[FRIAM] To what questions can't an LLM in principle respond to?

Stephen Guerin stephen.guerin at simtable.com
Fri Jul 12 15:24:18 EDT 2024 

Russ, I would make a slight change to "in practice" instead of "in
principle"


So, in practice as currently implemented, an LLM can't respond to any
question that requires more than a fixed finite number of steps.


On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, 1:10 PM Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yann Lecun points out that an LLM will take the same number of steps to
> construct its response to any input. So, in principle, an LLM can't respond
> to any question that requires more than a fixed finite number of steps.
>
> -- Russ
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, 10:19 AM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What questions can’t a LLM in principle respond?
>>
>>
>>
>> And you may ask yourself,  “Well, how did I get here?”
>>
>> And you may ask yourself,  “How do I work this?”
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Nicholas
>> Thompson
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2024 10:09 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be
>> "mystery...deeper".T
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with you that  your two conditions
>>
>>
>>
>>   i*f 1) it had continuous real time training and 2) the training was
>> coupled to the physical world through an array of sensors.*
>>
>>
>>
>> necessary for a system to be conscious.  but unless you assert these
>> conditions define a conscious system, you leave begging the question of
>> what sort of experiences would lead you to assert that such a system is
>> conscious.   If, on the other hand, you do take these condition to be
>> defining, then the statement that such a system is conscious is a
>> tautology, without empirical implication.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:50 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Some supercomputer networks an effective radix of 64.  Blue Gene Q had
>> five-dimensional real torus for connectivity.    These network fabrics are
>> typically autonomous remote DMA systems that are configured so that
>> processors do not have to intervene in data transfers.
>>
>> Extreme ultraviolet lithography systems can fabricate 100 layers for a
>> digital processor.
>>
>>
>> It seems to me a LLM would have a sort of consciousness if 1) it had
>> continuous real time training and 2) the training was coupled to the
>> physical world through an array of sensors.
>>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2024 9:00 AM
>> *To:* friam at redfish.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be
>> "mystery...deeper".T
>>
>>
>>
>> Two separate responses:
>>
>>
>>
>> first to Steve—Personally, I do believe in the spectrum of
>> "consciousness" you suggest with, perhaps a nuance. One contributor tot he
>> spectrum is simply quantity; a quanta has 1 'bit' of consciousness, an
>> octopus has Domegegemegrottebyte (real thing according to Wikipedia)
>> 'bits'. A more significant contributor is "organization." Molecules with
>> differing numbers of atoms of the same elements, organized differently,
>> have very different properties and behaviors. A human and an octopus might
>> have the same number of bits of consciousness, but the organization of
>> those bits (in an N-dimensional space) is radically different.
>>
>>
>>
>>    This means it may be possible to say that some threshold quantity and
>> and organization results in entities being included in the set of
>> generically conscious things, it is unlikely we will ever be able to say
>> that Consciousness-Human is identical to or even similar to
>> Consciousness-octopus.
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW: much of my antipathy to AI claims arises from this perspective. A
>> machine very well might have the requisite number of 'bits' of
>> consciousness from the material of which the embodying machine is composed
>> (and the fact that every 1/0 bit of the executing code has a 'bit' of
>> consciousness) and those bits will be 'organized' sufficiently to join the
>> generic set; but machine consciousness will never equate to human
>> consciousness. My objections to machine "intelligence" comes from the fact
>> that machines do not have the N-dimensional organization of humans or
>> octopi.
>>
>>
>>
>> to Nick—
>>
>>
>>
>>    Beware blatant anthropomorphism (applied to both Dave and Dusty)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave is sleepy and calm.
>>
>> Dusty is anxious and afraid.
>>
>> Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.
>>
>> Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.
>>
>> Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her
>> back and lets her stay as she is.
>>
>> Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.
>>
>>
>>
>> Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series
>> of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between
>> the two and absent that state the interactions  and 'feelings; as presented
>> would not have occurred. But, perhaps Dave is just an (occasionally) good
>> Buddhist showing Dusty the same respect he would express to any living
>> being?
>>
>>
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, at 7:02 PM, steve smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick -
>>
>>
>>
>> (of course) I've larded up my usual style of response below (maybe only
>> for my own need to "express" the buildup of mental-pus that comes with
>> everything I hear here and elsewhere) but to save you (and anyone else who
>> cares) the burden of parsing a few dozen lines of back-and-forth, I offer
>> the punchline.  If you are curious about how I came to said (vaguely)
>> concise punchline you can read the rest after the <horizontal line> element
>> below:
>>
>>
>>
>> A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of things you
>> would acknowledge as "conscious" between the two extrema (perhaps) of a
>> (presumably apex-complex) human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or
>> a brane or a string-loop or some abstract monad?  B) if yes, what are the
>> implications of this?  or C) why does quantizing "conscioiusness" into
>> "humans like me" and "every other bit of life" feel necessary, useful or
>> appealing?
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> If FriAM typical discourse is the Thunderstorm, is this a (weak) cuddle?
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>>
>>
>> The scale of your response alone suggests that it cannot be baby steps.
>>
>> Thus recognizing it was more of a baby (naive) pentathalon (long, arduous
>> and multi-modal) hellride of a traverse through the implied space.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess I am proposing a method here, one inn we work outward from an
>> evocative experience to explore our understandings of contraversial
>> concepts, and that we do it in relatively short bursts.
>>
>> yes, let us extrude short strands of noodle and see how they criss-cross.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Dusty comes to cuddle with David when she hears thunder.*
>>
>> *Does Dusty love David?*
>>
>> Dave (or does he self-identify as David?) loves Dusty and finds Dusty's
>> cuddling sufficiently similar/familiar to his own cuddling to attribute it
>> to love if he is in the mood to do so.
>>
>> If yes, what else would you expect Dusty to do with  respect to David.
>> given you have made that attribution.
>>
>> If no, what more would have Dusty have to do, before you would make such
>> an attribution.
>>
>> Qualified yes...    Dusty could cower under the bed, leaving Dave to
>> choose to coax Dusty out and cuddle Dusty, giving Dusty the "love" or at
>> least comfort which Dave would offer as the closest cross-species
>> expression of love he knows how to offer in this moment.  Dave loves Dusty,
>> Dusty dog-loves Dave.  They are reciprocal but asymmetric in quality, even
>> if either would give their lives for the other?
>>
>> I would like to respond to an inference that there is something
>> patronizing about my insisting on a method, as if  I think you need
>> thought-therapy and I am the guy to give it.
>>
>> If in fact you were to have intended (consciously or not) as patronizing,
>> I take it as an gesture of love, of filial empathy, of generous guidance
>> from someone who has been around at least as many trees as I have...   I
>> definitely need or seek thought/spiritual therapy/guaidance from every
>> quarter, including this one.
>>
>> In reply, I only would say that if somebody were willing to ask me short,
>> to-the-point questions about my thinking on any matter and explore
>> carefully my answers, I would eternally grateful.   I might even cuddle
>> with them in a thunderstorm.
>>
>> I would choose to give you this level of fine-grain attention around your
>> fascination with vortices in the context of meteorology (and other domains)
>> more than this domain, but if this is the one you prefer (for the moment),
>> let me ask a short, three-part but to-the-point question (and leave it to
>> you to ignore the fecundly laden pregnant assumptions hidden by the implied
>> simplicity of the construction):
>>
>> *A) Can you recognize that there is a spectrum/continuum of things you
>> would acknowledge as "conscious" between the two extrema (perhaps) of a
>> (presumably apex-complex) human/cephalopod/cetacean and that of a quark or
>> a brane or a string-loop or some abstract monad?  B) if yes, what are the
>> implications of this?  or C) why does quantizing "conscioiusness" into
>> "humans like me" and "every other bit of life" feel necessary, useful or
>> appealing?*
>>
>>  Steve
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> NIck
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 4:05 PM steve smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nick -
>>
>> I'm glad you acknowledged (in another branch of this thread?) the
>> "grumpiness" aspect of your initiation/participation in this thread.  Your
>> analogy around thought/feeling "expression" and that of pimple popping is
>> in fact very apt if a bit graphic.  I do think many of us want this
>> apparently deeply thorny/paradoxical problem to be easier than it is?   And
>> the plethora of complexly subtle dis/mis-agreements on language around
>> consciousness, intelligence, cognition, (self) awareness, qualia
>> complicates that yet more.
>>
>> I don't know if my own baby-steps are helpful, given that my
>> background/perspective might align more with DaveW than most others here
>> (I'm very sympathetic with a pan-consciousness perspective)?  maybe it
>> parses as baby-babble more than baby-steps...
>>
>> I missed most of this (and related) threads but am surprised at where
>> this seems to be going. I always associated consciousness with subjective
>> experience and not necessarily with self awareness. The "hard problem of
>> consciousness" is qualia, not self-awareness. No? An AI agent cannot
>> understand language on anything other than a superficial basis because it
>> has no idea what, for example "wet," means. Nevertheless, it will be quite
>> good at stringing words together that say coherent things about wetness. An
>> AI agent has no *idea *about anything. At the same time, an AI agent
>> will be quite good at creating coherent statements about very many things.
>> Just because an AI agent is able to create coherent statements does not
>> mean that those statements reflect the agent's ideas--since it has no ideas.
>>
>>
>>
>> Russ's  point here is a good pivot point for me in this conversation if
>> it is possible to make the pivot.  It may not be.
>>
>> Knowing and Knowing-About:
>>
>>   I use the former to be the quality of qualia... not easily
>> formalizeable nor quantifiable nor with obvious models which are not
>> intrinsically subjective.   "Knowing-About" is for me reserved for the
>> formalized models of "facts about the world and relations between ideas"
>> and when I say "formalized" I don't preclude storytelling or the highly
>> vilified "just so stories".
>>
>> Formalized mathematical, statistical, logical models with digital
>> computer simulations (or analog electronic, mechanical, hydraulic,
>> pneumatic "circuits" or "systems")  are "knowing about"...  a steam train
>> for example embodies "knowing about" converting carbon-fuel into linear
>> motion across long distances, carrying heavy loads by way of many
>> repeatable mechanisms...   the implementation and operation of such a
>> device/system is a "proof" in some sense of the design.
>>
>>  On top of that design/system are other design/systems (say the logic of
>> Railroad Robber Baronages) upon which yet other systems (say
>> Industrial-revolution era proto-hyper-capitalism) on top of which rides
>> trans-global corporatism and nationalism in their own "gyre and gimbal"
>> with a in intra-stellar and eventually inter-stellar variation in the sense
>> of Asimov's Foundation and Empire or perhaps for the youth culture here
>> (under 60?) George Lucas' Star Wars Empire or Roddenberry's Star Trek
>> Federation vs ???
>>
>> Consciousness:
>>
>> A the lowest level consciousness or perhaps proto-consciousness registers
>> for me as "having a model of the world useful for guiding behaviour toward
>> surviving/thriving/reproducing/collectivizing".     This permeates all of
>> life from somewhere down at the single-celled
>> bacteria/archaea/fungi/phyto-thingies/  up to and through
>> vertebrates/mammals/hominids/sapiens
>>
>> On the reflection of whether my cat or dog, or the hummingbirds outside
>> my window or the mice trying to sneak back into my house have
>> "consciousness", or even more pointedly the mosquito I slapped into a blood
>> (my blood by the way) spot on my forearm last night, have
>> "consciousness"...   while each of these appear to have a "consciousness" I
>> know it to be variously more or less familiar to my own.   My elaborate
>> (unfettered?) imagination allows me to make up (just so?) stories about how
>> cetaceans, cephalapods, jellyfish all variously have aspects of their
>> "consciousness' that I could (do?) recognize (empathize with?).   So I
>> would want a multivalued function with at least two simple scalars:
>> Familiarity-to-Me(Conscioiusness) and Potency-of(Consciousness), pick your
>> scale... my identical twin or maybe conjoined twin might max out on the
>> first scale while a nematode or a bacterium might trail off toward nil on
>> the first AND second scale.  And beyond the scale of organic life into
>> artificial life and  beyond, the "familiarity" of a glider or oscillator in
>> the GameO'Life or the braided rings of Saturn, even less significant but
>> not zero?   The Potency-scale seems to be something like *agency* which
>> feels absolute for most of us except Robert Sapolsky while the *agency* of
>> an electron or neutrino seems registered at *absolute zero*, though the
>> Quantum Consciousness folks maybe put it at max and our own more an
>> illusive projection of that?
>>
>> The idea of "collective individuation" (e.g. mashup of Eleanor Ostrom's
>> collectives and Jung's individuation) suggests that perception, cognition,
>> intelligence, even consciousness may well be a collective phenomena.   Our
>> organs, tissues, cells, organelles, macromolecules, CHON++ molecules,
>> atoms, baryons/fermions, quarks, strings, branes  are on a loose hierarchy
>> of diminishing Familiarity-Consciousness and Potency-Consciousness.   I'm
>> more interested (these days) in the emergent collective consciousness of
>> the noosphere and perhaps the symbiotic culture of humanity and
>> life-at-all-scales (SCHLAAS?)   it feels wild and science-fictiony to
>> assert that earth's biosphere has already (in the last 150 years) conjured
>> a nervous system, a global-brain (ala Francis Heylighen: Global Brain
>> Institute)
>>
>> https://globalbraininstitute.org/ with "our own" Bollen, Joslyn,
>> Rodriguez still on the Board of Technical Advisors.   I scoffed at this
>> somewhat 25 years ago (mostly because of the hubris of "Global" and
>> "Brain").
>>
>> OK Nick, so not "baby steps" more like a hyper-baby's mad dash through an
>> obstacle course or maybe a pentathalon?   I tried shunting all this to
>> George Tremblay IVo but he referred me to Gussie Tumbleroot who cheered me
>> on on my careening ideational orbits.
>>
>> Gurgle,
>>
>>  - Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Russ Abbott
>>
>> Professor Emeritus, Computer Science
>>
>> California State University, Los Angeles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:30 AM Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Glen,
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a test to illustrate somethiing about Gmail to Nick.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 4:37 PM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215003085
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On July 9, 2024 2:04:29 PM PDT, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I should not be replying, as I do believe my dogs (and your cat if
>> you have one) are conscious.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have not experienced a Vulcan Mind-Meld with either of my dogs, so I
>> cannot say with certainty they are conscious—I must infer it from
>> observations:
>>
>> 1- interactions with other dogs would seem to indicate they "remember"
>> past interactions and do not require the same butt-sniffing protocol with
>> dogs they have met at the park frequently. Also they seem to remember who
>> plays with who and who doesn't. "That ball is not mine, this one is."
>>
>> 2-they modify their behavior depending on the tenor, sharpness, and
>> volume of barks, ear positions, tail wagging differences, by the other
>> dogs; e.g., "that's enough."
>>
>> 3-They do not communicate to me in English, but seem to accept
>> communication from me in that language—not trained responses to commands,
>> but "listening to conversations" between myself and Mary and reacting to
>> words (e.g., dog park) that are exchanged in those conversations. Mary and
>> I are totally sedentary and speaking in conversational tone, so pretty sure
>> there we are not sending 'signals' akin to training words, training tone of
>> voice.
>>
>> 4-they seem to remember trauma, (one of our dogs spent three days with
>> dead owner before anyone knew the owner was deceased and will bite if
>> anyone tries to forcefully remove him from my (current bonded owner)
>> presence.
>>
>> 5-seek "psychological comfort" by crawling into my bed and sleeping on my
>> shoulder when the thunderstorm comes.
>>
>>
>>
>> *All of these are grounded in anthropomorphism—long considered a deadly
>> error by ethologists.* (Some contemporary ethologists are exploring
>> accepting and leveraging this "error" to extend our understanding of animal
>> behavior.)
>>
>>
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>>
>> While I find all the  ancillary considerations raised on the original
>> thread extremely interesting,  I would like to reopen the discussion of
>> Conscious as a Mystery and ask that those that join it stay close to the
>> question of what consciousness is and how we know it when we see it.  Baby
>> Steps.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where were we?   I think I was asking Jochen, and perhaps Peitr and
>> anybody else who thought that animals were not conscious (i.e., not aware
>> of their own awareness)  what basis they had in experience for thinking
>> that..  One offering for such an experience is the absence of language in
>> animals.  Because my cat cannot  describe his experience in words, he
>> cannot be  conscious.  This requires the following syllogism:
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing that does not employ a language (or two?) is conscious.
>>
>> Animals (with ;the possible exception of signing apes) do not employ
>> languages.
>>
>> Ergo, Animals are not conscious.
>>
>>
>>
>> But I was trying to find out the basis for the first premise.  How do we
>> know that there are no non-linguistic beings that are not conscious.  I
>> hope we could rule out the answer,"because they are non-linguistic",  both
>> in its strictly  tautological or merely circular form.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a closely related syllogism which we also need to explore:
>>
>>
>>
>> All language using beings are conscious.
>>
>> George Peter Tremblay IV is a language-using being.
>>
>> George Peter Tremblay IV is conscious.
>>
>>
>>
>> Both are valid syllogisms.  But where do the premises come from.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Frank Wimberly
>>
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/140+Calle+Ojo+Feliz+Santa+Fe,+NM+87505?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/140+Calle+Ojo+Feliz+Santa+Fe,+NM+87505?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> 505 670-9918
>>
>>
>>
>> Research:  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240712/941af678/attachment.html>

More information about the Friam mailing list