>>> nick
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>>
>>> Clark University
>>>
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
>>> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/bd550771/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 13:26:50 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:26:50 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <c9ccc04d-3a9d-4edb-1c79-ac12f2a5022a@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <c9ccc04d-3a9d-4edb-1c79-ac12f2a5022a@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1266096-5b1d-00bc-7c7f-9d1b2cc4ebf2@gmail.com>


I think Wagner and Monod agree, actually.  If I extrapolate what Jenny said Wagner said, *mutation's* randomness is a statement of ignorance, presumably about where innovation comes from in biological evolution.  So, both Monod and Wagner would say innovation comes from mutation.

On 08/09/2017 10:22 AM, Grant Holland wrote:
> According to Jacques Monod, chance mutations are the /only /form of innovation in living systems.
> 
> On p. 112 of  his book "Chance and Necessity" he says "...since they [chance mutations] constitute the /only/ possible source of modifications in the genetic text,...it necessarily follows that chance /alone/ is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. [Emphasis is his.]


> On 8/9/17 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>
>> Jenny -
>>
>> What a powerful quote:
>>
>>     /Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
>>     create them./


>> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>>>
>>> An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.
>>>
>>> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.


-- 
? glen


From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 13:43:49 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2xlbiDimKM=?=)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:43:49 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] schadenfreude - a political rant
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB170304374DC0659EDC159781C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1502293349.2886850.1068153840.252D8CF3@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170304374DC0659EDC159781C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <7da44b37-54cd-3f04-7299-d57ec36f1aa3@gmail.com>

On 08/09/2017 08:58 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It helps a little, though, I think that comedians and commentators keep pounding on the moron theme.   It clearly worked with the White House because they started doing off-camera interviews.

I actually laughed out loud at this segment:  https://youtu.be/jovN0MbKJUA?t=3m25s

And I don't think it was shadenfreude.  It was truly funny.  I have no idea if I would have laughed if they'd said analogous things about me... but I think I would have.

"Here's your desk.  This is your extension number.  Now clean out your desk."

-- 
? glen


From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Wed Aug  9 14:51:31 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:51:31 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <9ce318a7-b02a-bbb3-b9f5-016968aee88e@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <9ce318a7-b02a-bbb3-b9f5-016968aee88e@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001d31140$84b770f0$8e2652d0$@earthlink.net>

Thanks, Glen, 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Maybe you're looking for the term "Markovian"?  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovProcess.html

On 08/09/2017 07:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last 
> value.  So the next step in a random walk is "random" but the current 
> value (it's present position on a surface, say) is "the result of a 
> stochastic process."  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
> Wikipedia, I still can't tell if I am correct or not.

--
? glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Wed Aug  9 14:58:08 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:58:08 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
Message-ID: <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>

Steve, 

 

What's powerful about it?  

 

What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations but
"hypotheses" about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are
shaped by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.
The randomness is largely notional.   I still think you guys are more
captured by your model of evolution than by the actual facts of it. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Quillien
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Totally agree. 

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at the
Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or other) and
see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but can follow
e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny

 

On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them.

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets and
Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free Markets may
well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of development.  Once something
becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems it might be counter-productive to
continue the illusion of competitive development.  At best it is wasteful
and even harmful, and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to
marketing and salesmanship.  This is why we have so many near-identical
products on the market being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear
when the "generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior
(certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants
and odorants and other embellishments required to differentiate one product
from the other?).

- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature
innovates by Andreas Wagner.

>From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but
this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it
cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just
another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's
ability to innovate, its innovability. 

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about how it
is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's
e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

 

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi everybody, 

 

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog. 

 

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours. 

 

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
I am correct or not.  

 

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this "evolution" of
which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --
The alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in
which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the
theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all
over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations
concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon,
itself. 

 

So what kind of "evolution" are you guys talking about?

 

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
here. 

 

nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 

 






============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove







============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove







============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/ef390d88/attachment-0001.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug  9 15:34:15 2017
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 21:34:15 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1502307265.641807.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading to the apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban missile crisis or worse.http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/
And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump administration ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is two.
-J.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/bca91cbb/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  9 17:01:04 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:01:04 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>,
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <74CA73C0-293C-4B64-8872-26492E11E24A@snoutfarm.com>

Some of us tend to care more about applied power more than the explanatory power.   Also as Frank suggested there are practical limits to the size of genomes that can be simulated.  I could imagine epigenetic / regulatory analogs being beneficial though.

Marcus

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net<mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net>> wrote:

Steve,

What?s powerful about it?

What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations but ?hypotheses? about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are shaped by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.  The randomness is largely notional.   I still think you guys are more captured by your model of evolution than by the actual facts of it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Quillien
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
To: friam at redfish.com<mailto:friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Totally agree.

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at the Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or other) and see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but can follow  e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny

On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them.
In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the "generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and other embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).

- Steve
On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.

From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it?s last value.  So the next step in a random walk is ?random? but the current value (it?s present position on a surface, say) is ?the result of a stochastic process.?  From your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can?t tell if I am correct or not.

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this ?evolution? of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  The alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon, itself.

So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up, here.

nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>





============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove





============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove





============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/5d54bd49/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  9 17:15:53 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:15:53 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <eeb1203f-4bf2-46c7-9a93-f776bb7cbeb3@SN1NAM02FT044.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com>
References: <eeb1203f-4bf2-46c7-9a93-f776bb7cbeb3@SN1NAM02FT044.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB170369981B422CFBBF2B5E7BC58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Jochen,


"What's the matter with your president?"


And it is the west cost states at the most risk.  States that voted for H!


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 1:34:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading to the apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban missile crisis or worse.
http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/

And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump administration ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is two.

-J.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/2ecd33ba/attachment.html>

From owen at backspaces.net  Wed Aug  9 17:40:59 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:40:59 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?
Message-ID: <CAN_LYRmNYix+1_12nnOz4HmckfLZB51jt7BgJ9Hw1GH8wfXCKw@mail.gmail.com>

>From BBC a reasonable summary:
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879485

My question is simple: what *are* the alternatives? Is there an interesting
game theoretic analysis?

The toughest part is that South Korea is being held hostage. NK can
devastate SK even if hit with a pre-emptive strike.

As rash as Trump's bluster has been, the real question remains: what is the
reasonable response to NK's threat.
- Preemptive Strike? Likely a loser unless it is so massive as to
obliterate every human in NK. SK would be seriously damaged in the
aftermath.
- Wait 'til NK strikes? Again, hardly reasonable.
- Anti-missile defense? Possibly, but you just gotta miss one for
apocalypse. And what do you do if you *do* succeed? SK is still hostage.
- Tit for Tat? Well, only in the bluster game. Our threats will match yours
& vice versa.

Has anyone heard of an interesting strategy?

   -- Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/1d506156/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  9 17:47:02 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:47:02 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRmNYix+1_12nnOz4HmckfLZB51jt7BgJ9Hw1GH8wfXCKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRmNYix+1_12nnOz4HmckfLZB51jt7BgJ9Hw1GH8wfXCKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703BF7916DC2099D3969CA2C58B0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Owen writes:


"The toughest part is that South Korea is being held hostage. NK can devastate SK even if hit with a pre-emptive strike."


How about Trump defines SK as an undesirable economic competitor to the U.S. that steals jobs, and cuts them loose.   He has no doubt been briefed on the multi-lateral proliferation that would no doubt result, but it that assumes the message stays clear in his mind.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 3:40:59 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?

>From BBC a reasonable summary:
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879485

My question is simple: what *are* the alternatives? Is there an interesting game theoretic analysis?

The toughest part is that South Korea is being held hostage. NK can devastate SK even if hit with a pre-emptive strike.

As rash as Trump's bluster has been, the real question remains: what is the reasonable response to NK's threat.
- Preemptive Strike? Likely a loser unless it is so massive as to obliterate every human in NK. SK would be seriously damaged in the aftermath.
- Wait 'til NK strikes? Again, hardly reasonable.
- Anti-missile defense? Possibly, but you just gotta miss one for apocalypse. And what do you do if you *do* succeed? SK is still hostage.
- Tit for Tat? Well, only in the bluster game. Our threats will match yours & vice versa.

Has anyone heard of an interesting strategy?

   -- Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/b58dfb81/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Wed Aug  9 18:05:26 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:05:26 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <201708091534.1DFwKpmO3Nl34e0@mx-jacana.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <201708091534.1DFwKpmO3Nl34e0@mx-jacana.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <004001d3115b$9b54fa10$d1feee30$@earthlink.net>

Jochen, 

 

He?s out of his friggin mind.  There are those who feel that the risk arising from the stultification of our political system was so bad that it justified taking this sort of existential risk (Hey, Dave!), but I am not one of them.  Small interesting things ARE starting to happen, (meetings amongst scared non-crazy people in congress) and I am grateful for those, but whether they will develop in time to rescue us, is by no means certain.  

 

 

People keep offering me as comfort the fact that the South Koreans aren?t worried ?. 30 million people on the edge of obliteration from conventional shells full of sarin.  Why does that not comfort me?  

 

No, we are back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

 

Nick 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 3:34 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

 

What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading to the apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban missile crisis or worse.

http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/

 

And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump administration ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is two.

 

-J.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/83a38bcd/attachment.html>

From gary at naturesvisualarts.com  Wed Aug  9 19:05:13 2017
From: gary at naturesvisualarts.com (Gary Schiltz)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:05:13 -0500
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <004001d3115b$9b54fa10$d1feee30$@earthlink.net>
References: <201708091534.1DFwKpmO3Nl34e0@mx-jacana.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
 <004001d3115b$9b54fa10$d1feee30$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CANr4ZePku5t3kO2duK5NcpMa2iF8PvhJaoRkYB49Rxh6ow0zcg@mail.gmail.com>

It's bad enough that he's "out of his friggin' mind", but a CNN piece today
asks, "Could Congress stop Trump from bombing North Korea?" The reporter's
conclusion is basically that no, it couldn't. I think we all should scared
witless that Trump may well pull the trigger. My only hope is that enough
high-level generals would risk court martial and refuse to follow his
orders. If the USA did launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, the
consequences for S Korea (and Japan?) would be horrific. And then there is
the question of what China and Russia would do in response. This is really,
really serious crap.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Jochen,
>
>
>
> He?s out of his friggin mind.  There are those who feel that the risk
> arising from the stultification of our political system was so bad that it
> justified taking this sort of existential risk (Hey, Dave!), but I am not
> one of them.  Small interesting things ARE starting to happen, (meetings
> amongst scared non-crazy people in congress) and I am grateful for those,
> but whether they will develop in time to rescue us, is by no means
> certain.
>
>
>
>
>
> People keep offering me as comfort the fact that the South Koreans aren?t
> worried ?. 30 million people on the edge of obliteration from conventional
> shells full of sarin.  Why does that not comfort me?
>
>
>
> No, we are back to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jochen
> Fromm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2017 3:34 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] The apocalypse
>
>
>
> What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading to the
> apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban missile crisis
> or worse.
>
> http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/
>
>
>
> And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump
> administration ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is two.
>
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/f193424f/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug  9 22:04:52 2017
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 04:04:52 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1502330698.641807.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

I doubt that North Korea has the ability to hit a tiny island like Guam in the Pacific, but it can without doubt destroy the 9 million capital Seoul near the border with weapons bought from Russia or China.?
The danger of a nuclear apocalypse is greatest when the world has forgotten how dangerous these weapons of mass destruction are. Even trying to model mutually assured destruction is useless with people like Kim Jong-Un and Trump. How can he brag on Twitter about nuclear weapons? WTF ?
-J.


null
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/fb8d2fcc/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug  9 23:00:57 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:00:57 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>

Nick -

I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is 
properly returning!
>
> What?s powerful about it?
>
Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular 
fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that 
there is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the 
innovation step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, 
said *innovation* is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural selection 
mechanism.   I think I held this misapprehension for the longest time, 
in the same way I *still* think of the Sun orbiting around the earth 
when I have plenty of reason to believe it is the other way around.
>
> What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not 
> mutations but ?hypotheses? about ways to live.  And presumably 
> epigenetic systems are shaped by natural selection to produce  more or 
> less plausible hypotheses.
>
And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it stochastic 
or deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you thinking 
of?)  Is "plausable" the term you want, or is it more "utilitarian"?
>
>   The randomness is largely notional.
>
I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many 
we call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by 
random processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with 
appropriately broad distribution functions,
>
>    I still think you guys are more captured by your model of evolution 
> than by the actual facts of it.
>
I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though in 
the spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even sure 
I know what a "model-free" fact might be?   Facts (to me) imply 
measurements (qualitative, quantitative) which imply a object of said 
measurement which in turn implies a model.   There was a time, I believe 
when people felt they held "facts" about "the viscosity of the aether" 
and the "density of phlogiston".   When those models were superseded, 
those "facts" took on entirely new implications and meaning.

- Steve
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jenny 
> Quillien
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>
> Totally agree.
>
> Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he shows up at 
> the Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or 
> other) and see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam 
> but can follow  e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny
>
> On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>
>     Jenny -
>
>     What a powerful quote:
>
>         /Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot
>         create them./
>
>     In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free
>     Markets and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of
>     said Free Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase"
>     of development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it
>     seems it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of
>     competitive development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful,
>     and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing
>     and salesmanship. This is why we have so many near-identical
>     products on the market being pushed on us through the hype of
>     greed and fear when the "generic" or "store brand" version is
>     equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, but also possibly in
>     quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and other
>     embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).
>
>     - Steve
>
>     On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>
>         An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the
>         Fittest: how nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.
>
>         From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond
>         dispute, but this power has limits. Natural selection can
>         /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling
>         the change that creates them random is just another way of
>         admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
>         some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that
>         accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.
>
>         Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a
>         discussion about how it is relevant to 'evolution' in
>         software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's e-mail.
>
>         Jenny Quillien
>
>         On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>             Hi everybody,
>
>             Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from
>             post-surgical fog.
>
>             I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up
>             yours.
>
>             First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process
>             was one whose value was determined by two factors, a
>             random factor AND it?s last value.  So the next step in a
>             random walk is ?random? but the current value (it?s
>             present position on a surface, say) is ?the result of a
>             stochastic process.?  From your responses, and from a
>             short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can?t tell if I am
>             correct or not.
>
>             Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your
>             discourse is that you confuse your models with the facts
>             of nature.  What is this ?evolution? of which you speak? 
>             Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
>             speaking of the messy biological process of which we are
>             all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa
>             over time/*.  Hard to see any way in which that actual
>             process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the
>             theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that
>             corresponds to the vernacular notion of randomness. There
>             is constraint and predictability all over the place in the
>             evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In
>             other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of
>             your imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an
>             essential feature of the phenomenon, itself.
>
>             So what kind of ?evolution? are you guys talking about?
>
>             Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to
>             wake myself up, here.
>
>             nick
>
>             Nicholas S. Thompson
>
>             Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
>             Clark University
>
>             http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>             <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>
>
>
>
>             ============================================================
>
>             FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
>             Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
>             to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>             FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
>         ============================================================
>
>         FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
>         Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
>         to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>         FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
>
>     ============================================================
>
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
>     to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>     FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/7f2ab751/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug  9 23:34:56 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:34:56 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <CANr4ZePku5t3kO2duK5NcpMa2iF8PvhJaoRkYB49Rxh6ow0zcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201708091534.1DFwKpmO3Nl34e0@mx-jacana.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
 <004001d3115b$9b54fa10$d1feee30$@earthlink.net>
 <CANr4ZePku5t3kO2duK5NcpMa2iF8PvhJaoRkYB49Rxh6ow0zcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <411b7792-6c23-5b8d-86b5-f6d6007e496c@swcp.com>

I'm not following the public debate/discussion on this, but I think we 
discussed this here a few months ago?

Even though I lived and worked in the belly of the (Nuclear Weapons 
Complex) beast for decades, I admit to not knowing with any degree of 
certainty how direct the "Launch Codes" and mechanisms in the various 
command centers (white house situation, Cheyenne Mtn, ???) or via the 
"Nuclear Football"  are connected to the actual launching mechanisms.

I understand that the Nuclear Football is carried by an aide-de-camp 
(who is this for Trump, someone different every day/week?) and can 
imagine that person wrestling it away from him when he is in a fit of 
pique, as might the Sec'y of Defense or one of the Joint Chiefs 
body-check him as he reaches for the "FIRE!" button (is there actually a 
lock-out switch or something involved?).    According to Wikipedia, the 
President's identity must be verified (the purpose of the launch code?) 
which the Sec'y of Defense is burdened with authenticating?   In 
principle, he does not have veto power, but in practice I like to 
visualize "Mad Dog" Madis decking "The Donald" when he tries to launch 
agains NK (or anyone), then politely reaching out to help him up off the 
floor and asking him "are you OK?  are you having a siezure?"  and then 
decking him again, eventually getting some help to haul him off to a 
hospital bed (with restraints) in a padded room in a coma.

I also understand that every "launch site" implements a two-man rule for 
the actual mechanism for arming/launching which I believe means that at 
each launch site we have two more people with "practical" (if not legal) 
veto power.   Meanwhile a (small) host of maintenance and operational 
staff in the subs/silos/bombers have some practical opportunity to at 
least disable (or fail to enable) the warheads or launch capabiities as 
well.

With that model, I would say there are a "few" fuses in the circuit that 
*might* prevent an other-than-sane President from actually effectively 
launching any missiles.   I'm waiting for the "Presidential Order" to 
come down directing that the launch mechanisms be connected directly to 
a twitter feed so that he can launch with nothing more than a clever 
hashtag "#nukemYooge  @NK" or somesuch?!

With the various leaky leaks and the leaking leakers who leak them afoot 
in spite of the AG's "don't do it!" admonition afoot, I would not be 
surprised if there aren't many Silo/Sub/Bomber operations people 
discussing among themselves in 2's and 3's or entire teams "what we do 
if he pulls the trigger??!!!"

I think I'm more worried for Japan than SK or US protectorates or the US 
west coast... seems like an easier target might be Japan (Okinawa is 
fat, but there are several other US Military targets as well).

If Putin was the friend Trump seems to want him to be, HE would take 
care of any retaliation for us I would think?  Let one bully's 
bully-friend smack down the little bully-wanna-be for the first bully?  
Trump is a whackadoodle loose cannon, but Putin is more of a Junkyard 
Dog, probably more intimidating to Kim Jong-Un than the Donald is?   But 
then that probably wouldn't play well with the third nuclear Super Power.

It probably doesn't matter which side of the equator you live in in 
Ecuador, but "back in the day" nuclear winter (and less outrageous 
alternatives) models were more gentle in the southern Hemisphere.

I hate to realize that I am even spending cycles thinking about this!?!

- Steve


On 8/9/17 5:05 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
> It's bad enough that he's "out of his friggin' mind", but a CNN piece 
> today asks, "Could Congress stop Trump from bombing North Korea?" The 
> reporter's conclusion is basically that no, it couldn't. I think we 
> all should scared witless that Trump may well pull the trigger. My 
> only hope is that enough high-level generals would risk court martial 
> and refuse to follow his orders. If the USA did launch a pre-emptive 
> nuclear strike, the consequences for S Korea (and Japan?) would be 
> horrific. And then there is the question of what China and Russia 
> would do in response. This is really, really serious crap.
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Nick Thompson 
> <nickthompson at earthlink.net <mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
>     Jochen,
>
>     He?s out of his friggin mind.  There are those who feel that the
>     risk arising from the stultification of our political system was
>     so bad that it justified taking this sort of existential risk
>     (Hey, Dave!), but I am not one of them.  Small interesting things
>     ARE starting to happen, (meetings amongst scared non-crazy people
>     in congress) and I am grateful for those, but whether they will
>     develop in time to rescue us, is by no means certain.
>
>     People keep offering me as comfort the fact that the South Koreans
>     aren?t worried ?. 30 million people on the edge of obliteration
>     from conventional shells full of sarin.  Why does that not comfort
>     me?
>
>     No, we are back to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
>
>     Nick
>
>     Nicholas S. Thompson
>
>     Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
>     Clark University
>
>     http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>     <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>
>     *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com
>     <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2017 3:34 PM
>     *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>     <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>     *Subject:* [FRIAM] The apocalypse
>
>     What's the matter with your president? I am worried we are heading
>     to the apocalypse. The "fire and fury" threat feels like the Cuban
>     missile crisis or worse.
>
>     http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/
>     <http://blog.cas-group.net/2017/08/the-apocalypse/>
>
>     And then there is the issue of global warming which the Trump
>     administration ignores now. This is not just one apocalypse, it is
>     two.
>
>     -J.
>
>
>     ============================================================
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/2d7b339c/attachment-0001.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 23:36:26 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:36:26 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <598bbf54.ca0e6b0a.28656.e473SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
References: <598bbf54.ca0e6b0a.28656.e473SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCSQ=OMLSCg-ZLLyQc8RLSB3kCDJyPe185Gyg6s-QnrOaQ@mail.gmail.com>

I (razzingly) suggest bad summer movies or  that somehow all the Doom will
some freeze in place at the same time.
Perhaps we shall some how find a bunch of tribbles, zombies, a large rock
in the sky, and dinso's all at the same time and that because of the Doom
Metter the'll just stay their, thus no more doom can happen.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:

> I doubt that North Korea has the ability to hit a tiny island like Guam in
> the Pacific, but it can without doubt destroy the 9 million capital Seoul
> near the border with weapons bought from Russia or China.
>
> The danger of a nuclear apocalypse is greatest when the world has
> forgotten how dangerous these weapons of mass destruction are. Even trying
> to model mutually assured destruction is useless with people like Kim
> Jong-Un and Trump. How can he brag on Twitter about nuclear weapons? WTF ?
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170809/9c501e50/attachment.html>

From owen at backspaces.net  Thu Aug 10 12:26:46 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:26:46 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCSQ=OMLSCg-ZLLyQc8RLSB3kCDJyPe185Gyg6s-QnrOaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <598bbf54.ca0e6b0a.28656.e473SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCSQ=OMLSCg-ZLLyQc8RLSB3kCDJyPe185Gyg6s-QnrOaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN_LYRn=w0rENQs5H9Rv3DbnOyyditRBnSVrkESoBNfnQujxXw@mail.gmail.com>

OK, what's tit for tat with the North Korea Guam threat:

President Trump seemed to draw a red line Tuesday when he warned North
Korea that continued threats against the United States would be met with
?fire and fury like the world has never seen.? The next day, North Korea
crossed it.

Or at least it announced, in unusually specific terms, how it could. The
country?s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Wednesday night
issued a statement that said the North is ?seriously examining the plan for
an enveloping strike at Guam through simultaneous fire of four Hwasong-12
intermediate-range strategic ballistic rockets in order to interdict the
enemy forces on major military bases on Guam and to signal a crucial
warning to the U.S.? The statement, citing the North?s Strategic Rocket
Forces head General Kim Rak Gyom, added that the plan would be finished by
mid-August before going to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for approval.

?Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only
absolute force can work on him,? the general said, in apparent reference to
Trump, whose ultimatum he described as a ?load of nonsense.?


I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones to
hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky, showing our
hand as to effective antimissile capabilities.

   -- Owen

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/north-korea-answers-trumps-vague-threats-with-specific-ones/536433/


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I (razzingly) suggest bad summer movies or  that somehow all the Doom will
> some freeze in place at the same time.
> Perhaps we shall some how find a bunch of tribbles, zombies, a large rock
> in the sky, and dinso's all at the same time and that because of the Doom
> Metter the'll just stay their, thus no more doom can happen.
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
>> I doubt that North Korea has the ability to hit a tiny island like Guam
>> in the Pacific, but it can without doubt destroy the 9 million capital
>> Seoul near the border with weapons bought from Russia or China.
>>
>> The danger of a nuclear apocalypse is greatest when the world has
>> forgotten how dangerous these weapons of mass destruction are. Even trying
>> to model mutually assured destruction is useless with people like Kim
>> Jong-Un and Trump. How can he brag on Twitter about nuclear weapons? WTF ?
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/2b0d91d0/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 10 14:03:24 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:03:24 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRn=w0rENQs5H9Rv3DbnOyyditRBnSVrkESoBNfnQujxXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <598bbf54.ca0e6b0a.28656.e473SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCSQ=OMLSCg-ZLLyQc8RLSB3kCDJyPe185Gyg6s-QnrOaQ@mail.gmail.com>,
 <CAN_LYRn=w0rENQs5H9Rv3DbnOyyditRBnSVrkESoBNfnQujxXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB17034C0AF18EDE1EDCA5FE99C5880@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones to hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky, showing our hand as to effective antimissile capabilities."


The best thing would be to have people in charge that don't freak out at the slightest provocation.


"Third, we must enhance our antimissile systems and other defenses, and those of our allies, which need our reassurances more than ever."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-trump-north-korea.html

<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-trump-north-korea.html>

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 10:26:46 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

OK, what's tit for tat with the North Korea Guam threat:

President Trump seemed to draw a red line Tuesday when he warned North Korea that continued threats against the United States would be met with ?fire and fury like the world has never seen.? The next day, North Korea crossed it.

Or at least it announced, in unusually specific terms, how it could. The country?s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Wednesday night issued a statement that said the North is ?seriously examining the plan for an enveloping strike at Guam through simultaneous fire of four Hwasong-12 intermediate-range strategic ballistic rockets in order to interdict the enemy forces on major military bases on Guam and to signal a crucial warning to the U.S.? The statement, citing the North?s Strategic Rocket Forces head General Kim Rak Gyom, added that the plan would be finished by mid-August before going to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for approval.

?Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only absolute force can work on him,? the general said, in apparent reference to Trump, whose ultimatum he described as a ?load of nonsense.?

I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones to hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky, showing our hand as to effective antimissile capabilities.

   -- Owen

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/north-korea-answers-trumps-vague-threats-with-specific-ones/536433/


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com<mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
I (razzingly) suggest bad summer movies or  that somehow all the Doom will some freeze in place at the same time.
Perhaps we shall some how find a bunch of tribbles, zombies, a large rock in the sky, and dinso's all at the same time and that because of the Doom Metter the'll just stay their, thus no more doom can happen.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net<mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote:
I doubt that North Korea has the ability to hit a tiny island like Guam in the Pacific, but it can without doubt destroy the 9 million capital Seoul near the border with weapons bought from Russia or China.

The danger of a nuclear apocalypse is greatest when the world has forgotten how dangerous these weapons of mass destruction are. Even trying to model mutually assured destruction is useless with people like Kim Jong-Un and Trump. How can he brag on Twitter about nuclear weapons? WTF ?

-J.



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/f3336c45/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug 10 14:52:21 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:52:21 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB17034C0AF18EDE1EDCA5FE99C5880@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <598bbf54.ca0e6b0a.28656.e473SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCSQ=OMLSCg-ZLLyQc8RLSB3kCDJyPe185Gyg6s-QnrOaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN_LYRn=w0rENQs5H9Rv3DbnOyyditRBnSVrkESoBNfnQujxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17034C0AF18EDE1EDCA5FE99C5880@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCQR0eo2_hsW0HLumCuze32wZy+aaFxXgxe6a-iSLRtVaA@mail.gmail.com>

Budda nature, calm and a good ol' jedi  about now
Aka cooler heads tend to prevail and do some awsome stuf.


On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
wrote:

> "I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones to
> hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky, showing our
> hand as to effective antimissile capabilities."
>
>
> The best thing would be to have people in charge that don't freak out at
> the slightest provocation.
>
>
> "Third, we must enhance our antimissile systems and other defenses, and
> those of our allies, which need our reassurances more than ever."
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-
> trump-north-korea.html
>
>
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-trump-north-korea.html>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <
> owen at backspaces.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2017 10:26:46 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
>
> OK, what's tit for tat with the North Korea Guam threat:
>
> President Trump seemed to draw a red line Tuesday when he warned North
> Korea that continued threats against the United States would be met with
> ?fire and fury like the world has never seen.? The next day, North Korea
> crossed it.
>
> Or at least it announced, in unusually specific terms, how it could. The
> country?s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Wednesday night
> issued a statement that said the North is ?seriously examining the plan for
> an enveloping strike at Guam through simultaneous fire of four Hwasong-12
> intermediate-range strategic ballistic rockets in order to interdict the
> enemy forces on major military bases on Guam and to signal a crucial
> warning to the U.S.? The statement, citing the North?s Strategic Rocket
> Forces head General Kim Rak Gyom, added that the plan would be finished by
> mid-August before going to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for approval.
>
> ?Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only
> absolute force can work on him,? the general said, in apparent reference to
> Trump, whose ultimatum he described as a ?load of nonsense.?
>
>
> I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones to
> hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky, showing our
> hand as to effective antimissile capabilities.
>
>    -- Owen
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/
> north-korea-answers-trumps-vague-threats-with-specific-ones/536433/
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I (razzingly) suggest bad summer movies or  that somehow all the Doom
>> will some freeze in place at the same time.
>> Perhaps we shall some how find a bunch of tribbles, zombies, a large rock
>> in the sky, and dinso's all at the same time and that because of the Doom
>> Metter the'll just stay their, thus no more doom can happen.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt that North Korea has the ability to hit a tiny island like Guam
>>> in the Pacific, but it can without doubt destroy the 9 million capital
>>> Seoul near the border with weapons bought from Russia or China.
>>>
>>> The danger of a nuclear apocalypse is greatest when the world has
>>> forgotten how dangerous these weapons of mass destruction are. Even trying
>>> to model mutually assured destruction is useless with people like Kim
>>> Jong-Un and Trump. How can he brag on Twitter about nuclear weapons? WTF ?
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/e2f56123/attachment.html>

From profwest at fastmail.fm  Thu Aug 10 15:24:29 2017
From: profwest at fastmail.fm (Prof David West)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:24:29 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCQR0eo2_hsW0HLumCuze32wZy+aaFxXgxe6a-iSLRtVaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <598bbf54.ca0e6b0a.28656.e473SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCSQ=OMLSCg-ZLLyQc8RLSB3kCDJyPe185Gyg6s-QnrOaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN_LYRn=w0rENQs5H9Rv3DbnOyyditRBnSVrkESoBNfnQujxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17034C0AF18EDE1EDCA5FE99C5880@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAMaMUCQR0eo2_hsW0HLumCuze32wZy+aaFxXgxe6a-iSLRtVaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1502393069.2411498.1069588016.1DD8C3FB@webmail.messagingengine.com>


While undoubtedly fun, all the speculation (dare I say hysteria without
sounding sexist?) about a Trump induced apocalypse is kind of far
fetched. Too many intermediaries twixt mouth, button, and detonation.
However, according to FEMA, the US Military, the Department of Energy,
and the CIA there IS a 100% chance of an existential threat occurring
within the next 10-20 years. Massive failure of the power grid.-- Iran, Russia, China, and probably North Korea already have malware
embedded in the system.-- Major transformers have no backup (they cost 10-100 million dollars,
take two years to build, and are almost all built in China)-- Deaths by day 5 of failure will reach the 100s of thousands, if
not millions.--  By day ten, there will be no economy and no effectual government.
-- One of the highest ranked scenarios for this to occur is North Korea
detonating a ship born nuke off the coast of Southern California - the
nuke tuned to generate a massive EMP. And, we know they have nukes
small enough to fit in a freighter. They can do this. Guam is absurd at
the present.
Interestingly, none of the government agencies that are certain this
event will occur within 20 years have any plans for how it will be
dealt with!
davew

 BTW, the grid has been a particular interest of mine since an
 acquaintance  caused the first major US blackout, in the early 70s,
 by toppling a few towers in the pacific northwest with a few sticks
 of dynamite.


On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> Budda nature, calm and a good ol' jedi  about now
> Aka cooler heads tend to prevail and do some awsome stuf.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Marcus Daniels
> <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:>> "I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones
>> to hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky,
>> showing our hand as to effective antimissile capabilities.">> 


>> The best thing would be to have people in charge that don't freak out
>> at the slightest provocation.>> 


>> "Third, we must enhance our antimissile systems and other defenses,
>> and those of our allies, which need our reassurances more than ever.">> 


>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-trump-north-korea.html>> 


>> 
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore
>> <owen at backspaces.net> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2017 10:26:46 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:*
>> Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse>>  
>> OK, what's tit for tat with the North Korea Guam threat:
>> 
>>> President Trump seemed to draw a red line Tuesday when he warned
>>> North Korea that continued threats against the United States would
>>> be met with ?fire and fury like the world has never seen.? The next
>>> day, North Korea crossed it.>>> 
>>> Or at least it announced, in unusually specific terms, how it could.
>>> The country?s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on
>>> Wednesday night issued a statement that said the North is ?seriously
>>> examining the plan for an enveloping strike at Guam through
>>> simultaneous fire of four Hwasong-12 intermediate-range strategic
>>> ballistic rockets in order to interdict the enemy forces on major
>>> military bases on Guam and to signal a crucial warning to the U.S.?
>>> The statement, citing the North?s Strategic Rocket Forces head
>>> General Kim Rak Gyom, added that the plan would be finished by mid-
>>> August before going to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for approval.>>> 
>>> ?Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and
>>> only absolute force can work on him,? the general said, in apparent
>>> reference to Trump, whose ultimatum he described as a ?load of
>>> nonsense.?>> 
>> I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones
>> to hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky,
>> showing our hand as to effective antimissile capabilities.>> 
>>    -- Owen
>> 
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/north-korea-answers-trumps-vague-threats-with-specific-ones/536433/>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Gillian Densmore
>> <gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:>> 
>>> I (razzingly) suggest bad summer movies or  that somehow all the
>>> Doom will some freeze in place at the same time.>>> Perhaps we shall some how find a bunch of tribbles, zombies, a large
>>> rock in the sky, and dinso's all at the same time and that because
>>> of the Doom Metter the'll just stay their, thus no more doom can
>>> happen.>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
>>> wrote:>>>> 
>>>> I doubt that North Korea has the ability to hit a tiny island like
>>>> Guam in the Pacific, but it can without doubt destroy the 9 million
>>>> capital Seoul near the border with weapons bought from Russia or
>>>> China.>>>> 
>>>> The danger of a nuclear apocalypse is greatest when the world has
>>>> forgotten how dangerous these weapons of mass destruction are. Even
>>>> trying to model mutually assured destruction is useless with people
>>>> like Kim Jong-Un and Trump. How can he brag on Twitter about
>>>> nuclear weapons? WTF ?>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -J.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>>  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
>>>>  cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>>>  http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC
>>>>  http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove>>> 
>>> 
>>> ============================================================
>>>  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>  Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>  to unsubscribe
>>>  http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>>  FRIAM-COMIC  http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>> 
>> 
>> ============================================================
>>  FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>  Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>  to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>  FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/570e9ccc/attachment.html>

From highlandwinds at gmail.com  Thu Aug 10 15:29:00 2017
From: highlandwinds at gmail.com (HighlandWindsLLC Miller)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:29:00 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] artificial intelligence and 100 year evacuation
Message-ID: <CAHV7bSPg5uw49643CsBaxT028SnAF3S89rUK7ODa-8wGfkV94A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all, been reading your latest.
Questions --
1) artificial intelligence -- do you agree with Hawkings that if we really
go forward on mega creating it that it will sort of take over and spin off
in dangerous ways as he talked about in his May 3rd press briefing?
2) Korea nuclear war -- Somehow, I think we have to get Kim Jong-un to be
at the table, to feel somehow a part of decisions. if we keep surrounding
him with almost a bully mentality of bigs, like Putin and Trump, he appears
to be ready to go ballistic. Didn't his father threaten to kill him as a
child? The guy's been on the edge of death for so long he will leap into it
without much provocation. So, I think we need to bring him to the table and
hear him out a bit, somehow.
and I agree with Gary that this is friggin serious stuff.
3)
*Global warming/sealevels/overheating planet -- Top level of seriousness --
100 year evacuation concept/time line tossed out by S. Hawkings, and Elon
Musk now working to get to Mars. Any scientists yet focusing on
subterranean living systems here? Huge tunnels/below earth/space type
windows that can take mega heat/ ways to evacuate the excess methane from
food animals and from humans/ biology issues??Thanks from Peggy Miller in
Montana!*


-- 
Miss Peggy Miller, owner:  Highland Winds, LLC (Medicinal Herbs and Art)
website: wix.com/peggymiller/highlandwinds;         facebook link
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Highland-Winds/119292068161614?ref=hl>
Medical Herbal Practice & shop:  1520 S. 7th St. W. (Just off Russell)
Phone:  406-541-7577
Medical Herbal Consults and shop items: By appointment Tuesday - Friday,
11-5.. (If you need a somewhat earlier or later time, let me know.)
*(General Reminder: many herbs shouldn't be used by those who are pregnant;
ask about herbs & blends.)* (*If you no longer want emails from Highland
Winds, click reply and ask for emails to stop.)*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/0b5218d0/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 10 15:47:13 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:47:13 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] The apocalypse
In-Reply-To: <1502393069.2411498.1069588016.1DD8C3FB@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <598bbf54.ca0e6b0a.28656.e473SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCSQ=OMLSCg-ZLLyQc8RLSB3kCDJyPe185Gyg6s-QnrOaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN_LYRn=w0rENQs5H9Rv3DbnOyyditRBnSVrkESoBNfnQujxXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17034C0AF18EDE1EDCA5FE99C5880@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAMaMUCQR0eo2_hsW0HLumCuze32wZy+aaFxXgxe6a-iSLRtVaA@mail.gmail.com>,
 <1502393069.2411498.1069588016.1DD8C3FB@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB17036318F793C7A539D35311C5880@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"However, according to FEMA, the US Military, the Department of Energy, and the CIA there IS a 100% chance of an existential threat occurring within the next 10-20 years. Massive failure of the power grid."


There are also risks due to inadequate monitoring of existing infrastructure, e.g. the kind of thing that happens when deregulation aims to maximize profits.

Folks always like to focus on bad guy scenarios and not dangers due to environmental events, especially the variety humans cause.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 1:24:29 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse


While undoubtedly fun, all the speculation (dare I say hysteria without sounding sexist?) about a Trump induced apocalypse is kind of far fetched. Too many intermediaries twixt mouth, button, and detonation.

However, according to FEMA, the US Military, the Department of Energy, and the CIA there IS a 100% chance of an existential threat occurring within the next 10-20 years. Massive failure of the power grid.
-- Iran, Russia, China, and probably North Korea already have malware embedded in the system.
-- Major transformers have no backup (they cost 10-100 million dollars, take two years to build, and are almost all built in China)
-- Deaths by day 5 of failure will reach the 100s of thousands, if not millions.
--  By day ten, there will be no economy and no effectual government.
-- One of the highest ranked scenarios for this to occur is North Korea detonating a ship born nuke off the coast of Southern California - the nuke tuned to generate a massive EMP. And, we know they have nukes small enough to fit in a freighter. They can do this. Guam is absurd at the present.

Interestingly, none of the government agencies that are certain this event will occur within 20 years have any plans for how it will be dealt with!

davew

 BTW, the grid has been a particular interest of mine since an acquaintance caused the first major US blackout, in the early 70s, by toppling a few towers in the pacific northwest with a few sticks of dynamite.



On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
Budda nature, calm and a good ol' jedi  about now
Aka cooler heads tend to prevail and do some awsome stuf.


On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

"I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones to hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky, showing our hand as to effective antimissile capabilities."


The best thing would be to have people in charge that don't freak out at the slightest provocation.


"Third, we must enhance our antimissile systems and other defenses, and those of our allies, which need our reassurances more than ever."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-trump-north-korea.html

<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/opinion/susan-rice-trump-north-korea.html>

________________________________

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net<mailto:owen at backspaces.net>>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 10:26:46 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The apocalypse

OK, what's tit for tat with the North Korea Guam threat:

President Trump seemed to draw a red line Tuesday when he warned North Korea that continued threats against the United States would be met with ?fire and fury like the world has never seen.? The next day, North Korea crossed it.

Or at least it announced, in unusually specific terms, how it could. The country?s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Wednesday night issued a statement that said the North is ?seriously examining the plan for an enveloping strike at Guam through simultaneous fire of four Hwasong-12 intermediate-range strategic ballistic rockets in order to interdict the enemy forces on major military bases on Guam and to signal a crucial warning to the U.S.? The statement, citing the North?s Strategic Rocket Forces head General Kim Rak Gyom, added that the plan would be finished by mid-August before going to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for approval.

?Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only absolute force can work on him,? the general said, in apparent reference to Trump, whose ultimatum he described as a ?load of nonsense.?

I suppose firing 4 rockets to land in NK waters? Or sending 4 drones to hover over NK? Shooting down the NK rockets would be risky, showing our hand as to effective antimissile capabilities.

   -- Owen

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/north-korea-answers-trumps-vague-threats-with-specific-ones/536433/


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com<mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:

I (razzingly) suggest bad summer movies or  that somehow all the Doom will some freeze in place at the same time.
Perhaps we shall some how find a bunch of tribbles, zombies, a large rock in the sky, and dinso's all at the same time and that because of the Doom Metter the'll just stay their, thus no more doom can happen.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net<mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote:

I doubt that North Korea has the ability to hit a tiny island like Guam in the Pacific, but it can without doubt destroy the 9 million capital Seoul near the border with weapons bought from Russia or China.

The danger of a nuclear apocalypse is greatest when the world has forgotten how dangerous these weapons of mass destruction are. Even trying to model mutually assured destruction is useless with people like Kim Jong-Un and Trump. How can he brag on Twitter about nuclear weapons? WTF ?


-J.




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/d54eb845/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Thu Aug 10 18:25:54 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:25:54 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>

Steve, 

 

Please see "larding" below.  Thank you, as always, for your generosity of
spirit. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Nick -

I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is
properly returning!

[NST==>The best cardio rehab is for you-guys to keep annoying me.  Thanks
for that. <==nst] 





What's powerful about it?  

Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular
fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that there
is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the innovation
step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, said *innovation*
is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural selection mechanism.  

[NST==>Wait a minute!  What is the misapprehension of which you speak?   Can
you put it explicitly.  And, when you say that mutations are "random", what
precisely do you mean.  Unpredictable?  Clearly false.  We know quite a lot,
I think, about where DNA is vulnerable, and where mutations are likely to
occur.  <==nst] 

 I think I held this misapprehension for the longest time, in the same way I
*still* think of the Sun orbiting around the earth when I have plenty of
reason to believe it is the other way around.



 What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations
but "hypotheses" about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are
shaped by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.

And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it stochastic or
deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you thinking of?)  Is
"plausable" the term you want, or is it more "utilitarian"?

[NST==>What exactly do we imagine a "mutation" to be .nothing more or less
than a change in one or more letters of the code, or the surprising change
in the morphology or behavior of the creature that results?  The epigenetic
system has to "make" something of the code change.  There are gene editing
mechanisms and error correction mechanisms, and switches, on and off.  Drop
one letter of the code and the organism cannot make melanin;  but a lot of
work has to be done to turn that mishap into a "white bear."   <==nst] 





  The randomness is largely notional.

I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many we
call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by random
processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with appropriately
broad distribution functions, 

[NST==>did you complete that thought? I am eager to know where you were
going with that sentence.<==nst] 





   I still think you guys are more captured by your model of evolution than
by the actual facts of it. 

I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though in the
spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even sure I know
what a "model-free" fact might be?  

[NST==>Oh, no, Steve.  WAY too broad a brush.  The problem is that you in
danger of using the same model to explicate your understanding of the
phenomenon of evolution as you later use to explain how evolution came
about.  <==nst] 

 Facts (to me) imply measurements (qualitative, quantitative) which imply a
object of said measurement which in turn implies a model.   There was a
time, I believe when people felt they held "facts" about "the viscosity of
the aether" and the "density of phlogiston".   When those models were
superseded, those "facts" took on entirely new implications and meaning.   

- Steve



 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Quillien
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Totally agree. 

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at the
Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or other) and
see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but can follow
e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny

 

On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them.

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets and
Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free Markets may
well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of development.  Once something
becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems it might be counter-productive to
continue the illusion of competitive development.  At best it is wasteful
and even harmful, and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to
marketing and salesmanship.  This is why we have so many near-identical
products on the market being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear
when the "generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior
(certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants
and odorants and other embellishments required to differentiate one product
from the other?).

- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature
innovates by Andreas Wagner.

>From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but
this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it
cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just
another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's
ability to innovate, its innovability. 

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about how it
is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's
e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

 

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi everybody, 

 

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog. 

 

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours. 

 

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
I am correct or not.  

 

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this "evolution" of
which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --
The alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in
which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the
theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all
over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations
concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon,
itself. 

 

So what kind of "evolution" are you guys talking about?

 

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
here. 

 

nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 

 







============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove








============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove








============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 






============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/02363004/attachment-0001.html>

From vburach at shaw.ca  Thu Aug 10 18:59:24 2017
From: vburach at shaw.ca (Vladimyr)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:59:24 -0500
Subject: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRmNYix+1_12nnOz4HmckfLZB51jt7BgJ9Hw1GH8wfXCKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRmNYix+1_12nnOz4HmckfLZB51jt7BgJ9Hw1GH8wfXCKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00dd01d3122c$508dd610$f1a98230$@shaw.ca>

The US can always do nothing considering its awesome power.

 

Wiping out a nation or two seems would cause the greatest global shame for everyone.

Should America use unimaginable power to subdue a noxious mosquito?

The compulsion to use such power is frightening.

 

North Korea has no forcing move to play, it does not have a Sente move.(from Go strategy)

Only bluff?

vib

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: August-09-17 4:41 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?

 

>From BBC a reasonable summary:

  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879485

 

My question is simple: what *are* the alternatives? Is there an interesting game theoretic analysis?

 

The toughest part is that South Korea is being held hostage. NK can devastate SK even if hit with a pre-emptive strike.

 

As rash as Trump's bluster has been, the real question remains: what is the reasonable response to NK's threat.

- Preemptive Strike? Likely a loser unless it is so massive as to obliterate every human in NK. SK would be seriously damaged in the aftermath.

- Wait 'til NK strikes? Again, hardly reasonable.

- Anti-missile defense? Possibly, but you just gotta miss one for apocalypse. And what do you do if you *do* succeed? SK is still hostage.

- Tit for Tat? Well, only in the bluster game. Our threats will match yours & vice versa.

 

Has anyone heard of an interesting strategy?

 

   -- Owen

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/d2683ace/attachment.html>

From merlelefkoff at gmail.com  Fri Aug 11 00:14:08 2017
From: merlelefkoff at gmail.com (Merle Lefkoff)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 21:14:08 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRmNYix+1_12nnOz4HmckfLZB51jt7BgJ9Hw1GH8wfXCKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRmNYix+1_12nnOz4HmckfLZB51jt7BgJ9Hw1GH8wfXCKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEmKtrw0rZH1WGbywkTv9wwCnRBWE5VOUmQtdib7qt1-_uGgNQ@mail.gmail.com>

Well, yes, Owen.  I was contacted recently by a group of South and North
Korean women who have been meeting secretly in the DMZ.  The North Koreans
sent their delegation.  It's a really interesting group.  And if you read
Truthout today, a good strategy is emerging that involves re-starting the
anti-nuke movement.  Visit our web site:  e-mergenow.org.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> From BBC a reasonable summary:
>   http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879485
>
> My question is simple: what *are* the alternatives? Is there an
> interesting game theoretic analysis?
>
> The toughest part is that South Korea is being held hostage. NK can
> devastate SK even if hit with a pre-emptive strike.
>
> As rash as Trump's bluster has been, the real question remains: what is
> the reasonable response to NK's threat.
> - Preemptive Strike? Likely a loser unless it is so massive as to
> obliterate every human in NK. SK would be seriously damaged in the
> aftermath.
> - Wait 'til NK strikes? Again, hardly reasonable.
> - Anti-missile defense? Possibly, but you just gotta miss one for
> apocalypse. And what do you do if you *do* succeed? SK is still hostage.
> - Tit for Tat? Well, only in the bluster game. Our threats will match
> yours & vice versa.
>
> Has anyone heard of an interesting strategy?
>
>    -- Owen
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefkoff at gmail.com <merlelefoff at gmail.com>
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170810/07c1bec4/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Fri Aug 11 11:16:00 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:16:00 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Solar Eclipse!
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCT+Hp0BdORJXbsObw3pQHbY-mhTKSTy7D-VdVHiautKHA@mail.gmail.com>

Is New Mexico getting left out of the awsome that is the Eclips coming up?
Or are the their places to  to (try to) get to watch it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/cda87940/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 11 11:26:00 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:26:00 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Solar Eclipse!
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCT+Hp0BdORJXbsObw3pQHbY-mhTKSTy7D-VdVHiautKHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCT+Hp0BdORJXbsObw3pQHbY-mhTKSTy7D-VdVHiautKHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703ADBFED0D9D0D8222543DC5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

There's an iPhone app for that, but here's a map.  About 3/4 eclipse in Santa Fe.


https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NASA_map_508.pdf

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:16:00 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Solar Eclipse!

Is New Mexico getting left out of the awsome that is the Eclips coming up?
Or are the their places to  to (try to) get to watch it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/0280d5af/attachment.html>

From owen at backspaces.net  Fri Aug 11 12:19:05 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:19:05 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] =?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Program?=
	=?utf-8?b?bWluZyDigJMgS2VudCBDLiBEb2RkcyDigJMgTWVkaXVt?=
Message-ID: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>

?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with
a brick.

But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is
very Self-like:
  ??
https://me
??
dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747

?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no
`this`.

It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very
human. I mean, who's *boss*?

Do any of us *use* functional programming?

   -- Owen?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/4d093512/attachment.html>

From russ.abbott at gmail.com  Fri Aug 11 12:28:59 2017
From: russ.abbott at gmail.com (Russ Abbott)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:28:59 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] 
	=?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
	=?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGkQki5EcDJE2TNup2U6PgPvgqhp_8MKY_Mr6ZMr6Pq5PjJ7Hg@mail.gmail.com>

Can't resist. I've been in love with functional programming for years. I
teach an introductory Haskell class. My goal is to get students to think at
a higher level that functional programming facilitates.

P.S. The link in Owen's message wasn't created properly. Here's a
correction:
https://medium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747


On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:19 AM Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> ?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head
> with a brick.
>
> But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is
> very Self-like:
>   ??
> https://me
> ??
>
> dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747
>
> ?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no
> `this`.
>
> It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very
> human. I mean, who's *boss*?
>
> Do any of us *use* functional programming?
>
>    -- Owen?
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-- 
Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/aac385f8/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 11 12:30:39 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:30:39 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] 
 =?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
 =?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703675E0980D97E15046848C5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick."


It is fun!


"It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very human. I mean, who's *boss*?"


The caller is the boss.  With FP you know that arguments are all read-only.

This gives you unambiguous dataflow and you know when parallelism can be done because the arguments just tell you.


let c = f(a)


..can run at once with..


let d = g(a)


..but not with..


let e = h(a,c)


Also "=" here isn't assignment, it is equality.


If I have a project that isn't FP, I make it into an FP project because it is the right thing to do.


Marcus



________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:19:05 AM
To: Wedtech; Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Classes, Complexity, and Functional Programming ? Kent C. Dodds ? Medium

?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick.

But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is very Self-like:
  ??
https://me
??
dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747<http://dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747>

?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no `this`.

It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very human. I mean, who's *boss*?

Do any of us *use* functional programming?

   -- Owen?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/c78a7b01/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 11 12:50:30 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:50:30 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] 
 =?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
 =?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703453EF08CF7DB836EB2E6C5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

It is really not a big change from classes.   If you already have objects, often all you have to change is that you return them.  Object-oriented languages implicitly have the notion of the object as a first argument, so you've got a container to work with.  The job of higher level code is to assemble and disassemble what is returned in a reasonable way.  Perhaps it involves folds/reductions or perhaps it is just bigger containers.  This gives a good (and, in FP, necessary) opportunity to think about how to manage dependencies.   And yes, you have to start thinking in terms of `custody' of objects rather than `ownership'.  One of the recent trends in web app development are `reactive' services.  These ideas came from the FP community.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:19:05 AM
To: Wedtech; Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Classes, Complexity, and Functional Programming ? Kent C. Dodds ? Medium

?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick.

But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is very Self-like:
  ??
https://me
??
dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747<http://dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747>

?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no `this`.

It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very human. I mean, who's *boss*?

Do any of us *use* functional programming?

   -- Owen?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/212da871/attachment.html>

From ballance at swcp.com  Fri Aug 11 13:26:43 2017
From: ballance at swcp.com (Bob Ballance)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:26:43 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] 
 =?utf-8?q?=5BWedTech=5D_Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Fun?=
 =?utf-8?q?ctional_Programming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ABC9426-9F25-45F6-B7D1-FC187329D7CE@swcp.com>

FWIW: I?ve been programming and teaching in R for quite a while, and have recently started working in Elixir (based on the Erlang virtual machine and process model) for web application development. The two languages have application spaces that are quite distinct.

. . . Bob

> On Aug 11, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
> 
> ?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick.
> 
> But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is very Self-like:
>   ??https://me <https://me/>??dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747 <http://dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747>
> 
> ?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no `this`.
> 
> It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very human. I mean, who's *boss*?
> 
> Do any of us *use* functional programming?
> 
>    -- Owen?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wedtech mailing list
> Wedtech at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/wedtech_redfish.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/cf5ba325/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 11 13:56:25 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:56:25 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <0ea27822-84f1-af2a-2c67-87b6c75e898b@swcp.com>

Nick -
>
> I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is 
> properly returning!
>
> */[NST==>The best cardio rehab is for you-guys to keep annoying me. 
> Thanks for that. <==nst] /*
>
You might check with your cardiologist on this one, I'm not sure a rise 
in BP is the same as exercise-stimulated increased heart rate, but in 
any case, I'm glad we can be of service!
>
> *//*
>
>
> What?s powerful about it?
>
> Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular 
> fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that 
> there is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the 
> innovation step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, 
> said *innovation* is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural 
> selection mechanism.
>
> */[NST==>Wait a minute!  What is the misapprehension of which you 
> speak?   Can you put it explicitly. /*
>
The misapprehension of which I speak is that natural selection *alone* 
gives rise to innovation.  Without mutation, all that is achieved by 
natural selection is a reduction of diversity in the genotype/phenotype 
toward some "optimum" for the selection criteria, or more likely a 
"wandering" around geno/pheno space as the selection pressures 
"wander".   I believe that this is the mechanism behind what is known as 
"island dwarfism".   There is no *innovation*, merely selection for a 
feature within the phenotypic distribution (body size) already in the 
population.

I was NOT suggesting that YOU hold this misapprehension, just chiming in 
on the point made by Jenny with her original quote.
>
> */And, when you say that mutations are ?random?, what precisely do you 
> mean./*
>
I don't know that *I* have said that mutations are "random".    I agree 
that "random" is notional.  But I think of a signal as being "random" if 
the receiver has no model to correlate it's structure. A highly 
organized but encrypted message is "random" if you don't have the key to 
decode it.   Cosmic radiation knocking holes in your genome is "random" 
for all practical purposes, even if it is highly correlated with solar 
and magnetosphere activity.
>
> */Unpredictable?  Clearly false.  We know quite a lot, I think, about 
> where DNA is vulnerable, and where mutations are likely to occur. /*
>
A "random" selection can still have a statistical distribution. When 
rolling pairs of dice, there is only one way to get a value of 2, (both 
dies == 1), 2 ways to get a value of 3 (1,2 and 2,1) and 3 ways to get a 
value of 4 (1,3 and 3,1 and 2,2), etc.   this distribution is defined by 
simple combinatorics, but any given sample is still "random".   
Referencing above, in principle every specific set of dice are less than 
perfect and every dice-thrower might have some "handedness" which 
*might* lend a tiny bias to the distribution (e.g. LOADED dice).   The 
resulting sequences are still random, just biased in an unexpected 
way.   Flipping a coin is the same (unless it is two-headed of course!).

I don't think that the DNA (or intermediate RNA?) is more vulnerable in 
some regions (or among some sequences) than others to say, "cosmic 
radiation" but I will accept that perhaps when the many potential causes 
of mutation and the various mechanism for detection/repair are taken 
into account, some parts of the sequence are more susceptible to 
"effective" mutation?   And of course, at the phenotypic level, what is 
"effective" is what the natural selection component is all about.

I will pause beating this horse for a moment but will try to respond to 
the remainder of your response separately (perhaps even completing the 
thought you thought I failed to complete?)

- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/62f58d7f/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Fri Aug 11 14:18:21 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:18:21 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <0ea27822-84f1-af2a-2c67-87b6c75e898b@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <0ea27822-84f1-af2a-2c67-87b6c75e898b@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <008a01d312ce$37845a20$a68d0e60$@earthlink.net>

Steve, 

 

Thanks for staying with me on this.  

 

To be honest, I have never encountered anybody who believed that natural
selection alone is capable of producing evolution, unless it was somebody
who includes some variation-generating mechanism within the notion of
natural selection.  I have encountered people who think that natural
selection is not NECESSARY to evolution, attributing most change to random
walks of various sorts.   I have never understood those folks, but they have
had their day.  

 

The heresy I am trying to expunge is that in which evolution is understood
as "a delta-q in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium", which amounts to saying,
natural selects whatever nature selects and whatever nature selects is
evolution.  Darwin would have been baffled by such a formulation. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Nick -



I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is
properly returning!

[NST==>The best cardio rehab is for you-guys to keep annoying me.  Thanks
for that. <==nst] 

You might check with your cardiologist on this one, I'm not sure a rise in
BP is the same as exercise-stimulated increased heart rate, but in any case,
I'm glad we can be of service!




What's powerful about it?  

Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular
fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that there
is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the innovation
step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, said *innovation*
is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural selection mechanism.  

[NST==>Wait a minute!  What is the misapprehension of which you speak?   Can
you put it explicitly.  

The misapprehension of which I speak is that natural selection *alone* gives
rise to innovation.  Without mutation, all that is achieved by natural
selection is a reduction of diversity in the genotype/phenotype toward some
"optimum" for the selection criteria, or more likely a "wandering" around
geno/pheno space as the selection pressures "wander".   I believe that this
is the mechanism behind what is known as "island dwarfism".   There is no
*innovation*, merely selection for a feature within the phenotypic
distribution (body size) already in the population.

I was NOT suggesting that YOU hold this misapprehension, just chiming in on
the point made by Jenny with her original quote.



And, when you say that mutations are "random", what precisely do you mean.

I don't know that *I* have said that mutations are "random".    I agree that
"random" is notional.  But I think of a signal as being "random" if the
receiver has no model to correlate it's structure.   A highly organized but
encrypted message is "random" if you don't have the key to decode it.
Cosmic radiation knocking holes in your genome is "random" for all practical
purposes, even if it is highly correlated with solar and magnetosphere
activity.   



  Unpredictable?  Clearly false.  We know quite a lot, I think, about where
DNA is vulnerable, and where mutations are likely to occur.  

A "random" selection can still have a statistical distribution.   When
rolling pairs of dice, there is only one way to get a value of 2, (both dies
== 1), 2 ways to get a value of 3 (1,2 and 2,1) and 3 ways to get a value of
4 (1,3 and 3,1 and 2,2), etc.   this distribution is defined by simple
combinatorics, but any given sample is still "random".   Referencing above,
in principle every specific set of dice are less than perfect and every
dice-thrower might have some "handedness" which *might* lend a tiny bias to
the distribution (e.g. LOADED dice).   The resulting sequences are still
random, just biased in an unexpected way.   Flipping a coin is the same
(unless it is two-headed of course!).

I don't think that the DNA (or intermediate RNA?) is more vulnerable in some
regions (or among some sequences) than others to say, "cosmic radiation" but
I will accept that perhaps when the many potential causes of mutation and
the various mechanism for detection/repair are taken into account, some
parts of the sequence are more susceptible to "effective" mutation?   And of
course, at the phenotypic level, what is "effective" is what the natural
selection component is all about.

I will pause beating this horse for a moment but will try to respond to the
remainder of your response separately (perhaps even completing the thought
you thought I failed to complete?)

- Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/fa6d85bd/attachment.html>

From profwest at fastmail.fm  Fri Aug 11 14:27:26 2017
From: profwest at fastmail.fm (Prof David West)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:27:26 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <008a01d312ce$37845a20$a68d0e60$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <0ea27822-84f1-af2a-2c67-87b6c75e898b@swcp.com>
 <008a01d312ce$37845a20$a68d0e60$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <1502476046.138214.1070661576.05FAE129@webmail.messagingengine.com>

Jenny mentioned Arrival of the Fittest. I will condense a set of
notes that I am sending Jenny about the book and will post the
condensed version to the list. I think it could resolve a lot of this
'random' issue.
davew



On Fri, Aug 11, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Steve,


>  


> Thanks for staying with me on this. 


>  


> To be honest, I have never encountered anybody who believed that
> natural selection alone is capable of producing evolution, unless it
> was somebody who includes some variation-generating mechanism within
> the notion of natural selection.  I have encountered people who think
> that natural selection is not NECESSARY to evolution, attributing most
> change to random walks of various sorts.   I have never understood
> those folks, but they have had their day.>  


> The heresy I am trying to expunge is that in which evolution is
> understood as ?a delta-q in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium?, which
> amounts to saying, natural selects whatever nature selects and
> whatever nature selects is evolution.  Darwin would have been baffled
> by such a formulation.>  


> Nick


>  


> Nicholas S. Thompson


> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology


> Clark University


> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


>  


> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven
> A Smith *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 1:56 PM *To:* The Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> *Subject:*
> Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate>  


> Nick -


>> I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness
>> is properly returning!>> **[NST==>The best cardio rehab is for you-guys to keep annoying me.
>> Thanks for that. <==nst]**> You might check with your cardiologist on this one, I'm not sure a
> rise in BP is the same as exercise-stimulated increased heart rate,
> but in any case, I'm glad we can be of service!>> 
>> What?s powerful about it? 

>> Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the
>> popular fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution,
>> suggesting that there is a causal link between "selection" and
>> "innovation"...   the innovation step is in the mutation, but as the
>> quote states clearly, said *innovation* is *preserved* (selected for)
>> by the natural selection mechanism.>> **[NST==>Wait a minute!  What is the misapprehension of which you
>> speak?   Can you put it explicitly. **> The misapprehension of which I speak is that natural selection *alone*
> gives rise to innovation.  Without mutation, all that is achieved by
> natural selection is a reduction of diversity in the
> genotype/phenotype toward some "optimum" for the selection criteria,
> or more likely a "wandering" around geno/pheno space as the selection
> pressures "wander".   I believe that this is the mechanism behind what
> is known as "island dwarfism".   There is no *innovation*, merely
> selection for a feature within the phenotypic distribution (body size)
> already in the population.
>
> I was NOT suggesting that YOU hold this misapprehension, just chiming
> in on the point made by Jenny with her original quote.>> **And, when you say that mutations are ?random?, what precisely do
>> you mean.**> I don't know that *I* have said that mutations are "random".    I
> agree that "random" is notional.  But I think of a signal as being
> "random" if the receiver has no model to correlate it's structure.   A
> highly organized but encrypted message is "random" if you don't have
> the key to decode it.   Cosmic radiation knocking holes in your genome
> is "random" for all practical purposes, even if it is highly
> correlated with solar and magnetosphere activity.>> **  Unpredictable?  Clearly false.  We know quite a lot, I think,
>> about where DNA is vulnerable, and where mutations are likely to
>> occur. **> A "random" selection can still have a statistical distribution.   When
> rolling pairs of dice, there is only one way to get a value of 2,
> (both dies == 1), 2 ways to get a value of 3 (1,2 and 2,1) and 3 ways
> to get a value of 4 (1,3 and 3,1 and 2,2), etc.   this distribution is
> defined by simple combinatorics, but any given sample is still
> "random".   Referencing above, in principle every specific set of dice
> are less than perfect and every dice-thrower might have some
> "handedness" which *might* lend a tiny bias to the distribution (e.g.
> LOADED dice).   The resulting sequences are still random, just biased
> in an unexpected way.   Flipping a coin is the same (unless it is two-
> headed of course!).
>
> I don't think that the DNA (or intermediate RNA?) is more vulnerable
> in some regions (or among some sequences) than others to say, "cosmic
> radiation" but I will accept that perhaps when the many potential
> causes of mutation and the various mechanism for detection/repair are
> taken into account, some parts of the sequence are more susceptible to
> "effective" mutation?   And of course, at the phenotypic level, what
> is "effective" is what the natural selection component is all about.
>
> I will pause beating this horse for a moment but will try to respond
> to the remainder of your response separately (perhaps even completing
> the thought you thought I failed to complete?)
>
> - Steve> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/80a0caf0/attachment.html>

From owen at backspaces.net  Fri Aug 11 16:02:05 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:02:05 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What are the scenarios? Game theory?
In-Reply-To: <CAEmKtrw0rZH1WGbywkTv9wwCnRBWE5VOUmQtdib7qt1-_uGgNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRmNYix+1_12nnOz4HmckfLZB51jt7BgJ9Hw1GH8wfXCKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEmKtrw0rZH1WGbywkTv9wwCnRBWE5VOUmQtdib7qt1-_uGgNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN_LYR=aWTNc0h8USDNVUh5JQDEnt9SQ55NWO7Yok1hhrooBbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Merle: thanks!

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Merle Lefkoff <merlelefkoff at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well, yes, Owen.  I was contacted recently by a group of South and North
> Korean women who have been meeting secretly in the DMZ.  The North Koreans
> sent their delegation.  It's a really interesting group.  And if you read
> Truthout today, a good strategy is emerging that involves re-starting the
> anti-nuke movement.  Visit our web site:  e-mergenow.org.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/410bb3ee/attachment.html>

From gary at naturesvisualarts.com  Fri Aug 11 16:04:44 2017
From: gary at naturesvisualarts.com (Gary Schiltz)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:04:44 -0500
Subject: [FRIAM] 
	=?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
	=?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANr4ZeNUdEbZuRkN3hu3fyEz5ViOxd3nphN1qYZoCLoNJ6g41g@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting timing. Although I don't do much software development these
days, I've been fiddling around with Clojure off and on for the last few
years. I conceptually like the ideas behind it, but it takes immutability
to more of an extreme than I feel is necessary (e.g. unless you use its
software transactional memory constructs, there is no way to re-bind a
local variable). Also, the programming environment with the most advanced
support for it is emacs, and I haven't drank enough koolaid to grok it
fully. So, just last night I decided to download Racket (a scheme dialect
with a nice simple IDE). So far, I have been having a blast with it. Part
of the reason I downloaded it is that I wanted to run programs from the
book "The Little Schemer", which among other things is a crash course on
replacing iterating and mutating of data structures with purely functional
recursive solutions.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> ?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head
> with a brick.
>
> But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is
> very Self-like:
>   ??
> https://me
> ??
> dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-
> programming-a8dd86903747
>
> ?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no
> `this`.
>
> It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very
> human. I mean, who's *boss*?
>
> Do any of us *use* functional programming?
>
>    -- Owen?
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/5f0dd727/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 11 16:22:58 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 20:22:58 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] 
 =?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
 =?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CANr4ZeNUdEbZuRkN3hu3fyEz5ViOxd3nphN1qYZoCLoNJ6g41g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>,
 <CANr4ZeNUdEbZuRkN3hu3fyEz5ViOxd3nphN1qYZoCLoNJ6g41g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703508F27893EB062302E19C5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"I conceptually like the ideas behind it, but it takes immutability to more of an extreme than I feel is necessary (e.g. unless you use its software transactional memory constructs, there is no way to re-bind a local variable)."


In Haskell, if this is needed, one uses the State Monad.


https://wiki.haskell.org/State_Monad

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gary Schiltz <gary at naturesvisualarts.com>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 2:04:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classes, Complexity, and Functional Programming ? Kent C. Dodds ? Medium

Interesting timing. Although I don't do much software development these days, I've been fiddling around with Clojure off and on for the last few years. I conceptually like the ideas behind it, but it takes immutability to more of an extreme than I feel is necessary (e.g. unless you use its software transactional memory constructs, there is no way to re-bind a local variable). Also, the programming environment with the most advanced support for it is emacs, and I haven't drank enough koolaid to grok it fully. So, just last night I decided to download Racket (a scheme dialect with a nice simple IDE). So far, I have been having a blast with it. Part of the reason I downloaded it is that I wanted to run programs from the book "The Little Schemer", which among other things is a crash course on replacing iterating and mutating of data structures with purely functional recursive solutions.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net<mailto:owen at backspaces.net>> wrote:
?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick.

But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is very Self-like:
  ??
https://me
??
dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747<http://dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747>

?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no `this`.

It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very human. I mean, who's *boss*?

Do any of us *use* functional programming?

   -- Owen?


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/2d075dc8/attachment.html>

From tom at jtjohnson.com  Fri Aug 11 20:30:27 2017
From: tom at jtjohnson.com (Tom Johnson)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:30:27 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] How 'Game of Thrones' is taking years off graying Santa Fe
Message-ID: <CABg8s8K3dD+9iEb292FhkxLQ6Uatvk-w0Yi+-Z7+HgRVzsG4hQ@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-4780962/How-Game-Thrones-taking-years-graying-Santa-Fe.html

============================================
Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   --     Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)                                    505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
*Check out It's The People's Data
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
http://www.jtjohnson.com                   tom at jtjohnson.com
============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/542cc7da/attachment-0001.html>

From owen at backspaces.net  Fri Aug 11 23:42:15 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 21:42:15 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] 
	=?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
	=?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703675E0980D97E15046848C5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703675E0980D97E15046848C5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAN_LYRkmqquHtg+i941ggVWqueW0GvSE=hNcvpu9F315g4hfTA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
wrote:

> "I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head
>> with a brick."
>
> It is fun!
>
?That's great to hear, too much is NOT fun in programming!?

> If I have a project that isn't FP, I make it into an FP project because it
> is the right thing to do.
>

?OK, so in the JavaScript world, how does one inch forward toward
functional? I don't want to be so functional as some of the extremes.
Curring all the way to one arg functions?

The article says performance may be an issue.

The chief appeal for me is the Self-like objects only, no classes. But the
lack of centrality may just as hard to navigate as the over-tight, stateful
class approach.

   -- Owen?


On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
wrote:

> "I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head
> with a brick."
>
>
> It is fun!
>
>
> "It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very
> human. I mean, who's *boss*?"
>
>
> The caller is the boss.  With FP you know that arguments are all
> read-only.
>
> This gives you unambiguous dataflow and you know when parallelism can be
> done because the arguments just tell you.
>
>
> let c = f(a)
>
>
> ..can run at once with..
>
>
> let d = g(a)
>
>
> ..but not with..
>
>
> let e = h(a,c)
>
>
> Also "=" here isn't assignment, it is equality.
>
>
> If I have a project that isn't FP, I make it into an FP project because it
> is the right thing to do.
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <
> owen at backspaces.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 10:19:05 AM
> *To:* Wedtech; Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Classes, Complexity, and Functional Programming ? Kent
> C. Dodds ? Medium
>
> ?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head
> with a brick.
>
> But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is
> very Self-like:
>   ??
> https://me
> ??
> dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-
> programming-a8dd86903747
>
> ?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no
> `this`.
>
> It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very
> human. I mean, who's *boss*?
>
> Do any of us *use* functional programming?
>
>    -- Owen?
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/826a0458/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sat Aug 12 00:05:24 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 22:05:24 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>

Nick -

... continued
>
>      What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not
>     mutations but ?hypotheses? about ways to live.  And presumably
>     epigenetic systems are shaped by natural selection to produce 
>     more or less plausible hypotheses.
>
> And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it 
> stochastic or deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you 
> thinking of?)  Is "plausable" the term you want, or is it more 
> "utilitarian"?
>
> */[NST==>What exactly do we imagine a ?mutation? to be ?nothing more 
> or less than a change in one or more letters of the code, or the 
> surprising change in the morphology or behavior of the creature that 
> results?  The epigenetic system has to ?make? something of the code 
> change. There are gene editing mechanisms and error correction 
> mechanisms, and switches, on and off.  Drop one letter of the code and 
> the organism cannot make melanin;  but a lot of work has to be done to 
> turn that mishap into a ?white bear.?   <==nst] /*
>
Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of 
the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said 
genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of 
an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature 
phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature 
specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit 
(herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the 
individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in 
their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones 
and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been 
hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when 
their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are 
pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly 
functional for the group to have you around?


> *//*
>
>       The randomness is largely notional.
>
> I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many 
> we call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by 
> random processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with 
> appropriately broad distribution functions,
>
the point is that the variation is not correlated with the selection 
process in any significant way.  I think THAT is what *I* mean by random.
>
> */[NST==>did you complete that thought? I am eager to know where you 
> were going with that sentence.<==nst] /*
>
>
  I'm acknowledging that "random" is at least relative in most cases.  
If we go down to the quantum level, it takes on a more meaningful 
meaning but I would claim one that requires much more sophisticated 
discussion to penetrate.  I would claim that this is the kind of 
"random" that Penrose postulates is necessary for (and explains) 
consciousness.

>        I still think you guys are more captured by your model of
>     evolution than by the actual facts of it.
>
> I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though 
> in the spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even 
> sure I know what a "model-free" fact might be?
>
> */[NST==>Oh, no, Steve.  WAY too broad a brush.  The problem is that 
> you in danger of using the same model to explicate your understanding 
> of the phenomenon of evolution as you later use to explain how 
> evolution came about. <==nst] /*
>
BTW, I think you are conflating my words with those of the larger 
group.   I don't think I've ever tried to even suggest "how evolution 
came about", because that description doesn't even make sense to me... 
evolution "just is" .

I'm looking forward to Dave West's condensed summary of "Arrival of the 
Fittest".

- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/a1c6bd4f/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug 12 01:05:06 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 05:05:06 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] 
 =?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
 =?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRkmqquHtg+i941ggVWqueW0GvSE=hNcvpu9F315g4hfTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703675E0980D97E15046848C5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <CAN_LYRkmqquHtg+i941ggVWqueW0GvSE=hNcvpu9F315g4hfTA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703C8CED3260DF3564A12B0C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Owen writes:


"OK, so in the JavaScript world, how does one inch forward toward functional? I don't want to be so functional as some of the extremes. Curring all the way to one arg functions?"


I'm not sure what properties of JavaScript you care about.  If it is just the operational part of being able to run in a web browser, there are languages like Fay (a subset of Haskell) that compile to JavaScript.


FP is something you can do in incremental ways in many languages.  Even though I use a mostly-FP style in R (or Common Lisp or Python or Julia or Fortran 2008), in my mind it is isn't _really_ FP unless there is strong typing and an mandatory requirement of purity.   Currying, IMO, is something that is easier to use with languages that have strong typing and type inference because the transformations between function signatures is natural to inspect in those environments.  (It is quite common in Haskell to get complex, even surprising types by automatic type inference.)   Currying is nice, in contrast to closures, because it is deliberate and localized; one can capture a lot in lexical scope and a lambda may not be easy to convert into a non-anonymous function -- you may not be clear on what you are capturing in the closure and why.   Also currying has a nice intuition of progressively reducing the degrees of freedom of a function as that information becomes available.


The philosophy of languages like Haskell, F#, Mercury, etc. is to make working code more likely just by virtue of getting it past the compiler.   Instead of dynamic typing, the compiler uses logical inference to figure out what types make sense when they are not provided.  This gives the similar brevity as dynamic typing but with many more internal consistency checks.


I write a lot of R, and for simple things dynamic typing is fine.  But, as soon as I start using it for more complex things in a production context, any minor mistake can cost a lot of wasted CPU time.   For me, there's a point at which I want the cognitive support that static typing affords.   And of course static typing gives code generation more information to work with, which usually leads to faster code.


Haskell (GHCI) still has a REPL interpreter-like interface, so it is not fair to say that experimentation is not possible as it is in JavaScript.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:42:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: Wedtech
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Classes, Complexity, and Functional Programming ? Kent C. Dodds ? Medium

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
"I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick."

It is fun!

?That's great to hear, too much is NOT fun in programming!?

If I have a project that isn't FP, I make it into an FP project because it is the right thing to do.

?OK, so in the JavaScript world, how does one inch forward toward functional? I don't want to be so functional as some of the extremes. Curring all the way to one arg functions?

The article says performance may be an issue.

The chief appeal for me is the Self-like objects only, no classes. But the lack of centrality may just as hard to navigate as the over-tight, stateful class approach.

   -- Owen?


On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

"I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick."


It is fun!


"It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very human. I mean, who's *boss*?"


The caller is the boss.  With FP you know that arguments are all read-only.

This gives you unambiguous dataflow and you know when parallelism can be done because the arguments just tell you.


let c = f(a)


..can run at once with..


let d = g(a)


..but not with..


let e = h(a,c)


Also "=" here isn't assignment, it is equality.


If I have a project that isn't FP, I make it into an FP project because it is the right thing to do.


Marcus



________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net<mailto:owen at backspaces.net>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:19:05 AM
To: Wedtech; Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Classes, Complexity, and Functional Programming ? Kent C. Dodds ? Medium

?I know, I know, functional programming is as fun as hitting your head with a brick.

But this article does a nice job of showing how functional programming is very Self-like:
  ??
https://me
??
dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747<http://dium.com/@kentcdodds/classes-complexity-and-functional-programming-a8dd86903747>

?It's objects and functions all the way down, and for me the best is no `this`.

It is a bit scary letting go of "central control" Classes provide, very human. I mean, who's *boss*?

Do any of us *use* functional programming?

   -- Owen?


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/79a3a5f9/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Sat Aug 12 08:56:24 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 08:56:24 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <010301d3136a$6d3cd240$47b676c0$@earthlink.net>

Steve, 

 

Thanks for allowing me to sling irresponsible  insults at you with impunity.
It has been VERY helpful to my recovery.  You might consider opening a
clinic.  

 

I considered calling "quantum randomness" "notional", but I wasn't sure WTF
I meant by that.  There's a dimension here I am groping to express.  Quantum
randomness and natural selection and gene are way out on that dimension as
things we believe in the concreteness of, yet they are far from our concrete
experience.  We experience them as foundations of our thought, yet we never
see them.  I guess the best I can say at this point is that something about
that makes me uneasy.  

 

I want to push back on "evolution just is".  Evolution is a way, and not
other ways.  Evolution is more directly presented to experience than is
natural selection.  Natural selection is the very abstract idea that
resolves problems and paradoxes raised in Darwin's imagination by his
"experience" of evolution.   Just as "gene" is a "pseudo-concrete" idea
that resolves paradoxes and problems raised in Mendel's pea-patch.  

 

I too am awaiting Dave's summary.  I have ordered the book from the library.
I wish I were there to take Dave's course. I am hoping that it will the
beginning of a great new career for him and he will decide to stay in Santa
fe.  

 

Nick 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 12:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Nick -

... continued 

 What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations
but "hypotheses" about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are
shaped by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.

And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it stochastic or
deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you thinking of?)  Is
"plausable" the term you want, or is it more "utilitarian"?

[NST==>What exactly do we imagine a "mutation" to be .nothing more or less
than a change in one or more letters of the code, or the surprising change
in the morphology or behavior of the creature that results?  The epigenetic
system has to "make" something of the code change.  There are gene editing
mechanisms and error correction mechanisms, and switches, on and off.  Drop
one letter of the code and the organism cannot make melanin;  but a lot of
work has to be done to turn that mishap into a "white bear."   <==nst] 

Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the
code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic
sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified
protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the
precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and
beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or
suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation.   Add
individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely
large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get
(what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind
rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they
are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly
functional for the group to have you around?   





  The randomness is largely notional.

I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many we
call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by random
processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with appropriately
broad distribution functions, 

the point is that the variation is not correlated with the selection process
in any significant way.  I think THAT is what *I* mean by random.  



[NST==>did you complete that thought? I am eager to know where you were
going with that sentence.<==nst] 

 

 I'm acknowledging that "random" is at least relative in most cases.  If we
go down to the quantum level, it takes on a more meaningful meaning but I
would claim one that requires much more sophisticated discussion to
penetrate.  I would claim that this is the kind of "random" that Penrose
postulates is necessary for (and explains) consciousness.  




   I still think you guys are more captured by your model of evolution than
by the actual facts of it. 

I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though in the
spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even sure I know
what a "model-free" fact might be?  

[NST==>Oh, no, Steve.  WAY too broad a brush.  The problem is that you in
danger of using the same model to explicate your understanding of the
phenomenon of evolution as you later use to explain how evolution came
about.  <==nst] 

BTW, I think you are conflating my words with those of the larger group.   I
don't think I've ever tried to even suggest "how evolution came about",
because that description doesn't even make sense to me... evolution "just
is" .   

I'm looking forward to Dave West's condensed summary of "Arrival of the
Fittest".

- Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/05ed207b/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sat Aug 12 09:46:45 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:46:45 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <010301d3136a$6d3cd240$47b676c0$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <010301d3136a$6d3cd240$47b676c0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <ecd72f71-3219-953e-cd2c-9e0c6f2a2d38@swcp.com>

Nick -
>
> Thanks for allowing me to sling irresponsible  insults at you with 
> impunity.  It has been VERY helpful to my recovery.  You might 
> consider opening a clinic.
>
One of my favorite authors, Chuck Palahnuik, wrote a protaganist who 
visits his mother in a dementia/alzheimer's ward every day where the 
other women there constantly mistake him for some male in their life who 
wronged them early in their lives.  At first he argued with them and 
tried to convince them that he wasn't "THAT funny uncle", etc. 
Eventually he discovered it was easier for him to just give over to them 
and accept whatever identity they "needed" him to have and then began to 
embrace the roles they caste him into, acknowledging whatever perceived 
harm his character had leveled on them and then apologizing for that 
action profusely.   It was cathartic for them and he realized he  was 
making their day.  Of course, he had to repeat it every visit "groundhog 
day" style.   Palahnuik (who wrote Fight Club also) writes fascinatingly 
obtuse characters.
>
> I considered calling ?quantum randomness? ?notional?, but I wasn?t 
> sure WTF I meant by that.  There?s a dimension here I am groping to 
> express.  Quantum randomness and natural selection and gene are way 
> out on that dimension as things we believe in the concreteness of, yet 
> they are far from our concrete experience.  We experience them as 
> foundations of our thought, yet we never see them.  I guess the best I 
> can say at this point is that something about that makes me uneasy.
>
I share your uneasiness, but mine may penetrate deeper (shallower?) into 
the less esoteric models.   I mentioned my own strong intuitive 
preference for a "flat earth" and "earth-centric" celestial system, even 
if my *intellect* believes it could recognize the anomalies those models 
exhibit and resolve "the facts" more better with the "new and improved" 
models.
>
> I want to push back on ?evolution just is?.  Evolution is a way, and 
> not other ways.  Evolution is more directly presented to experience 
> than is natural selection.  Natural selection is the very abstract 
> idea that resolves problems and paradoxes raised in Darwin?s 
> imagination by his ?experience? of evolution.   Just as ?gene? is a 
> ?pseudo-concrete? idea  that resolves paradoxes and problems raised in 
> Mendel?s pea-patch.
>
I have to agree with this.   I don't mean to say "I know without any 
doubt that evolution just is" but rather, "if evolution IS, then it JUST 
is", rather perhaps than "it's nature needs/affords to be belabored".   
Maybe a more fundamental article of faith than "natural selection" or 
"gene" or "metabolic pathway" are.   I'm not sure evolution is directly 
observable, but the artifacts we find CAN perceive directly seem more 
directly mapped to it as a model than for example, "natural 
selection"?   I suspect for another group of "true believers", THEIR 
fundamental models (e.g. omnipotent patriarchal 
creator/punisher/forgiver/mystery-maker) are just as fundamental?  
"God/Goddess just is"?
>
> I too am awaiting Dave?s summary.  I have ordered the book from the 
> library.  I wish I were there to take Dave?s course.
>
I imagine you to return to SFe in September each year, do I have my 
calendar wrong?

- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/230e8edc/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 11:49:41 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?4pSjZ2xlbuKUqw==?=)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 08:49:41 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.

Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?


On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?


-- 
?glen?


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug 12 12:07:16 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 16:07:16 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>,
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Glen writes:


"Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"


A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.


f(x,y,z,...) -> good

f(y,z,x,...) -> good

f(z,x,y,...) -> good


f(x,z,y,...) -> bad


Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of ?glen? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:49:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.

Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?


On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?


--
?glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/b6873ca1/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 12:14:20 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?4pSjZ2xlbuKUqw==?=)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 09:14:20 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>


Exactly.  And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected.  So, (point) mutation alone may *never* reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals, infinite generations, or infinite space and time.

On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> "Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
> 
> A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
> 
> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
> 
> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)

-- 
?glen?


From owen at backspaces.net  Sat Aug 12 12:20:49 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:20:49 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] 
	=?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
	=?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703C8CED3260DF3564A12B0C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703675E0980D97E15046848C5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAN_LYRkmqquHtg+i941ggVWqueW0GvSE=hNcvpu9F315g4hfTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703C8CED3260DF3564A12B0C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAN_LYRnTDq-HyfOU6Vc3R+xoh+C_aywc_JF0oWzY72+UOPWyQg@mail.gmail.com>

Great info, thanks.

A few constraints:
- I've finally gotten back to Write & Run JavaScript, no transpiling.
- My workflow also is simplified: only npm scripts possibly using a node
script.
- I run a local hot-loading node http server so Write & Run is automatic.
All managed by a npm script.

Why? The JS world went nuts for several years with transpiling, babel (for
es6/future JS features), task managers, linters etc. It was arguably
necessary for the times. I used CoffeeScript for a while mainly for safety
and pythonic syntax. But my peers said "Oh, great, *another* thing to
learn"! And they didn't. :)

Things are now hugely better, with editors that are very IDE-ish and eslint
built in, and the language is finally getting functional features like map,
reduce, and so on. The for loop? It's dead Jim. Yay.

So there is a return to sanity and a healing from JS "fatigue". Simple JS,
no task managers, and simple commands for minifying, linting, conversion to
node modules, and so on. Write & Run w/ chores as scripts.

Within that world, currently, is a very strong movement toward FP. Hence
the article starting this conversation. And my hope for incrementally
converting to FP.

   -- Owen

PS: My work is not very webby. Mainly a NetLogo lookalike for JS. No
install, just start up a page. I render using webgl which oddly enough has
a fairly nice language for the GPU, and Three.js eases much of the
verbosity of the CPU side.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/a0f24c74/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug 12 12:23:16 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 16:23:16 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703544893E96EF5438295BBC58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Glen writes:


"I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected."


I've never tried this approach, but it seems plausible.  The link may be pay-walled, but the gist is to evolve fancier operators using masking of the genome.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13369-015-1869-5

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of ?glen? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 10:14:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Exactly.  And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected.  So, (point) mutation alone may *never* reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals, infinite generations, or infinite space and time.

On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> "Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
>
> A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
>
> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
>
> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)

--
?glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/a173103f/attachment.html>

From grant.holland.sf at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 13:03:17 2017
From: grant.holland.sf at gmail.com (Grant Holland)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:03:17 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d4436f66-8d47-3b64-a69a-efdfea8f3c8f@gmail.com>

Glen,

Actually, I think you are probably right about crossovers! I can see how 
innovation can be attributed to them too. Thanks for pointing that out, 
Glen. (Had crossovers been discovered in '72 when Monod wrote his book?)

But that is because crossovers, too, like mutations, are stochastic. 
Chance strikes again! That really is my larger point.

Moreover, crossover and mutation events do not seem to be causally 
related. I suspect that one is not /caused by /the other. Their 
/relationship/ is also non-deterministic. In fact, one could probably 
use the functional named /conditional entropy /(from information theory) 
to calculate the /degree of uncertainty///around their chance 
relationship. (Or the functional /mutual information/ to measure their 
degree of determinism.) YES, chance and determinism come in degrees. 
That's what stochastic entropy is all about. It measures that degree. It 
measures where on a scale of chance-vs-determinism a particular 
situation (probability space) resides.

Cheers, and thx for the insight.

G.


On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ?glen? wrote:
> This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.
>
> Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?
>
>
> On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/18d9ec75/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Sat Aug 12 14:11:12 2017
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:11:12 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] bit-player
Message-ID: <mailman.2.1502561476.641807.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

I've read on Twitter that Brian Hayes was in Santa Fe this week and visited the SFI. I suggested him to contact Owen if he is interested in taking part in a FRIAM meeting. Do you still meet on friday morning to discuss complex systems in one of the cozy and trendy Santa Fe cafes? Anyway, here is a link to his blog and his twitter profile, since he is always a source of inspiration:http://bit-player.orghttp://www.twitter.com/bit_player
-J.
Sent from my smartphone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/d09f10e1/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sat Aug 12 14:55:01 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 12:55:01 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85e62dea-527c-a24a-a174-618c507abb8f@swcp.com>



On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ?glen? wrote:
> This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.
>
> Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?
Hmmm... I THINK what you are describing is a LATENT expression of a 
mutation?  The fact that the mutation in each genome was "neutral" until 
it mixed or encountered the other, doesn't deny the mutation(s) nor does 
it negate the idea that it's expression and (recursive propogation 
through natural selection) preserved the innovation implied by the 
convolved pair of mutations?

I think a similar, higher frequency example might include a single 
mutation which when mixed with some genomes is "neutral" or benign but 
when mixed with a particularly different one has selective (positive or 
negative) value?   There may be something in there in the whole 
Malaria/SickleCell duality for example?   Or maybe I'm mixing apples and 
pears.

- Steve
>
>
> On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?
>



From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sat Aug 12 15:10:02 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:10:02 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>

your point about "point mutations" and non-connected spaces (not 
connected by point mutations anyway) is well taken and is what I think 
your last message that I was calling "latent" (expression) is about.

 From my daughter's sage anecdotal claims about Cancer,  it seems that 
something like 7 independent cellular reproduction mechanisms have to 
fail or be jiggered for cancer to emerge in healthy cells.   I don't 
know if that literally means 7 independent mutations must occur 
simultaneously or if more likely 7 have to "accumulate", which seems 
more likely, and follows (I think) your example.   In the light of this 
discussion, I should probably ask her for a more thorough description of 
what she meant by all of that.

In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple 
simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see 
humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures, 
or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in 
several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying 
unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial 
behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what 
seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?

i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with 
Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally 
connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second 
and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented 
mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald 
Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the 
socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost 
surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash 
fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this 
metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight 
back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as 
these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending 
your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off 
this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic, 
spiritual) otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune 
system any more than it already has.

buh,

  - Steve


On 8/12/17 10:14 AM, ?glen? wrote:
> Exactly.  And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected.  So, (point) mutation alone may *never* reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals, infinite generations, or infinite space and time.
>
> On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> "Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
>>
>> A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
>>
>> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
>> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
>> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
>> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
>>
>> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)



From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug 12 15:26:07 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 19:26:07 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>,
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703C4A8D4381D3E0A9587EAC58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Steve writes:


"The question in this
metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight
back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as
these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending
your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off
this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic,
spiritual) otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune
system any more than it already has."


I noticed a liberal neighbor of mine that used to drive an inconspicuous car now has a new Range Rover.   I wonder if it was retail therapy, or maybe I was just projecting?  Does that count as "tending your own garden"?   While the storm passes she'll have a nice ride.  Or maybe it won't pass and she just wants to be sure she can get around after public services collapse?



Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 1:10:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

your point about "point mutations" and non-connected spaces (not
connected by point mutations anyway) is well taken and is what I think
your last message that I was calling "latent" (expression) is about.

 From my daughter's sage anecdotal claims about Cancer,  it seems that
something like 7 independent cellular reproduction mechanisms have to
fail or be jiggered for cancer to emerge in healthy cells.   I don't
know if that literally means 7 independent mutations must occur
simultaneously or if more likely 7 have to "accumulate", which seems
more likely, and follows (I think) your example.   In the light of this
discussion, I should probably ask her for a more thorough description of
what she meant by all of that.

In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple
simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see
humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures,
or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in
several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying
unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial
behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what
seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?

i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with
Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally
connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second
and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented
mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald
Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the
socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost
surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash
fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this
metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight
back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as
these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending
your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off
this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic,
spiritual) otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune
system any more than it already has.

buh,

  - Steve


On 8/12/17 10:14 AM, ?glen? wrote:
> Exactly.  And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected.  So, (point) mutation alone may *never* reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals, infinite generations, or infinite space and time.
>
> On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> "Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
>>
>> A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
>>
>> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
>> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
>> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
>> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
>>
>> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/c8f28d37/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Sat Aug 12 16:01:23 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 16:01:23 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <d4436f66-8d47-3b64-a69a-efdfea8f3c8f@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <d4436f66-8d47-3b64-a69a-efdfea8f3c8f@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017901d313a5$c63fd500$52bf7f00$@earthlink.net>

Mendel discovered  cross-overs. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 1:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>; ?glen? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Glen,

Actually, I think you are probably right about crossovers! I can see how innovation can be attributed to them too. Thanks for pointing that out, Glen. (Had crossovers been discovered in '72 when Monod wrote his book?)

But that is because crossovers, too, like mutations, are stochastic. Chance strikes again! That really is my larger point.

Moreover, crossover and mutation events do not seem to be causally related. I suspect that one is not caused by the other. Their relationship is also non-deterministic. In fact, one could probably use the functional named conditional entropy (from information theory) to calculate the degree of uncertainty around their chance relationship. (Or the functional mutual information to measure their degree of determinism.) YES, chance and determinism come in degrees. That's what stochastic entropy is all about. It measures that degree. It measures where on a scale of chance-vs-determinism a particular situation (probability space) resides.

Cheers, and thx for the insight.

G.

 

On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ?glen? wrote:

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.
 
Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?
 
 
On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?

 
 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/d6af0ba0/attachment.html>

From carrera.fabio at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 19:10:39 2017
From: carrera.fabio at gmail.com (Fabio Carrera)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 17:10:39 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Looking for a home
Message-ID: <CAHUiV1OWwX6aHN8A5Ww2fCcqZxmZD-xqdO1EtLWeWJiVPQR0SQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all:

Fabio here. I am in Santa Fe right now, but only until Tuesday.
One of the reasons I am here is to find a home for my winter stay.

I plan to be in Santa Fe from January 15, 2018 until April 15 (3 months).
 Do you know someone who may have a house for rent?
If not, can you spread the word and let me know?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers! and THANKS!


Fabio

Fabio Carrera <carrera.fabio at gmail.com>, Ph.D.
Cell.:  +1 508-615-5333 (USA) | +39 335 581-5292 (Italia)
Skype: carrerawpi | Twitter <http://twitter.com/fabiocarrera> | Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=29105207> | Blog
<http://venice2point0.blogspot.com/> | My Homepage
<http://fabiocarrera.com/>
Dashboard <http://dashboard.veniceprojectcenter.org> | Venice Project Center
<http://veniceprojectcenter.org> | Venipedia <http://www.venipedia.org> |
VPC <https://sites.google.com/site/vpcprep/> | SFPC
<https://sites.google.com/site/santafeprojectcenter/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170812/b45258b4/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 12:28:57 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?4pSjZ2xlbuKUqw==?=)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 09:28:57 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>

I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.  I don't usually agree with Nick's distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought construct that is anything like a gene.

To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it (blaming all sides).  To be clear, anyone who continues defending their vote for Trump at this point should be held accountable for their idiotic choice.  But the Trump defender will say something like "Trump's not a racist or a nazi, even if some of his followers are."  And, "yes I support Trump.  But I'm not a nazi."  Pffft.  It flat out does not matter.  There is no analog for mutation or crossover that we can use to map Trump to his nazis.  The gooey milieu that flows from someone like Trump, whose life of privilege has severely decoupled him from reality, to the nazis, whose fear and hatred has severely decoupled them from reality, ... that gooey ball of ill-formed ideology can't be coupled to reality.  That's the problem with metaphor, ideology, and fantasy.  To make reductive attempts to model such fantasy with analogies to real things (like genes) is to conflate fantasy with reality.

To be as clear as I can, ideas can only track back to mechanisms when they sync up with reality.  That's why (observational) science is so successful.  There are (basically) 2 ways ideas can interact with reality: 1) methodologically and 2) neural correlates.  If a ball of ideas includes (in its not biological evolution) a method for regularly testing itself against reality, then it's possible to analogize between that ball of ideas and reality.  Neither Trump, nor his nazis include that.  So, the only remaining map we can draw from the ideas to reality is any neural correlates we can find.  And until we have those, mapping the ideas to genes dooms us to faulty (at best) or delusional (at worst) inferences.

Now, everyone I know who uses the words "meme" and "memetics" is relatively scientifically literate.  So, memetics *seems* plausible because it's only used by relatively clear thinkers about relatively reality-touching balls of ideas.  But I would bet money that memetics will fail miserably if we try to use it to explain or model fantasy-dominated people like Trump and his supporters.



On 08/12/2017 12:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures, or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?
> 
> i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic, spiritual)
> otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune system any more than it already has.

-- 
?glen?

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sun Aug 13 12:56:16 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 10:56:16 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>

Glen -

> I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.
I do agree that it has been overused and overpopularized.
>    I don't usually agree with Nick's distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought construct that is anything like a gene.
Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent* 
encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units, including 
what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across this 
space?

Or have I already (re)transgressed?

- Steve


From gepropella at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 14:17:53 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2VwciDim6c=?=)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 11:17:53 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>

Well like I said in response to Frank's suggestion about self psychology, I tend towards a Szaszian perspective on talk therapy and psychology. But even that constellation of ideas, I think, has more structural truth to it than memetics.

Of course my ignorance may be getting in my way here. So I'm relatively open to being educated on any of these subjects. But there is a pretty high skeptical hurdle that I have to leap over in order for any such education to take root.


On August 13, 2017 9:56:16 AM PDT, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote: 
>Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent* 
>encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units,
>including 
>what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across
>this 
>space?
>
>Or have I already (re)transgressed?

-- 
?glen?


From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 14:22:21 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:22:21 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfrnndDLO-_JncLmKb6O+PJFh06ReBE7c3Fu_3ozZ53Ltg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfrnndDLO-_JncLmKb6O+PJFh06ReBE7c3Fu_3ozZ53Ltg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfowX49gHXEh_BP-zax0+Z+xjYNwOcT8_za7eLHZ2O-MSw@mail.gmail.com>

You are a typical intellectualizing scientist, which isn't a bad thing to
be.

Frank

p.s.  Intellectualization is a defense which is not as debilitating as some
others.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 13, 2017 12:18 PM, "gepr ?" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

Well like I said in response to Frank's suggestion about self psychology, I
tend towards a Szaszian perspective on talk therapy and psychology. But
even that constellation of ideas, I think, has more structural truth to it
than memetics.

Of course my ignorance may be getting in my way here. So I'm relatively
open to being educated on any of these subjects. But there is a pretty high
skeptical hurdle that I have to leap over in order for any such education
to take root.


On August 13, 2017 9:56:16 AM PDT, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent*
>encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units,
>including
>what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across
>this
>space?
>
>Or have I already (re)transgressed?

--
?glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170813/eaa7d520/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 14:50:46 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2VwciDim6c=?=)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 11:50:46 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfowX49gHXEh_BP-zax0+Z+xjYNwOcT8_za7eLHZ2O-MSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfrnndDLO-_JncLmKb6O+PJFh06ReBE7c3Fu_3ozZ53Ltg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfowX49gHXEh_BP-zax0+Z+xjYNwOcT8_za7eLHZ2O-MSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49288C4A-A0A4-4157-BAC2-A449EC40CD14@gmail.com>

Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or my mom's, for example. 

On August 13, 2017 11:22:21 AM PDT, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>You are a typical intellectualizing scientist, which isn't a bad thing
>to
>be.
>
>Frank
>
>p.s.  Intellectualization is a defense which is not as debilitating as
>some
>others.
-- 
?glen?


From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sun Aug 13 14:59:56 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:59:56 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>

Glen -

I'm definitely not the one to educate you (or anyone) on this. Following 
your allusion to Szaszian anti-psychology, what I'm seeking is common 
ground on whether there is even a valid question which the ideas of 
cultural evolution and more pointedly, memetics purports to answer (or 
"structure usefully" perhaps in your terms?).

I'm intuitive at my root, so if a set of heuristics, metaphors, 
rules-of-thumb, semi-formal analogies, notional models, seem to be 
failing in some significant way, I am happy to back off to a more 
fundamental level and seek fresh experiential bedrock to rebuild my 
house of cards upon.

May I ask how you DO structure your thinking around the *apparent* (or 
is this an illusion) structured "progress" of human 
knowledge/behaviour/culture/society/civilization???     Naturally many 
see our current state on the brink of (apparently) climate disaster, 
collapse of capitalism, fizzling out of representative democracy, 
possibility of a (regional?) nuclear exchange, etc.  as evidence that 
"we have not evolved!", but I would claim that is a gross 
misapprehension of the term "evolved".   I'd say we HAVE evolved to the 
state we are in (collectively).

For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to drop the attempt of the term 
"meme" to be a strong analogy to a "gene", but I'm guessing that is not 
enough to help you with the specifics of your skepticism?   I'm poking 
AT the perimeters of your skepticism NOT to pry it off of you, but 
rather to understand if there is something specifically useful (to me) 
in that crust for my own skepticism (or even my pollyanna).

- Sieve


On 8/13/17 12:17 PM, gepr ? wrote:
> Well like I said in response to Frank's suggestion about self psychology, I tend towards a Szaszian perspective on talk therapy and psychology. But even that constellation of ideas, I think, has more structural truth to it than memetics.
>
> Of course my ignorance may be getting in my way here. So I'm relatively open to being educated on any of these subjects. But there is a pretty high skeptical hurdle that I have to leap over in order for any such education to take root.
>
>
> On August 13, 2017 9:56:16 AM PDT, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>> Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent*
>> encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units,
>> including
>> what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across
>> this
>> space?
>>
>> Or have I already (re)transgressed?



From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sun Aug 13 15:12:47 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 13:12:47 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <49288C4A-A0A4-4157-BAC2-A449EC40CD14@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfrnndDLO-_JncLmKb6O+PJFh06ReBE7c3Fu_3ozZ53Ltg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfowX49gHXEh_BP-zax0+Z+xjYNwOcT8_za7eLHZ2O-MSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <49288C4A-A0A4-4157-BAC2-A449EC40CD14@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7be66437-6dee-5a4d-ca97-5ddedebb075b@swcp.com>



Glen -
> Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or my mom's, for example.
What I'm trying to tickle apart here is what we do with the very idea 
that you might have a psuedo-Szaszian perspective on psychology or that 
you "are a Skeptic".

forget "meme", let's try "pattern" on in *at least* a semi-formal sense 
like the Alexandrian idea of Pattern Languages?  And what of 
"Alexandrian Patterns" ?    Whether that is a "meme" or a "pattern" or 
just a "rose by any other name" is what I'm looking to get an 
alternative grasp of...

If we admit patterns that can be copied, modified by intention or by 
ignorance or by chance, and can even be mixed with other patterns, then 
we have at least a partial registration in the target domain of 
biological evolution/genetics.

I'm trying not to argue this from a perspective of persuading you, but 
rather on "helping" you deconstruct the general idea that biological 
evolution (based in Genetics) is in any way a model for social/cultural 
evolution.  Or to deconstruct the more specifics of "memetics" and 
replace it with something more prosaic but useful perhaps?

Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong three, maybe you are trying to tell me 
(as I think Szasz tries to tell us about mental illness) that there is 
no there there?

neither here, nor there,
  - Steve
>
> On August 13, 2017 11:22:21 AM PDT, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are a typical intellectualizing scientist, which isn't a bad thing
>> to
>> be.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> p.s.  Intellectualization is a defense which is not as debilitating as
>> some
>> others.



From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sun Aug 13 17:12:05 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 21:12:05 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>,
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it (blaming all sides)."


This side<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/heather-heyer-charlottesville-victim.html> must have been terribly menacing to a man in a > 300 HP car.  Not only do words have meaning, but even perceptions.  The memes are unbound or at least differently bound.

So any fitness function that involves them cannot be compared.


Marcus


________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of ?glen? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 10:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.  I don't usually agree with Nick's distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought construct that is anything like a gene.

To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it (blaming all sides).  To be clear, anyone who continues defending their vote for Trump at this point should be held accountable for their idiotic choice.  But the Trump defender will say something like "Trump's not a racist or a nazi, even if some of his followers are."  And, "yes I support Trump.  But I'm not a nazi."  Pffft.  It flat out does not matter.  There is no analog for mutation or crossover that we can use to map Trump to his nazis.  The gooey milieu that flows from someone like Trump, whose life of privilege has severely decoupled him from reality, to the nazis, whose fear and hatred has severely decoupled them from reality, ... that gooey ball of ill-formed ideology can't be coupled to reality.  That's the problem with metaphor, ideology, and fantasy.  To make reductive attempts to model such fantasy with analogies to real things (like genes) is to conflate fantasy with reality.

To be as clear as I can, ideas can only track back to mechanisms when they sync up with reality.  That's why (observational) science is so successful.  There are (basically) 2 ways ideas can interact with reality: 1) methodologically and 2) neural correlates.  If a ball of ideas includes (in its not biological evolution) a method for regularly testing itself against reality, then it's possible to analogize between that ball of ideas and reality.  Neither Trump, nor his nazis include that.  So, the only remaining map we can draw from the ideas to reality is any neural correlates we can find.  And until we have those, mapping the ideas to genes dooms us to faulty (at best) or delusional (at worst) inferences.

Now, everyone I know who uses the words "meme" and "memetics" is relatively scientifically literate.  So, memetics *seems* plausible because it's only used by relatively clear thinkers about relatively reality-touching balls of ideas.  But I would bet money that memetics will fail miserably if we try to use it to explain or model fantasy-dominated people like Trump and his supporters.



On 08/12/2017 12:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures, or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?
>
> i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic, spiritual)
> otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune system any more than it already has.

--
?glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170813/b6e86f31/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 18:34:03 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?4pSjZ2xlbuKUqw==?=)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 15:34:03 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>

I'm not a scholar, but I don't really think Szasz was anti-psychology, per se.  He was a long-time member of the psychicatric association and all that jazz.  But he pulled no punches when policing his community ... something we all should do more of ... moderate muslims bear the responsibility for allowing radicals to steal their religion just as much as intelligent Trump voters bear responsibility for the MAGA-morons ... just as I bear responsibility for what the Clinton team did to Sanders.  So, when I say Szaszian, this is what I mean.  I could tell more stories about my brushes with talk therapy.  But I'd rather try to stay on topic: the structure and mechanisms by which ideas evolve (evolve as in "change over time", not genes and selection).

I've said before on this list that I think the only reason we can communicate is because we share a common body structure (eyes, fingers, pancreas, etc.).  The only reason I can communicate with my cat is because they also have hunger hormones and pain-mediating nerves.  Etc.  This implies (and I can directly assert) that ideas only evolve if/when bodies evolve.  E.g. I think one of the reasons Hawking comes up with such fantastic alternative hypotheses for physical phenomena is *because* he once had a well functioning body and has seen those functions evolve and disappear.  Another e.g. is that I can empathize with the scaredy-cat nazis because I, too, have a functioning fight or flight response.  I was severely homophobic as a kid and up into college.  And I've been conscious of how that irrational emotion has subsided over time.  But I'd always had and tried to respect my gay friends throughout.  I admitted that, and they treated me appropriately because, I was the one with the "illness", not them.

So, if thoughts supervene on the body, then what changed in my body so that my homophobia subsided?  Well, my hypothesis is mostly reinforcement and signals like oxytocin.  The less I had bad feelings associated with the other homophobes in Texas (including my dad) and the more I studied, competed against, and partied with my gay friends, the more good feelings I began to associate with homosexuals.  It took a really long time, which is one of my reasons for rejecting memetics.  If ideas were real, then they could change instantaneously.  But they're not.  What's real are hormones and neurons.

Does that help?


On 08/13/2017 11:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I'm definitely not the one to educate you (or anyone) on this. Following your allusion to Szaszian anti-psychology, what I'm seeking is common ground on whether there is even a valid question which the ideas of cultural evolution and more pointedly, memetics purports to answer (or "structure usefully" perhaps in your terms?).
> 
> I'm intuitive at my root, so if a set of heuristics, metaphors, rules-of-thumb, semi-formal analogies, notional models, seem to be failing in some significant way, I am happy to back off to a more fundamental level and seek fresh experiential bedrock to rebuild my house of cards upon.
> 
> May I ask how you DO structure your thinking around the *apparent* (or is this an illusion) structured "progress" of human knowledge/behaviour/culture/society/civilization???     Naturally many see our current state on the brink of (apparently) climate disaster, collapse of capitalism, fizzling out of representative democracy, possibility of a (regional?) nuclear exchange, etc.  as evidence that "we have not evolved!", but I would claim that is a gross misapprehension of the term "evolved".   I'd say we HAVE evolved to the state we are in (collectively).
> 
> For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to drop the attempt of the term "meme" to be a strong analogy to a "gene", but I'm guessing that is not enough to help you with the specifics of your skepticism?   I'm poking AT the perimeters of your skepticism NOT to pry it off of you, but rather to understand if there is something specifically useful (to me) in that crust for my own skepticism (or even my pollyanna).


On 08/13/2017 12:12 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:> 
> 
> Glen -
>> Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or my mom's, for example.
> What I'm trying to tickle apart here is what we do with the very idea that you might have a psuedo-Szaszian perspective on psychology or that you "are a Skeptic".
> 
> forget "meme", let's try "pattern" on in *at least* a semi-formal sense like the Alexandrian idea of Pattern Languages?  And what of "Alexandrian Patterns" ?    Whether that is a "meme" or a "pattern" or just a "rose by any other name" is what I'm looking to get an alternative grasp of...
> 
> If we admit patterns that can be copied, modified by intention or by ignorance or by chance, and can even be mixed with other patterns, then we have at least a partial registration in the target domain of biological evolution/genetics.
> 
> I'm trying not to argue this from a perspective of persuading you, but rather on "helping" you deconstruct the general idea that biological evolution (based in Genetics) is in any way a model for social/cultural evolution.  Or to deconstruct the more specifics of "memetics" and replace it with something more prosaic but useful perhaps?
> 
> Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong three, maybe you are trying to tell me (as I think Szasz tries to tell us about mental illness) that there is no there there?

-- 
?glen?

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sun Aug 13 19:39:47 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 23:39:47 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>,
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Glen writes:


"It took a really long time, which is one of my reasons for rejecting memetics.  If ideas were real, then they could change instantaneously."


Every day I form hypotheses about how I think this or that experiment or code modification will go, and often I have to confront contrary evidence.   I would say I have a pretty fast turnover of ideas.

If I work with other people on these things, they will agree that some issues are settled, and other issues remain ambiguous.  The language evolves with shared experience, and in such a way that feelings become less and less part of it.  I don't think it has anything to do with when lunchtime is.   Other people it is all about lunchtime, oxytocin and stuff like that.


How are social issues any different?


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of ?glen? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 4:34:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme

I'm not a scholar, but I don't really think Szasz was anti-psychology, per se.  He was a long-time member of the psychicatric association and all that jazz.  But he pulled no punches when policing his community ... something we all should do more of ... moderate muslims bear the responsibility for allowing radicals to steal their religion just as much as intelligent Trump voters bear responsibility for the MAGA-morons ... just as I bear responsibility for what the Clinton team did to Sanders.  So, when I say Szaszian, this is what I mean.  I could tell more stories about my brushes with talk therapy.  But I'd rather try to stay on topic: the structure and mechanisms by which ideas evolve (evolve as in "change over time", not genes and selection).

I've said before on this list that I think the only reason we can communicate is because we share a common body structure (eyes, fingers, pancreas, etc.).  The only reason I can communicate with my cat is because they also have hunger hormones and pain-mediating nerves.  Etc.  This implies (and I can directly assert) that ideas only evolve if/when bodies evolve.  E.g. I think one of the reasons Hawking comes up with such fantastic alternative hypotheses for physical phenomena is *because* he once had a well functioning body and has seen those functions evolve and disappear.  Another e.g. is that I can empathize with the scaredy-cat nazis because I, too, have a functioning fight or flight response.  I was severely homophobic as a kid and up into college.  And I've been conscious of how that irrational emotion has subsided over time.  But I'd always had and tried to respect my gay friends throughout.  I admitted that, and they treated me appropriately because, I was the one with the "illness", not them.

So, if thoughts supervene on the body, then what changed in my body so that my homophobia subsided?  Well, my hypothesis is mostly reinforcement and signals like oxytocin.  The less I had bad feelings associated with the other homophobes in Texas (including my dad) and the more I studied, competed against, and partied with my gay friends, the more good feelings I began to associate with homosexuals.  It took a really long time, which is one of my reasons for rejecting memetics.  If ideas were real, then they could change instantaneously.  But they're not.  What's real are hormones and neurons.

Does that help?


On 08/13/2017 11:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I'm definitely not the one to educate you (or anyone) on this. Following your allusion to Szaszian anti-psychology, what I'm seeking is common ground on whether there is even a valid question which the ideas of cultural evolution and more pointedly, memetics purports to answer (or "structure usefully" perhaps in your terms?).
>
> I'm intuitive at my root, so if a set of heuristics, metaphors, rules-of-thumb, semi-formal analogies, notional models, seem to be failing in some significant way, I am happy to back off to a more fundamental level and seek fresh experiential bedrock to rebuild my house of cards upon.
>
> May I ask how you DO structure your thinking around the *apparent* (or is this an illusion) structured "progress" of human knowledge/behaviour/culture/society/civilization???     Naturally many see our current state on the brink of (apparently) climate disaster, collapse of capitalism, fizzling out of representative democracy, possibility of a (regional?) nuclear exchange, etc.  as evidence that "we have not evolved!", but I would claim that is a gross misapprehension of the term "evolved".   I'd say we HAVE evolved to the state we are in (collectively).
>
> For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to drop the attempt of the term "meme" to be a strong analogy to a "gene", but I'm guessing that is not enough to help you with the specifics of your skepticism?   I'm poking AT the perimeters of your skepticism NOT to pry it off of you, but rather to understand if there is something specifically useful (to me) in that crust for my own skepticism (or even my pollyanna).


On 08/13/2017 12:12 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:>
>
> Glen -
>> Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or my mom's, for example.
> What I'm trying to tickle apart here is what we do with the very idea that you might have a psuedo-Szaszian perspective on psychology or that you "are a Skeptic".
>
> forget "meme", let's try "pattern" on in *at least* a semi-formal sense like the Alexandrian idea of Pattern Languages?  And what of "Alexandrian Patterns" ?    Whether that is a "meme" or a "pattern" or just a "rose by any other name" is what I'm looking to get an alternative grasp of...
>
> If we admit patterns that can be copied, modified by intention or by ignorance or by chance, and can even be mixed with other patterns, then we have at least a partial registration in the target domain of biological evolution/genetics.
>
> I'm trying not to argue this from a perspective of persuading you, but rather on "helping" you deconstruct the general idea that biological evolution (based in Genetics) is in any way a model for social/cultural evolution.  Or to deconstruct the more specifics of "memetics" and replace it with something more prosaic but useful perhaps?
>
> Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong three, maybe you are trying to tell me (as I think Szasz tries to tell us about mental illness) that there is no there there?

--
?glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170813/a684c59a/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 23:35:50 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2VwciDim6c=?=)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 20:35:50 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>,
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gmail.com>



On August 13, 2017 4:39:47 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>Every day I form hypotheses about how I think this or that experiment
>or code modification will go, and often I have to confront contrary
>evidence.   I would say I have a pretty fast turnover of ideas.

I doubt that. My guess is that your ideas that you think are turning over fast have a long and deep history within you and you resurrect them sporadically and try to apply them to some current context. 

>If I work with other people on these things, they will agree that some
>issues are settled, and other issues remain ambiguous.  The language
>evolves with shared experience, and in such a way that feelings become
>less and less part of it.  I don't think it has anything to do with
>when lunchtime is.   Other people it is all about lunchtime, oxytocin
>and stuff like that.
>
>
>How are social issues any different?

They aren't any different. But I think your sense of fast turnover and munging of ideas is illusory. Those ideas you flip through were already there in some form and your trying them out against the (social) context. People who spend their lives building these ideas have a large rolodex to flip through, some of which other rolodex flippers will agree are or are not applicable in this or that type of context.

Innovative ideas do emerge. But it's never fast. 


-- 
?glen?


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 14 02:02:21 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 06:02:21 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>,
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>


Glen writes:

"Innovative ideas do emerge. But it's never fast."


Well, the context you provided was struggling with a phobia, or some entrenched belief.


I don't really see why it is important if innovation is occurring or not.  What difference does it make if any one example is discovered on the spot, or synthesized from several tactics found in the rolodex?  Contrast to a person that is not growing such a rolodex over years or decades and is overwhelmed when they confront a different kind of situation.


I posit that the (supposed) anomie, the opioid abuse, organized racism, Trump, etc. are all just indicators of populations that have low mental plasticity due to living in a stable, unchallenged, low-opportunity environment.  The kind of environment that social conservatives create whenever given the opportunity -- like (sheesh) that it matters one iota the kind of sex one enjoys.   But their problem is not a spiritual or existential crisis.  Their desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they can't confront, that they just don't have much to offer.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of gepr ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 9:35:50 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme



On August 13, 2017 4:39:47 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>Every day I form hypotheses about how I think this or that experiment
>or code modification will go, and often I have to confront contrary
>evidence.   I would say I have a pretty fast turnover of ideas.

I doubt that. My guess is that your ideas that you think are turning over fast have a long and deep history within you and you resurrect them sporadically and try to apply them to some current context.

>If I work with other people on these things, they will agree that some
>issues are settled, and other issues remain ambiguous.  The language
>evolves with shared experience, and in such a way that feelings become
>less and less part of it.  I don't think it has anything to do with
>when lunchtime is.   Other people it is all about lunchtime, oxytocin
>and stuff like that.
>
>
>How are social issues any different?

They aren't any different. But I think your sense of fast turnover and munging of ideas is illusory. Those ideas you flip through were already there in some form and your trying them out against the (social) context. People who spend their lives building these ideas have a large rolodex to flip through, some of which other rolodex flippers will agree are or are not applicable in this or that type of context.

Innovative ideas do emerge. But it's never fast.


--
?glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Friam Info Page - Redfish<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
redfish.com
FRIAM Group is an emergent organization of Complexity researchers and software developers in Santa Fe, New Mexico interested in Applied Complexity, Artificial Life ...


FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7sGWLjbK7_I/WIkK7N6XteI/AAAAAAAAAQE/xVmyW4c_XVAuezfd9_8Vcqao5LUXeTG7ACK4B/s82/StrangeTrump.jpg]<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>

FRIAM: The Comic Edition<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
friam-comic.blogspot.com
We decided that lampooning FriAM was about as much fun as shooting fish in a barrel, and about as disrespectful (of the fish and the barrel)!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170814/ad537b6f/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 14 02:38:07 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 06:38:07 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>,
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703DED3F4A8CE80DF5053A0C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"People who spend their lives building these ideas have a large rolodex to flip through, some of which other rolodex flippers will agree are or are not applicable in this or that type of context."


Funny you use the example of cards in a rolodex:  It makes me think of memes!


I suspect neural correlates rapidly calibrate to networks with similar behavior & topology across individuals sharing a _grounded_ task, whether it is hunting a Buffalo or writing a song.  But crazy ain't grounded, so distributing names for those networks to non-crazy people doesn't survive a fitness test.   Crazy terms can only be up-voted in a crazy community.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of gepr ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 9:35:50 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme



On August 13, 2017 4:39:47 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>Every day I form hypotheses about how I think this or that experiment
>or code modification will go, and often I have to confront contrary
>evidence.   I would say I have a pretty fast turnover of ideas.

I doubt that. My guess is that your ideas that you think are turning over fast have a long and deep history within you and you resurrect them sporadically and try to apply them to some current context.

>If I work with other people on these things, they will agree that some
>issues are settled, and other issues remain ambiguous.  The language
>evolves with shared experience, and in such a way that feelings become
>less and less part of it.  I don't think it has anything to do with
>when lunchtime is.   Other people it is all about lunchtime, oxytocin
>and stuff like that.
>
>
>How are social issues any different?

They aren't any different. But I think your sense of fast turnover and munging of ideas is illusory. Those ideas you flip through were already there in some form and your trying them out against the (social) context. People who spend their lives building these ideas have a large rolodex to flip through, some of which other rolodex flippers will agree are or are not applicable in this or that type of context.

Innovative ideas do emerge. But it's never fast.


--
?glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170814/f15a83d1/attachment-0001.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Mon Aug 14 11:18:36 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2VwciDim6c=?=)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:18:36 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703DED3F4A8CE80DF5053A0C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703DED3F4A8CE80DF5053A0C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <4dc5bcae-640a-c7b6-9b75-f2550cf581ec@gmail.com>



On August 13, 2017 11:38:07 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>I suspect neural correlates rapidly calibrate to networks with similar
>behavior & topology across individuals sharing a _grounded_ task,
>whether it is hunting a Buffalo or writing a song.  But crazy ain't
>grounded, so distributing names for those networks to non-crazy people
>doesn't survive a fitness test.   Crazy terms can only be up-voted in a
>crazy community.

I agree that the payload/content is obviously unhinged when viewed by a community with methods for regular grounding.  But the crazy of Trumpians and the crazy of nazis do have a common ground: fear and doom.  Such expression of doom, of the world going to hell, evokes that urgic fear in those around us that also have it, even if for other reasons (e.g. nuclear war or Satan's beast).

That's what's syncing up, the underlying physiological and neurological patterns.


On August 13, 2017 11:02:21 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>Well, the context you provided was struggling with a phobia, or some
>entrenched belief.

Yes. And I claim all thought is like that ... ie tightly coupled with the body, regardless of the scope or speed of the signaling mechanism.  Obviously, fast signals (juxtacrine, synaptic and axonal) will play a different role from slow signals (hormonal).  But both are at play in the construction and evolution of thoughts/ideas.


>I don't really see why it is important if innovation is occurring or
>not.  What difference does it make if any one example is discovered on
>the spot, or synthesized from several tactics found in the rolodex? 
>Contrast to a person that is not growing such a rolodex over years or
>decades and is overwhelmed when they confront a different kind of
>situation.

We are all growing new structures constantly in response to the patterns impinging on us. Including novelty is important to my alternative to memetics, where one might be tempted to suggest (extrapolated from Monod-via-Grant or Wagner-via-Jenny) that new ideas come from point mutations on memes, which would be ridiculous.  Any one person's rolodex of previously kneaded ideas will have a bias that reflects their subculture.

The difference is that one model fits better than the other (memes), which is the topic of the larger conversation ... namely the weakness of the analogies between models of evolution to referents like thought or biology. 

>I posit that the (supposed) anomie, the opioid abuse, organized racism,
>Trump, etc. are all just indicators of populations that have low mental
>plasticity due to living in a stable, unchallenged, low-opportunity
>environment.

I agree completely. But it's important to see how memes provide a weak explanation of this, but reinforcement learning explains it pretty well.


> But their problem is not a spiritual or existential crisis. Their
> desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they can't
> confront, that they just don't have much to offer.

I disagree with the last part. They feel they have a lot to offer if the elites would only listen. This lack of listening they feel is because they don't experience the neural-construct-evoking engagement they get when they hook up with others who have those same structures.  Somehow, Al Gore's expressions of fear just don't evoke their fear and vice versa. But Trump's expressions of fear do "resonate" with them, for whatever reason.



From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 14 11:41:13 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:41:13 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <4dc5bcae-640a-c7b6-9b75-f2550cf581ec@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703DED3F4A8CE80DF5053A0C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <4dc5bcae-640a-c7b6-9b75-f2550cf581ec@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB170331F2FE94C63305E91FBBC58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"We are all growing new structures constantly in response to the patterns impinging on us. Including novelty is important to my alternative to memetics, where one might be tempted to suggest (extrapolated from Monod-via-Grant or Wagner-via-Jenny) that new ideas come from point mutations on memes, which would be ridiculous.  Any one person's rolodex of previously kneaded ideas will have a bias that reflects their subculture."


If memory has a holographic property -- that there are many correlated memories with each memory -- then one could imagine that operators against this compressed representation could change dramatically just with a point mutation.   A smell that triggers memory of a childhood event, a conflict with a lover, etc.   The experience of seeing many things in a new light when a crucial fact arrives,  etc.   Now assuming this is not controversial, it is still not clear to what extent if this can be anything more than subjective.   But, at least in principle there could be concepts shared by many parties that would display these characteristics, and would similarly evolve in important ways just from point mutations.    The concepts or language connected to the concepts could impose many constraints on how frequently certain point mutations would get visited, e.g. the language could just prohibit them as nonsense.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of gepr ? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 9:18:36 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme



On August 13, 2017 11:38:07 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>I suspect neural correlates rapidly calibrate to networks with similar
>behavior & topology across individuals sharing a _grounded_ task,
>whether it is hunting a Buffalo or writing a song.  But crazy ain't
>grounded, so distributing names for those networks to non-crazy people
>doesn't survive a fitness test.   Crazy terms can only be up-voted in a
>crazy community.

I agree that the payload/content is obviously unhinged when viewed by a community with methods for regular grounding.  But the crazy of Trumpians and the crazy of nazis do have a common ground: fear and doom.  Such expression of doom, of the world going to hell, evokes that urgic fear in those around us that also have it, even if for other reasons (e.g. nuclear war or Satan's beast).

That's what's syncing up, the underlying physiological and neurological patterns.


On August 13, 2017 11:02:21 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>Well, the context you provided was struggling with a phobia, or some
>entrenched belief.

Yes. And I claim all thought is like that ... ie tightly coupled with the body, regardless of the scope or speed of the signaling mechanism.  Obviously, fast signals (juxtacrine, synaptic and axonal) will play a different role from slow signals (hormonal).  But both are at play in the construction and evolution of thoughts/ideas.


>I don't really see why it is important if innovation is occurring or
>not.  What difference does it make if any one example is discovered on
>the spot, or synthesized from several tactics found in the rolodex?
>Contrast to a person that is not growing such a rolodex over years or
>decades and is overwhelmed when they confront a different kind of
>situation.

We are all growing new structures constantly in response to the patterns impinging on us. Including novelty is important to my alternative to memetics, where one might be tempted to suggest (extrapolated from Monod-via-Grant or Wagner-via-Jenny) that new ideas come from point mutations on memes, which would be ridiculous.  Any one person's rolodex of previously kneaded ideas will have a bias that reflects their subculture.

The difference is that one model fits better than the other (memes), which is the topic of the larger conversation ... namely the weakness of the analogies between models of evolution to referents like thought or biology.

>I posit that the (supposed) anomie, the opioid abuse, organized racism,
>Trump, etc. are all just indicators of populations that have low mental
>plasticity due to living in a stable, unchallenged, low-opportunity
>environment.

I agree completely. But it's important to see how memes provide a weak explanation of this, but reinforcement learning explains it pretty well.


> But their problem is not a spiritual or existential crisis. Their
> desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they can't
> confront, that they just don't have much to offer.

I disagree with the last part. They feel they have a lot to offer if the elites would only listen. This lack of listening they feel is because they don't experience the neural-construct-evoking engagement they get when they hook up with others who have those same structures.  Somehow, Al Gore's expressions of fear just don't evoke their fear and vice versa. But Trump's expressions of fear do "resonate" with them, for whatever reason.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170814/9414908d/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Mon Aug 14 12:25:19 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:25:19 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re:  the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <40a15e2e-aad5-aa61-3bfa-2220937929ac@gmail.com>
References: <40a15e2e-aad5-aa61-3bfa-2220937929ac@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ee278be-7aeb-e863-d278-60d193078541@gmail.com>

Oops.  Accidentally sent this direct.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:24:17 -0700
From: g??? <gepropella at gmail.com>
To: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with some abstraction of "point mutations" on some thing other than a "meme", like a modal pattern of network activation.  It's the analogy between ideas and genes, I object to.

Where a fast mode switch (or any sync'ed evocation) is more than subjective lies in a shared, grouped, mode switch.  Let's say 2 people each have networks with 2 attractors, with no objective mapping between the 2 people or the 4 attractors or the underlying biological structures.  But if their mode switching is synchronized (P1.MA & P2.MB = P1.MB & P2.MA -- i.e. when person 1 enters mode A, person 2 enters mode B, and when person 1 enters mode B, person 2 enters mode A), then that synchrony is objective.  When I say "nuclear war", Sally feels anxiety and when Sally says "malware in the power grid", I feel anxiety, then our our synchronous mode-switching is objective, regardless of the payload/content or the underlying feeling.

It could also be "nuclear war" => Sally.hatred, "malware in the power grid" => Glen.anxiety.  But this is where my requirement for both me and Sally to have common physiological structures (neocortex, fingers, knees, etc.).  Having R2/D2 say "malware in the power grid" is not likely to give me any hint what R2/D2 might be thinking because its "physiology" doesn't mirror my own.  This (objective) reflection is required for the illusion of communication to obtain.


On 08/14/2017 08:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> If memory has a holographic property -- that there are many correlated memories with each memory -- then one could imagine that operators against this compressed representation could change dramatically just with a point mutation.   A smell that triggers memory of a childhood event, a conflict with a lover, etc.   The experience of seeing many things in a new light when a crucial fact arrives,  etc.   Now assuming this is not controversial, it is still not clear to what extent if this can be anything more than subjective.   But, at least in principle there could be concepts shared by many parties that would display these characteristics, and would similarly evolve in important ways just from point mutations.    The concepts or language connected to the concepts could impose many constraints on how frequently certain point mutations would get visited, e.g. the language could just prohibit them as nonsense.

-- 
g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 14 12:40:51 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:40:51 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re:  the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <1ee278be-7aeb-e863-d278-60d193078541@gmail.com>
References: <40a15e2e-aad5-aa61-3bfa-2220937929ac@gmail.com>,
 <1ee278be-7aeb-e863-d278-60d193078541@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB17038F420BD78D1CB07B3CABC58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

< Having R2/D2 say "malware in the power grid" is not likely to give me any hint what R2/D2 might be thinking because its "physiology" doesn't mirror my own.  This (objective) reflection is required for the illusion of communication to obtain. >


I don't deny that communication could well have evolved through this correlated mode switching, but once it exists the difference between animals and, hopefully, modern humans is that we can inhibit or modulate these things.

Actually I think my dog can even modulate them.   The dog can learn rules and carry on without constantly looking at me to see if I am approving.    If someone like Hillary acts more like R2/D2, that's fine.   It is even good.   She (the person in such a role) doesn't need to make me glow or buy me a beer.   I can grasp she is self-interested and calculating.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of g??? <gepropella at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:25:19 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re: the Skeptical Meme

Oops.  Accidentally sent this direct.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:24:17 -0700
From: g??? <gepropella at gmail.com>
To: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with some abstraction of "point mutations" on some thing other than a "meme", like a modal pattern of network activation.  It's the analogy between ideas and genes, I object to.

Where a fast mode switch (or any sync'ed evocation) is more than subjective lies in a shared, grouped, mode switch.  Let's say 2 people each have networks with 2 attractors, with no objective mapping between the 2 people or the 4 attractors or the underlying biological structures.  But if their mode switching is synchronized (P1.MA & P2.MB = P1.MB & P2.MA -- i.e. when person 1 enters mode A, person 2 enters mode B, and when person 1 enters mode B, person 2 enters mode A), then that synchrony is objective.  When I say "nuclear war", Sally feels anxiety and when Sally says "malware in the power grid", I feel anxiety, then our our synchronous mode-switching is objective, regardless of the payload/content or the underlying feeling.

It could also be "nuclear war" => Sally.hatred, "malware in the power grid" => Glen.anxiety.  But this is where my requirement for both me and Sally to have common physiological structures (neocortex, fingers, knees, etc.).  Having R2/D2 say "malware in the power grid" is not likely to give me any hint what R2/D2 might be thinking because its "physiology" doesn't mirror my own.  This (objective) reflection is required for the illusion of communication to obtain.


On 08/14/2017 08:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> If memory has a holographic property -- that there are many correlated memories with each memory -- then one could imagine that operators against this compressed representation could change dramatically just with a point mutation.   A smell that triggers memory of a childhood event, a conflict with a lover, etc.   The experience of seeing many things in a new light when a crucial fact arrives,  etc.   Now assuming this is not controversial, it is still not clear to what extent if this can be anything more than subjective.   But, at least in principle there could be concepts shared by many parties that would display these characteristics, and would similarly evolve in important ways just from point mutations.    The concepts or language connected to the concepts could impose many constraints on how frequently certain point mutations would get visited, e.g. the language could just prohibit them as nonsense.

--
g???

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170814/8f9f644c/attachment.html>

From dale.schumacher at gmail.com  Tue Aug 15 15:16:51 2017
From: dale.schumacher at gmail.com (Dale Schumacher)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 14:16:51 -0500
Subject: [FRIAM] 
	=?utf-8?q?Classes=2C_Complexity=2C_and_Functional_Progra?=
	=?utf-8?q?mming_=E2=80=93_Kent_C=2E_Dodds_=E2=80=93_Medium?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYRnTDq-HyfOU6Vc3R+xoh+C_aywc_JF0oWzY72+UOPWyQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYRkCi-YGiQzC92Rfwjv4CBKTNkNCyrewatGoqyDxvZ9MTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703675E0980D97E15046848C5890@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAN_LYRkmqquHtg+i941ggVWqueW0GvSE=hNcvpu9F315g4hfTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703C8CED3260DF3564A12B0C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAN_LYRnTDq-HyfOU6Vc3R+xoh+C_aywc_JF0oWzY72+UOPWyQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPeSZfA8HvwYs5gao0TAdz56Gvv4LM_JCsAEF8+Zjo48zutg4w@mail.gmail.com>

A while ago, I wrote up a few examples of functional and reactive
(actor-based) techniques using JavaScript. Perhaps they will add something
to this discussion.

http://www.dalnefre.com/wp/2017/01/same-fringe-revisited/


On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> Great info, thanks.
>
> A few constraints:
> - I've finally gotten back to Write & Run JavaScript, no transpiling.
> - My workflow also is simplified: only npm scripts possibly using a node
> script.
> - I run a local hot-loading node http server so Write & Run is automatic.
> All managed by a npm script.
>
> Why? The JS world went nuts for several years with transpiling, babel (for
> es6/future JS features), task managers, linters etc. It was arguably
> necessary for the times. I used CoffeeScript for a while mainly for safety
> and pythonic syntax. But my peers said "Oh, great, *another* thing to
> learn"! And they didn't. :)
>
> Things are now hugely better, with editors that are very IDE-ish and
> eslint built in, and the language is finally getting functional features
> like map, reduce, and so on. The for loop? It's dead Jim. Yay.
>
> So there is a return to sanity and a healing from JS "fatigue". Simple JS,
> no task managers, and simple commands for minifying, linting, conversion to
> node modules, and so on. Write & Run w/ chores as scripts.
>
> Within that world, currently, is a very strong movement toward FP. Hence
> the article starting this conversation. And my hope for incrementally
> converting to FP.
>
>    -- Owen
>
> PS: My work is not very webby. Mainly a NetLogo lookalike for JS. No
> install, just start up a page. I render using webgl which oddly enough has
> a fairly nice language for the GPU, and Three.js eases much of the
> verbosity of the CPU side.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170815/04b6b487/attachment.html>

From desmith at santafe.edu  Wed Aug 16 08:56:23 2017
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Eric Smith)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:56:23 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gma il.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>


> Their desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they can't confront, that they just don't have much to offer.  
> 
> Marcus

Reading this, I feel like you could found a new generation of something that is like existentialist philosophy but equally-well political theory.

It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try to deal with it.  Maybe even, considering the currents running through European and particularly German society at the time he was writing (and that he specifically wrote about), driven by concerns based on similar observations.

It strikes me that this is an available point of view for almost any person.  Granted, the distribution of rewards and frustrations differs from person to person and also from region to region, and that matters.  But the black box (black hole?) of how minds form characters and orientations in response to streams of these things draws from an immense and to me-obscure range of inputs. 

Makes me wonder,

Eric



From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug 16 11:10:39 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:10:39 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gma il.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>,
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Eric writes:


< It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try to deal with it. >


Yeah, it is probably nothing new that is happening nor a new interpretation.   Institutions of various kinds can give individuals a role to play and guidelines for conduct, but a highly interconnected population with a complex economy will stress these institutions and reveal their limitations.   Meanwhile, only exceptional and delusional individuals can really make a convincing case (esp. to themselves) about their unique value either coupled-to or uncoupled-from from institutions.   However, I fear the stakes are pretty high now -- the contagion of people going bonkers could be fast with social media.   A healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the point they can begin to doubt the meaning in their own anxiety (whether by themselves, with their shrink or their spiritual authority) and make it to the next day.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:56:23 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme


> Their desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they can't confront, that they just don't have much to offer.
>
> Marcus

Reading this, I feel like you could found a new generation of something that is like existentialist philosophy but equally-well political theory.

It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try to deal with it.  Maybe even, considering the currents running through European and particularly German society at the time he was writing (and that he specifically wrote about), driven by concerns based on similar observations.

It strikes me that this is an available point of view for almost any person.  Granted, the distribution of rewards and frustrations differs from person to person and also from region to region, and that matters.  But the black box (black hole?) of how minds form characters and orientations in response to streams of these things draws from an immense and to me-obscure range of inputs.

Makes me wonder,

Eric


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170816/40faf86a/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 13:46:20 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:46:20 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gma il.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <7c03d9c6-b850-07f8-0c30-30e809d8551d@gmail.com>


Nietzsche's complaining/rejoicing re: the loss of the Christian rule set isn't all that relevant, I don't think.  Those Trumpians complaining about "political correctness" aren't complaining about the lack of a rule set, because there exists a new rule set.  E.g. don't chant "Jews will not replace us" and expect to get away with it.  Similarly, we can't really apply Nietzsche's observation that deontology is faulty to authoritarians anywhere.

No, the desperation and rage Marcus points to is about a perceived change to the rules, from one broken rule set to another (equally broken) rule set.  That's what makes it tricky for those of us who don't base our ethics on rules.  When a Trumpian points out flaws in the lefty's rule set, we consequentialists have to agree with them... yeah, their rule set is faulty.  They hear that part.  But then the Trumpian fails to hear the qualifier: "Because ALL rule sets are faulty! Damnit."


On 08/16/2017 08:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Yeah, it is probably nothing new that is happening nor a new interpretation.   Institutions of various kinds can give individuals a role to play and guidelines for conduct, but a highly interconnected population with a complex economy will stress these institutions and reveal their limitations.   Meanwhile, only exceptional and delusional individuals can really make a convincing case (esp. to themselves) about their unique value either coupled-to or uncoupled-from from institutions.   However, I fear the stakes are pretty high now -- the contagion of people going bonkers could be fast with social media.   A healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the point they can begin to doubt the meaning in their own anxiety (whether by themselves, with their shrink or their spiritual authority) and make it to the next day.    
>  
> Marcus
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:56:23 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
> 
> Reading this, I feel like you could found a new generation of something that is like existentialist philosophy but equally-well political theory.
> 
> It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try to deal with it.  Maybe even, considering the currents running through European and particularly German society at the time he was writing (and that he specifically wrote about), driven by concerns based on similar observations.
> 
> It strikes me that this is an available point of view for almost any person.  Granted, the distribution of rewards and frustrations differs from person to person and also from region to region, and that matters.  But the black box (black hole?) of how minds form characters and orientations in response to streams of these things draws from an immense and to me-obscure range of inputs.
> 
> Makes me wonder,
> 
> Eric


-- 
g???


From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug 16 15:50:50 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:50:50 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gma il.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>

Marcus/Eric -


Great observations, both.   I think this cuts to (part of) the heart of 
the matter.


I just recently watched "Glass Castle" (current run at Violet Crown) 
with Woody Harrelson playing the role of a fairly intelligent (his 
daughter, the memoirist characterizes him as brilliant) but highly 
dysfunctional father of 4 who himself has (mostly/almost) escaped the 
small Appalachian coal-mining town he was raised in by an acutely 
abusive mother and an apathetic/dysfunctional father and greater 
community.   The family lives a vagabond life with Harrelson's character 
(Rex) leading them on an alternatingly merry and curiosity-driven chase 
through skipping out on bill collectors and trying to find the "next big 
opportunity" and "escape the forces out to repress us!".    It is (IMO) 
a great story of a nearly effective attempt (by the parents) to 
escape/transcend their own dysfunctional roots and the mostly effective 
experience of the children escaping their own (passed down a generation) 
from that half-functional platform.


I also picked up (at a "tiny library" in a neighborhood) a copy JD 
Vance's "Hillbilly Legacy", a memoir written by a 31 year old Harvard 
educated lawyer, now living happily (and presumably functionally) in San 
Francisco with his wife and child(ren?), but still quite attached 
emotionally/romantically to his own roots in Appalachia (a small KY coal 
mining town) and the Rustbelt (Middletown OH, aka MiddleTucky) where all 
of his family and most of his childhood friends still live and vote for 
and continue to support Trump.


The common thread is the abject hopelessness that surrounded the people 
locked into those environments by circumstance, including lack of 
perspective to "just leave".   Vance credits his Grandparents who raised 
him most of his life for having had enough perspective to shield him 
from the worst of that and to encourage/help him "just leave".   His 
chronicle (I also listened to an NPR book interview when it came out 
maybe a year ago) includes feeling that he had "done everything in his 
power to waste his life up until about 18 years old" and looking at his 
cohort and family, might use the term "but for the grace of God, there 
go I".


My Pollyanna (a fairly significant player in my personal Pantheon of 
Personalities which helps me cope with the kinds of Cosmic Ennui and 
Existential Angst that comes with trying to be a thinking/caring person 
in these hyper-connected, seemingly chaotic times) has me looking for a 
"bright side" of all of this.


I particularly want to call out the following quote from Marcus:

    /A healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the point
    they can begin to doubt the meaning in their own anxiety (whether by
    themselves, with their shrink or their spiritual authority) and make
    it to the next day. /

and offer a rewording (my words are _underlined_) or expansion:

     "/whether with themselves, their shrink, their spiritual 
authority,/ _or their community of emergently self-enlightened people_"

     and

     "/and make it /_beyond_/the next day/ _and into a new era of 
contagious enlightened self-interest_"

I hope that if we can ever get through this acutely dark/inverted time 
that we can follow some of the example of Nelson Mandela in his 
perspective and leadership out of the centuries long oppression of his 
people that was most recently exhibited as Apartheid. Obviously that 
moment was only a partial antidote, as too many of the original problems 
linger or arise again.   But I *think* it was a better solution than to 
the similarly genocidal/punative response many of his people were 
calling for when the descendents of their Colonial Overlords finally fell.

I heard recently a quote from Barbara Boxer as she left the political 
stage after many decades:
     "No victory is final"

This underscores why we are dealing with the rise of 
white-supremacy/nazi/confederate/kkk, gender oppression,  and many other 
battles presumed to have been won.   This moment (in most places) is 
nothing like the conditions of the antebellum South, nor the era of 
Nazi/Fascist power in Europe, but there are clearly strong echoes.   
Such things *might* be suppressed temporarily by force, but ultimately 
those kinds of behaviours/activities dissipate through healing and 
enlightenment much more than regulation/punishment/suppression.

my $.02,
  - Steve

On 8/16/17 9:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Eric writes:
>
>
> < It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a 
> problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they 
> try to deal with it. >
>
>
> Yeah, it is probably nothing new that is happening nor a new 
> interpretation.  Institutions of various kinds can give individuals a 
> role to play and guidelines for conduct, but a highly interconnected 
> population with a complex economy will stress these institutions and 
> reveal their limitations.   Meanwhile, only exceptional and delusional 
> individuals can really make a convincing case (esp. to themselves) 
> about their unique value either coupled-to or uncoupled-from from 
> institutions. However, I fear the stakes are pretty high now -- the 
> contagion of people going bonkers could be fast with social media.   A 
> healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the point they 
> can begin to doubt the meaning in their own anxiety (whether by 
> themselves, with their shrink or their spiritual authority) and make 
> it to the next day.
>
>
> Marcus
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Eric Smith 
> <desmith at santafe.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:56:23 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
>
> > Their desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they can't 
> confront, that they just don't have much to offer.
> >
> > Marcus
>
> Reading this, I feel like you could found a new generation of 
> something that is like existentialist philosophy but equally-well 
> political theory.
>
> It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a 
> problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they 
> try to deal with it.  Maybe even, considering the currents running 
> through European and particularly German society at the time he was 
> writing (and that he specifically wrote about), driven by concerns 
> based on similar observations.
>
> It strikes me that this is an available point of view for almost any 
> person.  Granted, the distribution of rewards and frustrations differs 
> from person to person and also from region to region, and that 
> matters.  But the black box (black hole?) of how minds form characters 
> and orientations in response to streams of these things draws from an 
> immense and to me-obscure range of inputs.
>
> Makes me wonder,
>
> Eric
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170816/9c23a5af/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug 16 15:58:43 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:58:43 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <7c03d9c6-b850-07f8-0c30-30e809d8551d@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gma il.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <7c03d9c6-b850-07f8-0c30-30e809d8551d@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <046105bd-6c4b-e49e-af0a-31d4caef67cf@swcp.com>

Glen -

I am inclined to agree with you, but am left somewhat empty-handed with:

    "because ALL rule sets are faulty!  Damnit."

my instincts are with you on this, yet in some kind of Godelian (not 
Gordian) knot I find myself:

    A) questioning the "rule" you just stated.

         and

    B) finding myself conjuring (fuzzy?) rules to replace the crisp ones
    I resent/resist!

Are Heuristics or Patterns also rules?   Can we suppress any desire/need 
to have formal rules and not just discover (or never notice) that we 
have an implicit rule set embedded in our intuition from our genetic and 
cultural origins, informed at best by personal experiences?

I'd like to imagine that we *can* transcend all rules 
(explicit/implicit, crisp/fuzzy, etc.) but am not quite sure what that 
would mean or why?

- Steve


On 8/16/17 11:46 AM, g??? wrote:
> Nietzsche's complaining/rejoicing re: the loss of the Christian rule set isn't all that relevant, I don't think.  Those Trumpians complaining about "political correctness" aren't complaining about the lack of a rule set, because there exists a new rule set.  E.g. don't chant "Jews will not replace us" and expect to get away with it.  Similarly, we can't really apply Nietzsche's observation that deontology is faulty to authoritarians anywhere.
>
> No, the desperation and rage Marcus points to is about a perceived change to the rules, from one broken rule set to another (equally broken) rule set.  That's what makes it tricky for those of us who don't base our ethics on rules.  When a Trumpian points out flaws in the lefty's rule set, we consequentialists have to agree with them... yeah, their rule set is faulty.  They hear that part.  But then the Trumpian fails to hear the qualifier: "Because ALL rule sets are faulty! Damnit."
>
>
> On 08/16/2017 08:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Yeah, it is probably nothing new that is happening nor a new interpretation.   Institutions of various kinds can give individuals a role to play and guidelines for conduct, but a highly interconnected population with a complex economy will stress these institutions and reveal their limitations.   Meanwhile, only exceptional and delusional individuals can really make a convincing case (esp. to themselves) about their unique value either coupled-to or uncoupled-from from institutions.   However, I fear the stakes are pretty high now -- the contagion of people going bonkers could be fast with social media.   A healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the point they can begin to doubt the meaning in their own anxiety (whether by themselves, with their shrink or their spiritual authority) and make it to the next day.
>>   
>> Marcus
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:56:23 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
>>
>> Reading this, I feel like you could found a new generation of something that is like existentialist philosophy but equally-well political theory.
>>
>> It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try to deal with it.  Maybe even, considering the currents running through European and particularly German society at the time he was writing (and that he specifically wrote about), driven by concerns based on similar observations.
>>
>> It strikes me that this is an available point of view for almost any person.  Granted, the distribution of rewards and frustrations differs from person to person and also from region to region, and that matters.  But the black box (black hole?) of how minds form characters and orientations in response to streams of these things draws from an immense and to me-obscure range of inputs.
>>
>> Makes me wonder,
>>
>> Eric
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170816/4a267d34/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 17:59:37 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:59:37 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <046105bd-6c4b-e49e-af0a-31d4caef67cf@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gma il.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <7c03d9c6-b850-07f8-0c30-30e809d8551d@gmail.com>
 <046105bd-6c4b-e49e-af0a-31d4caef67cf@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <9b3bee0e-40dc-6d2c-4909-12612fc2cd15@gmail.com>

Well, just because all rule sets are faulty doesn't mean some rule sets aren't better than others.  (Need I repeat it?  Surely not.  ... All models ... yadda yadda.)  And so your intuition is right, all rule sets are faulty, including the rule set of all rule sets.  The lesson isn't to throw away rule sets or adopt the One Rule Set to Rule Them All and fuzzify it.  The lesson is that something other than rules is needed to complement rule sets.  And we already have that in our US justice system.

The rule of law is fantastic, but it has to be tempered with context-satisficing things like democracy and trial by jury, institutionalized, bureaucratic methodology for periodically falsifying the rules against the highly contingent reality.

Your "like to imagine that we can transcend all rules" is just more rule-following.  There is no Ultimate Reality.  There is no destination.  There is only journey.  But some journeys are more clearly self-defeating than others.

On 08/16/2017 12:58 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I am inclined to agree with you, but am left somewhat empty-handed with:
> 
>    "because ALL rule sets are faulty!  Damnit."
> 
> my instincts are with you on this, yet in some kind of Godelian (not Gordian) knot I find myself:
> 
>    A) questioning the "rule" you just stated.
> 
>         and
> 
>    B) finding myself conjuring (fuzzy?) rules to replace the crisp ones
>    I resent/resist!
> 
> Are Heuristics or Patterns also rules?   Can we suppress any desire/need to have formal rules and not just discover (or never notice) that we have an implicit rule set embedded in our intuition from our genetic and cultural origins, informed at best by personal experiences?
> 
> I'd like to imagine that we *can* transcend all rules (explicit/implicit, crisp/fuzzy, etc.) but am not quite sure what that would mean or why?

-- 
g???


From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug 16 18:10:07 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:10:07 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <9b3bee0e-40dc-6d2c-4909-12612fc2cd15@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <02EF9C47-53C8-4E8C-B6CA-D42F2DA6BABB@gma il.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <7c03d9c6-b850-07f8-0c30-30e809d8551d@gmail.com>
 <046105bd-6c4b-e49e-af0a-31d4caef67cf@swcp.com>
 <9b3bee0e-40dc-6d2c-4909-12612fc2cd15@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef369ffa-f068-e3b6-4d0c-b05c838fa559@swcp.com>


> Well, just because all rule sets are faulty doesn't mean some rule sets aren't better than others.  (Need I repeat it?  Surely not.  ... All models ... yadda yadda.)  And so your intuition is right, all rule sets are faulty, including the rule set of all rule sets.  The lesson isn't to throw away rule sets or adopt the One Rule Set to Rule Them All and fuzzify it.  The lesson is that something other than rules is needed to complement rule sets.  And we already have that in our US justice system.
>
> The rule of law is fantastic, but it has to be tempered with context-satisficing things like democracy and trial by jury, institutionalized, bureaucratic methodology for periodically falsifying the rules against the highly contingent reality.
>
> Your "like to imagine that we can transcend all rules" is just more rule-following.  There is no Ultimate Reality.  There is no destination.  There is only journey.  But some journeys are more clearly self-defeating than others.
Got it!  (he says as he grinds dumbly and trudgingly around in a circle 
tracking his own footprints, not realizing that he's slowly turning to 
butter)



From merlelefkoff at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 18:16:22 2017
From: merlelefkoff at gmail.com (Merle Lefkoff)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:16:22 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>

Obama's tweet about the events in Charlottesville got the most "likes" of
any tweet in twitter history.  It is a quote from Nelson Mandela:  "No one
is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his
background or his religion ? People must learn to hate, and if they can
learn to hate, they can be taught to love ? For love comes more naturally
to the human heart than its opposite,?

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

> Marcus/Eric -
>
>
> Great observations, both.   I think this cuts to (part of) the heart of
> the matter.
>
>
> I just recently watched "Glass Castle" (current run at Violet Crown) with
> Woody Harrelson playing the role of a fairly intelligent (his daughter, the
> memoirist characterizes him as brilliant) but highly dysfunctional father
> of 4 who himself has (mostly/almost) escaped the small Appalachian
> coal-mining town he was raised in by an acutely abusive mother and an
> apathetic/dysfunctional father and greater community.   The family lives a
> vagabond life with Harrelson's character (Rex) leading them on an
> alternatingly merry and curiosity-driven chase through skipping out on bill
> collectors and trying to find the "next big opportunity" and "escape the
> forces out to repress us!".    It is (IMO) a great story of a nearly
> effective attempt (by the parents) to escape/transcend their own
> dysfunctional roots and the mostly effective experience of the children
> escaping their own (passed down a generation) from that half-functional
> platform.
>
>
> I also picked up (at a "tiny library" in a neighborhood) a copy JD Vance's
> "Hillbilly Legacy", a memoir written by a 31 year old Harvard educated
> lawyer, now living happily (and presumably functionally) in San Francisco
> with his wife and child(ren?), but still quite attached
> emotionally/romantically to his own roots in Appalachia (a small KY coal
> mining town) and the Rustbelt (Middletown OH, aka MiddleTucky) where all of
> his family and most of his childhood friends still live and vote for and
> continue to support Trump.
>
>
> The common thread is the abject hopelessness that surrounded the people
> locked into those environments by circumstance, including lack of
> perspective to "just leave".   Vance credits his Grandparents who raised
> him most of his life for having had enough perspective to shield him from
> the worst of that and to encourage/help him "just leave".   His chronicle
> (I also listened to an NPR book interview when it came out maybe a year
> ago) includes feeling that he had "done everything in his power to waste
> his life up until about 18 years old" and looking at his cohort and family,
> might use the term "but for the grace of God, there go I".
>
>
> My Pollyanna (a fairly significant player in my personal Pantheon of
> Personalities which helps me cope with the kinds of Cosmic Ennui and
> Existential Angst that comes with trying to be a thinking/caring person in
> these hyper-connected, seemingly chaotic times) has me looking for a
> "bright side" of all of this.
>
> I particularly want to call out the following quote from Marcus:
>
> *A healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the point they
> can begin to doubt the meaning in their own anxiety (whether by themselves,
> with their shrink or their spiritual authority) and make it to the next
> day.    *
>
> and offer a rewording (my words are *underlined*) or expansion:
>
>     "*whether with themselves, their shrink, their spiritual authority,* *or
> their community of emergently self-enlightened people*"
>
>     and
>
>     "*and make it **beyond** the next day* *and into a new era of
> contagious enlightened self-interest*"
>
> I hope that if we can ever get through this acutely dark/inverted time
> that we can follow some of the example of Nelson Mandela in his perspective
> and leadership out of the centuries long oppression of his people that was
> most recently exhibited as Apartheid.   Obviously that moment was only a
> partial antidote, as too many of the original problems linger or arise
> again.   But I *think* it was a better solution than to the similarly
> genocidal/punative response many of his people were calling for when the
> descendents of their Colonial Overlords finally fell.
>
> I heard recently a quote from Barbara Boxer as she left the political
> stage after many decades:
>     "No victory is final"
>
> This underscores why we are dealing with the rise of white-supremacy/nazi/confederate/kkk,
> gender oppression,  and many other battles presumed to have been won.
> This moment (in most places) is nothing like the conditions of the
> antebellum South, nor the era of Nazi/Fascist power in Europe, but there
> are clearly strong echoes.   Such things *might* be suppressed temporarily
> by force, but ultimately those kinds of behaviours/activities dissipate
> through healing and enlightenment much more than regulation/punishment/
> suppression.
>
> my $.02,
>  - Steve
>
> On 8/16/17 9:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Eric writes:
>
>
> < It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a
> problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try
> to deal with it. >
>
>
> Yeah, it is probably nothing new that is happening nor a new
> interpretation.   Institutions of various kinds can give individuals a
> role to play and guidelines for conduct, but a highly interconnected
> population with a complex economy will stress these institutions and reveal
> their limitations.   Meanwhile, only exceptional and delusional individuals
> can really make a convincing case (esp. to themselves) about their unique
> value either coupled-to or uncoupled-from from institutions.   However, I
> fear the stakes are pretty high now -- the contagion of people going
> bonkers could be fast with social media.   A healthy society is one where
> individuals can mature to the point they can begin to doubt the meaning in
> their own anxiety (whether by themselves, with their shrink or their
> spiritual authority) and make it to the next day.
>
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on
> behalf of Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu> <desmith at santafe.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:56:23 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
>
>
> > Their desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they can't
> confront, that they just don't have much to offer.
> >
> > Marcus
>
> Reading this, I feel like you could found a new generation of something
> that is like existentialist philosophy but equally-well political theory.
>
> It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a
> problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try
> to deal with it.  Maybe even, considering the currents running through
> European and particularly German society at the time he was writing (and
> that he specifically wrote about), driven by concerns based on similar
> observations.
>
> It strikes me that this is an available point of view for almost any
> person.  Granted, the distribution of rewards and frustrations differs from
> person to person and also from region to region, and that matters.  But the
> black box (black hole?) of how minds form characters and orientations in
> response to streams of these things draws from an immense and to me-obscure
> range of inputs.
>
> Makes me wonder,
>
> Eric
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefkoff at gmail.com <merlelefoff at gmail.com>
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170816/594c9cd8/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug 16 19:30:52 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:30:52 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>

Merle -

Thanks for offering this up.   My own maunderings about "what is in 
human nature" having me trust that we are still *mostly* the animals who 
gathered in groups of order Dunbar number (150?) who *mostly* loved one 
another and treated one another with respect and generosity (up to a 
myriad quirks of personality and a shared fate).

On the other hand, while members of said community/group/tribe/pack/herd 
might extend some of that goodwill toward others they recognized as 
same/thePeople, they had good reason to be less generous/trusting toward 
others who were not so familiar, who spoke unrecognizeable languages, 
whose skin/hair/eye color or features were significantly different.   I 
think these are very real evolutionarily adaptive roots of what we see 
as Xenophobia today.

I don't describe this as a way of trying to normalize racist/ethnic 
bigotry, but rather to acknowledge that it has some instinctual roots 
that focus the "hateful/fearful teachings" that become institutionalized 
in subcultures and perhaps entire cultures.   And it is this wholesale 
adoption by a group which ends up not only teaching, but maintaining the 
fear (and therefore hate?).

I know your work is IN "peacebuilding".   Does your model include an 
acceptance of these somewhat instinctual responses to "the Other" ?

I was very pleased to see the speech by Heather's mother today which I 
thought held a very positive message in what must be a very tragic 
moment for her.

- Steve


On 8/16/17 4:16 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Obama's tweet about the events in Charlottesville got the most "likes" 
> of any tweet in twitter history.  It is a quote from Nelson Mandela: 
>  "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his 
> skin or his background or his religion ? People must learn to hate, 
> and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love ? For love 
> comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite,?
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com 
> <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> wrote:
>
>     Marcus/Eric -
>
>
>     Great observations, both.   I think this cuts to (part of) the
>     heart of the matter.
>
>
>     I just recently watched "Glass Castle" (current run at Violet
>     Crown) with Woody Harrelson playing the role of a fairly
>     intelligent (his daughter, the memoirist characterizes him as
>     brilliant) but highly dysfunctional father of 4 who himself has
>     (mostly/almost) escaped the small Appalachian coal-mining town he
>     was raised in by an acutely abusive mother and an
>     apathetic/dysfunctional father and greater community.   The family
>     lives a vagabond life with Harrelson's character (Rex) leading
>     them on an alternatingly merry and curiosity-driven chase through
>     skipping out on bill collectors and trying to find the "next big
>     opportunity" and "escape the forces out to repress us!".    It is
>     (IMO) a great story of a nearly effective attempt (by the parents)
>     to escape/transcend their own dysfunctional roots and the mostly
>     effective experience of the children escaping their own (passed
>     down a generation) from that half-functional platform.
>
>
>     I also picked up (at a "tiny library" in a neighborhood) a copy JD
>     Vance's "Hillbilly Legacy", a memoir written by a 31 year old
>     Harvard educated lawyer, now living happily (and presumably
>     functionally) in San Francisco with his wife and child(ren?), but
>     still quite attached emotionally/romantically to his own roots in
>     Appalachia (a small KY coal mining town) and the Rustbelt
>     (Middletown OH, aka MiddleTucky) where all of his family and most
>     of his childhood friends still live and vote for and continue to
>     support Trump.
>
>
>     The common thread is the abject hopelessness that surrounded the
>     people locked into those environments by circumstance, including
>     lack of perspective to "just leave".   Vance credits his
>     Grandparents who raised him most of his life for having had enough
>     perspective to shield him from the worst of that and to
>     encourage/help him "just leave".   His chronicle (I also listened
>     to an NPR book interview when it came out maybe a year ago)
>     includes feeling that he had "done everything in his power to
>     waste his life up until about 18 years old" and looking at his
>     cohort and family, might use the term "but for the grace of God,
>     there go I".
>
>
>     My Pollyanna (a fairly significant player in my personal Pantheon
>     of Personalities which helps me cope with the kinds of Cosmic
>     Ennui and Existential Angst that comes with trying to be a
>     thinking/caring person in these hyper-connected, seemingly chaotic
>     times) has me looking for a "bright side" of all of this.
>
>
>     I particularly want to call out the following quote from Marcus:
>
>         /A healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the
>         point they can begin to doubt the meaning in their own
>         anxiety (whether by themselves, with their shrink or their
>         spiritual authority) and make it to the next day. /
>
>     and offer a rewording (my words are _underlined_) or expansion:
>
>         "/whether with themselves, their shrink, their spiritual
>     authority,/ _or their community of emergently self-enlightened
>     people_"
>
>         and
>
>         "/and make it /_beyond_/the next day/ _and into a new era of
>     contagious enlightened self-interest_"
>
>     I hope that if we can ever get through this acutely dark/inverted
>     time that we can follow some of the example of Nelson Mandela in
>     his perspective and leadership out of the centuries long
>     oppression of his people that was most recently exhibited as
>     Apartheid.   Obviously that moment was only a partial antidote, as
>     too many of the original problems linger or arise again.   But I
>     *think* it was a better solution than to the similarly
>     genocidal/punative response many of his people were calling for
>     when the descendents of their Colonial Overlords finally fell.
>
>     I heard recently a quote from Barbara Boxer as she left the
>     political stage after many decades:
>         "No victory is final"
>
>     This underscores why we are dealing with the rise of
>     white-supremacy/nazi/confederate/kkk, gender oppression,  and many
>     other battles presumed to have been won.   This moment (in most
>     places) is nothing like the conditions of the antebellum South,
>     nor the era of Nazi/Fascist power in Europe, but there are clearly
>     strong echoes.   Such things *might* be suppressed temporarily by
>     force, but ultimately those kinds of behaviours/activities
>     dissipate through healing and enlightenment much more than
>     regulation/punishment/suppression.
>
>     my $.02,
>      - Steve
>
>     On 8/16/17 9:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>
>>     Eric writes:
>>
>>
>>     < It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead?
>>     creates a problem for people, and they will face a fork in the
>>     road in how they try to deal with it. >
>>
>>
>>     Yeah, it is probably nothing new that is happening nor a new
>>     interpretation.  Institutions of various kinds can give
>>     individuals a role to play and guidelines for conduct, but a
>>     highly interconnected population with a complex economy will
>>     stress these institutions and reveal their limitations.  
>>     Meanwhile, only exceptional and delusional individuals can really
>>     make a convincing case (esp. to themselves) about their unique
>>     value either coupled-to or uncoupled-from from institutions.  
>>     However, I fear the stakes are pretty high now -- the contagion
>>     of people going bonkers could be fast with social media.   A
>>     healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the point
>>     they can begin to doubt the meaning in their own anxiety (whether
>>     by themselves, with their shrink or their spiritual authority)
>>     and make it to the next day.
>>
>>
>>     Marcus
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com>
>>     <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Eric Smith
>>     <desmith at santafe.edu> <mailto:desmith at santafe.edu>
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:56:23 AM
>>     *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>     *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
>>
>>     > Their desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they
>>     can't confront, that they just don't have much to offer.
>>     >
>>     > Marcus
>>
>>     Reading this, I feel like you could found a new generation of
>>     something that is like existentialist philosophy but equally-well
>>     political theory.
>>
>>     It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead?
>>     creates a problem for people, and they will face a fork in the
>>     road in how they try to deal with it.  Maybe even, considering
>>     the currents running through European and particularly German
>>     society at the time he was writing (and that he specifically
>>     wrote about), driven by concerns based on similar observations.
>>
>>     It strikes me that this is an available point of view for almost
>>     any person.  Granted, the distribution of rewards and
>>     frustrations differs from person to person and also from region
>>     to region, and that matters.  But the black box (black hole?) of
>>     how minds form characters and orientations in response to streams
>>     of these things draws from an immense and to me-obscure range of
>>     inputs.
>>
>>     Makes me wonder,
>>
>>     Eric
>>
>>
>>     ============================================================
>>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>     to unsubscribe
>>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>>     ============================================================
>>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>     to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>     <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
>>     FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>  by Dr. Strangelove
>     ============================================================ FRIAM
>     Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
>     at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove 
>
> -- 
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy 
> emergentdiplomacy.org <http://emergentdiplomacy.org>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
> Saint Paul University
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> merlelefkoff at gmail.com <mailto:merlelefoff at gmail.com> mobile:  (303) 
> 859-5609 skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170816/2585b9a0/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 19:53:37 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:53:37 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <6f4637c5-a689-7848-1eca-4b2f9e133590@gmail.com>

FWIW:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience#Genes_and_physiology

> Openness to experience, like the other traits in the five factor model, is believed to have a genetic component. Identical twins (who have the same DNA) show similar scores on openness to experience, even when they have been adopted into different families and raised in very different environments.[44] One genetic study with 86 subjects found Openness to experience related to the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism associated with the serotonin transporter gene.[45]
> 
> Higher levels of openness have been linked to activity in the ascending dopaminergic system and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Openness is the only personality trait that correlates with neuropsychological tests of dorsolateral prefrontal cortical function, supporting theoretical links among openness, cognitive functioning, and IQ.[46]
> 
> 44. Jang, K. L., Livesly, W. J., & Vemon, P. A.; Livesley; Vernon (September 1996). "Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study". Journal of Personality. 64 (3): 577?592. PMID 8776880. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x.
> 45. Scott F. Stoltenberg, Geoffrey R. Twitchell, Gregory L. Hanna, Edwin H. Cook, Hiram E. Fitzgerald, Robert A. Zucker, Karley Y. Little; Twitchell; Hanna; Cook; Fitzgerald; Zucker; Little (March 2002). "Serotonin transporter promoter polymorphism, peripheral indexes of serotonin function, and personality measures in families with alcoholism". American Journal of Medical Genetics. 114 (2): 230?234. PMID 11857587. doi:10.1002/ajmg.10187.
> 46. Colin G. DeYoung, Jordan B. Peterson and Daniel M. Higgins (2005). "Sources of openness/intellect: cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality". Journal of Personality. 73 (4): 825?858. PMID 15958136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x.


On 08/16/2017 04:30 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> On the other hand, while members of said community/group/tribe/pack/herd might extend some of that goodwill toward others they recognized as same/thePeople, they had good reason to be less generous/trusting toward others who were not so familiar, who spoke unrecognizeable languages, whose skin/hair/eye color or features were significantly different.   I think these are very real evolutionarily adaptive roots of what we see as Xenophobia today.

-- 
g???


From merlelefkoff at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 20:05:47 2017
From: merlelefkoff at gmail.com (Merle Lefkoff)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:05:47 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>

Steve, I trust strongly the neuroscience that insists that our brains have
not totally evolved past the point of reptilian behavior emerging from what
I call the left-over parts of the brain. We seem to remain wired for kin
and tribe, and perhaps our survival still depends to some extent on all the
parts of our brain, old and new.  We teach, however, that some form of
contemplative practice holds the key to leaping over the barriers that keep
us from loving one another.

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

> Merle -
>
> Thanks for offering this up.   My own maunderings about "what is in human
> nature" having me trust that we are still *mostly* the animals who gathered
> in groups of order Dunbar number (150?) who *mostly* loved one another and
> treated one another with respect and generosity (up to a myriad quirks of
> personality and a shared fate).
>
> On the other hand, while members of said community/group/tribe/pack/herd
> might extend some of that goodwill toward others they recognized as
> same/thePeople, they had good reason to be less generous/trusting toward
> others who were not so familiar, who spoke unrecognizeable languages, whose
> skin/hair/eye color or features were significantly different.   I think
> these are very real evolutionarily adaptive roots of what we see as
> Xenophobia today.
>
> I don't describe this as a way of trying to normalize racist/ethnic
> bigotry, but rather to acknowledge that it has some instinctual roots that
> focus the "hateful/fearful teachings" that become institutionalized in
> subcultures and perhaps entire cultures.   And it is this wholesale
> adoption by a group which ends up not only teaching, but maintaining the
> fear (and therefore hate?).
>
> I know your work is IN "peacebuilding".   Does your model include an
> acceptance of these somewhat instinctual responses to "the Other" ?
>
> I was very pleased to see the speech by Heather's mother today which I
> thought held a very positive message in what must be a very tragic moment
> for her.
>
> - Steve
>
> On 8/16/17 4:16 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
>
> Obama's tweet about the events in Charlottesville got the most "likes" of
> any tweet in twitter history.  It is a quote from Nelson Mandela:  "No
> one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his
> background or his religion ? People must learn to hate, and if they can
> learn to hate, they can be taught to love ? For love comes more naturally
> to the human heart than its opposite,?
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> Marcus/Eric -
>>
>>
>> Great observations, both.   I think this cuts to (part of) the heart of
>> the matter.
>>
>>
>> I just recently watched "Glass Castle" (current run at Violet Crown) with
>> Woody Harrelson playing the role of a fairly intelligent (his daughter, the
>> memoirist characterizes him as brilliant) but highly dysfunctional father
>> of 4 who himself has (mostly/almost) escaped the small Appalachian
>> coal-mining town he was raised in by an acutely abusive mother and an
>> apathetic/dysfunctional father and greater community.   The family lives a
>> vagabond life with Harrelson's character (Rex) leading them on an
>> alternatingly merry and curiosity-driven chase through skipping out on bill
>> collectors and trying to find the "next big opportunity" and "escape the
>> forces out to repress us!".    It is (IMO) a great story of a nearly
>> effective attempt (by the parents) to escape/transcend their own
>> dysfunctional roots and the mostly effective experience of the children
>> escaping their own (passed down a generation) from that half-functional
>> platform.
>>
>>
>> I also picked up (at a "tiny library" in a neighborhood) a copy JD
>> Vance's "Hillbilly Legacy", a memoir written by a 31 year old Harvard
>> educated lawyer, now living happily (and presumably functionally) in San
>> Francisco with his wife and child(ren?), but still quite attached
>> emotionally/romantically to his own roots in Appalachia (a small KY coal
>> mining town) and the Rustbelt (Middletown OH, aka MiddleTucky) where all of
>> his family and most of his childhood friends still live and vote for and
>> continue to support Trump.
>>
>>
>> The common thread is the abject hopelessness that surrounded the people
>> locked into those environments by circumstance, including lack of
>> perspective to "just leave".   Vance credits his Grandparents who raised
>> him most of his life for having had enough perspective to shield him from
>> the worst of that and to encourage/help him "just leave".   His chronicle
>> (I also listened to an NPR book interview when it came out maybe a year
>> ago) includes feeling that he had "done everything in his power to waste
>> his life up until about 18 years old" and looking at his cohort and family,
>> might use the term "but for the grace of God, there go I".
>>
>>
>> My Pollyanna (a fairly significant player in my personal Pantheon of
>> Personalities which helps me cope with the kinds of Cosmic Ennui and
>> Existential Angst that comes with trying to be a thinking/caring person in
>> these hyper-connected, seemingly chaotic times) has me looking for a
>> "bright side" of all of this.
>>
>> I particularly want to call out the following quote from Marcus:
>>
>> *A healthy society is one where individuals can mature to the point they
>> can begin to doubt the meaning in their own anxiety (whether by themselves,
>> with their shrink or their spiritual authority) and make it to the next
>> day.    *
>>
>> and offer a rewording (my words are *underlined*) or expansion:
>>
>>     "*whether with themselves, their shrink, their spiritual authority,* *or
>> their community of emergently self-enlightened people*"
>>
>>     and
>>
>>     "*and make it **beyond** the next day* *and into a new era of
>> contagious enlightened self-interest*"
>>
>> I hope that if we can ever get through this acutely dark/inverted time
>> that we can follow some of the example of Nelson Mandela in his perspective
>> and leadership out of the centuries long oppression of his people that was
>> most recently exhibited as Apartheid.   Obviously that moment was only a
>> partial antidote, as too many of the original problems linger or arise
>> again.   But I *think* it was a better solution than to the similarly
>> genocidal/punative response many of his people were calling for when the
>> descendents of their Colonial Overlords finally fell.
>>
>> I heard recently a quote from Barbara Boxer as she left the political
>> stage after many decades:
>>     "No victory is final"
>>
>> This underscores why we are dealing with the rise of
>> white-supremacy/nazi/confederate/kkk, gender oppression,  and many other
>> battles presumed to have been won.   This moment (in most places) is
>> nothing like the conditions of the antebellum South, nor the era of
>> Nazi/Fascist power in Europe, but there are clearly strong echoes.   Such
>> things *might* be suppressed temporarily by force, but ultimately those
>> kinds of behaviours/activities dissipate through healing and enlightenment
>> much more than regulation/punishment/suppression.
>>
>> my $.02,
>>  - Steve
>>
>> On 8/16/17 9:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Eric writes:
>>
>>
>> < It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a
>> problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try
>> to deal with it. >
>>
>>
>> Yeah, it is probably nothing new that is happening nor a new
>> interpretation.   Institutions of various kinds can give individuals a
>> role to play and guidelines for conduct, but a highly interconnected
>> population with a complex economy will stress these institutions and reveal
>> their limitations.   Meanwhile, only exceptional and delusional individuals
>> can really make a convincing case (esp. to themselves) about their unique
>> value either coupled-to or uncoupled-from from institutions.   However, I
>> fear the stakes are pretty high now -- the contagion of people going
>> bonkers could be fast with social media.   A healthy society is one where
>> individuals can mature to the point they can begin to doubt the meaning in
>> their own anxiety (whether by themselves, with their shrink or their
>> spiritual authority) and make it to the next day.
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on
>> behalf of Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu> <desmith at santafe.edu>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:56:23 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
>>
>>
>> > Their desperation and rage just comes from a feeling that they can't
>> confront, that they just don't have much to offer.
>> >
>> > Marcus
>>
>> Reading this, I feel like you could found a new generation of something
>> that is like existentialist philosophy but equally-well political theory.
>>
>> It is not so far from Nietzche?s notion that ?God is dead? creates a
>> problem for people, and they will face a fork in the road in how they try
>> to deal with it.  Maybe even, considering the currents running through
>> European and particularly German society at the time he was writing (and
>> that he specifically wrote about), driven by concerns based on similar
>> observations.
>>
>> It strikes me that this is an available point of view for almost any
>> person.  Granted, the distribution of rewards and frustrations differs from
>> person to person and also from region to region, and that matters.  But the
>> black box (black hole?) of how minds form characters and orientations in
>> response to streams of these things draws from an immense and to me-obscure
>> range of inputs.
>>
>> Makes me wonder,
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>> ============================================================ FRIAM
>> Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St.
>> John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/lis
>> tinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by
>> Dr. Strangelove
>
> --
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
> Saint Paul University
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> merlelefkoff at gmail.com <merlelefoff at gmail.com> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefkoff at gmail.com <merlelefoff at gmail.com>
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170816/6f0b4f97/attachment-0001.html>

From rec at elf.org  Wed Aug 16 21:49:09 2017
From: rec at elf.org (Roger Critchlow)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 21:49:09 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>

The strangest thing I saw today was this video

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnXBeQwmmrc

To be honest, he likes to be offensive.  No deep roots of xenophobia, he's
open to all kinds of offensiveness.

-- rec --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170816/1c5a4dae/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 17 00:56:03 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:56:03 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>,
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

https://buy.taser.com/taser-bolt/

Roger writes:

< The strangest thing I saw today was this video

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnXBeQwmmrc

>

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html

Never thought I'd donate to a church or synagogue, but I wonder if a few of these<https://buy.taser.com/taser-bolt/> would be tax deductible?

Marcus




________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Roger Critchlow <rec at elf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 7:49 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme

The strangest thing I saw today was this video

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnXBeQwmmrc

To be honest, he likes to be offensive.  No deep roots of xenophobia, he's open to all kinds of offensiveness.

-- rec --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170817/f3445759/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 12:10:11 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:10:11 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCR4mZZQWmiTLczNvr+LS+NeQ-AieHJ4CS30223UtCVAQA@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah their's some trolls that for what ever reason just like to troll. They
are still trolls though.

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Roger Critchlow <rec at elf.org> wrote:

> The strangest thing I saw today was this video
>
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnXBeQwmmrc
>
> To be honest, he likes to be offensive.  No deep roots of xenophobia, he's
> open to all kinds of offensiveness.
>
> -- rec --
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170817/9cc7cc30/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Thu Aug 17 12:19:41 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:19:41 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Randomness and Andreas Wagner
Message-ID: <00c601d31774$a1d7b570$e5872050$@earthlink.net>

Dear All, 

 

For some reason, somebody was pressing on us the Andreas Wagner book.  So
now I have it and have scanned it, but I have forgotten why I am reading it.
It seems a reasonably good summer of contemporary Epigenetics, on a par with
Sean Carroll's work.   It stresses the robustness of the epigenetic system,
as it should.   It supports rather than undermines the notion that
randomness is a funny kind of concept to apply to genomic "innovation".   

 

Am I missing something?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170817/f4c47cad/attachment.html>

From profwest at fastmail.fm  Thu Aug 17 13:19:48 2017
From: profwest at fastmail.fm (Prof David West)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:19:48 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Randomness and Andreas Wagner
In-Reply-To: <00c601d31774$a1d7b570$e5872050$@earthlink.net>
References: <00c601d31774$a1d7b570$e5872050$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <1502990388.3642464.1076675712.1A2C8B1D@webmail.messagingengine.com>

"it supports .... the notion that randomness is a funny kind of concept
... genomic innovation." But it is funny in a particular way: Nature
can roll the dice all she wants, but the game is rigged - it is
actually quite difficult not to "hit a winner" with any given roll of
the dice. Were the game not rigged in this particular way truly random
changes would have a near zero possibility that the 'innovation' would
be viable.
davew


On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Dear All,


>  


> For some reason, somebody was pressing on us the Andreas Wagner book.
> So now I have it and have scanned it, but I have forgotten why I am
> reading it.  It seems a reasonably good summer of contemporary
> Epigenetics, on a par with Sean Carroll?s work.   It stresses the
> robustness of the epigenetic system, as it should.   It supports
> rather than undermines the notion that randomness is a funny kind of
> concept to apply to genomic ?innovation?.>  


> Am I missing something? 


>  


> Nick


>  


> Nicholas S. Thompson


> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology


> Clark University


> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


>  


> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170817/04947ea7/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 14:25:34 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:25:34 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>


On 08/16/2017 09:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html

I was intrigued by this tweet:

  https://twitter.com/veryapetv/status/898240260550909952

Here's the full text for the 1st quote:

> Sir, -- Having experienced fascism in the flesh, as a citizen of a Nazi-occupied country, a member of the resistance and a concentration camp prisoner, I am profoundly dismayed by Kevin Myers's reflections on the happenings at TCD on the occasion of the David Irving debate.
> 
> If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else.  Those who recognized its threat at that time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called "a mob".  Regrettably too many "fair-minded people" didn't either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves with it when it took over.
> 
> The anti-fascism of some of these people germinated rather late, in fact only when they realized that the Third Reich had lost the war, the F?hrer was becoming an embarrassment and his system of government a liability.
> 
> People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still there, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback.  Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests, as it happened in the thirties, or in Chile.  I am one hundred per cent behind the students and staff at TCD, and congratulate them for showing the way. -- Yours, etc., F. L. Frison, 69 Newtown Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin.

Here's the snopes entry on the 2nd quote (supposedly from Hitler):

  http://www.snopes.com/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/

And the third quote about clicktivism is just (apt) snark.  But there's a big difference between "chasing them away with sticks" and "holding the line".  The former is bad.  The latter is good.

-- 
g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 17 15:36:46 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 19:36:46 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <d08021bf-6883-8834-d14d-d6b26e0dfbfe@swcp.com>
 <86F1B9A1-35F6-4259-A238-15219C34B5C7@gmail.com>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

< And the third quote about clicktivism is just (apt) snark.  But there's a big difference between "chasing them away with sticks" and "holding the line".  The former is bad.  The latter is good.  >

Hold the line, but if violence is used to break it, adopt a liberal definition of self-defense.   I would have some concern of the tendency of a stick to fragment and not deliver enough energy. 

Marcus

From gepropella at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 15:51:36 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:51:36 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>

Body armor is necessary.  My motorcycle jacket has nearly invisible pads for the elbows, shoulders, and back.  Augment that with some shin and arm guards and you'd be surprised at how much easier it is to defend yourself and others.  But the most important gear is your mouth guard.  Those chants are stupid anyway. >8^D

On 08/17/2017 12:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Hold the line, but if violence is used to break it, adopt a liberal definition of self-defense.   I would have some concern of the tendency of a stick to fragment and not deliver enough energy. 


-- 
g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 17 16:02:57 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:02:57 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <fe89fd49-0d69-c4dc-93a7-c3ece4e51691@swcp.com>
 <494a2889-3c36-796a-da19-219bb2079c6f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Think combining Charlottesville and Kent State..  Not pleasant to think about but is it completely preposterous?  I don't think so.  
Yes, every stylish urban pastor these days has a Kevlar robe!  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:52 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme

Body armor is necessary.  My motorcycle jacket has nearly invisible pads for the elbows, shoulders, and back.  Augment that with some shin and arm guards and you'd be surprised at how much easier it is to defend yourself and others.  But the most important gear is your mouth guard.  Those chants are stupid anyway. >8^D

On 08/17/2017 12:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Hold the line, but if violence is used to break it, adopt a liberal definition of self-defense.   I would have some concern of the tendency of a stick to fragment and not deliver enough energy. 


--
g???

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

From gepropella at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 16:24:49 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:24:49 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>

Yeah, bullets are another matter entirely.  It's easy to be "pure defense" with sticks and such.  Self-defense in the context of bullets is one of incoherent, asymmetric, or preemptive.  People who tell me they have a gun for self-defense risk a confrontation.  Guns are purely offensive.  They are nothing but murder weapons ... unless you're good enough to hit the other guys bullet with your bullet!  So, when someone says guns are for self-defense, what they really mean is they intend to murder people if they feel threatened.

On 08/17/2017 01:02 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Think combining Charlottesville and Kent State..  Not pleasant to think about but is it completely preposterous?  I don't think so.  
> Yes, every stylish urban pastor these days has a Kevlar robe!  


-- 
g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 17 16:34:34 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:34:34 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <CY4PR11MB1703A2497B577349C9F29DCCC58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030EE486ECFF5F421C9BC2C58C0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB17038425AC896F7F5EE9F456C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Thus  tasers..  couple a set of them with a Prius's battery so that reload is not a problem.  
Then some body armor for the Prius.    On the high end, a Tesla Model S could just turn targets into smoke if need be. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 2:25 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme

Yeah, bullets are another matter entirely.  It's easy to be "pure defense" with sticks and such.  Self-defense in the context of bullets is one of incoherent, asymmetric, or preemptive.  People who tell me they have a gun for self-defense risk a confrontation.  Guns are purely offensive.  They are nothing but murder weapons ... unless you're good enough to hit the other guys bullet with your bullet!  So, when someone says guns are for self-defense, what they really mean is they intend to murder people if they feel threatened.

On 08/17/2017 01:02 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Think combining Charlottesville and Kent State..  Not pleasant to think about but is it completely preposterous?  I don't think so.  
> Yes, every stylish urban pastor these days has a Kevlar robe!  


--
g???

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

From gepropella at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 17:23:55 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:23:55 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB17038425AC896F7F5EE9F456C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17038425AC896F7F5EE9F456C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <d517117a-5da8-837a-54db-a6d81bf9a87b@gmail.com>

I'm not so sure.  If I had a pistol and were inclined to use it, my inclination would only go *up* if you tased the guy next to me ... or even looked like you were going to do so.  I think tasers might increase everyone's chances of being wounded or killed, rather than decreasing it.  My guess is it's flat-out better to let them beat on you than to take any offensive path at all.

On 08/17/2017 01:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Thus  tasers..  couple a set of them with a Prius's battery so that reload is not a problem.  
> Then some body armor for the Prius.    On the high end, a Tesla Model S could just turn targets into smoke if need be. 


-- 
g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 17 18:17:36 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:17:36 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <d517117a-5da8-837a-54db-a6d81bf9a87b@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17038425AC896F7F5EE9F456C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d517117a-5da8-837a-54db-a6d81bf9a87b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB170388E6B9301627B80CD572C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Gah.  Add more technology:  Persistence airborne surveillance of the event to estimate nearby risks and advise participants.  
Make an app for that.    And above all be sneaky about actions on the ground.   Anyway, I see your point. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 3:24 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme

I'm not so sure.  If I had a pistol and were inclined to use it, my inclination would only go *up* if you tased the guy next to me ... or even looked like you were going to do so.  I think tasers might increase everyone's chances of being wounded or killed, rather than decreasing it.  My guess is it's flat-out better to let them beat on you than to take any offensive path at all.

On 08/17/2017 01:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Thus  tasers..  couple a set of them with a Prius's battery so that reload is not a problem.  
> Then some body armor for the Prius.    On the high end, a Tesla Model S could just turn targets into smoke if need be. 


--
g???

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

From rec at elf.org  Thu Aug 17 18:29:38 2017
From: rec at elf.org (Roger Critchlow)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:29:38 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <d517117a-5da8-837a-54db-a6d81bf9a87b@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17038425AC896F7F5EE9F456C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d517117a-5da8-837a-54db-a6d81bf9a87b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGayqosT=+qrAmfbRUD819eqGMFtAukdf+fk-+=v+HjM8gpzYg@mail.gmail.com>

I think a ballistic vest would work as well as motorcycle gear for center
of mass defense.  Dress it up for cos play and you'll have the replacement
for pro wrestling and other prize fighting entertainments.

By the way, are we taking down the nascent alt-right-web yet?   They're
going to reinvent the internet to route around the censorship, and I think
this is going to be the first real cyber war.

And perhaps that's what we need, institutionalized cyber gang warfare.  As
the Pallio tamed the neighborhood gang conflict in Siena into twice yearly
anything goes horse races, take all this must do the
right/wrong/good/evil/offensive thing energy and turn it into e-riots, or
irl riots with cos play armor.

-- rec --

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:23 PM, g??? <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not so sure.  If I had a pistol and were inclined to use it, my
> inclination would only go *up* if you tased the guy next to me ... or even
> looked like you were going to do so.  I think tasers might increase
> everyone's chances of being wounded or killed, rather than decreasing it.
> My guess is it's flat-out better to let them beat on you than to take any
> offensive path at all.
>
> On 08/17/2017 01:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Thus  tasers..  couple a set of them with a Prius's battery so that
> reload is not a problem.
> > Then some body armor for the Prius.    On the high end, a Tesla Model S
> could just turn targets into smoke if need be.
>
>
> --
> g???
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170817/7f7c30b3/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 19:01:45 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:01:45 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CAGayqosT=+qrAmfbRUD819eqGMFtAukdf+fk-+=v+HjM8gpzYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17038425AC896F7F5EE9F456C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d517117a-5da8-837a-54db-a6d81bf9a87b@gmail.com>
 <CAGayqosT=+qrAmfbRUD819eqGMFtAukdf+fk-+=v+HjM8gpzYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1896d3e-7c2a-63c3-4c6a-300375a1520f@gmail.com>

The Future Primaeval is still up: http://thefutureprimaeval.net/this-is-the-future-primaeval/
NrX sites are mostly still up: http://neoreaction.net/ http://hestiasociety.org/

More Right is gone.  Mike Anissimov's Twitter account is gone.

Moldbug's garbage is still up:
http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/moldbugs-gentle-introduction/
http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/

It seems to me that the neo-nazis and "ethnic nationalists" are easy enough to recognize as silly idealists.  But the NrX guys pack more of a punch.  Their ideas are a bit like the insidious Sam Harris, who slathers his right wing ideas in a tasty sauce of rationalism.  But I don't know if the right answer is to take out their platforms.  It seems to me humiliation and humor are the right paths.  (cf. Harris' interaction with Chomsky)


On 08/17/2017 03:29 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> I think a ballistic vest would work as well as motorcycle gear for center
> of mass defense.  Dress it up for cos play and you'll have the replacement
> for pro wrestling and other prize fighting entertainments.
> 
> By the way, are we taking down the nascent alt-right-web yet?   They're
> going to reinvent the internet to route around the censorship, and I think
> this is going to be the first real cyber war.
> 
> And perhaps that's what we need, institutionalized cyber gang warfare.  As
> the Pallio tamed the neighborhood gang conflict in Siena into twice yearly
> anything goes horse races, take all this must do the
> right/wrong/good/evil/offensive thing energy and turn it into e-riots, or
> irl riots with cos play armor.


-- 
g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 17 20:28:44 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:28:44 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <CAGayqosT=+qrAmfbRUD819eqGMFtAukdf+fk-+=v+HjM8gpzYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <794CCD1B-56AC-4903-813C-2B4AAAFE2F76@santafe.edu>
 <CY4PR11MB170381C8D308182E54326F42C5820@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5dd2b21c-1f64-6987-fb90-01849f48896d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17038425AC896F7F5EE9F456C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d517117a-5da8-837a-54db-a6d81bf9a87b@gmail.com>,
 <CAGayqosT=+qrAmfbRUD819eqGMFtAukdf+fk-+=v+HjM8gpzYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703A3082A58B2C5EBEE8BD3C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Roger writes:


"And perhaps that's what we need, institutionalized cyber gang warfare."


I suppose one could target OSI layer 4 and below, but that amounts to various kinds of denial of service.  Crude.

On the other hand, high-level attacks are forms of what Glen said -- "humiliation and humor" amount to sophisticated trolling.  That requires a sustained effort by people that can afford to take the time and are reasonably good at modeling and manipulating people.   Labor intensive and expensive.


I would like to see some robust automated control systems.  To do that it is necessary to pressure Facebook and Twitter to participate.

I believe they are working on it and talking about reliable third parties to judge content.    I imagine natural language systems that detect well-known lies as instances of entries in a credible fact-checkers database.   Such systems would also be useful to tag jihadists and other people that are coming undone.  Of course, even if these systems exist and work perfectly, one has to assume that the audience doesn't want to be lied to.   So it is is, in the end, really cyber warfare.  Might makes right.


Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Roger Critchlow <rec at elf.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 4:29:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme

I think a ballistic vest would work as well as motorcycle gear for center of mass defense.  Dress it up for cos play and you'll have the replacement for pro wrestling and other prize fighting entertainments.

By the way, are we taking down the nascent alt-right-web yet?   They're going to reinvent the internet to route around the censorship, and I think this is going to be the first real cyber war.

And perhaps that's what we need, institutionalized cyber gang warfare.  As the Pallio tamed the neighborhood gang conflict in Siena into twice yearly anything goes horse races, take all this must do the right/wrong/good/evil/offensive thing energy and turn it into e-riots, or irl riots with cos play armor.

-- rec --

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:23 PM, g??? <gepropella at gmail.com<mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm not so sure.  If I had a pistol and were inclined to use it, my inclination would only go *up* if you tased the guy next to me ... or even looked like you were going to do so.  I think tasers might increase everyone's chances of being wounded or killed, rather than decreasing it.  My guess is it's flat-out better to let them beat on you than to take any offensive path at all.

On 08/17/2017 01:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Thus  tasers..  couple a set of them with a Prius's battery so that reload is not a problem.
> Then some body armor for the Prius.    On the high end, a Tesla Model S could just turn targets into smoke if need be.


--
g???

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/059e2d53/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Fri Aug 18 10:56:17 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:56:17 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] SJ Coffee Shop Unavailable
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfp6V2O57ZiEvcupe4N64Qrr2iKhYMZDKP_QZnO_L64_ww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA5dAfrX983BJyiRbX1LFePz9Oh8pM9q960dJR-8Qt1DEiHSRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfqaLELnbfqxaykKZbdCRj+h3cqdp86A3n9xkSv35Np1yA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfr2YQXiq3nZAh8cru+7P8TaR5wmr6i5-_Dkhspojv76bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfrZR9=n3ZMM9qNDBk8caTTu_HF9nS-15ubjUL9Br5VqCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfpVhA-vDqLnkDQwLoQALqBSGet_6VByBm-dG9K57fOeMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfoT86YpkkfDTh3LEPyprS_K4aR4AJ8ZyhA16A4EvajEJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5dAfp6V2O57ZiEvcupe4N64Qrr2iKhYMZDKP_QZnO_L64_ww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfrFgJFLxxSJZqoCNQhZrtT6zwQDgk1ds0PPJkOgO9qrpA@mail.gmail.com>

The floors are being cleaned and they say that will take 3-4 hours.

I propose Saveur as an alternative.  It's at the corner of Galisteo and
Cerrillos, near the new courthouse.  I'll try to get some tables put
together.

Frank


Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/c7b90087/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 12:11:46 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:11:46 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Stock Bubble
Message-ID: <ffbf969f-2493-963c-f536-9f5c466483fe@swcp.com>

With morbid fascination, I believe we are about to see the "Trump 
Bubble" in the stock market, driven by the promises of deregulation, 
collapse under the weight of the belligerent dysfunction of his 
administration and sycophants.

I don't know how transparent the financial holdings of his fat 
supporters are, but if someone could observe them I suspect there is the 
beginning of rats fleeing a s(t)inking ship.

The bubble collapse may or may not be more than a correction back to the 
levels leading up to the election last year, but I am expecting to hear 
a loud "whoof!" (more than a pop) as the market exhales all of the 
climate-denying, xenophobic, warmongering hot air that has been 
supporting it.

Just Sayin'

- Sieve

PS.  I scanned Glen's links to the various alt.right "intelligencia" 
blogs...  fascinating but sad!



From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 18 12:16:04 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:16:04 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Stock Bubble
In-Reply-To: <ffbf969f-2493-963c-f536-9f5c466483fe@swcp.com>
References: <ffbf969f-2493-963c-f536-9f5c466483fe@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB17031D930084BC0A505FBEE4C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Last time there was a near government shutdown, I was buying short-sells on U.S. bonds as hedge.    Under Obama, I lost money on that.
But there they sit waiting to make their triumphant rebound!

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 10:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Stock Bubble

With morbid fascination, I believe we are about to see the "Trump Bubble" in the stock market, driven by the promises of deregulation, collapse under the weight of the belligerent dysfunction of his administration and sycophants.

I don't know how transparent the financial holdings of his fat supporters are, but if someone could observe them I suspect there is the beginning of rats fleeing a s(t)inking ship.

The bubble collapse may or may not be more than a correction back to the levels leading up to the election last year, but I am expecting to hear a loud "whoof!" (more than a pop) as the market exhales all of the climate-denying, xenophobic, warmongering hot air that has been supporting it.

Just Sayin'

- Sieve

PS.  I scanned Glen's links to the various alt.right "intelligencia" 
blogs...  fascinating but sad!


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 13:54:03 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:54:03 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
Message-ID: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>


I haven't been willing to follow much if any of the twittering the 
Donald does,
but with the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, folks calling for 
closing the
@realdonaldtrump twitter account, it piqued my interest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/17/now-you-can-see-what-donald-trump-sees-every-time-he-opens-twitter/?utm_term=.6d0cbe09518f

The rising conflict between hate speech and free speech around this new 
White
Supremacist eruption rallied around Trump's ascendency and implicit support
is fascinating to me.  Though as with all my greatest fascinations, it 
is unfortunately
(yet another) morbid one.

I discovered that the Washington Post has created a mirror of Trump's Feed
titled @trumpsfeed as well as listing the 45 twitter accounts he is 
following in
the order he subscribed to them.   Unsurprisingly Ivanka is at the top 
of the list
with Greta van Susteren and Bill O'Reilly  not far behind.

While I feel very nervous about Twitter shutting down theDonald's 
personal account
so cavalierly, I can imagine how devastating it would be to his ego to 
not be able to
blurt out his nonsense at all times of the day or night without benefit 
of counsel by
his (admittedly highly flawed) inner circle/counsel.  Moving the same 
blurts to @POTUS
might be all it would achieve, which might enhance the absurdity yet more?

It would seem much more entertaining if someone (other than Twitter Inc) 
managed
to hack Twitter and mess with  his feed.  As blatantly as taking over 
@realDonaldTrump
and turning it into a parody of him, and then signing him up for the 
address
@fakeDonaldTrump.

On that vector I discovered (unsurprisingly) that there IS an 
@fakeDonaldTrump
(https://twitter.com/fakedonaldtrump ) which hasn't been utilized... 
created/joined
apparently in 2008?   The account has not tweeted and has only 125 
followers, within
whom I cannot find any particular pattern.

Where are the Anonymous Hacktivists in all this?  Their intentions often 
seem meritible
but I can't tell how effective they have been in some of their 
campaigns.  This is mildly
surprising.

Curiouser and Curiouser,
  - Sneeze




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/ae2562e4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen-Shot-2017-08-17-at-11.41.48-AM.png&w=1484
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 111487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/ae2562e4/attachment-0001.jpe>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Fri Aug 18 14:22:02 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:22:02 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <686d3ecb-0477-4504-602d-72c9649b185b@gmail.com>

This is interesting if you type in "trump":
https://www.csc2.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/tweet_viz/tweet_app/

Here are some other tools:
https://blog.bufferapp.com/free-twitter-tools

It irritates me to no end when we call password guessing or phishing "hacking".  The concept of hacking is rich and calling those banal techniques "hacking" does the concept an injustice.  That password guessing stuff isn't even worthy of the word "cracking".  Now, if someone pulled a man-in-the-middle and reconstructed the packets to find a password, *that* would be worthy.  Get off my iLawn!


On 08/18/2017 10:54 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> 
> I haven't been willing to follow much if any of the twittering the Donald does,
> but with the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, folks calling for closing the
> @realdonaldtrump twitter account, it piqued my interest.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/17/now-you-can-see-what-donald-trump-sees-every-time-he-opens-twitter/?utm_term=.6d0cbe09518f
> 
> The rising conflict between hate speech and free speech around this new White
> Supremacist eruption rallied around Trump's ascendency and implicit support
> is fascinating to me.  Though as with all my greatest fascinations, it is unfortunately
> (yet another) morbid one.
> 
> I discovered that the Washington Post has created a mirror of Trump's Feed
> titled @trumpsfeed as well as listing the 45 twitter accounts he is following in
> the order he subscribed to them.   Unsurprisingly Ivanka is at the top of the list
> with Greta van Susteren and Bill O'Reilly  not far behind.
> 
> While I feel very nervous about Twitter shutting down theDonald's personal account
> so cavalierly, I can imagine how devastating it would be to his ego to not be able to
> blurt out his nonsense at all times of the day or night without benefit of counsel by
> his (admittedly highly flawed) inner circle/counsel.  Moving the same blurts to @POTUS
> might be all it would achieve, which might enhance the absurdity yet more?
> 
> It would seem much more entertaining if someone (other than Twitter Inc) managed
> to hack Twitter and mess with  his feed.  As blatantly as taking over @realDonaldTrump
> and turning it into a parody of him, and then signing him up for the address
> @fakeDonaldTrump.
> 
> On that vector I discovered (unsurprisingly) that there IS an @fakeDonaldTrump
> (https://twitter.com/fakedonaldtrump ) which hasn't been utilized... created/joined
> apparently in 2008?   The account has not tweeted and has only 125 followers, within
> whom I cannot find any particular pattern.
> 
> Where are the Anonymous Hacktivists in all this?  Their intentions often seem meritible
> but I can't tell how effective they have been in some of their campaigns.  This is mildly
> surprising.


-- 
g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 18 14:22:43 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:22:43 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

?While I feel very nervous about Twitter shutting down theDonald's personal account
so cavalierly, I can imagine how devastating it would be to his ego to not be able to
blurt out his nonsense at all times of the day or night without benefit of counsel by
his (admittedly highly flawed) inner circle/counsel.  Moving the same blurts to @POTUS
might be all it would achieve, which might enhance the absurdity yet more??

While I like the idea of his continued self-sabotage, his pronouncements probably keep a part of the base stoked.
If his accounts were to go away, those folks might not have the initiative to replace that outlet with another.   And then they could get back to torturing animals or whatever it is they do all day.
The ACLU new policy to not support armed groups seems like a good step.   There are other groups like the SPLC that can tackle the haters.   I hope that if his rhetoric continues this way, and he repeatedly violates their terms of services, that they do shut him down completely.  He can go on Fox and Friends or something.
Marcus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/8b975c16/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Fri Aug 18 16:02:54 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:02:54 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCStYFaP3+qkDr-yO=qSxSYzQ2MTZ21x4Zqzf0mttMF3Aw@mail.gmail.com>

Anonymous has been posting videos on youtube sugesting people put aside the
petty bickering. Making sugestion what things people can do to empower
themselves. Their current call to arms is about (weirdly) love and joy and
getting rid of washinton as it currently is and try for something like a
Sociliast Republic/Technorocracy.
They're pretty tired of the sheer rage coming in and out of washington if
the videos are anything to go by.


On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
wrote:

> ?While I feel very nervous about Twitter shutting down theDonald's
> personal account
> so cavalierly, I can imagine how devastating it would be to his ego to not
> be able to
> blurt out his nonsense at all times of the day or night without benefit of
> counsel by
> his (admittedly highly flawed) inner circle/counsel.  Moving the same
> blurts to @POTUS
> might be all it would achieve, which might enhance the absurdity yet more?
> ?
>
> While I like the idea of his continued self-sabotage, his pronouncements
> probably keep a part of the base stoked.
>
> If his accounts were to go away, those folks might not have the initiative
> to replace that outlet with another.   And then they could get back to
> torturing animals or whatever it is they do all day.
>
> The ACLU new policy to not support armed groups seems like a good step.
> There are other groups like the SPLC that can tackle the haters.   I hope
> that if his rhetoric continues this way, and he repeatedly violates their
> terms of services, that they do shut him down completely.  He can go on Fox
> and Friends or something.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/4d7d2909/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 16:24:48 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:24:48 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <686d3ecb-0477-4504-602d-72c9649b185b@gmail.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <686d3ecb-0477-4504-602d-72c9649b185b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2845804b-d8ba-e417-0acc-a59e99749d14@swcp.com>

Glen -
> This is interesting if you type in "trump":
> https://www.csc2.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/tweet_viz/tweet_app/
15 minutes with this make me painfully aware of how much I'm not in tune 
with twitter culture... the tool seems pretty well made, but I found 
myself having  a hard time drawing meaningful conclusions (aside from 
looking for confirmation bias artifacts to glom onto)... the drilldown I 
did do made me realize that the pleasant/unpleasant axis wasn't what I 
thought it would be.   The system doesn't seem to take into account 
(double?) negatives?   Someone railing positively about taking Trump 
down appears to contribute to the quad-chart plot in roughly the same 
way as one praising him.  The tag clouds were in some way more 
interesting to me, but I'm not sure why.
>
> Here are some other tools:
> https://blog.bufferapp.com/free-twitter-tools
I tried to dig in a little but as I felt frustrated by the implied bias 
in the nature of the tools I realized the list was labeled as "for 
Marketing" which (with my own bias) seems to be what most social media 
tools exist for, to make us all in to better (more malleable?) consumers.
> It irritates me to no end when we call password guessing or phishing "hacking".  The concept of hacking is rich and calling those banal techniques "hacking" does the concept an injustice.  That password guessing stuff isn't even worthy of the word "cracking".  Now, if someone pulled a man-in-the-middle and reconstructed the packets to find a password, *that* would be worthy.
I agree in principle, with your examples being at best, fairly lame 
"social hacks".   I'm guessing that the amorphous mass of "Anonymous 
Hacktivists" are mostly very lame technically... but perhaps useful when 
recruited for DOS attacks by someone with a target and a voice.  There 
must be a FEW heavy hitters self-identified with that crowd?  It seems 
like the best thing anyone could do IF they guessed or phished passwords 
from the likes of DJT and his motley crue would be to publish them (not 
to abuse them, just to expose what kind of dumbass passwords they choose!?)
>    Get off my iLawn!
<grin>




From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 16:34:51 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:34:51 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <2bc00a22-ea9f-36a9-db22-4c1c78bc8a6d@swcp.com>

Marcus -
>
>
> While I like the idea of his continued self-sabotage, his 
> pronouncements probably keep a part of the base stoked.
>
I do understand that and agree that this channel is a significantly 
powerful/focused one for his fringe/base.
>
> If his accounts were to go away, those folks might not have the 
> initiative to replace that outlet with another.
>
It does appear that his base(s) is (are) a mob in the sense that most of 
them provide the energy of their (self) righteous indignation and not 
much focus or initiative which then helps to leverage the effective 
power of a very few (pseudo?) charismatic self-appointed leaders.
>
>   And then they could get back to torturing animals or whatever it is 
> they do all day.
>
Sadly this is one of my worries.  To realize the number of people who 
rose up to support theDonald once he got some momentum, it makes me 
worry that we were (are) collectively more ill than I appreciated.  One 
of the things I find hopeful about Trumps Ascendency is that all of this 
is out in the open and it can be addressed (to a minor degree) by those 
closest to these people. LIke the Fargo family.
>
> The ACLU new policy to not support armed groups seems like a good 
> step.   There are other groups like the SPLC that can tackle the haters.
>

>   I hope that if his rhetoric continues this way, and he repeatedly 
> violates their terms of services, that they do shut him down 
> completely.  He can go on Fox and Friends or something.
>
I admit to not having a clue what is in the Twitter TOS, having signed 
up in a moment of curiosity/weakness nearly 8 years ago...  I don't use 
it and for the most part serves me little if at all in any other way.   
It WOULD be interesting to see Twitter take Trump on head-on,   I 
suspect it might be a significant breaking of a dam made of his audacity 
in the face of propriety.

Give him credit or not, he's been willing to take on lots of 
groups/subcultures fairly head-on (and many more smarmily obliquely... 
like the LGBT/Latino/Black/??? communities)

- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/2d9d6c7b/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 16:46:58 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:46:58 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCStYFaP3+qkDr-yO=qSxSYzQ2MTZ21x4Zqzf0mttMF3Aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAMaMUCStYFaP3+qkDr-yO=qSxSYzQ2MTZ21x4Zqzf0mttMF3Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <908a9948-3cee-7d27-cf0f-5976c7207012@swcp.com>

Gil -

Thanks for the reference to Anonymous at YouTube.   You can tell I'm an old 
fogey by my irritable reaction to the style of their videos.  I felt 
like it was created by/for Max Headroom!

I HAVE watched one or two before (over a year ago?) with the same 
reaction.   I have a natural (Ithink) mixed reaction to their 
bluff/threats... what was that about contacting people in Lagos, 
Nigeria?  I didn't think Anonymous were prone to threatening IRL 
violence, but rather stayed with what I think of as "targeted vandalism" 
in cyberspace?

I'm also (still) confused about how there can ever be a single true 
voice for such a by-definition amorphous and distributed and ultimately 
defined only by self-definition group?    Some aspects of their 
nature/behaviour feels a bit too much like the alt.right they are (in 
this moment) going up against.

- Steve

On 8/18/17 2:02 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote
> Anonymous has been posting videos on youtube sugesting people put 
> aside the petty bickering. Making sugestion what things people can do 
> to empower themselves. Their current call to arms is about (weirdly) 
> love and joy and getting rid of washinton as it currently is and try 
> for something like a Sociliast Republic/Technorocracy.
> They're pretty tired of the sheer rage coming in and out of washington 
> if the videos are anything to go by.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com 
> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>
>     ?While I feel very nervous about Twitter shutting down theDonald's
>     personal account
>     so cavalierly, I can imagine how devastating it would be to his
>     ego to not be able to
>     blurt out his nonsense at all times of the day or night without
>     benefit of counsel by
>     his (admittedly highly flawed) inner circle/counsel. Moving the
>     same blurts to @POTUS
>     might be all it would achieve, which might enhance the absurdity
>     yet more??
>
>     While I like the idea of his continued self-sabotage, his
>     pronouncements probably keep a part of the base stoked.
>
>     If his accounts were to go away, those folks might not have the
>     initiative to replace that outlet with another.   And then they
>     could get back to torturing animals or whatever it is they do all day.
>
>     The ACLU new policy to not support armed groups seems like a good
>     step.   There are other groups like the SPLC that can tackle the
>     haters.   I hope that if his rhetoric continues this way, and he
>     repeatedly violates their terms of services, that they do shut him
>     down completely.  He can go on Fox and Friends or something.
>
>     Marcus
>
>
>     ============================================================
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/923e06de/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 18 17:04:22 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 21:04:22 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <2bc00a22-ea9f-36a9-db22-4c1c78bc8a6d@swcp.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <2bc00a22-ea9f-36a9-db22-4c1c78bc8a6d@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB170385448A056F8CC9CEA9DCC5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Steve writes:

< Give him credit or not, he's been willing to take on lots of groups/subcultures fairly head-on (and many more smarmily obliquely... like the LGBT/Latino/Black/??? communities) >

Speaking as person who deals with things head-on more than it ever benefits me, I would say that my willingness to do that doesn't usually lead to anyone else being willing to do that.  One might hope that by breaking the ice other people would stop the B.S. and get to the bottom of things.   However, politicians (and many people) see any overt offering of information in social terms.  They first ask, "How does this information create an opportunity or a risk for me?"  Only secondarily do they examine the content of information and arguments.  Thus, it is not a necessarily a good sign when someone that has to make people cooperate takes a direct approach.  It may just show that they lack the memory and patience to turn over all the necessary rocks and think about how they relate before taking action.

Marcus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/c2d441e0/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Fri Aug 18 18:59:11 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:59:11 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <2845804b-d8ba-e417-0acc-a59e99749d14@swcp.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <686d3ecb-0477-4504-602d-72c9649b185b@gmail.com>
 <2845804b-d8ba-e417-0acc-a59e99749d14@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <3412b5f6-8f1b-df00-9be8-f55666b469b2@gmail.com>


On 08/18/2017 01:24 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> https://www.csc2.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/tweet_viz/tweet_app/
> 15 minutes with this make me painfully aware of how much I'm not in tune with twitter culture... the tool seems pretty well made, but I found myself having  a hard time drawing meaningful conclusions (aside from looking for confirmation bias artifacts to glom onto)... the drilldown I did do made me realize that the pleasant/unpleasant axis wasn't what I thought it would be.   The system doesn't seem to take into account (double?) negatives?   Someone railing positively about taking Trump down appears to contribute to the quad-chart plot in roughly the same way as one praising him.

Sentiment analysis is a strange thing.  What's the "law"? ... Is it Poe's Law?  Good satire is indistinguishable from authenticity?  Or something like that.  One can adopt a very positive *affect* about very negative things.  Given your admission that you find morbid things fascinating, I thought replying with sentiment analysis would be appropriate.

Personally, I find black humor is poised on a very thin edge, which makes those who are good at it geniuses.  It's the same with sarcasm and snark.  Pedestrian black humor is very irritating.  But when it's done right, it carries just the right balance of poignancy and banality.  In contrast, tag clouds are antiseptic and devoid of any humanity.
>> Here are some other tools:
>> https://blog.bufferapp.com/free-twitter-tools
> I tried to dig in a little but as I felt frustrated by the implied bias in the nature of the tools I realized the list was labeled as "for Marketing" which (with my own bias) seems to be what most social media tools exist for, to make us all in to better (more malleable?) consumers.

Ahhh.  But "branding" is the Trumpian essence.  Trump is nothing *but* a brand.  And, as our psych friends keep telling us, his narcissistic tendencies reflect that.  There is no "there" there.  There is only posturing and marketing.  So, what better to understand Trump, *but* tools for marketing?

-- 
g???


From profwest at fastmail.fm  Fri Aug 18 19:13:22 2017
From: profwest at fastmail.fm (Prof David West)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:13:22 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Stock Bubble
In-Reply-To: <ffbf969f-2493-963c-f536-9f5c466483fe@swcp.com>
References: <ffbf969f-2493-963c-f536-9f5c466483fe@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <1503098002.3761927.1078087672.0EA62D7A@webmail.messagingengine.com>

I have several friends with tons of money (multi-millionaires, not
billionaires) and they are all leaving stocks. Not because of Trump but
because of the massive shift away from actively managed funds to passive
ones and the overvaluation of price as a result. Bloomberg business just
had a major article about this. I suspect that crony's are moving money
the same way my friends are, and for the same reasons.  

Expect the big whoosh and then reasonably rapid recovery. And don't
expect it to have any effect on Trump, the admin, or his followers.

davew


On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> With morbid fascination, I believe we are about to see the "Trump 
> Bubble" in the stock market, driven by the promises of deregulation, 
> collapse under the weight of the belligerent dysfunction of his 
> administration and sycophants.
> 
> I don't know how transparent the financial holdings of his fat 
> supporters are, but if someone could observe them I suspect there is the 
> beginning of rats fleeing a s(t)inking ship.
> 
> The bubble collapse may or may not be more than a correction back to the 
> levels leading up to the election last year, but I am expecting to hear 
> a loud "whoof!" (more than a pop) as the market exhales all of the 
> climate-denying, xenophobic, warmongering hot air that has been 
> supporting it.
> 
> Just Sayin'
> 
> - Sieve
> 
> PS.  I scanned Glen's links to the various alt.right "intelligencia" 
> blogs...  fascinating but sad!
> 
> 
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 20:57:45 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:57:45 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <3412b5f6-8f1b-df00-9be8-f55666b469b2@gmail.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <686d3ecb-0477-4504-602d-72c9649b185b@gmail.com>
 <2845804b-d8ba-e417-0acc-a59e99749d14@swcp.com>
 <3412b5f6-8f1b-df00-9be8-f55666b469b2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e39b53a0-fbb1-5807-39e7-af27e3a4d2c2@swcp.com>

Well said (as usual).

 >Pedestrian black humor is very irritating. But when it's done right, 
it carries just the right balance of poignancy and
 >banality. In contrast, tag clouds are antiseptic and devoid of any 
humanity.
> There is no "there" there. There is only posturing and marketing. So, 
> what better to understand Trump, *but* tools for marketing? 



From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 21:17:55 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:17:55 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Stock Bubble
In-Reply-To: <1503098002.3761927.1078087672.0EA62D7A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <ffbf969f-2493-963c-f536-9f5c466483fe@swcp.com>
 <1503098002.3761927.1078087672.0EA62D7A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <cf79b1c1-80c8-7dcc-5be2-37fbf11aa8b5@swcp.com>


DaveW -
> I have several friends with tons of money (multi-millionaires, not
> billionaires) and they are all leaving stocks. Not because of Trump but
> because of the massive shift away from actively managed funds to passive
> ones and the overvaluation of price as a result. Bloomberg business just
> had a major article about this. I suspect that crony's are moving money
> the same way my friends are, and for the same reasons.
Are you suggesting that there is no bubble driven by speculation (and 
the reality of) on the free-for-all Trump has promised big business, 
especially (overtly) extractive/polluting/usurious industries?

> Expect the big whoosh and then reasonably rapid recovery.
I do imagine there may be a rapid(ish) recovery if the nonsense in the 
government stabilizes.   My Pollyanna has me believing that we are on a 
cusp and that many industries ARE shifting toward a more sustainable 
model and that these (e.g. renewable energy) will thrive in the vacuum 
left as some of the older, less sustainable ones (coal and other 
fossil-fuels) which are currently enjoying the (promise of?) 
deregulation implode.
>   And don't
> expect it to have any effect on Trump, the admin, or his followers.
I think a tumble in the market will undermine the belief that Trump 
somehow magically has improved our economy simply by being elected, it 
may motivate/allow many who have been enjoying the ride up to quit 
supporting him (even as passively as not rejecting/confronting his 
nonsense).

Hope springs infernal!

- Steve



From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 21:20:17 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:20:17 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB170385448A056F8CC9CEA9DCC5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <2bc00a22-ea9f-36a9-db22-4c1c78bc8a6d@swcp.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170385448A056F8CC9CEA9DCC5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <ad7f0cd1-1e2e-4a20-618c-c8222a10d553@swcp.com>

Marcus -

> Thus, it is not a necessarily a good sign when someone that has to 
> make people cooperate takes a direct approach.  It may just show that 
> they lack the memory and patience to turn over all the necessary rocks 
> and think about how they relate before taking action.
>
Thus: *"< *Give him credit or not"

I never have given him any credit for this feature, but I do believe 
many do, and I do understand that this is a powerful mode of being in 
(too) many people.   It is the default *I* go to when *deeply* cornered, 
which suggests to me that our disaffected "populist" portion of his base 
were acting out of some kind of fear, ready to gulp down any Snake Oil 
offered up to allay the very fear said Snake Oil Purveyor was whipping 
up in the crowd.  They should be choking on that Snake Oil anytime if 
they aren't already.

As frightening as I find many of our current events, I pull out my 
Pollyanna persona to protect me from joining the mob (or the anti-mob) 
simply because I am too frightened to keep looking for better solutions.

I had a much more Cynical persona that gave me relief from fear when I 
(first) voted for Reagan, then (second) saw the error of my ways and 
withdrew significantly from political interests for 20 years.

I'm balancing this habit/nature to be stampeded by fear into acting 
foolishly against Edmund Burkes' admonition:
/The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
nothing./

It feels to me that more and more good men (and women) are doing 
*something* even in the face of bodily harm.  I think that many of these 
people have thoughtfully turned over many rocks before acting.  As 
tedious as that process can be and as much as it feels like it puts one 
at a disadvantage against those who have no trouble acting in a knee 
jerk fashion,  I want to believe it is a more viable strategy in the 
long run.

When the Trump Rally started in the markets (January?), I pulled way 
back mainly because I did not want to profit from his bad acting and 
those who are finding profit in his bad actions.   I believe now that 
this bubble is ready to collapse and the vanguard of that collapse might 
be others who see the injustice in profiting from war, xenophobia, 
science-denial, etc. if not simply those with enough self-interest 
(enlightened or not) to flee before the ship sinks to a new bottom.   It 
may still take impeachment proceedings or criminal charges to kick the 
stool out from under this propped up mess, but that will just make it 
fall harder.

Hope springs infernal,
  - Steve


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/c94c9d1e/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 18 21:36:18 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:36:18 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <e39b53a0-fbb1-5807-39e7-af27e3a4d2c2@swcp.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <686d3ecb-0477-4504-602d-72c9649b185b@gmail.com>
 <2845804b-d8ba-e417-0acc-a59e99749d14@swcp.com>
 <3412b5f6-8f1b-df00-9be8-f55666b469b2@gmail.com>,
 <e39b53a0-fbb1-5807-39e7-af27e3a4d2c2@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <BN6PR11MB1700C560D3D4B96E247E6AC9C5810@BN6PR11MB1700.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"When the Trump Rally started in the markets (January?)"


a.k.a. the Obama trend..


[cid:71b6b327-44b6-481e-85c2-37d19013bd43]

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 6:57:45 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump

Well said (as usual).

 >Pedestrian black humor is very irritating. But when it's done right,
it carries just the right balance of poignancy and
 >banality. In contrast, tag clouds are antiseptic and devoid of any
humanity.
> There is no "there" there. There is only posturing and marketing. So,
> what better to understand Trump, *but* tools for marketing?


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170819/a1537297/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedImage.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18425 bytes
Desc: pastedImage.png
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170819/a1537297/attachment.png>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Fri Aug 18 23:50:59 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 21:50:59 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR11MB1700C560D3D4B96E247E6AC9C5810@BN6PR11MB1700.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <686d3ecb-0477-4504-602d-72c9649b185b@gmail.com>
 <2845804b-d8ba-e417-0acc-a59e99749d14@swcp.com>
 <3412b5f6-8f1b-df00-9be8-f55666b469b2@gmail.com>
 <e39b53a0-fbb1-5807-39e7-af27e3a4d2c2@swcp.com>
 <BN6PR11MB1700C560D3D4B96E247E6AC9C5810@BN6PR11MB1700.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <6a48f027-43a2-e25e-7d8d-f2361fb3ddca@swcp.com>

OK point taken.   My hyperactive imagination again perhaps...


The effect I'm seeing could be nothing more than a recovery from the 
election period uncertainty which seems to show in virtually every 
election cycle.

And performance on Trump's watch (so far) is in the middle of the pack 
of the last 5 presidents:
http://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

and this chart of the first 100 days puts him at 5th, well behind GW and 
Obama.

Your chart starts with Obama's *second* term, not precisely apples and 
apples, though 09 was strikingly similar in spite of the 08 dump.


On 8/18/17 7:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> "When the Trump Rally started in the markets (January?)"
>
>
> a.k.a. the Obama trend..
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith 
> <sasmyth at swcp.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 18, 2017 6:57:45 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
> Well said (as usual).
>
>  >Pedestrian black humor is very irritating. But when it's done right,
> it carries just the right balance of poignancy and
>  >banality. In contrast, tag clouds are antiseptic and devoid of any
> humanity.
> > There is no "there" there. There is only posturing and marketing. So,
> > what better to understand Trump, *but* tools for marketing?
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/653eb4e6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: money-trump1st100-spchart-rev1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 178130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/653eb4e6/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 18425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170818/653eb4e6/attachment-0003.png>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Sat Aug 19 17:39:11 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 15:39:11 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <908a9948-3cee-7d27-cf0f-5976c7207012@swcp.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAMaMUCStYFaP3+qkDr-yO=qSxSYzQ2MTZ21x4Zqzf0mttMF3Aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <908a9948-3cee-7d27-cf0f-5976c7207012@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCQYXqW8QzBcpZt21SYHrFsO8X-yp4KVUF8CpvoUgoYRNw@mail.gmail.com>

No. I agree. The way the do their videos is...yeah Max Hedroom 20 minutes
into future. CyberPunk meets MadMax.  In a documentary about them they use
a computer to read a script so as to protect the crew. I totally respect
that. Part of that is because how they work is murky legal water. The other
part was because  a few of their opts went sideways such as  calling out
the ScienTologists for being a trolling cult...it went down hill pretty
quickly. So now they (try to) stay more anonymous using stylised
maxhedroomy videos with a computer reading text.
One of there was on some extremist  netoworking, and their leaders who they
promissed to forward any and all info they could to the proper authortese.
Now their taking on the extremists here. (some) of that info has lead
banks, business etc to refuse to deel with those trolls. Their also taking
down flags and statues of as Arnold Swartzinager put it "epicaly failed
idiologies of xenophobia, rage, and hate."  Theyre members have been
replacing those symbols with goofy art, or cleaning  the buildings and just
removing the grafiti.




On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

> Gil -
>
> Thanks for the reference to Anonymous at YouTube.   You can tell I'm an old
> fogey by my irritable reaction to the style of their videos.  I felt like
> it was created by/for Max Headroom!
>
> I HAVE watched one or two before (over a year ago?) with the same
> reaction.   I have a natural (Ithink) mixed reaction to their
> bluff/threats... what was that about contacting people in Lagos, Nigeria?
> I didn't think Anonymous were prone to threatening IRL violence, but rather
> stayed with what I think of as "targeted vandalism" in cyberspace?
>
> I'm also (still) confused about how there can ever be a single true voice
> for such a by-definition amorphous and distributed and ultimately defined
> only by self-definition group?    Some aspects of their nature/behaviour
> feels a bit too much like the alt.right they are (in this moment) going up
> against.
>
> - Steve
> On 8/18/17 2:02 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote
>
> Anonymous has been posting videos on youtube sugesting people put aside
> the petty bickering. Making sugestion what things people can do to empower
> themselves. Their current call to arms is about (weirdly) love and joy and
> getting rid of washinton as it currently is and try for something like a
> Sociliast Republic/Technorocracy.
> They're pretty tired of the sheer rage coming in and out of washington if
> the videos are anything to go by.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ?While I feel very nervous about Twitter shutting down theDonald's
>> personal account
>> so cavalierly, I can imagine how devastating it would be to his ego to
>> not be able to
>> blurt out his nonsense at all times of the day or night without benefit
>> of counsel by
>> his (admittedly highly flawed) inner circle/counsel.  Moving the same
>> blurts to @POTUS
>> might be all it would achieve, which might enhance the absurdity yet more?
>> ?
>>
>> While I like the idea of his continued self-sabotage, his pronouncements
>> probably keep a part of the base stoked.
>>
>> If his accounts were to go away, those folks might not have the
>> initiative to replace that outlet with another.   And then they could get
>> back to torturing animals or whatever it is they do all day.
>>
>> The ACLU new policy to not support armed groups seems like a good step.
>> There are other groups like the SPLC that can tackle the haters.   I hope
>> that if his rhetoric continues this way, and he repeatedly violates their
>> terms of services, that they do shut him down completely.  He can go on Fox
>> and Friends or something.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170819/03406558/attachment.html>

From tom at jtjohnson.com  Sat Aug 19 17:57:05 2017
From: tom at jtjohnson.com (Tom Johnson)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 15:57:05 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Walk,
 Don't Walk: Everyday Interactions with Self-Driving Cars
Message-ID: <CABg8s8KkGDcKEuPaTmOmd2bgS-ZXEWRRNQdpp_yrM9UoxswTFg@mail.gmail.com>

Perhaps of interest.  Lecture at S.A.R.

*Thursday, September 14, 2017, 6:30?7:30 pm, Free for SAR members ? $10 for
Not-Yet-Members*
*Walk, Don't Walk: Everyday Interactions with Self-Driving Cars*
*Melissa Cefkin*
*Join anthropologist Melissa Cefkin to learn how what we are learning about
the nature of roadway interactions and street life is helping shape the
development of autonomous vehicles.*

TJ

============================================
Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   --     Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)                                    505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
*Check out It's The People's Data
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
http://www.jtjohnson.com                   tom at jtjohnson.com
============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170819/b83cbf71/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Sat Aug 19 18:19:30 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 16:19:30 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Walk,
 Don't Walk: Everyday Interactions with Self-Driving Cars
In-Reply-To: <CABg8s8KkGDcKEuPaTmOmd2bgS-ZXEWRRNQdpp_yrM9UoxswTFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABg8s8KkGDcKEuPaTmOmd2bgS-ZXEWRRNQdpp_yrM9UoxswTFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCREJ-ZiipD1yngRoY65crBs5QLdzK92cwDvu=bFT+6ioQ@mail.gmail.com>

Nice! I have this cool picture of robot (assisted?) cars being of great use
for someone sick or the elderly. Maybie even festivies with mead  or beer.

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Tom Johnson <tom at jtjohnson.com> wrote:

> Perhaps of interest.  Lecture at S.A.R.
>
> *Thursday, September 14, 2017, 6:30?7:30 pm, Free for SAR members ? $10
> for Not-Yet-Members*
> *Walk, Don't Walk: Everyday Interactions with Self-Driving Cars*
> *Melissa Cefkin*
> *Join anthropologist Melissa Cefkin to learn how what we are learning
> about the nature of roadway interactions and street life is helping shape
> the development of autonomous vehicles.*
>
> TJ
>
> ============================================
> Tom Johnson
> Institute for Analytic Journalism   --     Santa Fe, NM USA
> 505.577.6482 <(505)%20577-6482>(c)
> 505.473.9646 <(505)%20473-9646>(h)
> Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
> *Check out It's The People's Data
> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
> http://www.jtjohnson.com                   tom at jtjohnson.com
> ============================================
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170819/92e1ba84/attachment.html>

From tom at jtjohnson.com  Sat Aug 19 23:33:44 2017
From: tom at jtjohnson.com (Tom Johnson)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:33:44 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Stock Bubble
In-Reply-To: <1503098002.3761927.1078087672.0EA62D7A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <ffbf969f-2493-963c-f536-9f5c466483fe@swcp.com>
 <1503098002.3761927.1078087672.0EA62D7A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <CABg8s8+MhrXnBE8D2Yp-VFp6Zf06Qm=q5M5FA7RxK661W4GBkg@mail.gmail.com>

So you leave stocks to go where?  1.5% bonds?

TJ


============================================
Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   --     Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)                                    505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
*Check out It's The People's Data
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
http://www.jtjohnson.com                   tom at jtjohnson.com
============================================

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> I have several friends with tons of money (multi-millionaires, not
> billionaires) and they are all leaving stocks. Not because of Trump but
> because of the massive shift away from actively managed funds to passive
> ones and the overvaluation of price as a result. Bloomberg business just
> had a major article about this. I suspect that crony's are moving money
> the same way my friends are, and for the same reasons.
>
> Expect the big whoosh and then reasonably rapid recovery. And don't
> expect it to have any effect on Trump, the admin, or his followers.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > With morbid fascination, I believe we are about to see the "Trump
> > Bubble" in the stock market, driven by the promises of deregulation,
> > collapse under the weight of the belligerent dysfunction of his
> > administration and sycophants.
> >
> > I don't know how transparent the financial holdings of his fat
> > supporters are, but if someone could observe them I suspect there is the
> > beginning of rats fleeing a s(t)inking ship.
> >
> > The bubble collapse may or may not be more than a correction back to the
> > levels leading up to the election last year, but I am expecting to hear
> > a loud "whoof!" (more than a pop) as the market exhales all of the
> > climate-denying, xenophobic, warmongering hot air that has been
> > supporting it.
> >
> > Just Sayin'
> >
> > - Sieve
> >
> > PS.  I scanned Glen's links to the various alt.right "intelligencia"
> > blogs...  fascinating but sad!
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170819/8498f4f7/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sun Aug 20 00:54:26 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 22:54:26 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Stock Bubble
In-Reply-To: <CABg8s8+MhrXnBE8D2Yp-VFp6Zf06Qm=q5M5FA7RxK661W4GBkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffbf969f-2493-963c-f536-9f5c466483fe@swcp.com>
 <1503098002.3761927.1078087672.0EA62D7A@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CABg8s8+MhrXnBE8D2Yp-VFp6Zf06Qm=q5M5FA7RxK661W4GBkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <da3dcc61-057e-4653-112a-ba1175ab34ae@swcp.com>




> So you leave stocks to go where?  1.5% bonds?
1.5% will be a bargain when/if/as things go upside down (again).
>
> TJ
>
>
> ============================================
> Tom Johnson
> Institute for Analytic Journalism --     Santa Fe, NM USA
> 505.577.6482(c)           505.473.9646(h)
> Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
> *Check out It's The People's Data 
> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
> http://www.jtjohnson.com <http://www.jtjohnson.com/> tom at jtjohnson.com 
> <mailto:tom at jtjohnson.com>
> ============================================
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm 
> <mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm>> wrote:
>
>     I have several friends with tons of money (multi-millionaires, not
>     billionaires) and they are all leaving stocks. Not because of
>     Trump but
>     because of the massive shift away from actively managed funds to
>     passive
>     ones and the overvaluation of price as a result. Bloomberg
>     business just
>     had a major article about this. I suspect that crony's are moving
>     money
>     the same way my friends are, and for the same reasons.
>
>     Expect the big whoosh and then reasonably rapid recovery. And don't
>     expect it to have any effect on Trump, the admin, or his followers.
>
>     davew
>
>
>     On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>     > With morbid fascination, I believe we are about to see the "Trump
>     > Bubble" in the stock market, driven by the promises of deregulation,
>     > collapse under the weight of the belligerent dysfunction of his
>     > administration and sycophants.
>     >
>     > I don't know how transparent the financial holdings of his fat
>     > supporters are, but if someone could observe them I suspect
>     there is the
>     > beginning of rats fleeing a s(t)inking ship.
>     >
>     > The bubble collapse may or may not be more than a correction
>     back to the
>     > levels leading up to the election last year, but I am expecting
>     to hear
>     > a loud "whoof!" (more than a pop) as the market exhales all of the
>     > climate-denying, xenophobic, warmongering hot air that has been
>     > supporting it.
>     >
>     > Just Sayin'
>     >
>     > - Sieve
>     >
>     > PS.  I scanned Glen's links to the various alt.right "intelligencia"
>     > blogs...  fascinating but sad!
>     >
>     >
>     > ============================================================
>     > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     > to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>     ============================================================
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170819/19c2f1f1/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 10:48:29 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:48:29 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>

If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing other thank
depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is leaking....again. Oh clear
skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/d5efea5f/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 10:50:14 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?4pSjZ2xlbuKUqw==?=)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:50:14 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa227ee3-4707-afcf-e8fb-6b3b09da77a8@gmail.com>

Yeah, but even with the clouds, it will still be cool to see the sky go dark in the middle of the day.

On 08/21/2017 07:48 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing other thank
> depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is leaking....again. Oh clear
> skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha


-- 
?glen?


From carl at plektyx.com  Mon Aug 21 10:54:19 2017
From: carl at plektyx.com (Carl Tollander)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:54:19 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFi2r0j5j0VoVK9PC7_KWKFV-injWKXOxDHoerxEtY04fEMf7g@mail.gmail.com>

"Ieyasu says 'wait' "


On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing other thank
> depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is leaking....again. Oh clear
> skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/ba361ee2/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Mon Aug 21 11:20:04 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 09:20:04 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
In-Reply-To: <CAFi2r0j5j0VoVK9PC7_KWKFV-injWKXOxDHoerxEtY04fEMf7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0j5j0VoVK9PC7_KWKFV-injWKXOxDHoerxEtY04fEMf7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1748e8a-428e-264c-2326-69b4a41099cd@swcp.com>

With or without the eclipse, we can still admire the fireflies as our 
lifeblood oozes into the ground!


On 8/21/17 8:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> "Ieyasu says 'wait' "
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Gillian Densmore 
> <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing other
>     thank depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is
>     leaking....again. Oh clear skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha
>
>     ============================================================
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/e243688b/attachment.html>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 11:44:38 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 09:44:38 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
In-Reply-To: <d1748e8a-428e-264c-2326-69b4a41099cd@swcp.com>
References: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0j5j0VoVK9PC7_KWKFV-injWKXOxDHoerxEtY04fEMf7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1748e8a-428e-264c-2326-69b4a41099cd@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfrdd4y2y-3-tuoObm9ZndAAQ91YXq51mfn0HOoYX=1=TQ@mail.gmail.com>

With my five year-old grandson here I'm actually thankful.  What happens
when you tell a young boy not to look at the sun, he looks at the sun.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 21, 2017 9:20 AM, "Steven A Smith" <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

> With or without the eclipse, we can still admire the fireflies as our
> lifeblood oozes into the ground!
>
> On 8/21/17 8:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>
> "Ieyasu says 'wait' "
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing other thank
>> depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is leaking....again. Oh clear
>> skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/169b4ecb/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 12:37:53 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:37:53 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfrdd4y2y-3-tuoObm9ZndAAQ91YXq51mfn0HOoYX=1=TQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0j5j0VoVK9PC7_KWKFV-injWKXOxDHoerxEtY04fEMf7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1748e8a-428e-264c-2326-69b4a41099cd@swcp.com>
 <CAA5dAfrdd4y2y-3-tuoObm9ZndAAQ91YXq51mfn0HOoYX=1=TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCSjt4rVAEOf-NHBmOAsNq3WkUoVp+7k816N_tUJWHQNtQ@mail.gmail.com>

And the messed up weather is still here.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> With my five year-old grandson here I'm actually thankful.  What happens
> when you tell a young boy not to look at the sun, he looks at the sun.
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Aug 21, 2017 9:20 AM, "Steven A Smith" <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> With or without the eclipse, we can still admire the fireflies as our
>> lifeblood oozes into the ground!
>>
>> On 8/21/17 8:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>>
>> "Ieyasu says 'wait' "
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing other thank
>>> depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is leaking....again. Oh clear
>>> skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/40bafee8/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 12:59:17 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:59:17 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCQVs+iZyUTpinCHvzn7FXeYu6a+7=2ZEuaJtqNjX_QaQw@mail.gmail.com>

https://www.nasa.gov/eclipselive/#NASA+TV+Public+Channel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/478f7011/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 21 14:12:06 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:12:06 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703B0793C0000469FE311DAC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMaMUCQVs+iZyUTpinCHvzn7FXeYu6a+7=2ZEuaJtqNjX_QaQw@mail.gmail.com>,
 <CY4PR11MB1703B0793C0000469FE311DAC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703CE7EDAD864FB4FB00F9DC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Here's the view from the Willamette valley in Oregon.  (Third try for size restrictions.)


________________________________
From: Marcus Daniels
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 12:09:55 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing


Here's the view from the Willamette valley in Oregon.



________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 10:59:17 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing

https://www.nasa.gov/eclipselive/#NASA+TV+Public+Channel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/a201cf80/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eclipse.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 685514 bytes
Desc: eclipse.jpeg
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/a201cf80/attachment-0001.jpeg>

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 14:14:30 2017
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:14:30 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703CE7EDAD864FB4FB00F9DC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMaMUCQVs+iZyUTpinCHvzn7FXeYu6a+7=2ZEuaJtqNjX_QaQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B0793C0000469FE311DAC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703CE7EDAD864FB4FB00F9DC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAA5dAfoXENiAU+j1K967_-OK6ffTEL41sMmdTcjoR+zBt34oEA@mail.gmail.com>

If you zoom in you can see relief on the edge of the moon.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 21, 2017 12:12 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> Here's the view from the Willamette valley in Oregon.  (Third try for size
> restrictions.)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Marcus Daniels
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 12:09:55 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
>
>
> Here's the view from the Willamette valley in Oregon.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <
> gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 10:59:17 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/eclipselive/#NASA+TV+Public+Channel
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/a0ef1f2a/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 14:24:16 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:24:16 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfoXENiAU+j1K967_-OK6ffTEL41sMmdTcjoR+zBt34oEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCQVs+iZyUTpinCHvzn7FXeYu6a+7=2ZEuaJtqNjX_QaQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B0793C0000469FE311DAC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703CE7EDAD864FB4FB00F9DC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA5dAfoXENiAU+j1K967_-OK6ffTEL41sMmdTcjoR+zBt34oEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCRmja71H534YFq1jT9gqJOjUGqv6orynVJFDpmk3ww9TQ@mail.gmail.com>

NASA rocks.


On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If you zoom in you can see relief on the edge of the moon.
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Aug 21, 2017 12:12 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's the view from the Willamette valley in Oregon.  (Third try for
>> size restrictions.)
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Marcus Daniels
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 12:09:55 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
>>
>>
>> Here's the view from the Willamette valley in Oregon.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <
>> gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 10:59:17 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
>>
>> https://www.nasa.gov/eclipselive/#NASA+TV+Public+Channel
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/76d6503c/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 15:02:35 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:02:35 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
In-Reply-To: <CAA5dAfoXENiAU+j1K967_-OK6ffTEL41sMmdTcjoR+zBt34oEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCQVs+iZyUTpinCHvzn7FXeYu6a+7=2ZEuaJtqNjX_QaQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B0793C0000469FE311DAC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703CE7EDAD864FB4FB00F9DC5870@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA5dAfoXENiAU+j1K967_-OK6ffTEL41sMmdTcjoR+zBt34oEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCTYEjf2k+Og81VK=672=UUonh0VnQjcdjJfzvnp4_RaFA@mail.gmail.com>

As a quick follow up the weather FINALLY was clear enough to watch  in
person a minute or so of  it. That was just awsome.
When I saw it their was a pretty white flow around the shadow and  kind of
orang glow to another part of it.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If you zoom in you can see relief on the edge of the moon.
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Aug 21, 2017 12:12 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's the view from the Willamette valley in Oregon.  (Third try for
>> size restrictions.)
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Marcus Daniels
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 12:09:55 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
>>
>>
>> Here's the view from the Willamette valley in Oregon.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <
>> gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 10:59:17 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] What We should be seeing
>>
>> https://www.nasa.gov/eclipselive/#NASA+TV+Public+Channel
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/2cdacb07/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 15:09:55 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:09:55 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] at the risk of spaming Elcips Q
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCQTPY9nguuTfQW2s31b4xb6j1saTk1uTdY5Eyv5MLqqeg@mail.gmail.com>

Are Ecipleses on North America really that rare? and What might have been
the reason for the white/orange glow? (Was using glasses sold as 'eclipse
glasses' have a mylar screen on them) the bottom part of the moon(?) had a
reely pretty looking white folow while the right side had a pretty orange
glow.

(Trying to Re-Find my Buddha nature and find some silver lining to the days
annoyances besides I'm curius)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/7a1327c0/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 15:44:12 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:44:12 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme
In-Reply-To: <b1896d3e-7c2a-63c3-4c6a-300375a1520f@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <CAEmKtrwFy5+GP4NZhxHQ1n3svN861EF=EACFAt-f7L=nq7042Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5ccf3e66-0544-32a8-467f-4475c730bd3d@swcp.com>
 <CAEmKtrxoWhDn-TOEiSTSv_guyhbijyTymnnOXT3Ymz8ToyKd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGayqou3+wT4DxeBoZX+baWMN03L8N0tD7gSkShjxA2t_HUO2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB170326A05418CB3C8311F00BC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f2bd7f52-7e0f-bb29-ceaa-d36f5a591b5f@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D1215269F0D739C0F4DEC5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f72d47ce-b181-bc74-1c32-9243dd31d47a@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17030218D13CA1461AD7D296C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <dee51e32-c752-da2a-6acb-5dbba9537730@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB17038425AC896F7F5EE9F456C5830@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d517117a-5da8-837a-54db-a6d81bf9a87b@gmail.com>
 <CAGayqosT=+qrAmfbRUD819eqGMFtAukdf+fk-+=v+HjM8gpzYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <b1896d3e-7c2a-63c3-4c6a-300375a1520f@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e9acee5b-a037-4cee-d04d-149524698bb6@gmail.com>

Perhaps there is some hope.  See this orthodox nationalist's whining:

  http://www.rusjournal.org/the-orthodox-nationalist-podcast/

But it sounds like he's been replaced by a kinder-gentler version? I haven't heard of Nathaniel Kapner.  It's interesting how the tangled knot of fuzz that was NrX evolved into alt-right and is, now, gradually being taken over by the neo-[nazi|confederate] morons.  Perhaps this Kapner is evidence of the same in the orthodox nationalists.  I felt the same way when I watched the Libertarians completely devolve from talking about Hayek and Friedman and morph into garden variety right wingers. [sigh]

But the more (and more often) we can root out the pseudo-scholars and replace them with those less linguistically endowed, the easier it will be for the laity to see how impoverished their ideas are.

On 08/17/2017 04:01 PM, g??? wrote:
> The Future Primaeval is still up: http://thefutureprimaeval.net/this-is-the-future-primaeval/
> NrX sites are mostly still up: http://neoreaction.net/ http://hestiasociety.org/
> 
> More Right is gone.  Mike Anissimov's Twitter account is gone.
> 
> Moldbug's garbage is still up:
> http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/moldbugs-gentle-introduction/
> http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/
> 
> It seems to me that the neo-nazis and "ethnic nationalists" are easy enough to recognize as silly idealists.  But the NrX guys pack more of a punch.  Their ideas are a bit like the insidious Sam Harris, who slathers his right wing ideas in a tasty sauce of rationalism.  But I don't know if the right answer is to take out their platforms.  It seems to me humiliation and humor are the right paths.  (cf. Harris' interaction with Chomsky)

-- 
g???


From carl at plektyx.com  Mon Aug 21 15:44:30 2017
From: carl at plektyx.com (Carl Tollander)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:44:30 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCSjt4rVAEOf-NHBmOAsNq3WkUoVp+7k816N_tUJWHQNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFi2r0j5j0VoVK9PC7_KWKFV-injWKXOxDHoerxEtY04fEMf7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1748e8a-428e-264c-2326-69b4a41099cd@swcp.com>
 <CAA5dAfrdd4y2y-3-tuoObm9ZndAAQ91YXq51mfn0HOoYX=1=TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSjt4rVAEOf-NHBmOAsNq3WkUoVp+7k816N_tUJWHQNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFi2r0iptFqkns3BLwChp7ExDc9bRwKeffhJWK74wvftEV3GYA@mail.gmail.com>

Caught bit of it through some cloud gaps, but on the whole viewing
conditions were less than ideal.


On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> And the messed up weather is still here.
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> With my five year-old grandson here I'm actually thankful.  What happens
>> when you tell a young boy not to look at the sun, he looks at the sun.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frank Wimberly
>> Phone (505) 670-9918
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2017 9:20 AM, "Steven A Smith" <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With or without the eclipse, we can still admire the fireflies as our
>>> lifeblood oozes into the ground!
>>>
>>> On 8/21/17 8:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ieyasu says 'wait' "
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Gillian Densmore <
>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing other
>>>> thank depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is leaking....again. Oh
>>>> clear skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/de0c0c1c/attachment.html>

From eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 20:10:31 2017
From: eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com (Eric Charles)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:10:31 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
"Natural selection can *preserve* innovations, but it cannot create them."

Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we would
normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts of
innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than is
intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored,
short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who don't
know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild foxes into
reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you have to do is
select against aggression towards humans.)

I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up in
the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.

Best,
Eric



-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
<echarles at american.edu>

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
wrote:

> "To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the
> nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's
> response to it (blaming all sides)."
>
>
> This side
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/heather-heyer-charlottesville-victim.html>
> must have been terribly menacing to a man in a > 300 HP car.  Not only do
> words have meaning, but even perceptions.  The memes are unbound or at
> least differently bound.
>
> So any fitness function that involves them cannot be compared.
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of ?glen? <
> gepropella at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2017 10:28 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>
> I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.  I don't usually agree with Nick's
> distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme
> isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought
> construct that is anything like a gene.
>
> To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the
> nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's
> response to it (blaming all sides).  To be clear, anyone who continues
> defending their vote for Trump at this point should be held accountable for
> their idiotic choice.  But the Trump defender will say something like
> "Trump's not a racist or a nazi, even if some of his followers are."  And,
> "yes I support Trump.  But I'm not a nazi."  Pffft.  It flat out does not
> matter.  There is no analog for mutation or crossover that we can use to
> map Trump to his nazis.  The gooey milieu that flows from someone like
> Trump, whose life of privilege has severely decoupled him from reality, to
> the nazis, whose fear and hatred has severely decoupled them from reality,
> ... that gooey ball of ill-formed ideology can't be coupled to reality.
> That's the problem with metaphor, ideology, and fantasy.  To make reductive
> attempts to model such fantasy with analogies to real things (like genes)
> is to conflate fantasy with reality.
>
> To be as clear as I can, ideas can only track back to mechanisms when they
> sync up with reality.  That's why (observational) science is so
> successful.  There are (basically) 2 ways ideas can interact with reality:
> 1) methodologically and 2) neural correlates.  If a ball of ideas includes
> (in its not biological evolution) a method for regularly testing itself
> against reality, then it's possible to analogize between that ball of ideas
> and reality.  Neither Trump, nor his nazis include that.  So, the only
> remaining map we can draw from the ideas to reality is any neural
> correlates we can find.  And until we have those, mapping the ideas to
> genes dooms us to faulty (at best) or delusional (at worst) inferences.
>
> Now, everyone I know who uses the words "meme" and "memetics" is
> relatively scientifically literate.  So, memetics *seems* plausible because
> it's only used by relatively clear thinkers about relatively
> reality-touching balls of ideas.  But I would bet money that memetics will
> fail miserably if we try to use it to explain or model fantasy-dominated
> people like Trump and his supporters.
>
>
>
> On 08/12/2017 12:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple
> simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see humans
> mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures, or their
> parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in several
> dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying unit (a
> human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial behaviour by
> most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what seems like some
> fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?
> >
> > i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with
> Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally connected
> (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second and third world
> there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented mutations recognized
> and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald Trump represents a
> half-dozen (or more) mutations in the socio/economic/political code and yet
> HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost surely malignant and seems to be
> metastasizing (other populist whitelash fascist movements around the first
> world).  The question in this metaphor might be whether the body
> (humankind) has the ability to fight back against this? It fits my
> Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as these are good times to focus
> significant resources on simply "tending your own garden".    The world
> will have a better chance of fighting off this malignancy if it maintains
> it's overall health (social, economic, spiritual)
> > otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune system any
> more than it already has.
>
> --
> ?glen?
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170821/c29912e6/attachment.html>

From merlelefkoff at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 10:50:59 2017
From: merlelefkoff at gmail.com (Merle Lefkoff)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:50:59 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
In-Reply-To: <aa227ee3-4707-afcf-e8fb-6b3b09da77a8@gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa227ee3-4707-afcf-e8fb-6b3b09da77a8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEmKtrxxwwdCRH5dGcPhatGbF23y4jrWnX_gmKVk=s7Tb9gYdw@mail.gmail.com>

You wouldn't have seen much, even if the clouds parted.  I'm on my way back
from Oregon and totality, which is 1,000,000 times darker than watching the
eclipse at any percent of partial totality.  Totality is simply a
completely different experience.  And yes, it was worth the trip!

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:50 AM, ?glen? <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, but even with the clouds, it will still be cool to see the sky go
> dark in the middle of the day.
>
> On 08/21/2017 07:48 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> > If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing other thank
> > depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is leaking....again. Oh clear
> > skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha
>
>
> --
> ?glen?
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefkoff at gmail.com <merlelefoff at gmail.com>
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170822/b4238c96/attachment.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug 22 11:10:28 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:10:28 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>

Eric,

 

I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim since it was first made.  

 

I think it?s nonsense, but I am not sure. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating. 
"Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them."

Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored, short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you have to do is select against aggression towards humans.) 

I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up in the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation. 

Best,

Eric

 





-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician

U.S. Marine Corps

 

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

"To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it (blaming all sides)."

 

This side <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/heather-heyer-charlottesville-victim.html>  must have been terribly menacing to a man in a > 300 HP car.  Not only do words have meaning, but even perceptions.  The memes are unbound or at least differently bound.

So any fitness function that involves them cannot be compared.

 

Marcus

 


  _____  


From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > on behalf of ?glen? <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 10:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate 

 

I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.  I don't usually agree with Nick's distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought construct that is anything like a gene.

To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it (blaming all sides).  To be clear, anyone who continues defending their vote for Trump at this point should be held accountable for their idiotic choice.  But the Trump defender will say something like "Trump's not a racist or a nazi, even if some of his followers are."  And, "yes I support Trump.  But I'm not a nazi."  Pffft.  It flat out does not matter.  There is no analog for mutation or crossover that we can use to map Trump to his nazis.  The gooey milieu that flows from someone like Trump, whose life of privilege has severely decoupled him from reality, to the nazis, whose fear and hatred has severely decoupled them from reality, ... that gooey ball of ill-formed ideology can't be coupled to reality.  That's the problem with metaphor, ideology, and fantasy.  To make reductive attempts to model such fantasy with analogies to real things (like genes) is to conflate fantasy with reality.

To be as clear as I can, ideas can only track back to mechanisms when they sync up with reality.  That's why (observational) science is so successful.  There are (basically) 2 ways ideas can interact with reality: 1) methodologically and 2) neural correlates.  If a ball of ideas includes (in its not biological evolution) a method for regularly testing itself against reality, then it's possible to analogize between that ball of ideas and reality.  Neither Trump, nor his nazis include that.  So, the only remaining map we can draw from the ideas to reality is any neural correlates we can find.  And until we have those, mapping the ideas to genes dooms us to faulty (at best) or delusional (at worst) inferences.

Now, everyone I know who uses the words "meme" and "memetics" is relatively scientifically literate.  So, memetics *seems* plausible because it's only used by relatively clear thinkers about relatively reality-touching balls of ideas.  But I would bet money that memetics will fail miserably if we try to use it to explain or model fantasy-dominated people like Trump and his supporters.



On 08/12/2017 12:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures, or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?
> 
> i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic, spiritual)
> otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune system any more than it already has.

-- 
?glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170822/71a7dd65/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 12:10:32 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 09:10:32 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>


Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>
> An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
>
> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.
>




On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim since it was first made. 
> I think it?s nonsense, but I am not sure.
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
> 
>  
> 
> Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."
> 
> Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored, short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you have to do is select against aggression towards humans.)
> 
> I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up in the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.

-- 
g???


From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug 22 14:21:55 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:21:55 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>

Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd. 

"inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]

N



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>
> An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
>
> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.
>




On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim since it was first made. 
> I think it?s nonsense, but I am not sure.
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric 
> Charles
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
> 
>  
> 
> Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."
> 
> Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we 
> would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts 
> of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than 
> is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored, 
> short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who 
> don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild 
> foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you 
> have to do is select against aggression towards humans.)
> 
> I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up in the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.

--
g???

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



From gepropella at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 14:27:43 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:27:43 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <9a40855e-abef-89ed-206e-93d048c46a33@gmail.com>

Heh, so you *agree* with Wagner that natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them?

On 08/22/2017 11:21 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd. 

-- 
g???


From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Tue Aug 22 14:49:19 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:49:19 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <9a40855e-abef-89ed-206e-93d048c46a33@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <9a40855e-abef-89ed-206e-93d048c46a 33@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019b01d31b77$5ef837a0$1ce8a6e0$@earthlink.net>

Well, I am not sure the weight of Wagner's presentation supports that conclusion. 

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 2:28 PM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Heh, so you *agree* with Wagner that natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them?

On 08/22/2017 11:21 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd. 

--
g???

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



From wallrobert7 at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 19:05:36 2017
From: wallrobert7 at gmail.com (Robert Wall)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:05:36 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>

Nick,

"Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."  and
 "The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd."

Not trying to get into a tussle with you, ? but Jeremy England
<http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/england_jeremy.html> would tend
to agree with you, as would I.  According to this analysis (*Nautilus *2016)
concerning the Hox gene circuit
<http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp>,
there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping)
to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this *would *be absurd.

Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary
> developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex
> organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different
> networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit,
> called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don?t
> need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of
> wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two
> vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take account
> of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another (for
> example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of
> possible circuits is more than 10700. That?s a lot, lot more than the
> number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are
> the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable ?snake? or
> ?human? traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did
> evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?


?...?

?

You could go from one sequence to another with the same shape (and thus
> much the same function) via a succession of small changes to the sequence,
> as if proceeding through a rail network station by station. Such changes
> are called neutral mutations, because they are neither adaptively
> beneficial nor detrimental. (In fact even if mutations are not strictly
> neutral but slightly decrease fitness, as many do, they can persist for a
> long time in a population as if they were quasi-neutral.)


Here is a new explanation *for the rest of us* -- *Wired*: CONTROVERSIAL
NEW THEORY SUGGESTS LIFE WASN'T A FLUKE OF BIOLOGY?IT WAS PHYSICS
<https://www.wired.com/story/controversial-new-theory-suggests-life-wasnt-a-fluke-of-biologyit-was-physics/>
[7-30-2017].

... and here -- *Scientific America*: A New Physics Theory of Life
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/>
[2014], where the same science author writes about this when the idea was
first proposed by England in his 2013 paper
<http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf>.


A physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because the
law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire life-like physical
properties


Perhaps very much prematurely, England is being touted as the new Darwin.
His theory, however, does not replace natural selection but provides a
deeper expanation for "fitness."

In an hour-long lecture that I listened to
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4> recently, England admits that
we cannot really attribute any of this to randomness ... we don't really
know precisely what that is. What it seems to come down to, though, are--as
you say--the "best" hypotheses for the seemingly improbable (considering
the Second Law of Thermodynamics) building of new structures in a
prevailing heat bath that dissipate the most Gibbs free energy. Erwin
Schr?dinger noted something similar in his 1944 essay *What is Life*.

If I understand this, what creates these "fit" structures is this
tendency for all matter, not just living matter, (i.e., arrangements of
atoms or molecules) to self-organize into new organizations--your
*hypotheses*--that maximize the dissipation of free energy. It is indeed
the evolving, prevailing environment that provides the opportunities for
various, different "hypotheses" to arise at different times in geological
history. So, in a sense, you *can *say that natural selection *creates and
preserves* innovations if you see it as an interactive process as both
Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead both did at the beginning of the
twentieth century.

>From the same *Scientific American* article, this is notable:

Having an overarching principle of life and evolution would give
> researchers a broader perspective on the emergence of structure and
> function in living things, many of the researchers said. ?Natural selection
> doesn?t explain certain characteristics,? said Ard Louis, a biophysicist at
> Oxford University, in an email. These characteristics include a heritable
> change to gene expression called methylation, increases in complexity in
> the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes Louis has
> recently studied.



>
> If [*Jeremy*] England?s approach stands up to more testing, it could
> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every
> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that ?the
> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be
> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it
> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,? Louis said.


For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more than
just interesting.

Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my attention.

Cheers,

Robert


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers
> up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of
> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
>
> "inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>
>
> Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in
> regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate
> response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading
> Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have
> meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:
>
> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
> >
> > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how
> nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
> >
> > From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but
> this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it
> cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just
> another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
> some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's
> ability to innovate, its innovability.
> >
>
>
>
>
> On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim
> since it was first made.
> > I think it?s nonsense, but I am not sure.
> >
> > *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric
> > Charles
> > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
> > "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create
> them."
> >
> > Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we
> > would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts
> > of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than
> > is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored,
> > short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who
> > don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild
> > foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you
> > have to do is select against aggression towards humans.)
> >
> > I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up
> in the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.
>
> --
> g???
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170822/de088fc6/attachment.html>

From eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 20:25:27 2017
From: eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com (Eric Charles)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 20:25:27 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEYGzMDL2QfL3GC4qE4f9U7Q=L39CvrgA8x=K212YF4p828NQA@mail.gmail.com>

Incidentally, the life-increases-entropy hypothesis.... I first stumbled
upon an excellent statement of that in Comparative Psychology: A Handbook
<https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/comparative-psychology-gary-greenberg/1112415063>(1998).
It was by Rod Swenson, who has some other interesting statements on the
topic on Research Gate
<https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2118010758_ROD_SWENSON>,
including one connecting the idea with perception-action systems.

It is definitely insightful in some ways, and I remember being quite
impressed. However, as I see it pop up more, I start to remember that it's
been a while since most Western intellectuals expected life to be an
exception to the laws of physics, so I'm not sure it's too terribly
interesting to note that life conforms to them.


-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
<echarles at american.edu>

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Robert Wall <wallrobert7 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nick,
>
> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."
>  and  "The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is
> absurd."
>
> Not trying to get into a tussle with you, ? but Jeremy England
> <http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/england_jeremy.html> would
> tend to agree with you, as would I.  According to this analysis (*Nautilus
> *2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit
> <http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp>,
> there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping)
> to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this *would *be absurd.
>
> Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary
>> developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex
>> organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different
>> networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit,
>> called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don?t
>> need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of
>> wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two
>> vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take account
>> of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another (for
>> example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of
>> possible circuits is more than 10700. That?s a lot, lot more than the
>> number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are
>> the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable ?snake? or
>> ?human? traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did
>> evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?
>
>
> ?...?
>
> ?
>
> You could go from one sequence to another with the same shape (and thus
>> much the same function) via a succession of small changes to the sequence,
>> as if proceeding through a rail network station by station. Such changes
>> are called neutral mutations, because they are neither adaptively
>> beneficial nor detrimental. (In fact even if mutations are not strictly
>> neutral but slightly decrease fitness, as many do, they can persist for a
>> long time in a population as if they were quasi-neutral.)
>
>
> Here is a new explanation *for the rest of us* -- *Wired*: CONTROVERSIAL
> NEW THEORY SUGGESTS LIFE WASN'T A FLUKE OF BIOLOGY?IT WAS PHYSICS
> <https://www.wired.com/story/controversial-new-theory-suggests-life-wasnt-a-fluke-of-biologyit-was-physics/>
> [7-30-2017].
>
> ... and here -- *Scientific America*: A New Physics Theory of Life
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/>
> [2014], where the same science author writes about this when the idea was
> first proposed by England in his 2013 paper
> <http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf>.
>
>
> A physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because
> the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire life-like physical
> properties
>
>
> Perhaps very much prematurely, England is being touted as the new Darwin.
> His theory, however, does not replace natural selection but provides a
> deeper expanation for "fitness."
>
> In an hour-long lecture that I listened to
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4> recently, England admits
> that we cannot really attribute any of this to randomness ... we don't
> really know precisely what that is. What it seems to come down to, though,
> are--as you say--the "best" hypotheses for the seemingly improbable
> (considering the Second Law of Thermodynamics) building of new structures
> in a prevailing heat bath that dissipate the most Gibbs free energy. Erwin
> Schr?dinger noted something similar in his 1944 essay *What is Life*.
>
> If I understand this, what creates these "fit" structures is this
> tendency for all matter, not just living matter, (i.e., arrangements of
> atoms or molecules) to self-organize into new organizations--your
> *hypotheses*--that maximize the dissipation of free energy. It is indeed
> the evolving, prevailing environment that provides the opportunities for
> various, different "hypotheses" to arise at different times in geological
> history. So, in a sense, you *can *say that natural selection *creates
> and preserves* innovations if you see it as an interactive process as
> both Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead both did at the beginning of
> the twentieth century.
>
> From the same *Scientific American* article, this is notable:
>
> Having an overarching principle of life and evolution would give
>> researchers a broader perspective on the emergence of structure and
>> function in living things, many of the researchers said. ?Natural selection
>> doesn?t explain certain characteristics,? said Ard Louis, a biophysicist at
>> Oxford University, in an email. These characteristics include a heritable
>> change to gene expression called methylation, increases in complexity in
>> the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes Louis has
>> recently studied.
>
>
>
>>
>> If [*Jeremy*] England?s approach stands up to more testing, it could
>> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every
>> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
>> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that ?the
>> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be
>> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it
>> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,? Louis said.
>
>
> For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more than
> just interesting.
>
> Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my attention.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson <
> nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers
>> up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of
>> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
>>
>> "inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]
>>
>> N
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>> Clark University
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>>
>>
>> Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in
>> regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate
>> response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading
>> Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have
>> meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:
>>
>> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>> >
>> > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how
>> nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
>> >
>> > From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute,
>> but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but
>> it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is
>> just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any
>> innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that
>> accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim
>> since it was first made.
>> > I think it?s nonsense, but I am not sure.
>> >
>> > *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric
>> > Charles
>> > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
>> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> > <friam at redfish.com>
>> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
>> > "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create
>> them."
>> >
>> > Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we
>> > would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts
>> > of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than
>> > is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored,
>> > short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who
>> > don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild
>> > foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you
>> > have to do is select against aggression towards humans.)
>> >
>> > I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up
>> in the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.
>>
>> --
>> g???
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170822/54e3d69c/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 21:34:09 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z2VwciDim6c=?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:34:09 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CAEYGzMDL2QfL3GC4qE4f9U7Q=L39CvrgA8x=K212YF4p828NQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMDL2QfL3GC4qE4f9U7Q=L39CvrgA8x=K212YF4p828NQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>

But none of this seems to indicate that *selection* or survival to mating age *creates* the new attribute. Survival to mating age only preserves whatever phenotype was constructed by the genes and ontogeny. Whether you call genes and ontogeny random or not is irrelevant. We could easily call it 'ignorance'... i.e. ignorance constructs the phenotype, then the environment decides its fecundity.

On August 22, 2017 5:25:27 PM PDT, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:
>Incidentally, the life-increases-entropy hypothesis.... I first
>stumbled
>upon an excellent statement of that in Comparative Psychology: A
>Handbook
><https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/comparative-psychology-gary-greenberg/1112415063>(1998).
>It was by Rod Swenson, who has some other interesting statements on the
>topic on Research Gate
><https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2118010758_ROD_SWENSON>,
>including one connecting the idea with perception-action systems.
>
>It is definitely insightful in some ways, and I remember being quite
>impressed. However, as I see it pop up more, I start to remember that
>it's
>been a while since most Western intellectuals expected life to be an
>exception to the laws of physics, so I'm not sure it's too terribly
>interesting to note that life conforms to them.
>
>
>-----------
>Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
>Supervisory Survey Statistician
>U.S. Marine Corps
><echarles at american.edu>
>
>On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Robert Wall <wallrobert7 at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Nick,
>>
>> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create
>them."
>>  and  "The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space
>is
>> absurd."
>>
>> Not trying to get into a tussle with you, ? but Jeremy England
>> <http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/england_jeremy.html> would
>> tend to agree with you, as would I.  According to this analysis
>(*Nautilus
>> *2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit
>>
><http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp>,
>> there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly
>groping)
>> to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this *would *be absurd.
>>
>> Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary
>>> developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex
>>> organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from
>different
>>> networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic
>circuit,
>>> called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you
>don?t
>>> need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different
>pattern of
>>> wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these
>two
>>> vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take
>account
>>> of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another
>(for
>>> example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of
>>> possible circuits is more than 10700. That?s a lot, lot more than
>the
>>> number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What,
>then, are
>>> the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable
>?snake? or
>>> ?human? traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on
>earth did
>>> evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to
>create us?
>>
>>
>> ?...?
>>
>> ?
>>
>> You could go from one sequence to another with the same shape (and
>thus
>>> much the same function) via a succession of small changes to the
>sequence,
>>> as if proceeding through a rail network station by station. Such
>changes
>>> are called neutral mutations, because they are neither adaptively
>>> beneficial nor detrimental. (In fact even if mutations are not
>strictly
>>> neutral but slightly decrease fitness, as many do, they can persist
>for a
>>> long time in a population as if they were quasi-neutral.)
>>
>>
>> Here is a new explanation *for the rest of us* -- *Wired*:
>CONTROVERSIAL
>> NEW THEORY SUGGESTS LIFE WASN'T A FLUKE OF BIOLOGY?IT WAS PHYSICS
>>
><https://www.wired.com/story/controversial-new-theory-suggests-life-wasnt-a-fluke-of-biologyit-was-physics/>
>> [7-30-2017].
>>
>> ... and here -- *Scientific America*: A New Physics Theory of Life
>>
><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/>
>> [2014], where the same science author writes about this when the idea
>was
>> first proposed by England in his 2013 paper
>> <http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf>.
>>
>>
>> A physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists
>because
>> the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire life-like
>physical
>> properties
>>
>>
>> Perhaps very much prematurely, England is being touted as the new
>Darwin.
>> His theory, however, does not replace natural selection but provides
>a
>> deeper expanation for "fitness."
>>
>> In an hour-long lecture that I listened to
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4> recently, England
>admits
>> that we cannot really attribute any of this to randomness ... we
>don't
>> really know precisely what that is. What it seems to come down to,
>though,
>> are--as you say--the "best" hypotheses for the seemingly improbable
>> (considering the Second Law of Thermodynamics) building of new
>structures
>> in a prevailing heat bath that dissipate the most Gibbs free energy.
>Erwin
>> Schr?dinger noted something similar in his 1944 essay *What is Life*.
>>
>> If I understand this, what creates these "fit" structures is this
>> tendency for all matter, not just living matter, (i.e., arrangements
>of
>> atoms or molecules) to self-organize into new organizations--your
>> *hypotheses*--that maximize the dissipation of free energy. It is
>indeed
>> the evolving, prevailing environment that provides the opportunities
>for
>> various, different "hypotheses" to arise at different times in
>geological
>> history. So, in a sense, you *can *say that natural selection
>*creates
>> and preserves* innovations if you see it as an interactive process as
>> both Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead both did at the
>beginning of
>> the twentieth century.
>>
>> From the same *Scientific American* article, this is notable:
>>
>> Having an overarching principle of life and evolution would give
>>> researchers a broader perspective on the emergence of structure and
>>> function in living things, many of the researchers said. ?Natural
>selection
>>> doesn?t explain certain characteristics,? said Ard Louis, a
>biophysicist at
>>> Oxford University, in an email. These characteristics include a
>heritable
>>> change to gene expression called methylation, increases in
>complexity in
>>> the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes
>Louis has
>>> recently studied.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If [*Jeremy*] England?s approach stands up to more testing, it could
>>> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for
>every
>>> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
>>> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that
>?the
>>> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not
>be
>>> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make
>it
>>> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,? Louis said.
>>
>>
>> For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more
>than
>> just interesting.
>>
>> Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my
>attention.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson <
>> nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome
>offers
>>> up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea
>of
>>> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
>>>
>>> "inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>> Clark University
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
>>> To: friam at redfish.com
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has
>chimed in
>>> regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an
>inadequate
>>> response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively
>reading
>>> Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he
>might have
>>> meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:
>>>
>>> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>>> >
>>> > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest:
>how
>>> nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
>>> >
>>> > From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond
>dispute,
>>> but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve
>innovations, but
>>> it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them
>random is
>>> just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any
>>> innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles
>that
>>> accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innov

-- 
?glen?


From eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com  Wed Aug 23 07:00:26 2017
From: eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com (Eric Charles)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:00:26 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMDL2QfL3GC4qE4f9U7Q=L39CvrgA8x=K212YF4p828NQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEYGzMAhD7Rv9pwqLx08B215i_e3Bp=mbHJnf8uK5T=gQ8XY-g@mail.gmail.com>

But in the artificial selection to Natural Selection metaphor, selection is
selection to mate not selection to die. Surely selective breeding creates
new phenotypic combinations all the time, even absent mutation. And that's
not even getting into all the factors that can affect genetic expression,
creating new phenotypes, absent a mutation. Again, going back to the
domesticated Fox example, it all happened too quickly (for most scientists
to believe that) mutation played a major role.... and yep the result counts
as innovative.... right?

On Aug 22, 2017 9:34 PM, "gepr ?" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> But none of this seems to indicate that *selection* or survival to mating
> age *creates* the new attribute. Survival to mating age only preserves
> whatever phenotype was constructed by the genes and ontogeny. Whether you
> call genes and ontogeny random or not is irrelevant. We could easily call
> it 'ignorance'... i.e. ignorance constructs the phenotype, then the
> environment decides its fecundity.
>
> On August 22, 2017 5:25:27 PM PDT, Eric Charles <
> eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Incidentally, the life-increases-entropy hypothesis.... I first
> >stumbled
> >upon an excellent statement of that in Comparative Psychology: A
> >Handbook
> ><https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/comparative-psychology-
> gary-greenberg/1112415063>(1998).
> >It was by Rod Swenson, who has some other interesting statements on the
> >topic on Research Gate
> ><https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/
> 2118010758_ROD_SWENSON>,
> >including one connecting the idea with perception-action systems.
> >
> >It is definitely insightful in some ways, and I remember being quite
> >impressed. However, as I see it pop up more, I start to remember that
> >it's
> >been a while since most Western intellectuals expected life to be an
> >exception to the laws of physics, so I'm not sure it's too terribly
> >interesting to note that life conforms to them.
> >
> >
> >-----------
> >Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
> >Supervisory Survey Statistician
> >U.S. Marine Corps
> ><echarles at american.edu>
> >
> >On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Robert Wall <wallrobert7 at gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Nick,
> >>
> >> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create
> >them."
> >>  and  "The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space
> >is
> >> absurd."
> >>
> >> Not trying to get into a tussle with you, ? but Jeremy England
> >> <http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/england_jeremy.html> would
> >> tend to agree with you, as would I.  According to this analysis
> >(*Nautilus
> >> *2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit
> >>
> ><http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-
> inevitability-of-evolution-rp>,
> >> there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly
> >groping)
> >> to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this *would *be absurd.
> >>
> >> Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary
> >>> developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex
> >>> organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from
> >different
> >>> networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic
> >circuit,
> >>> called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you
> >don?t
> >>> need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different
> >pattern of
> >>> wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these
> >two
> >>> vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take
> >account
> >>> of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another
> >(for
> >>> example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of
> >>> possible circuits is more than 10700. That?s a lot, lot more than
> >the
> >>> number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What,
> >then, are
> >>> the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable
> >?snake? or
> >>> ?human? traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on
> >earth did
> >>> evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to
> >create us?
> >>
> >>
> >> ?...?
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> You could go from one sequence to another with the same shape (and
> >thus
> >>> much the same function) via a succession of small changes to the
> >sequence,
> >>> as if proceeding through a rail network station by station. Such
> >changes
> >>> are called neutral mutations, because they are neither adaptively
> >>> beneficial nor detrimental. (In fact even if mutations are not
> >strictly
> >>> neutral but slightly decrease fitness, as many do, they can persist
> >for a
> >>> long time in a population as if they were quasi-neutral.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is a new explanation *for the rest of us* -- *Wired*:
> >CONTROVERSIAL
> >> NEW THEORY SUGGESTS LIFE WASN'T A FLUKE OF BIOLOGY?IT WAS PHYSICS
> >>
> ><https://www.wired.com/story/controversial-new-theory-
> suggests-life-wasnt-a-fluke-of-biologyit-was-physics/>
> >> [7-30-2017].
> >>
> >> ... and here -- *Scientific America*: A New Physics Theory of Life
> >>
> ><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
> >
> >> [2014], where the same science author writes about this when the idea
> >was
> >> first proposed by England in his 2013 paper
> >> <http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf>.
> >>
> >>
> >> A physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists
> >because
> >> the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire life-like
> >physical
> >> properties
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps very much prematurely, England is being touted as the new
> >Darwin.
> >> His theory, however, does not replace natural selection but provides
> >a
> >> deeper expanation for "fitness."
> >>
> >> In an hour-long lecture that I listened to
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4> recently, England
> >admits
> >> that we cannot really attribute any of this to randomness ... we
> >don't
> >> really know precisely what that is. What it seems to come down to,
> >though,
> >> are--as you say--the "best" hypotheses for the seemingly improbable
> >> (considering the Second Law of Thermodynamics) building of new
> >structures
> >> in a prevailing heat bath that dissipate the most Gibbs free energy.
> >Erwin
> >> Schr?dinger noted something similar in his 1944 essay *What is Life*.
> >>
> >> If I understand this, what creates these "fit" structures is this
> >> tendency for all matter, not just living matter, (i.e., arrangements
> >of
> >> atoms or molecules) to self-organize into new organizations--your
> >> *hypotheses*--that maximize the dissipation of free energy. It is
> >indeed
> >> the evolving, prevailing environment that provides the opportunities
> >for
> >> various, different "hypotheses" to arise at different times in
> >geological
> >> history. So, in a sense, you *can *say that natural selection
> >*creates
> >> and preserves* innovations if you see it as an interactive process as
> >> both Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead both did at the
> >beginning of
> >> the twentieth century.
> >>
> >> From the same *Scientific American* article, this is notable:
> >>
> >> Having an overarching principle of life and evolution would give
> >>> researchers a broader perspective on the emergence of structure and
> >>> function in living things, many of the researchers said. ?Natural
> >selection
> >>> doesn?t explain certain characteristics,? said Ard Louis, a
> >biophysicist at
> >>> Oxford University, in an email. These characteristics include a
> >heritable
> >>> change to gene expression called methylation, increases in
> >complexity in
> >>> the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes
> >Louis has
> >>> recently studied.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If [*Jeremy*] England?s approach stands up to more testing, it could
> >>> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for
> >every
> >>> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
> >>> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that
> >?the
> >>> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not
> >be
> >>> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make
> >it
> >>> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,? Louis said.
> >>
> >>
> >> For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more
> >than
> >> just interesting.
> >>
> >> Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my
> >attention.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson <
> >> nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome
> >offers
> >>> up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea
> >of
> >>> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
> >>>
> >>> "inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]
> >>>
> >>> N
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson
> >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> >>> Clark University
> >>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
> >>> To: friam at redfish.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has
> >chimed in
> >>> regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an
> >inadequate
> >>> response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively
> >reading
> >>> Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he
> >might have
> >>> meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:
> >>>
> >>> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest:
> >how
> >>> nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
> >>> >
> >>> > From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond
> >dispute,
> >>> but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve
> >innovations, but
> >>> it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them
> >random is
> >>> just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any
> >>> innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles
> >that
> >>> accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innov
>
> --
> ?glen?
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170823/a475167e/attachment.html>

From rec at elf.org  Wed Aug 23 11:00:15 2017
From: rec at elf.org (Roger Critchlow)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:00:15 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMDL2QfL3GC4qE4f9U7Q=L39CvrgA8x=K212YF4p828NQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGayqos_ggG9tk-D+AnJ4tbfk=7oEODsbUVos3H_58ioDqGueg@mail.gmail.com>

Gracious, I'm having fits trying to construct complete arguments this
morning.

The original Darwinian mechanics of natural selection was formulated in
complete agnosticism about where the underlying variety came from.  The
variety existed, under the proposed mechanics it would be winnowed into
more or less fit progeny, and somehow after the winnowing there would still
be more variety for future rounds of winnowing.  The Neo-Darwinian
synthesis identified Mendelian genetics as the mechanism of inheritance
without any idea of how it worked, either, and was limited to recombination
of alleles for their mechanics of variety.  That is a formidable source of
variety given enough alleles on enough loci, and it's also a sustainable
source of variety since unfit allelic combinations could still be preserved
in the population in other combinations.  So if genotype AB was fatal, A
and B might still persist in the genotypes AC, BC, AD, BD, and so on.  Then
with the molecular biology of the gene we finally get a physical mechanism
for inheritance and an embarrassment of riches for the origins of variety.
We have, off the top of my head:

   - single base pair replication errors or point mutations;
   - insertions or deletions where the DNA being copied or the copy gets
   looped out;
   - cross overs where two homologous DNA strands swap ends (though we had
   microscopic evidence for crossing over before molecular biology);
   - chromosome duplications and losses;
   - copy error correction mechanismss;
   - mutators which increase copy errors;
   - viral sequences integrating into chromososmes
   - viral sequences disintegrating out of chromosomes
   - mobile elements jumping from location to location in chromosomes
   - extra chromosomal genetic materials
   - incorporation of other organisms as organelles
   - neutral networks of RNAs or proteins where the underlying function is
   preserved across nucleotide or peptide substitutions
   - differential expression under environmental variation

DNA polymerase is a complex of proteins which synthesizes a new strand of
DNA complementary in sequence to an existing strand.  It takes single
stranded DNA and makes it into double stranded DNA according to the base
pairing rules.  It's actually more complex than that, I believe it unwinds
the existing double strand as goes, cutting a strand to release the
torsion.  There are thousands active in a human cell that is duplicating
its DNA in preparation for cell division.  Embryonic cell divisions take
about 8 hours, DNA replication is happening at 2.08e5 nucleotides/second
according to a google search.  My source claims that: "DNA replication is
accomplished with an average of only 1 error per billion (109) nucleotides.
38 <http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php#fb38> 190?39
<http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php#fb39>"  (Amusing to me, that 190?
refers to a text book of Molecular Cell Biology by an author who was a
scientific advisor to a company where I was a founding employee.)  That
error rate, whatever its exact magnitude and significant digits, that
replication rate, the concentration of DNA polymerase in the embryonic
cells, the rate of cell division, these are all subject to natural
selection, as are the biosynthetic pathways that supply the raw materials
for DNA replication.

Right, construct complete arguments.

The theory of natural selection does not explain the origin of variety,
however it does depend on variety existing and continuing to exist.  If
natural selection led to runaway fixation of genotypes in a population, it
would be game over.  One would expect that the fingerprints of natural
selection should be found everywhere that living organisms might modulate
the origin and maintenance of variety in their populations.

As for the origin of innovations, I'd say that's a value system which has
nothing to do with natural selection, it's a moral aesthetics that has to
do with measuring progress, curating shiny baubles from evolutionary
history for the purposes of arguing with other curators of shiny baubles.
 (Oops, may have tarred more than necessary with that brush.)

I would guess that most arguments against evolution having had time enough
to get anywhere depend on an assumption of one ancestral genome
diversifying by replication with point mutation.  But natural selection
might have begun curating a diversity of RNAs, peptides, and small molecule
metabolites before the origin of life, and the original life may have
incorporated a lot of existing pre-biotic variety.

-- rec --
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170823/24334202/attachment-0001.html>

From nickthompson at earthlink.net  Wed Aug 23 11:44:50 2017
From: nickthompson at earthlink.net (Nick Thompson)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:44:50 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <96e3ef0d-237c-fa91-7346-09931255cfb8@cybermesa.com>
 <3fe29958-3009-04c4-b492-35e7e045615c@swcp.com>
 <483301d0-8e87-49c2-e871-0eb7ff4a4ef4@cybermesa.com>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7
 szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01fa01d31c26$c32f2c60$498d8520$@earthlink.net>

Thanks, Robert,

 

These are nifty. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Nick,

 

"Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."  and  "The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd."

 

Not trying to get into a tussle with you, ? but Jeremy England <http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/england_jeremy.html>  would tend to agree with you, as would I.  According to this analysis ( <http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp> Nautilus 2016) concerning the Hox gene circuit, there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping) to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this would be absurd. 

 

Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit, called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don?t need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take account of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another (for example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of possible circuits is more than 10700. That?s a lot, lot more than the number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable ?snake? or ?human? traits (or phenotypes) for the Hox gene circuit? How on earth did evolution manage to rewire the Hox network of a Cambrian fish to create us?

 

?...?

?

You could go from one sequence to another with the same shape (and thus much the same function) via a succession of small changes to the sequence, as if proceeding through a rail network station by station. Such changes are called neutral mutations, because they are neither adaptively beneficial nor detrimental. (In fact even if mutations are not strictly neutral but slightly decrease fitness, as many do, they can persist for a long time in a population as if they were quasi-neutral.)

 

Here is a new explanation for the rest of us -- Wired: CONTROVERSIAL NEW THEORY SUGGESTS LIFE WASN'T A FLUKE OF BIOLOGY?IT WAS PHYSICS <https://www.wired.com/story/controversial-new-theory-suggests-life-wasnt-a-fluke-of-biologyit-was-physics/>  [7-30-2017].

 

... and here -- Scientific America: A New Physics Theory of Life <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/>  [2014], where the same science author writes about this when the idea was first proposed by England in his 2013 paper <http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf> . 

 

A physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire life-like physical properties

 

Perhaps very much prematurely, England is being touted as the new Darwin.  His theory, however, does not replace natural selection but provides a deeper expanation for "fitness." 

 

 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4> In an hour-long lecture that I listened to recently, England admits that we cannot really attribute any of this to randomness ... we don't really know precisely what that is. What it seems to come down to, though, are--as you say--the "best" hypotheses for the seemingly improbable (considering the Second Law of Thermodynamics) building of new structures in a prevailing heat bath that dissipate the most Gibbs free energy. Erwin Schr?dinger noted something similar in his 1944 essay What is Life. 

 

If I understand this, what creates these "fit" structures is this tendency for all matter, not just living matter, (i.e., arrangements of atoms or molecules) to self-organize into new organizations--your hypotheses--that maximize the dissipation of free energy. It is indeed the evolving, prevailing environment that provides the opportunities for various, different "hypotheses" to arise at different times in geological history. So, in a sense, you can say that natural selection creates and preserves innovations if you see it as an interactive process as both Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead both did at the beginning of the twentieth century. 

 

>From the same Scientific American article, this is notable: 

 

Having an overarching principle of life and evolution would give researchers a broader perspective on the emergence of structure and function in living things, many of the researchers said. ?Natural selection doesn?t explain certain characteristics,? said Ard Louis, a biophysicist at Oxford University, in an email. These characteristics include a heritable change to gene expression called methylation, increases in complexity in the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes Louis has recently studied.

 


If [Jeremy] England?s approach stands up to more testing, it could further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that ?the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,? Louis said.

 

For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more than just interesting.  

 

Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my attention.

 

Cheers,

 

Robert

 

 

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net <mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net> > wrote:

Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.

"inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]

N



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of g???
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>
> An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
>
> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.
>




On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim since it was first made.
> I think it?s nonsense, but I am not sure.
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> ] *On Behalf Of *Eric
> Charles
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> >
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>
>
>
> Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."
>
> Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we
> would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts
> of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than
> is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored,
> short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who
> don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild
> foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you
> have to do is select against aggression towards humans.)
>
> I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up in the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.

--
g???

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170823/cbea91c0/attachment.html>

From rec at elf.org  Wed Aug 23 12:33:27 2017
From: rec at elf.org (Roger Critchlow)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:33:27 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <CAGayqos_ggG9tk-D+AnJ4tbfk=7oEODsbUVos3H_58ioDqGueg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <000101d31141$71e64860$55b2d920$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMDL2QfL3GC4qE4f9U7Q=L39CvrgA8x=K212YF4p828NQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>
 <CAGayqos_ggG9tk-D+AnJ4tbfk=7oEODsbUVos3H_58ioDqGueg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGayqotVEEdu_OqjiSBMkof8Efmr7sh5XpDRUmgaPLeSRRCPJw@mail.gmail.com>

Okay, that wasn't quite fair to Andreas Wagner.  He's got aspects of
neutral networks in his redundant gene networks, that is, if you duplicate
all the genes that participate in a control system, then one set can evolve
while the other set maintains the original function of the system.  This is
like Peter Shuster's work on neutral networks of RNA sequences which
preserve the RNA secondary structure while evolving the primary sequence,
or the parallel work on proteins evolving their primary sequence while
retaining the 3d structure and function, both of which got mentioned in the
Phillip Ball article that Robert linked.  Which is hardly surprising given
the time both spent at SFI.

I think this also corresponds to Gerald Edelman's idea of biological
degeneracy.  In fact, the wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_(biology) makes Wagner's point
about degeneracy and robustness without referring to Wagner as a source in
the body of the article.  Hmm, there is an A. Wagner in the footnotes, but
he isn't listed as a known researcher on the topic in the article body.
Wonder who's editing this article?

This all reminds me of the underlying basis for the ensemble dynamics used
by Folding at Home to combine multiple independent short random walks.  I
remember once tracking that to a paper from LANL witten in the 50's, but I
can't find any trace of it.  The gist was that starting multiple short
random walks from a given starting point and appropriately combining
results would allow you to bias the starting point for the next bundle of
short random walks, and the net result would be a super-linear speedup over
spending the same resources on one long random walk.

So the equivalent evolutionary ratchet might be to duplicate the genetic
basis for something, creating multiple starting points for random walks;
 allow each duplicate to evolve independently for some period, creating
multiple random walks;  select against multiple copies and harvest the
survivors;  rinse;  and repeat.  But rather than starting from a single
genotype, which would be game over, you start from an existing diverse
population.  Might be done by cycles of resource abundance and starvation.

-- rec --


On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Roger Critchlow <rec at elf.org> wrote:

> Gracious, I'm having fits trying to construct complete arguments this
> morning.
>
> The original Darwinian mechanics of natural selection was formulated in
> complete agnosticism about where the underlying variety came from.  The
> variety existed, under the proposed mechanics it would be winnowed into
> more or less fit progeny, and somehow after the winnowing there would still
> be more variety for future rounds of winnowing.  The Neo-Darwinian
> synthesis identified Mendelian genetics as the mechanism of inheritance
> without any idea of how it worked, either, and was limited to recombination
> of alleles for their mechanics of variety.  That is a formidable source of
> variety given enough alleles on enough loci, and it's also a sustainable
> source of variety since unfit allelic combinations could still be preserved
> in the population in other combinations.  So if genotype AB was fatal, A
> and B might still persist in the genotypes AC, BC, AD, BD, and so on.  Then
> with the molecular biology of the gene we finally get a physical mechanism
> for inheritance and an embarrassment of riches for the origins of variety.
> We have, off the top of my head:
>
>    - single base pair replication errors or point mutations;
>    - insertions or deletions where the DNA being copied or the copy gets
>    looped out;
>    - cross overs where two homologous DNA strands swap ends (though we
>    had microscopic evidence for crossing over before molecular biology);
>    - chromosome duplications and losses;
>    - copy error correction mechanismss;
>    - mutators which increase copy errors;
>    - viral sequences integrating into chromososmes
>    - viral sequences disintegrating out of chromosomes
>    - mobile elements jumping from location to location in chromosomes
>    - extra chromosomal genetic materials
>    - incorporation of other organisms as organelles
>    - neutral networks of RNAs or proteins where the underlying function
>    is preserved across nucleotide or peptide substitutions
>    - differential expression under environmental variation
>
> DNA polymerase is a complex of proteins which synthesizes a new strand of
> DNA complementary in sequence to an existing strand.  It takes single
> stranded DNA and makes it into double stranded DNA according to the base
> pairing rules.  It's actually more complex than that, I believe it unwinds
> the existing double strand as goes, cutting a strand to release the
> torsion.  There are thousands active in a human cell that is duplicating
> its DNA in preparation for cell division.  Embryonic cell divisions take
> about 8 hours, DNA replication is happening at 2.08e5 nucleotides/second
> according to a google search.  My source claims that: "DNA replication is
> accomplished with an average of only 1 error per billion (109)
> nucleotides.38 <http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php#fb38> 190?39
> <http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit1.php#fb39>"  (Amusing to me, that
> 190? refers to a text book of Molecular Cell Biology by an author who was a
> scientific advisor to a company where I was a founding employee.)  That
> error rate, whatever its exact magnitude and significant digits, that
> replication rate, the concentration of DNA polymerase in the embryonic
> cells, the rate of cell division, these are all subject to natural
> selection, as are the biosynthetic pathways that supply the raw materials
> for DNA replication.
>
> Right, construct complete arguments.
>
> The theory of natural selection does not explain the origin of variety,
> however it does depend on variety existing and continuing to exist.  If
> natural selection led to runaway fixation of genotypes in a population, it
> would be game over.  One would expect that the fingerprints of natural
> selection should be found everywhere that living organisms might modulate
> the origin and maintenance of variety in their populations.
>
> As for the origin of innovations, I'd say that's a value system which has
> nothing to do with natural selection, it's a moral aesthetics that has to
> do with measuring progress, curating shiny baubles from evolutionary
> history for the purposes of arguing with other curators of shiny baubles.
>  (Oops, may have tarred more than necessary with that brush.)
>
> I would guess that most arguments against evolution having had time enough
> to get anywhere depend on an assumption of one ancestral genome
> diversifying by replication with point mutation.  But natural selection
> might have begun curating a diversity of RNAs, peptides, and small molecule
> metabolites before the origin of life, and the original life may have
> incorporated a lot of existing pre-biotic variety.
>
> -- rec --
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170823/c8338636/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug 23 14:10:49 2017
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steven A Smith)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:10:49 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] well..so much for watching the ecipse in person
In-Reply-To: <CAEmKtrxxwwdCRH5dGcPhatGbF23y4jrWnX_gmKVk=s7Tb9gYdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMaMUCTMweRDJn4dfbObZ1bisZ5bNWfrBC2DkYM0UbfSLw8Gkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aa227ee3-4707-afcf-e8fb-6b3b09da77a8@gmail.com>
 <CAEmKtrxxwwdCRH5dGcPhatGbF23y4jrWnX_gmKVk=s7Tb9gYdw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <23020450-2ad7-a469-4dc9-fa7549a73ab3@swcp.com>

Merle -

I was fascinated to see the road signs in Pojoaque and south of Santa Fe 
stating: "Emergency Stopping only: Turn on your headlights during the 
eclipse"  about an hour before the beginning.  I *KNEW* that our 80% (or 
less) eclipse was not going to darken the landscape anymore than  cloud 
which the sky was already full of!

I stopped at Santo Domingo to watch the moon take a bite out of the sun 
during the various brief moments when a tiny hole in the cloud would 
open over and over to let me see...

My daughter who drove south of Portland (where she lives) and caught a 
GREAT constellation of 99% eclipse-ring shadows filtering through the 
leaves of a tree... it was beautiful!     I hope you got some good 
photos as well as once (or twice) in a lifetime experience!

- Steve

On 8/22/17 8:50 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> You wouldn't have seen much, even if the clouds parted.  I'm on my way 
> back from Oregon and totality, which is 1,000,000 times darker than 
> watching the eclipse at any percent of partial totality. Totality is 
> simply a completely different experience.  And yes, it was worth the trip!
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:50 AM, ?glen? <gepropella at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Yeah, but even with the clouds, it will still be cool to see the
>     sky go dark in the middle of the day.
>
>     On 08/21/2017 07:48 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
>     > If this junk cloudy weather keeps up. Won't see a damn thing
>     other thank
>     > depressing clouds and a reminder the roof is leaking....again.
>     Oh clear
>     > skys they said....ahahahahahahahahahaha
>
>
>     --
>     ?glen?
>
>     ============================================================
>     FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>     Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>     to unsubscribe
>     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/> by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org <http://emergentdiplomacy.org>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>
> Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
> Saint Paul University
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
> merlelefkoff at gmail.com <mailto:merlelefoff at gmail.com>
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170823/f3a72e18/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Wed Aug 23 14:32:05 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybM=?=)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:32:05 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <36d27fe1-69a2-1fa1-6602-1e243db93797@swcp.com>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMDL2QfL3GC4qE4f9U7Q=L39CvrgA8x=K212YF4p828NQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9968afdc-6ac1-c045-983a-a3c49c797580@gmail.com>

So, perhaps the problem lies in "innovation-as-organism" versus "innovation-as-lineage"?  Selection clearly causes lineage (via synthesis/assemblage/construction), built from the building blocks of organisms that survive to reproduce.  But selection clearly does not cause/construct those organisms.  Yes, as Robert points out, selection guides or constrains which organisms can arise at any given point, based on the shape of the space that is the environment (aka fitness).  But selection doesn't construct the organism.  Other parts of the evolutionary conception do that (mutation, crossover, etc.).

By that reasoning, both sides are right and (again): Brevity is the soul of stupidity.  Selection does *and* does not create innovations.  It does create (novel) lineages.  But it does not create (novel) organisms.

On 08/22/2017 06:34 PM, gepr ? wrote:
> But none of this seems to indicate that *selection* or survival to mating age *creates* the new attribute. Survival to mating age only preserves whatever phenotype was constructed by the genes and ontogeny. Whether you call genes and ontogeny random or not is irrelevant. We could easily call it 'ignorance'... i.e. ignorance constructs the phenotype, then the environment decides its fecundity.

>>> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."

-- 
g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug 23 23:25:34 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 03:25:34 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] @fakedonaldtrump
In-Reply-To: <CAMaMUCQYXqW8QzBcpZt21SYHrFsO8X-yp4KVUF8CpvoUgoYRNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6802bc6-ceb7-2a29-6b1a-cbd80daac93a@swcp.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703B971594782BF2E387CD2C5800@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAMaMUCStYFaP3+qkDr-yO=qSxSYzQ2MTZ21x4Zqzf0mttMF3Aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <908a9948-3cee-7d27-cf0f-5976c7207012@swcp.com>,
 <CAMaMUCQYXqW8QzBcpZt21SYHrFsO8X-yp4KVUF8CpvoUgoYRNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29937658-3253-4D57-9689-F648366B785A@snoutfarm.com>

https://www.gofundme.com/buytwitter

On Aug 19, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com<mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:

No. I agree. The way the do their videos is...yeah Max Hedroom 20 minutes into future. CyberPunk meets MadMax.  In a documentary about them they use a computer to read a script so as to protect the crew. I totally respect that. Part of that is because how they work is murky legal water. The other part was because  a few of their opts went sideways such as  calling out the ScienTologists for being a trolling cult...it went down hill pretty quickly. So now they (try to) stay more anonymous using stylised maxhedroomy videos with a computer reading text.
One of there was on some extremist  netoworking, and their leaders who they promissed to forward any and all info they could to the proper authortese. Now their taking on the extremists here. (some) of that info has lead banks, business etc to refuse to deel with those trolls. Their also taking down flags and statues of as Arnold Swartzinager put it "epicaly failed idiologies of xenophobia, rage, and hate."  Theyre members have been replacing those symbols with goofy art, or cleaning  the buildings and just removing the grafiti.




On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com<mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com>> wrote:

Gil -

Thanks for the reference to Anonymous at YouTube.   You can tell I'm an old fogey by my irritable reaction to the style of their videos.  I felt like it was created by/for Max Headroom!

I HAVE watched one or two before (over a year ago?) with the same reaction.   I have a natural (Ithink) mixed reaction to their bluff/threats... what was that about contacting people in Lagos, Nigeria?  I didn't think Anonymous were prone to threatening IRL violence, but rather stayed with what I think of as "targeted vandalism" in cyberspace?

I'm also (still) confused about how there can ever be a single true voice for such a by-definition amorphous and distributed and ultimately defined only by self-definition group?    Some aspects of their nature/behaviour feels a bit too much like the alt.right they are (in this moment) going up against.

- Steve

On 8/18/17 2:02 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote
Anonymous has been posting videos on youtube sugesting people put aside the petty bickering. Making sugestion what things people can do to empower themselves. Their current call to arms is about (weirdly) love and joy and getting rid of washinton as it currently is and try for something like a Sociliast Republic/Technorocracy.
They're pretty tired of the sheer rage coming in and out of washington if the videos are anything to go by.


On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
?While I feel very nervous about Twitter shutting down theDonald's personal account
so cavalierly, I can imagine how devastating it would be to his ego to not be able to
blurt out his nonsense at all times of the day or night without benefit of counsel by
his (admittedly highly flawed) inner circle/counsel.  Moving the same blurts to @POTUS
might be all it would achieve, which might enhance the absurdity yet more??

While I like the idea of his continued self-sabotage, his pronouncements probably keep a part of the base stoked.
If his accounts were to go away, those folks might not have the initiative to replace that outlet with another.   And then they could get back to torturing animals or whatever it is they do all day.
The ACLU new policy to not support armed groups seems like a good step.   There are other groups like the SPLC that can tackle the haters.   I hope that if his rhetoric continues this way, and he repeatedly violates their terms of services, that they do shut him down completely.  He can go on Fox and Friends or something.
Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170824/d225c860/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Thu Aug 24 20:27:11 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?4pSjZ2xlbuKUqw==?=)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:27:11 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
In-Reply-To: <9968afdc-6ac1-c045-983a-a3c49c797580@gmail.com>
References: <021301d3111e$7ab59d10$7020d730$@earthlink.net>
 <003301d31227$a238c3d0$e6aa4b70$@earthlink.net>
 <b84783dd-316c-0f12-6671-4ef317ab942c@swcp.com>
 <5631ae7e-6831-aa24-aa0e-ea083911e1f0@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703937865D58FD8216D00B7C58E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ed186255-e842-ab7f-54b6-071fc66f2fef@gmail.com>
 <96bdcbbf-673f-8db1-85e7-29b31980c13f@swcp.com>
 <08b23201-ad78-6593-d721-701587cd26ab@gmail.com>
 <CY4PR11MB1703D77850DBBF5C34196C14C58F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAEYGzMDwofYzcpSaAGFty-E+kVZBN1bpN=davwwaeTG+o_CLMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <015d01d31b58$cda486a0$68ed93e0$@earthlink.net>
 <b4cb1fd4-e1d2-5db0-9ac8-cee6b9d7183a@gmail.com>
 <019301d31b73$89a865a0$9cf930e0$@earthlink.net>
 <CAKjasxSZMZ6dy9rY8cKZXAwcBJqb13-Y7szfVU4vGjvUwdO1bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMDL2QfL3GC4qE4f9U7Q=L39CvrgA8x=K212YF4p828NQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6E1C413B-64CA-4873-8983-8ABF8A2EF2DC@gmail.com>
 <9968afdc-6ac1-c045-983a-a3c49c797580@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5ab3411e-add8-118d-e842-37eb66e6f119@gmail.com>

I haven't been receiving posts... but perhaps it's just me.

Roger sez:
> The theory of natural selection does not explain the origin of variety,

Exactly.  And I think this  is all Wagner's preface quote implies.  And it's that which makes Nick's response inadequate.  It should be fairly obvious that selection is separate from what's being selected, *except* in the constraining/guiding sense you mention below.


> however it does depend on variety existing and continuing to exist.  If
> natural selection led to runaway fixation of genotypes in a population, it
> would be game over.  One would expect that the fingerprints of natural
> selection should be found everywhere that living organisms might modulate
> the origin and maintenance of variety in their populations.
> 
> As for the origin of innovations, I'd say that's a value system which has
> nothing to do with natural selection, it's a moral aesthetics that has to
> do with measuring progress, curating shiny baubles from evolutionary
> history for the purposes of arguing with other curators of shiny baubles.

Heh, it's a nice juxtaposition for you to use the metaphor of natural selection's fingerprints, then balk at the metaphor of innovation. 8^)


On 08/23/2017 11:32 AM, g??? wrote:
> So, perhaps the problem lies in "innovation-as-organism" versus "innovation-as-lineage"?  Selection clearly causes lineage (via synthesis/assemblage/construction), built from the building blocks of organisms that survive to reproduce.  But selection clearly does not cause/construct those organisms.  Yes, as Robert points out, selection guides or constrains which organisms can arise at any given point, based on the shape of the space that is the environment (aka fitness).  But selection doesn't construct the organism.  Other parts of the evolutionary conception do that (mutation, crossover, etc.).
> 
> By that reasoning, both sides are right and (again): Brevity is the soul of stupidity.  Selection does *and* does not create innovations.  It does create (novel) lineages.  But it does not create (novel) organisms.
> 
> On 08/22/2017 06:34 PM, gepr ? wrote:
>> But none of this seems to indicate that *selection* or survival to mating age *creates* the new attribute. Survival to mating age only preserves whatever phenotype was constructed by the genes and ontogeny. Whether you call genes and ontogeny random or not is irrelevant. We could easily call it 'ignorance'... i.e. ignorance constructs the phenotype, then the environment decides its fecundity.
> 
>>>> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."
> 

-- 
?glen?


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 28 14:19:59 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:19:59 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] never enough power laws!
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703A10A7A3685F4A6DCFE23C59E0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/the-physicist-modeling-isis-and-the-alt-right/537699/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170828/b9b348cf/attachment.html>

From gepropella at gmail.com  Mon Aug 28 17:25:15 2017
From: gepropella at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Z+KFvNC1ybMg4pij?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:25:15 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] never enough power laws!
Message-ID: <f3effd58-ee2e-744d-4868-bae6814c863c@gmail.com>

> Marcus Daniels marcus at snoutfarm.com, Mon Aug 28 14:19:59 EDT 2017:
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/the-physicist-modeling-isis-and-the-alt-right/537699/

Johnson says: "Which is interesting, because that means there?s probably more opportunity to persuade them away, for instance by trying to get into one of the groups that seem to be where they are heading and soften the message and deflect the person away.  Now, that?s not my business; I do the science. But there are interesting possibilities that we hope might be looked into."

I can't help but be put off by this assumption of objectivity.  I think, as I age, I become more and more convicted by the idea that you can't study or understand anything without manipulating it.  But maybe in Johnson's case, it's simply an extension of the idea that their model is "mechanistic" (differential equations of objects).  It's natural for us to think of our mechanistic models as actual mechanisms ... It's a kind of crypto-induction.

-- 
? g???


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Tue Aug 29 18:13:24 2017
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 22:13:24 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] a few hundred billion here, a few there
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB1703F41696FAA23EC6691D3FC59F0@CY4PR11MB1703.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/29/a-storm-made-in-washington-215549?lo=ap_a1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170829/18998b0d/attachment.html>

From owen at backspaces.net  Thu Aug 31 12:32:23 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:32:23 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Quantum Theory Rebuilt From Simple Physical Principles |
 Quanta Magazine
Message-ID: <CAN_LYR=NwRD7=02JHJFLFeDBL+TQQxhKzzyew2LqFENdHik-eA@mail.gmail.com>

This is kinda interesting:
?  ?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-theory-rebuilt-from-simple-physical-principles-20170830/

?Basically look at it like this:
- Relativity: Is founded on a few simple physical principles ?like the
limit on the speed of light.
- Quantum Theory: Is founded on equations that match observation.

Both make sense. But QT hasn't that satisfying basis that relativity has.

Apparently a bunch of folks are trying to fix that.

   -- Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170831/ef23d8d6/attachment.html>

From owen at backspaces.net  Thu Aug 31 12:33:59 2017
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:33:59 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Quantum Theory Rebuilt From Simple Physical Principles
 | Quanta Magazine
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYR=NwRD7=02JHJFLFeDBL+TQQxhKzzyew2LqFENdHik-eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYR=NwRD7=02JHJFLFeDBL+TQQxhKzzyew2LqFENdHik-eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN_LYR=rJzQfXsJ8cot1Z1E3j8sqWv+FkYOb_9p8FCPFGf_N=w@mail.gmail.com>

Stephen will like this:

Some researchers suspect that ultimately the axioms of a quantum
reconstruction will be about information: what can and can?t be done with
it. One such derivation of quantum theory based on axioms about information
was proposed in 2010 by Chiribella, then working at the Perimeter
Institute, and his collaborators Giacomo Mauro D?Ariano and Paolo Perinotti
of the University of Pavia in Italy. ?Loosely speaking,? explained Jacques
Pienaar, a theoretical physicist at the University of Vienna, ?their
principles state that information should be localized in space and time,
that systems should be able to encode information about each other, and
that every process should in principle be reversible, so that information
is conserved.? (In irreversible processes, by contrast, information is
typically lost ? just as it is when you erase a file on your hard drive.)


On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> This is kinda interesting:
> ?  ?
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-theory-rebuilt-
> from-simple-physical-principles-20170830/
>
> ?Basically look at it like this:
> - Relativity: Is founded on a few simple physical principles ?like the
> limit on the speed of light.
> - Quantum Theory: Is founded on equations that match observation.
>
> Both make sense. But QT hasn't that satisfying basis that relativity has.
>
> Apparently a bunch of folks are trying to fix that.
>
>    -- Owen
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170831/f8e3da5e/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug 31 17:03:45 2017
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:03:45 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Quantum Theory Rebuilt From Simple Physical Principles
 | Quanta Magazine
In-Reply-To: <CAN_LYR=rJzQfXsJ8cot1Z1E3j8sqWv+FkYOb_9p8FCPFGf_N=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN_LYR=NwRD7=02JHJFLFeDBL+TQQxhKzzyew2LqFENdHik-eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN_LYR=rJzQfXsJ8cot1Z1E3j8sqWv+FkYOb_9p8FCPFGf_N=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMaMUCSdVqtT19qeHdpwtU7BOe9dMH2reY4KVsCy68ojYy_6Yw@mail.gmail.com>

Mmm Neil DeGrasse Tysson,  and Guy Consolmagno talked about quantum
mechanics some on Nova (love watching that on youtube)
(LOL I still don't get it and asked help understanding it many people):
Basically the new guess is some how particles are actually just energy.
That energy goes reely reely fast so fast in fact it seems (to people like
me) that say a
beer cup at second street is solid. so can hold beer, great hardy food etc.
So what if (Elon Musk  and Brian Green) Ask: their's smaller and smaller
particles? are they  connected somehow?  and is it small and smaller untill
you get to  the qunatum (reel reely reeely small level)
Like possibly smaller even than a quark small.  I happily differ to others
as to if  Fermi lab  has been able to figure out how likely that might be.

Relativity is indeed very awsome ^_^  Einstein is awsome. I also LOVE
reading Hawkings stuff. He's recently asking a simillar question to me:
"Wait so were all made of star stuff and energy? How does that work" I
don't know. I love that I don't.

Isn't Quantum Energy guessing that at reely reely small levels what happens
between kinds of particles? And did they figure out why  this happens yet?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/china-s-quantum-satellite-achieves-spooky-action-record-distance




On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> Stephen will like this:
>
> Some researchers suspect that ultimately the axioms of a quantum
> reconstruction will be about information: what can and can?t be done with
> it. One such derivation of quantum theory based on axioms about information
> was proposed in 2010 by Chiribella, then working at the Perimeter
> Institute, and his collaborators Giacomo Mauro D?Ariano and Paolo Perinotti
> of the University of Pavia in Italy. ?Loosely speaking,? explained Jacques
> Pienaar, a theoretical physicist at the University of Vienna, ?their
> principles state that information should be localized in space and time,
> that systems should be able to encode information about each other, and
> that every process should in principle be reversible, so that information
> is conserved.? (In irreversible processes, by contrast, information is
> typically lost ? just as it is when you erase a file on your hard drive.)
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
> wrote:
>
>> This is kinda interesting:
>> ?  ?
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-theory-rebuilt-from-
>> simple-physical-principles-20170830/
>>
>> ?Basically look at it like this:
>> - Relativity: Is founded on a few simple physical principles ?like the
>> limit on the speed of light.
>> - Quantum Theory: Is founded on equations that match observation.
>>
>> Both make sense. But QT hasn't that satisfying basis that relativity has.
>>
>> Apparently a bunch of folks are trying to fix that.
>>
>>    -- Owen
>>
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170831/88af95c0/attachment.html>