[FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
steve smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Tue Jul 16 22:30:03 EDT 2024
an interesting article on the Pan-proto-consciousness ideas which might
be a little more palatable to some here than a more traditional full-on
PanConsciousness argument.
Psychology Today article: Panprotoconsciousnes
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-digital-self/202407/llms-and-the-curious-notion-of-panprotopsychism>s
On 7/16/24 12:21 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
> Since I am not a native speaker my understanding of consciousness is
> probably a bit different and less finely nuanced :-( For me the
> meaning 2) "Subjective consciousness" and 3) "Self-consciousness"
> mentioned in this article are the most interesting ones
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/theory-of-knowledge/202407/unpacking-the-consciousness-suitcase
>
>
> I have not thought of consciousness as the result of a bilateral
> interaction before, as an experience of an other responding to me.
> Fascinating. I thought it was the other way round: I am responding to
> an "other" and experience it as myself. You mean if my buddy (for
> instance my dog) is conscious of me and I am conscious of him we are
> as a pair somehow self-conscious? Interesting.
>
>
> It reminds me of Julian Jaynes who argued in "The Origin of
> Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" that
> consciousness emerged after people in ancient civilizations stopped to
> believe in divine hallucinations and started to recognize the inner
> voice as the own self.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/16/24 6:59 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than
> We Thought
>
> My goal, which I admit is developing on the fly, is to seek commonalty
> in our thinking about consciousness by exploring and perhaps adjusting
> our usage of terms with respect to common day to day experiences with
> potentially conscious others.
>
> For instance: I think you said early on that you did not think your
> "buddies" were conscious. I would be really startled if they were
> not. To come to some sort of common view, including possibly a common
> view of our different views, we would explore the experiences that
> come to our minds when we think about buddies and conscious things.
> For instance, I think of consciousness of me as being marked by
> experience of an other responding to me. I think of a buddy, as an
> other who is particularly responsive to me in some particular area. A
> golf buddy is somebody who is responsive to my desire to play golf
> (shudder) but not so responsive, say, to my desire to do philosophy of
> science. We don't discuss politics. Since both consciousness and
> buddy hood imply experiences of responsiveness, it is difficult for me
> to square your use of "buddy" with your use of "non-conscious". I am
> hoping that further examples will help us see where the discordance
> arises.
>
> Nick
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 12:40 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> I am not sure what your goal is here. If we speak to our pets like
> chickens, cats, dogs, or horses and expect them to understand us
> then we are ascribe human attributes to them. They can feel our
> mood and recognize certain words but they do not understand
> language. Giving animal names is already a first step of an
> anthropomorphization, isn't it?
>
> Would we eat a schnitzel if there is a sign in the supermarket
> which says this meat is from Paul the happy pig from Idaho with a
> picture next to it? Probably not. We suppress the idea that the
> meat we eat comes from a living being which is aware of its
> environment and feels pleasure and pain as we do.
>
> The meat we eat comes from unknown and unnamed animals, whereas we
> know our pets well and give them names, because they are our
> buddies and companions. In principle we should all be vegetarians,
> but I must admit occasionally I like to eat a schnitzel as well.
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/16/24 12:30 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper
> Than We Thought
>
> Oh, so, for instance,
>
> Would you speak to your dog?
> Would you expect your dog to under stand you when you speak, some
> of the time?
> Would you see your dog's behavior as going in a direction?
> Would you believe that some things give your dog pleasure and
> others pain..
> Would you see your dog as having behaviors designed to convey
> pleasure and pain.
>
> etc, etc.
>
> NIck
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 6:26 PM Nicholas Thompson
> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jochen,
>
> I haven't read the paper, so grain of salt, here. Anybody who
> has dealt with a bittersweet vine knows that plants can do
> plenty. The question about plants seems to me to be more one
> of whether each plant is a unit. We tend not to attribute
> consciousness to things we eat, so, to that extent, I am
> suspicious of the assertion that all plants are not at all
> conscious. (Hmmmm. I wonder if the Chinese think that dogs
> are conscious.}
>
> But I am not so much interested at the moment in the
> boundaries of attrribution as I am in its heartland. What are
> we getting at when we make these attributions in ordinary day
> to day talk.
>
> Imagine both you and I had dogs. I imagine that we would
> behave toward our dogs in very similar ways. Yet, on your
> earlier comments, you would see them as non-conscious and I
> would seem them as conscious. What difference does this
> attribution make in our behavor, do you suppose. If there is
> no difference, then the Pragmatist would accuse us of arguing
> over metaphysics.
>
> Nick
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 5:58 PM Jochen Fromm
> <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> Good point. Since plants have no brains and no neurons and
> no muscles and do not move they have no "patterns of
> doings" and therefore no consciousness. There is a paper
> from Taiz et al. which argues plants neither possess nor
> require consciousness.
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Plants-Neither-Possess-nor-Require-Consciousness.-Taiz-Alkon/ba409ce6518883973eb585c9cda1714b1c44707d
>
> I found a reference to the paper in the book "Dancing
> Cockatoos and the Dead Man Test: How Behavior Evolves and
> Why It Matters" from Marlene Zuk
> https://wwnorton.com/books/dancing-cockatoos-and-the-dead-man-test
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/13/24 3:34 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is
> Deeper Than We Thought
>
> I have no trouble stipulating that consciousness is a
> degree-thing so long as we understand it with reference to
> patterns of doings rather than in terms of the equipment
> organisms carry around.
>
> Nick
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:21 PM Jochen Fromm
> <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> The dictionary defines intelligence as the ability to
> learn or understand or to deal with new or trying
> situations. H.G. Wells says in his book "The Time
> Machine" that "There is no intelligence where there is
> no change and no need of change. Only those animals
> partake of intelligence that have to meet a huge
> variety of needs and dangers." LLMs are the result of
> endless training cycles and they show amazing levels
> of intelligence. Apparently there is a relation
> between learning and intelligence.
>
>
> I think languages and codes are more essential to
> understand self-awareness and consciousness because
> consciousness and self-awareness are a side effect of
> language acquisition which allows to bypass the blind
> spot of the inability to perceive the own self.
>
>
> Maybe Steve and Dave are correct that there is a
> spectrum of consciousness: plants have 1 bit of
> consciousness because they are aware of sunshine and
> water levels in the environment. Animals have 2 bits
> of consciousness because they are additionally aware
> of predators and food sources in the environment.
> Primates have 3 bits of consciousness because they are
> aware of injustice and inequalities (e.g. by being
> jealous). Humans have the most bits of consciousness
> because of language and self-awareness. Wheeler's it
> from bit comes to mind.
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za>
> Date: 7/12/24 11:25 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of Consciousness
> Is Deeper Than We Thought
>
> Jochen,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful and engaging post! It's
> never too late for a good discussion, even if we
> sometimes get distracted by the call of daily life (or
> perhaps the allure of a particularly captivating cat
> video).
>
> Your points on the necessity of language for
> meta-awareness and the intriguing idea of the "blind
> spot" of self-perception are fascinating. However, I’d
> like to suggest a slight pivot in our focus. Rather
> than concentrating on consciousness per se, why not
> delve into the realm of intelligence?
>
> Why, you might ask? Well, what we're really curious
> about is what’s going on in our heads when we're
> conscious. I'd rather frame it as exploring what’s
> happening when we think. This shift allows us to focus
> on understanding intelligence, which is arguably more
> tangible and easier to study objectively.
>
> Imagine we endeavor to create intelligent AI. By doing
> so, we can define intelligence, observe it externally,
> and measure it objectively. This aligns with Karl
> Popper's idea that for something to be considered
> scientific, it should be falsifiable. Now, while I
> don't entirely subscribe to the notion that everything
> in research must be falsifiable (after all, some of
> the best discoveries come from uncharted territories),
> there's undeniable merit in having a testable hypothesis.
>
> Studying consciousness often leads us into murky
> waters where our findings might not be easily
> falsifiable. On the other hand, examining intelligence
> – with its overlap with consciousness – offers us the
> chance to make objective, external observations that
> could ultimately shed light on the very nature of
> consciousness itself.
>
> In the end, by focusing on intelligence, we might just
> find ourselves uncovering the secrets of consciousness
> as a delightful side effect. It’s a bit like trying to
> understand a cat's behavior by studying its
> fascination with cardboard boxes – the journey is just
> as enlightening as the destination.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts!
>
> Pieter
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 00:06, Jochen Fromm
> <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> Please excuse the late response, I was distracted
> a bit.
>
> What is the reason that one or more languages are
> essential for meta awareness? I guess we all agree
> that all animals know their environment and are
> aware of it. This is necessary to move around in
> it, to find food and to avoid predators. Their
> biological blueprint can be found in their DNA.
>
> Therefore one language is necessary for the (DNA)
> code to specify an actor which is embedded in a
> world and able to move around in it. Beings who
> are embedded in an environment can perceive
> everything except themselves because the own self
> is the center of all perceptions that can not be
> perceived itself. As observers we are always
> attached to our own bodies. The own person is the
> blind spot which a person is unable to see or hear
> clearly.
>
>
> A second language is necessary to get access to
> the world of language and to move around in it. It
> is not necessary for salmons who come back to the
> stream where they were born (they use smell to do
> this) or for ants who follow pheromones to find
> the shortest path to tasty food sources. But it is
> necessary for us to become aware of ourself
> because it allows us to remove the limitations of
> the blind spot. To consider ourself as an object
> of reflection requires the ability to perceive
> ourself in the first place.
>
>
> Paradoxically it is the blind spot of the
> inability to perceive the own self that makes the
> "I" special. As Gilbert Ryle writes in his book
> "the concept of mind" on page 198
>
> "‘I’, in my use of it, always indicates me and
> only indicates me. ‘You’, ‘she’ and ‘they’
> indicate different people at different times. ‘I’
> is like my ownshadow; I can never get away from
> it, as I can get away from your shadow. There is
> no mystery about this constancy, but I mention it
> because it seems to endow ‘I’ with a mystifying
> uniqueness and adhesiveness."
>
>
> Is this a baby step in the right direction? I am
> not sure.
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/8/24 11:20 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of
> Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
>
> i am moved by the romance and beauty of your
> account, but ultimately left hungry for
> experiences I can put my foot on.
> You and I are clearly inclined to disagree, and I
> was raised to experience disagreement as a
> discomfort.. So how then are we to precede. I
> think, not withstandijng Goethe and Cervantes,
> that baby steps is the only way. Of course, you
> might be citing Goethe and Cervantes as
> authorities on the matter, in which case I can
> only reply, perhaps blushing slightly at my own
> callousness, that they are not so for me.
>
> So, what facts of the matter convince you that one
> or more languages are essential for meta
> awareess. Or is it elf-evident
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 4:49 PM Jochen Fromm
> <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> IMHO it is not one language which is
> necessary, but more than one. Languages can be
> used to create worlds, to move around it them,
> and to share these wolds with others. Tolkien
> and J.K. Rowling have created whole universes.
> The interesting things happen if worlds
> collide, if they merge and melt, or if they
> drift apart.
>
>
> Cervantes in Spain, Goethe in Germany and
> Dante in Italy helped to create new languages
> - Spanish, German and Italian, respectively.
> They also examined in their most famous books
> what happens if worlds collide.
>
>
> Cervantes describes in "Don Quixote"
>
> what happens when imaginary and real worlds
> collide and are so out of sync that the actors
> are getting lost.
>
>
> Goethe decribes in his "Faust" what happens
> when collective and individual worlds collide,
> i.e. when egoistic individuals exploit the
> world selfishly for their own benefit (in his
> first book "The sorrows of young Werther"
> Goethe focused like Fontane and Freud on the
> opposite).
>
>
> Dante describes in his "Divine Comedy"
>
> what happens when worlds diverge and people
> are excluded and expelled from the world.
>
>
> Language is necessary for self awareness
> because it provides the building blocks for a
> new world which is connected but also
> independent from the old one. This allows new
> dimensions of interactions. The connections
> between worlds matter. A label is a simple
> connection between a word in one world and an
> class of objects in another. A metaphor is a
> more complex connection between an abstract
> idea and a composition of objects, etc.
>
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/7/24 5:13 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of
> Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
>
> I think of large language models as the most
> embodied things on the planet, but let that go
> for a moment. Back to baby steps.
>
> Can you lay out for me why you believe that
> language is essential to self-awareness. Does
> that believe arise from ideology, authority,
> or some set of facts I need to take account
> of. To be honest here, I should say where I
> am coming from. A lot of my so-called career
> was spent railing against circular reasoning
> in evolutionary theory and psychology. So, if
> language is essential to self-awareness, and
> animals do not have language, then it indeed
> follows that animals do not have
> self-awareness. But what if our method for
> detecting self awareness requires language?
> Now we are in a loop. Are we in such a loop,
> or are there facts of some matter, independent
> of language, convince you that animals are not
> self-aware. Is self awareness extricable from
> language?
>
> It is an old old trope that animals are
> automata but that humans have soul. Descartes
> swore by it. Is "language" the new soul?
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:29 AM Jochen Fromm
> <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> I would say cats, dogs and horses don't
> have meta-awareness because they lack
> language. They live in the present moment,
> in the here and now. Without language they
> do not have the capability to reflect on
> their past or to think about their future.
> They can not formulate stories of
> themselves which could help to form a
> sense of identity. Language is the mirror
> in which we perceive ourselves during
> "this is me" moments. Animals lack this
> mirror completely. One dimensional scents
> trails do not count as language.
>
> Large languages models lack consciousness
> because they do not have a body which is
> embedded as a actor in an environment.
> These two things are necessary: the
> physical world of bodies, and the mental
> world of language. When both collide in
> the same spot we can get consciousness.
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nicholas Thompson
> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/6/24 5:05 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery of
> Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought
>
> Well, that's because Socrates claimed not
> to know what he thought, and since I
> genuinely don[t know what I think until I
> work it out, the conversation has the same
> quality. I apologize for that. my students
> found it truly distressing.
>
> So, if you will indulge me, why don't you
> think your cat has meta=awareness?
> Authority, ideology, or is there some
> experience you have had that leads you to
> think that. It would be kind of odd if
> it she didn't because animals have all
> sorts of ways of distinguishing self from
> other. They have ways of knowinng that "I
> did that". (e.g., scent marking?)
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:19 PM Jochen
> Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> Well yes, if meta-awareness is defined
> as acting in response to one's own
> awareness then I would say animals
> like a cat don't have it but humans
> have. As an example I could say this
> almost feels like I am a participant
> in a dialogue from Plato...
>
> I would be surprised if it can be
> described in simple terms. If the
> essence of consciousness is subjective
> experience then it is indeed hard to
> describe by a theory although there
> are many attempts. Persons who
> perceive things differently are wired
> differently. And what is more
> subjective than the perception of
> oneself?
>
> https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/
>
>
> If we can describe it mathematically
> then probably as a way an information
> feels if it is processed in complex
> ways, ad infinitum like the orbits of
> a strange attractor.
>
> https://chaoticatmospheres.com/mathrules-strange-attractors
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nicholas Thompson
> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/5/24 6:56 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the Mystery
> of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We
> Thought
>
> ,
>
> Great! Baby steps. "If we aren't
> moving slowly, we aren't moving."
> So, can I define some new terms,
> tentatively, /per explorandum/ ? Let's
> call acting-in-respect-to-the-world,
> "awareness". Allowing this definition,
> we certainly seem to agree that the
> cat is aware. Lets define
> meta-awareness as acting i respect to
> one's own awareness. Now, am I correct
> in assuming that you identify
> meta-awareness with consciousness and
> that you think that the cat is not
> meta-aware and that I probably am?
> And further that you think that
> meta-awareness requires consciousness?
>
> Nick
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 12:17 PM Jochen
> Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> I would say a cat is conscious in
> the sense that it is aware of its
> immediate environment. Cats are
> nocturnal animals who hunt at
> night and mostly sleep during the
> day. Consciousness in the sense of
> being aware of oneself as an actor
> in an environment requires
> understanding of language which
> only humans have ( and LLMs now )
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/insects-and-other-animals-have-consciousness-experts-declare-20240419/
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nicholas Thompson
> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> Date: 7/5/24 5:02 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why the
> Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper
> Than We Thought
>
> Jochen,
>
> /I think the first step in any
> conversation is to decide whether
> your cat is conscious. If so, why
> do you think so; if not,
> likewise. I had a facinnationg
> conversation with GBT about
> whether he was conscious and he
> denied it "hotly", which, of
> course, met one of his criteria
> for consciousness.
> /
> /
> /
> /So. Is your cat connscious?
> /
> /
> /
> /Nick
> /
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM
> Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
> wrote:
>
> I don't get Philip Goff: first
> we send our children 20 years
> to school, from Kindergarten
> to college and university, to
> teach them all kinds of
> languages, and then we wonder
> how they can be conscious. It
> will be the same for AI: first
> we spend millions and millions
> to train them all available
> knowledge, and then we wonder
> how they can develop
> understanding of language and
> consciousness...
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-consciousness-is-deeper-than-we-thought/
>
>
> -J.
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -..
> / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. ---
> -.. .
> 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/
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> 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/
>
>
>
> --
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> Clark University
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoomhttps://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240716/6571fbdc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list