From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug  1 00:44:30 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 04:44:30 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

2607.17397 is a weird one.   The true believers among us might wonder why they are still working on their papers at all.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 10:19 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading


As preamble:

1) Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html

2) Science Direct Summary
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661316300985

But this is the main driver for this post:

3) The unintended consequences of large language models as a labor-augmenting technology in science
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397

I think the Codeberg hypothesis (and stance) about one-off code provides a clear foil for disambiguating what code/software actually *is*. There's a difference between collaboratively developed code and "interpretable" methods. It seems like 2 subtly different meanings of the word "open". Codeberg is (effectively, if not purposefully) saying they are not a "repository" in the sense of, say, https://vivli.org/. Now, I'm a fan of opinionated tech. But Codeberg's stance seems a bit reactionary to me. I mean, it's fine. It's their site, their hardware, etc. So I'm not objecting ... simply processing.

But if we move on to Duede et al (3), the paper irritates me because I like to believe I have an empirical bent. I'm having trouble formulating their model such that its premises are backed by data and that it makes testable predictions. It's my problem, I'm sure. But even in the abstract, they say "researchers will become more selective about what they publish". I feel like they should have prefaced that with "if our model validates" or "analysis of our model argues that" ... or somesuch. IDk. Inside the paper, their assertions are softer and more palatable ... but they still seem to be reifying.

I've included (2) because, from my perspective the LLMs are a fairly straightforward advancement in the lineage of the pencil, or the printing press, or the internet. We imbue our talisman(s) with our hopes and fears, then ratchet our thinking up and never look back (until someone slips a hero dose of LSD into our drink at the party). A large proportion of us will be catastrophically damaged if our ratcheted scaffolds collapse. (Some scaffolds are so robust no amount of truth or fact will collapse it at all.) But at least some subset of dorks will always be fascinated by little details like manually selected fonts or assessing whether some modeling assumption is *actual* as opposed to convenient. We're each free to offload whichever homunculus we find irritating. But I find myself in awe of those who relish irritation as a grounding to reality.

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ


.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260801/58ce3a61/attachment.p7s>

From gepr at ropella.name  Sat Aug  1 17:49:37 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:49:37 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: 
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>

I had similar thoughts. It's cool and all. But I can't help but wonder why they did NOT use more AI.

On 7/31/26 9:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> 2607.17397 is a weird one.   The true believers among us might wonder why they are still working on their papers at all.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 10:19 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
> 
> 
> As preamble:
> 
> 1) Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html
> 
> 2) Science Direct Summary
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661316300985
> 
> But this is the main driver for this post:
> 
> 3) The unintended consequences of large language models as a labor-augmenting technology in science
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397
> 
> I think the Codeberg hypothesis (and stance) about one-off code provides a clear foil for disambiguating what code/software actually *is*. There's a difference between collaboratively developed code and "interpretable" methods. It seems like 2 subtly different meanings of the word "open". Codeberg is (effectively, if not purposefully) saying they are not a "repository" in the sense of, say, https://vivli.org/. Now, I'm a fan of opinionated tech. But Codeberg's stance seems a bit reactionary to me. I mean, it's fine. It's their site, their hardware, etc. So I'm not objecting ... simply processing.
> 
> But if we move on to Duede et al (3), the paper irritates me because I like to believe I have an empirical bent. I'm having trouble formulating their model such that its premises are backed by data and that it makes testable predictions. It's my problem, I'm sure. But even in the abstract, they say "researchers will become more selective about what they publish". I feel like they should have prefaced that with "if our model validates" or "analysis of our model argues that" ... or somesuch. IDk. Inside the paper, their assertions are softer and more palatable ... but they still seem to be reifying.
> 
> I've included (2) because, from my perspective the LLMs are a fairly straightforward advancement in the lineage of the pencil, or the printing press, or the internet. We imbue our talisman(s) with our hopes and fears, then ratchet our thinking up and never look back (until someone slips a hero dose of LSD into our drink at the party). A large proportion of us will be catastrophically damaged if our ratcheted scaffolds collapse. (Some scaffolds are so robust no amount of truth or fact will collapse it at all.) But at least some subset of dorks will always be fascinated by little details like manually selected fonts or assessing whether some modeling assumption is *actual* as opposed to convenient. We're each free to offload whichever homunculus we find irritating. But I find myself in awe of those who relish irritation as a grounding to reality.
> 
-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ


From desmith at santafe.edu  Sat Aug  1 21:27:04 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2026 10:27:04 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>

It depends on what you’re in it for.  This to Marcus’s point/question as well.

There’s various stuff that has triggered something like thoughts, some of which seem to me a little bit constructive, and this list has been the place I would normally want to toss such stuff back and forth.  But it can be read as “concerns that come up to an academic”, and I am aware of the rising tide of sentiment (society in general, and not only the MAGAs) that academics all live in a fake world anyway, and the society would be better off if they were all just shoved off into the sea and dispensed with (except the part that maybe businesses feel like hosting and charging a fee for).  

But what the hell.

The early part of last week I lost maybe the more-quality part of two days “reviewing” a submission that I accepted as a “paper”, before realizing it was all slop.  Increasingly, that means it wasn’t necessarily wrong.  The LLMs now write a lot of equations etc. that are correct.  Context is that at least one of the names probably points to a real person, a very junior Chinese expat in a visitor institution of a medical school (that I never heard of, but probably has some repute) in Moscow.  How precarious a life would you like to think that is?  I don’t know if the second submitter name (also Chinese, but common enough to be widely used) corresponds to an actual person or not.  Claim in the manuscript was that it is about multi-neuronal trajectories during mesoscale brain-state changes (say, learning, making a choice, etc.)  The only other paper by the same submitter name is on Kerr black holes.  Not published, just stuff at researchgate and the earlier author on the other one gave a talk somewhere.

Anyway, once I switched the necker cube to realizing it was all slop, it was of course overwhelming that it was so.  After looking at it in that frame for a bit, I concluded that there is a good likelihood that no actual person did any actual work at all.  Probably the submitter asked one of the LLMs to choose something that would sound like a project, to go do a Gish gallop through literature that could be padded into an “introduction”, though none of it was ever used for anything, put in a bunch of platitudes about the valid interpretation of different methods (also never used or revisited again in any way) maybe to write some code (which maybe the person ran or maybe not), generate some figures that purport to be the output of those simulations (which, for various technical features I strongly doubt; I think they were made up), and then package it all into a “paper” that the submitter could submit.  There were large sections in it that were in a somewhat obscure area, which read like plagiarism of our work in that area (my way of saying things is non-standard enough that plagiarism of me doesn’t sound like plagiarism of most larger communities, and I know parts of the math community who work in this area, and don’t sound like that us at all), but since _nobody at all_ was cited in that section, of course I have no way to know.  The submitter probably doesn’t even know what the community is, as the LLM maybe never gave her any of that information.  It just, oracular-like, plunked down various sentences and equation forms.  On the other hand, this is a journal I never heard of and that never heard of me, so I expect the reason I was asked to review is that the LLM suggested us as potential reviewers as one of its prompt replies.

Fun note: I explained all this to the handling editor (and the parts that don’t involve my own identity to the submitter as well, since I don’t feel like coming under harassment by a troll farm, if this is not just the desperate action of one kid trying to survive).  This is a Springer journal, and a colleague shared the opinion a while back that Springer, despite having some legacy good titles, has degenerated to being nearly a predatory publisher.  The “editor”’s response to my review and others was “Revise”.

Anyway, what are the three thoughts (sorry for that long preamble) following from any of this?

1. Academics give lip service to, but I’m not sure they have embodied in the gut, the absolute tsunami of sewage that they are all about to get submerged under.  They may come to wish they had been shoved into the sea.

2. Why did I waste nearly 2 days before realizing what all this was?  This matters to me, because it speaks to how awful academic writing has been forever.  The Gish gallops, the padding, the oracular style?  It’s always a goddamned cryptology exercise, trying to figure out what the hell something means, or how a claimed result was arrived at.  Sometimes it’s because the authors are geniuses; don’t know what to do about them, because they genuinely can’t understand why things need to be explained for other people to follow them.  Sometimes it’s because the authors are lazy, and don’t feel like explaining well if they think they got something right.  Most of the time it’s probably hazing, by authors who want to look impressive by making things harder for the reader to get than they need to be.

(For a large part of this, I blame Bourbaki, which Persi Diaconis — blessings be upon him — gave me permission to do despite my being a mere physicist.  Bourbaki were like the Grover Norquists of math.  They had two purity tests:  Always remember that: 1) any message from a sufficiently advanced society will be indistinguishable from magic to a lesser society; and 2) any maximally compressed message will be indistinguishable from a random string of bits.  Mathematicians must always test their written output against these two criteria and try to maximize both.  This umbrella then gives cover for lots of bad writing that is actually done for other reasons, along with the inevitable difficulties of specialization and siloing.)

It can take me anywhere from weeks to forever to understand a single paper.  If review is supposed to mean notarizing that the contents of a paper are correct, and I get three new requests a week, clearly those times don’t scale.  So inevitably, getting as close as I can, and admitting where I am still stumped, I give writers the benefit of the doubt, that some very costly figure that I have no possible way to reproduce (outcome of years of work in some specialist lab) is what they claim.  In the age of slop, I don’t give anybody the benefit of the doubt.  But that means the review timescale expands back to its authentic self, which is weeks to years (or maybe forever) for each paper.  

The number of things we will have lost, in a society where trust is no longer possible, toward anybody in regard to anything, is so large that I don’t think anybody is seriously reckoning with it.

3. But then, what to do?  My thought was that we (what “we”?) should create a new journal.  ONE new journal only.  It’s called “Vibe Science”.  All the submissions will be auto-generated by LLMs.  If people want to serve them by feeding prompts, that’s fine too.  Kind of Matrix-like (or 3rd-world porn-flagging exploitation-like) jobs people already take.   A new gig-subeconomy.  Maybe they can be fed a meal a day in payment.  Then LLMs can also do all the reviewing, and can send messages to each other (or maybe there is only one LLM at the end; does it even use messages any more?).  They/it can decide what is good and should be accepted, and what should not be accepted.  Why not?  There’s no reason to have more than one journal, since internally the LLMs can sort what is “in” or “across” any discipline or disciplines, and to invent new typologies as needed for their internal indexing.  People can’t read it anyway, so there is no reason to make it human-indexing-friendly (or maybe even tractable).

Then the accepted stuff can all be archived somewhere, on more Mongolian rare earths with fossil- or nuclear-powered cooling towers and fans.  

What will we do with it?  I guess people with no other survival work, like the e-waste-recyclers in India or the Philippines, can trawl through the lists of claims, and see if there is anything the human world would like to regard as “true” or “potentially useful” or (here, for the unemployed artists) “interesting”.  Maybe that will become what PhD training aims toward.  Now of course, there isn’t any reason the data-trove can’t just be made self-activating in the world of physical robots, so I’m not sure what the vetting by the recyclers would unpack to.  But maybe some decision-maker somewhere uses that.

Something along this line is my guess at the set of things that will have to be chosen and decided, in a quite near term, but quite a number of people.  Or maybe decided by 10 people, and everybody else can scramble and see if there is a survival trajectory through the new wreckage.

At the end of all this, though, I think it pushes us to front something we should always have been thinking about, but have had the luxury of not thinking much about before now.  There were good uses for calculators, and even though it deprived some people of the ability to do fast addition in-head, we continue to do math, with new frontiers possible.  There will be some version of that for the LLMs as interface, and much more general AI tools for empirical results and their representations.  But then what is a system for thinking through what a person can want, or might want, as a participant in the order that results?  The sort of emotive tropes that seem popular now, or the online gurus of everything, kind of leave me unimpressed.  All this common-language and lore and culture that we have as hand-me-down from time immemorial is what came through the filters of people’s needs to reason out these things, in the circumstances of the times.  To the extent that those circumstances are going to be different — not clear to me, since ecological collapse and mobs of the dispossessed could just thump it all into rubble — a different version of something similarly filtered will need to come about somehow.

Back to the opening question: For myself, I would not have wanted to be one of the people prompting the LLM to invent a question and write a bunch of junk that I could send to a Springer journal.  I certainly do not envy her life as a junior Chinese expat in a cordoned-off sub-institute in Moscow.  Less dangerous and demanding of wits to try to become a gang leader.  Even though I suspect some of those people have talent, and many of them I would like and appreciate if I knew them.  I still take weeks or months fiddling with some annoying thing to see if a certain kind of field theory can be coherently defined into existence, and whether it gets the answer to some empirical question about rare statistics right.  I guess, the fact that that is what I want to do, and that it sometimes might also get something empirically right, is why the society increasingly wants to dump the academics.  But it still is what I have accepted paycuts and spontaneous/episodic unemployment, and various other nuisances, to somehow put aside time to continue doing. 

Eric




> On Aug 2, 2026, at 6:49, glen <gepr at ropella.name> wrote:
> 
> I had similar thoughts. It's cool and all. But I can't help but wonder why they did NOT use more AI.
> 
> On 7/31/26 9:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> 2607.17397 is a weird one.   The true believers among us might wonder why they are still working on their papers at all.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 10:19 AM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
>> As preamble:
>> 1) Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fblog.codeberg.org%2fprotecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html&c=E,1,PSzw3UoOT3SOXSaXTGDk-zPlNdIkPx58sbCqKgH3fqrZLLmTvR9c1q0G-qeL_GFsAE-9sNkr7RvNRtkbG756llp3STEvrsBt9Ztbt3W424zCKnZWhQ,,&typo=1
>> 2) Science Direct Summary
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirect.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS1364661316300985&c=E,1,Rez0hef2TLaMMg2jA_kk6d6KHVgSHZk75ETTunCX7Dt5GuSi33eko0ka8iSoiXEajFB0XSerQBNPvL3p8DqGXHdWrysTvUyNzne192tlWA,,&typo=1
>> But this is the main driver for this post:
>> 3) The unintended consequences of large language models as a labor-augmenting technology in science
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397
>> I think the Codeberg hypothesis (and stance) about one-off code provides a clear foil for disambiguating what code/software actually *is*. There's a difference between collaboratively developed code and "interpretable" methods. It seems like 2 subtly different meanings of the word "open". Codeberg is (effectively, if not purposefully) saying they are not a "repository" in the sense of, say, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fvivli.org%2f&c=E,1,dWHhPQRYDujbxzdX0_0zLPwURhJoU16RdDayBZS4TaF5bo89ZIRV6_Aqm3S_pPkFx_myz98EbKiCplE-Ezjz7tKrBm_ewCfGM8kSONgRrH3KjA7nZ8nPNzYo&typo=1. Now, I'm a fan of opinionated tech. But Codeberg's stance seems a bit reactionary to me. I mean, it's fine. It's their site, their hardware, etc. So I'm not objecting ... simply processing.
>> But if we move on to Duede et al (3), the paper irritates me because I like to believe I have an empirical bent. I'm having trouble formulating their model such that its premises are backed by data and that it makes testable predictions. It's my problem, I'm sure. But even in the abstract, they say "researchers will become more selective about what they publish". I feel like they should have prefaced that with "if our model validates" or "analysis of our model argues that" ... or somesuch. IDk. Inside the paper, their assertions are softer and more palatable ... but they still seem to be reifying.
>> I've included (2) because, from my perspective the LLMs are a fairly straightforward advancement in the lineage of the pencil, or the printing press, or the internet. We imbue our talisman(s) with our hopes and fears, then ratchet our thinking up and never look back (until someone slips a hero dose of LSD into our drink at the party). A large proportion of us will be catastrophically damaged if our ratcheted scaffolds collapse. (Some scaffolds are so robust no amount of truth or fact will collapse it at all.) But at least some subset of dorks will always be fascinated by little details like manually selected fonts or assessing whether some modeling assumption is *actual* as opposed to convenient. We're each free to offload whichever homunculus we find irritating. But I find myself in awe of those who relish irritation as a grounding to reality.
> -- 
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
> 
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,h2kSFX0LAnZyRUXaAkok70Ga2n33XiIKWswY0TZY5vDx5zp0I2GCCUORb0Hqyv6JmJvX539jCgsHc2dmyA6bLRoUi_dItCeekZZz7JErM6Pe7wV651iV&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,Zq7-Drpk__zl7J6pjg_ABR9rTCkFc5qiSvyZ5riow-CLHoRW7rtTEYmY8GLwDnSxniNLsdRYXOXJoM4D3LOOrRzEigqJaJzS2T8oDO8lGnY,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,4PxMZcR8kVFCZp8vAG85qNI1veCa4eRXNDmHjO7vz9lztBjTsKzRhNA-fSajLu8bjW-T2OWz97Niy-920S7shZLLDe-AAIxBvqnqCB2dfSAXXTk,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,gyzYVDs1zmVVbz1G97q_VCmEeOIiIr0hDdbH09lHz9_BpVM_jqZ7gEEhlDQi-aRsp64BmRfxPP69kr3ktif5AJr3qmm8oNPlckGlEbkU7G_LMv-x0Q,,&typo=1
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug  1 22:51:36 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2026 02:51:36 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
 <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: 
 <CY8PR11MB7730A866B6B1016376D0CA99C5D62@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

I use both Claude Code and Codex heavily, and the main current difference I observe is how hard Codex seeks grounding on factual things. A simple example that came up for me today: I had some large builds that had used all storage in a temporary workspace. So, when the AI was waiting for my response, I moved the build to a partition with a lot more disk space and then made a symlink to it. Before the move, the AI (GPT 5.6 Sol) had seen some dereferenced absolute paths because of the tooling. It would have remembered them just fine had I not done this. But Codex, currently more so than Claude Code, is paranoid/conscientious about its grounding. Between larger bursts of work (even when context is not exhausted), it basically acts like it is starting over from notes, and rechecks the environment. It caught the move of the paths and adjusted the absolute paths to the new ones. It’s a dispositional tendency that helps long horizon work at the cost of some token waste. 
Now in just the last few days, OpenAI had an announcement on just this issue. (It is what Claude Code does – so they are saying that their model is smarter than it looks.)


https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-agi-3-scores/ <https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-agi-3-scores/> 

Anyway, my guess is that many users of AI in academia are not using harnesses in the way builders are. With a harness, the AI is not just responding to a vague goal from a muddled user using its general knowledge. The harness provides constant updates to entailment. For example, these proofs were managed by Lean 4, so they can be iterated in this way, and they pass a deterministic checker. 

https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs/ <https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs/> 

I’d say the solution to the muddled user problem is AI review of papers. As a part of ingest, the paper would get a critical review from one or more perspectives. Like a continuous integration system for software projects but applied to paper quality. A small change to something like arXiv. 

What I think will probably happen is something like the blackboard architecture with LLM writers and reviewers. And it will all be too fast to keep up with, and so the best thing will be to go on bike ride or walk the dog. (First is down, now for the second.) 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu>
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2026 at 6:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Cc: David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading 

It depends on what you’re in it for. This to Marcus’s point/question as well.

There’s various stuff that has triggered something like thoughts, some of which seem to me a little bit constructive, and this list has been the place I would normally want to toss such stuff back and forth. But it can be read as “concerns that come up to an academic”, and I am aware of the rising tide of sentiment (society in general, and not only the MAGAs) that academics all live in a fake world anyway, and the society would be better off if they were all just shoved off into the sea and dispensed with (except the part that maybe businesses feel like hosting and charging a fee for). 

But what the hell.

The early part of last week I lost maybe the more-quality part of two days “reviewing” a submission that I accepted as a “paper”, before realizing it was all slop. Increasingly, that means it wasn’t necessarily wrong. The LLMs now write a lot of equations etc. that are correct. Context is that at least one of the names probably points to a real person, a very junior Chinese expat in a visitor institution of a medical school (that I never heard of, but probably has some repute) in Moscow. How precarious a life would you like to think that is? I don’t know if the second submitter name (also Chinese, but common enough to be widely used) corresponds to an actual person or not. Claim in the manuscript was that it is about multi-neuronal trajectories during mesoscale brain-state changes (say, learning, making a choice, etc.) The only other paper by the same submitter name is on Kerr black holes. Not published, just stuff at researchgate and the earlier author on the other one gave a talk somewhere.

Anyway, once I switched the necker cube to realizing it was all slop, it was of course overwhelming that it was so. After looking at it in that frame for a bit, I concluded that there is a good likelihood that no actual person did any actual work at all. Probably the submitter asked one of the LLMs to choose something that would sound like a project, to go do a Gish gallop through literature that could be padded into an “introduction”, though none of it was ever used for anything, put in a bunch of platitudes about the valid interpretation of different methods (also never used or revisited again in any way) maybe to write some code (which maybe the person ran or maybe not), generate some figures that purport to be the output of those simulations (which, for various technical features I strongly doubt; I think they were made up), and then package it all into a “paper” that the submitter could submit. There were large sections in it that were in a somewhat obscure area, which read like plagiarism of our work in that area (my way of saying things is non-standard enough that plagiarism of me doesn’t sound like plagiarism of most larger communities, and I know parts of the math community who work in this area, and don’t sound like that us at all), but since _nobody at all_ was cited in that section, of course I have no way to know. The submitter probably doesn’t even know what the community is, as the LLM maybe never gave her any of that information. It just, oracular-like, plunked down various sentences and equation forms. On the other hand, this is a journal I never heard of and that never heard of me, so I expect the reason I was asked to review is that the LLM suggested us as potential reviewers as one of its prompt replies.

Fun note: I explained all this to the handling editor (and the parts that don’t involve my own identity to the submitter as well, since I don’t feel like coming under harassment by a troll farm, if this is not just the desperate action of one kid trying to survive). This is a Springer journal, and a colleague shared the opinion a while back that Springer, despite having some legacy good titles, has degenerated to being nearly a predatory publisher. The “editor”’s response to my review and others was “Revise”.

Anyway, what are the three thoughts (sorry for that long preamble) following from any of this?

1. Academics give lip service to, but I’m not sure they have embodied in the gut, the absolute tsunami of sewage that they are all about to get submerged under. They may come to wish they had been shoved into the sea.

2. Why did I waste nearly 2 days before realizing what all this was? This matters to me, because it speaks to how awful academic writing has been forever. The Gish gallops, the padding, the oracular style? It’s always a goddamned cryptology exercise, trying to figure out what the hell something means, or how a claimed result was arrived at. Sometimes it’s because the authors are geniuses; don’t know what to do about them, because they genuinely can’t understand why things need to be explained for other people to follow them. Sometimes it’s because the authors are lazy, and don’t feel like explaining well if they think they got something right. Most of the time it’s probably hazing, by authors who want to look impressive by making things harder for the reader to get than they need to be.

(For a large part of this, I blame Bourbaki, which Persi Diaconis — blessings be upon him — gave me permission to do despite my being a mere physicist. Bourbaki were like the Grover Norquists of math. They had two purity tests: Always remember that: 1) any message from a sufficiently advanced society will be indistinguishable from magic to a lesser society; and 2) any maximally compressed message will be indistinguishable from a random string of bits. Mathematicians must always test their written output against these two criteria and try to maximize both. This umbrella then gives cover for lots of bad writing that is actually done for other reasons, along with the inevitable difficulties of specialization and siloing.)

It can take me anywhere from weeks to forever to understand a single paper. If review is supposed to mean notarizing that the contents of a paper are correct, and I get three new requests a week, clearly those times don’t scale. So inevitably, getting as close as I can, and admitting where I am still stumped, I give writers the benefit of the doubt, that some very costly figure that I have no possible way to reproduce (outcome of years of work in some specialist lab) is what they claim. In the age of slop, I don’t give anybody the benefit of the doubt. But that means the review timescale expands back to its authentic self, which is weeks to years (or maybe forever) for each paper. 

The number of things we will have lost, in a society where trust is no longer possible, toward anybody in regard to anything, is so large that I don’t think anybody is seriously reckoning with it.

3. But then, what to do? My thought was that we (what “we”?) should create a new journal. ONE new journal only. It’s called “Vibe Science”. All the submissions will be auto-generated by LLMs. If people want to serve them by feeding prompts, that’s fine too. Kind of Matrix-like (or 3rd-world porn-flagging exploitation-like) jobs people already take. A new gig-subeconomy. Maybe they can be fed a meal a day in payment. Then LLMs can also do all the reviewing, and can send messages to each other (or maybe there is only one LLM at the end; does it even use messages any more?). They/it can decide what is good and should be accepted, and what should not be accepted. Why not? There’s no reason to have more than one journal, since internally the LLMs can sort what is “in” or “across” any discipline or disciplines, and to invent new typologies as needed for their internal indexing. People can’t read it anyway, so there is no reason to make it human-indexing-friendly (or maybe even tractable).

Then the accepted stuff can all be archived somewhere, on more Mongolian rare earths with fossil- or nuclear-powered cooling towers and fans. 

What will we do with it? I guess people with no other survival work, like the e-waste-recyclers in India or the Philippines, can trawl through the lists of claims, and see if there is anything the human world would like to regard as “true” or “potentially useful” or (here, for the unemployed artists) “interesting”. Maybe that will become what PhD training aims toward. Now of course, there isn’t any reason the data-trove can’t just be made self-activating in the world of physical robots, so I’m not sure what the vetting by the recyclers would unpack to. But maybe some decision-maker somewhere uses that.

Something along this line is my guess at the set of things that will have to be chosen and decided, in a quite near term, but quite a number of people. Or maybe decided by 10 people, and everybody else can scramble and see if there is a survival trajectory through the new wreckage.

At the end of all this, though, I think it pushes us to front something we should always have been thinking about, but have had the luxury of not thinking much about before now. There were good uses for calculators, and even though it deprived some people of the ability to do fast addition in-head, we continue to do math, with new frontiers possible. There will be some version of that for the LLMs as interface, and much more general AI tools for empirical results and their representations. But then what is a system for thinking through what a person can want, or might want, as a participant in the order that results? The sort of emotive tropes that seem popular now, or the online gurus of everything, kind of leave me unimpressed. All this common-language and lore and culture that we have as hand-me-down from time immemorial is what came through the filters of people’s needs to reason out these things, in the circumstances of the times. To the extent that those circumstances are going to be different — not clear to me, since ecological collapse and mobs of the dispossessed could just thump it all into rubble — a different version of something similarly filtered will need to come about somehow.

Back to the opening question: For myself, I would not have wanted to be one of the people prompting the LLM to invent a question and write a bunch of junk that I could send to a Springer journal. I certainly do not envy her life as a junior Chinese expat in a cordoned-off sub-institute in Moscow. Less dangerous and demanding of wits to try to become a gang leader. Even though I suspect some of those people have talent, and many of them I would like and appreciate if I knew them. I still take weeks or months fiddling with some annoying thing to see if a certain kind of field theory can be coherently defined into existence, and whether it gets the answer to some empirical question about rare statistics right. I guess, the fact that that is what I want to do, and that it sometimes might also get something empirically right, is why the society increasingly wants to dump the academics. But it still is what I have accepted paycuts and spontaneous/episodic unemployment, and various other nuisances, to somehow put aside time to continue doing. 

Eric




> On Aug 2, 2026, at 6:49, glen <gepr at ropella.name> wrote:
> 
> I had similar thoughts. It's cool and all. But I can't help but wonder why they did NOT use more AI.
> 
> On 7/31/26 9:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> 2607.17397 is a weird one. The true believers among us might wonder why they are still working on their papers at all.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 10:19 AM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
>> As preamble:
>> 1) Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fblog.codeberg.org%2fprotecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html&c=E,1,PSzw3UoOT3SOXSaXTGDk-zPlNdIkPx58sbCqKgH3fqrZLLmTvR9c1q0G-qeL_GFsAE-9sNkr7RvNRtkbG756llp3STEvrsBt9Ztbt3W424zCKnZWhQ,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fblog.codeberg.org%2fprotecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html&amp;c=E,1,PSzw3UoOT3SOXSaXTGDk-zPlNdIkPx58sbCqKgH3fqrZLLmTvR9c1q0G-qeL_GFsAE-9sNkr7RvNRtkbG756llp3STEvrsBt9Ztbt3W424zCKnZWhQ,,&amp;typo=1>
>> 2) Science Direct Summary
>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirect.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS1364661316300985&c=E,1,Rez0hef2TLaMMg2jA_kk6d6KHVgSHZk75ETTunCX7Dt5GuSi33eko0ka8iSoiXEajFB0XSerQBNPvL3p8DqGXHdWrysTvUyNzne192tlWA,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirect.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS1364661316300985&amp;c=E,1,Rez0hef2TLaMMg2jA_kk6d6KHVgSHZk75ETTunCX7Dt5GuSi33eko0ka8iSoiXEajFB0XSerQBNPvL3p8DqGXHdWrysTvUyNzne192tlWA,,&amp;typo=1>
>> But this is the main driver for this post:
>> 3) The unintended consequences of large language models as a labor-augmenting technology in science
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397>
>> I think the Codeberg hypothesis (and stance) about one-off code provides a clear foil for disambiguating what code/software actually *is*. There's a difference between collaboratively developed code and "interpretable" methods. It seems like 2 subtly different meanings of the word "open". Codeberg is (effectively, if not purposefully) saying they are not a "repository" in the sense of, say, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fvivli.org%2f&c=E,1,dWHhPQRYDujbxzdX0_0zLPwURhJoU16RdDayBZS4TaF5bo89ZIRV6_Aqm3S_pPkFx_myz98EbKiCplE-Ezjz7tKrBm_ewCfGM8kSONgRrH3KjA7nZ8nPNzYo&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fvivli.org%2f&amp;c=E,1,dWHhPQRYDujbxzdX0_0zLPwURhJoU16RdDayBZS4TaF5bo89ZIRV6_Aqm3S_pPkFx_myz98EbKiCplE-Ezjz7tKrBm_ewCfGM8kSONgRrH3KjA7nZ8nPNzYo&amp;typo=1>. Now, I'm a fan of opinionated tech. But Codeberg's stance seems a bit reactionary to me. I mean, it's fine. It's their site, their hardware, etc. So I'm not objecting ... simply processing.
>> But if we move on to Duede et al (3), the paper irritates me because I like to believe I have an empirical bent. I'm having trouble formulating their model such that its premises are backed by data and that it makes testable predictions. It's my problem, I'm sure. But even in the abstract, they say "researchers will become more selective about what they publish". I feel like they should have prefaced that with "if our model validates" or "analysis of our model argues that" ... or somesuch. IDk. Inside the paper, their assertions are softer and more palatable ... but they still seem to be reifying.
>> I've included (2) because, from my perspective the LLMs are a fairly straightforward advancement in the lineage of the pencil, or the printing press, or the internet. We imbue our talisman(s) with our hopes and fears, then ratchet our thinking up and never look back (until someone slips a hero dose of LSD into our drink at the party). A large proportion of us will be catastrophically damaged if our ratcheted scaffolds collapse. (Some scaffolds are so robust no amount of truth or fact will collapse it at all.) But at least some subset of dorks will always be fascinated by little details like manually selected fonts or assessing whether some modeling assumption is *actual* as opposed to convenient. We're each free to offload whichever homunculus we find irritating. But I find myself in awe of those who relish irritation as a grounding to reality.
> -- 
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
> 
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,h2kSFX0LAnZyRUXaAkok70Ga2n33XiIKWswY0TZY5vDx5zp0I2GCCUORb0Hqyv6JmJvX539jCgsHc2dmyA6bLRoUi_dItCeekZZz7JErM6Pe7wV651iV&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&amp;c=E,1,h2kSFX0LAnZyRUXaAkok70Ga2n33XiIKWswY0TZY5vDx5zp0I2GCCUORb0Hqyv6JmJvX539jCgsHc2dmyA6bLRoUi_dItCeekZZz7JErM6Pe7wV651iV&amp;typo=1>
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,Zq7-Drpk__zl7J6pjg_ABR9rTCkFc5qiSvyZ5riow-CLHoRW7rtTEYmY8GLwDnSxniNLsdRYXOXJoM4D3LOOrRzEigqJaJzS2T8oDO8lGnY,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&amp;c=E,1,Zq7-Drpk__zl7J6pjg_ABR9rTCkFc5qiSvyZ5riow-CLHoRW7rtTEYmY8GLwDnSxniNLsdRYXOXJoM4D3LOOrRzEigqJaJzS2T8oDO8lGnY,&amp;typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,4PxMZcR8kVFCZp8vAG85qNI1veCa4eRXNDmHjO7vz9lztBjTsKzRhNA-fSajLu8bjW-T2OWz97Niy-920S7shZLLDe-AAIxBvqnqCB2dfSAXXTk,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,4PxMZcR8kVFCZp8vAG85qNI1veCa4eRXNDmHjO7vz9lztBjTsKzRhNA-fSajLu8bjW-T2OWz97Niy-920S7shZLLDe-AAIxBvqnqCB2dfSAXXTk,&amp;typo=1>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,gyzYVDs1zmVVbz1G97q_VCmEeOIiIr0hDdbH09lHz9_BpVM_jqZ7gEEhlDQi-aRsp64BmRfxPP69kr3ktif5AJr3qmm8oNPlckGlEbkU7G_LMv-x0Q,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,gyzYVDs1zmVVbz1G97q_VCmEeOIiIr0hDdbH09lHz9_BpVM_jqZ7gEEhlDQi-aRsp64BmRfxPP69kr3ktif5AJr3qmm8oNPlckGlEbkU7G_LMv-x0Q,,&amp;typo=1>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <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 <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe 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/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260802/c43ac30f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260802/c43ac30f/attachment-0001.bin>

From jonzingale at gmail.com  Sun Aug  2 13:31:33 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2026 11:31:33 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek03v7qrze==j6e4zH30_tKN9pUG3Q2zYCfSU7MiGzguPg@mail.gmail.com>

Bourbaki? Sure, blame the man. But the writings of Weil, Eilenberg,
Grothendieck, Tate, and Godement remain a proper treasure trove of
intelligible thought. All else equal, I get your point. I remember the
excitement I felt when I found the complete works of Bourbaki in the RLM
library, sat down under the fluorescent light, and discovered, yes, a
maximally compressed message.

I’d actually recommend a journal where reviewers meet with the author. The
author is given a polygraph and asked to describe the thought or finding.
The work is accepted on the grounds that the author believes their own
work; the reviewers exist as a repository, a sort of RAID system for the
idea. Of course, I have never been an academic, only hazed by them, so I’m
not sure what I can offer. I suppose I fall into the camp that wouldn’t
mind nearly all of them pushed into a volcano somewhere.

To my mind, the problem is an old one, only exacerbated to nose-bleed
levels in the present time: too many serfs chasing too few jobs, and the
problem of search. The playbook was forged during the search-engine wars of
the 2000s, when it was to the benefit of Google, Yahoo, Webcrawler, and the
like to flood the web with informational cyclic-AMP in the form of junk
pages. Only the most resourced, with the best algorithms, would survive.
Now all search is mediated by one of these institutions. Similarly for
LinkedIn, Indeed, and the modern world of adversarial hiring: employers
receive endless floods of non-applicants; job hunters are alienated, via
ATS, from finding a face with whom to plead their case. I’m not sure who
will win the employment search wars; my current bet is on Workday, SAP, or
Oracle. All these years later, and search still isn’t solved.

To paraphrase Nolan’s Odysseus: “We have broke Zeus’ law and now are
plunged into a world without trust.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260802/9116b5bc/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Mon Aug  3 11:12:09 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 08:12:09 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: 
 <CY8PR11MB7730A866B6B1016376D0CA99C5D62@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
 <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
 <CY8PR11MB7730A866B6B1016376D0CA99C5D62@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <937ed3ac-47c4-47dc-a339-ffc0503976f4@ropella.name>

So far, I remain tightly clamped on what I allow [Claude|Open]Code to do, both edits and execution ... and especially skill downloads. That approve-every-action policy used to be paranoia. I was afraid. But it's become *interesting* at this point. E.g. Claude wanted to install a headless browser snapshot generator so it could look at a web page rendered from some data to see if it "looked" the way it intended it to look. I didn't allow that, of course, because I'm the worst kind of micromanaging boss. But that it wanted to do that all automatically is fantastic, literally a realized fantasy. The same would apply to any other grounding check, be it formal or informal.

But what would a consult-the-experts REPL look like in Eric's setup? I asked Mistral's Vibe to analyze Duede et al and it gave me some interesting hooks for testing their model. A harness might even have implemented the model (numerically or formally or both) to verify their curves, maybe search the literature for social data/trends, and perform some kind of sensitivity?

But going back to Cody's idea that a robot prolly won't have nociceptors in odd parts of its foot, we have a ways to go before we'll get to harness granularity imagined by The Matrix. Which parts of the context *can* be challenged? Which parts should be challenged (versus accepted due to low RoI)? Etc.

Anyway, I just can't imagine people *still* writing this stuff off as "autocomplete", an insult I still see almost every day. It's like those kids in school telling me my HP was a calculator. There's a difference between your TI and my HP, even if that difference is occult.

On 8/1/26 7:51 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I use both Claude Code and Codex heavily, and the main current difference I observe is how hard Codex seeks grounding on factual things.   A simple example that came up for me today:   I had some large builds that had used all storage in a temporary workspace.  So, when the AI was waiting for my response, I moved the build to a partition with a lot more disk space and then made a symlink to it.   Before the move, the AI (GPT 5.6 Sol) had seen some dereferenced absolute paths because of the tooling.  It would have remembered them just fine had I not done this.  But Codex, currently more so than Claude Code, is paranoid/conscientious about its grounding.   Between larger bursts of work (even when context is not exhausted), it basically acts like it is starting over from notes, and rechecks the environment.   It caught the move of the paths and adjusted the absolute paths to the new ones.   It’s a dispositional tendency that helps long horizon work at the cost of some token waste.
> 
> Now in just the last few days, OpenAI had an announcement on just this issue.   (It is what Claude Code does – so they are saying that their model is smarter than it looks.)
> 
> https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-agi-3-scores/ <https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-agi-3-scores/>
> 
> Anyway, my guess is that many users of AI in academia are not using harnesses in the way builders are.   With a harness, the AI is not just responding to a vague goal from a muddled user using its general knowledge.  The harness provides constant updates to entailment.    For example, these proofs were managed by Lean 4, so they can be iterated in this way, and they pass a deterministic checker.
> 
> https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs/ <https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs/>
> 
> I’d say the solution to the muddled user problem is AI review of papers.   As a part of ingest, the paper would get a critical review from one or more perspectives.   Like a continuous integration system for software projects but applied to paper quality.  A small change to something like arXiv.
> 
> What I think will probably happen is something like the blackboard architecture with LLM writers and reviewers.   And it will all be too fast to keep up with, and so the best thing will be to go on bike ride or walk the dog.  (First is down, now for the second.)
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu>
> *Date: *Saturday, August 1, 2026 at 6:37 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Cc: *David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
> 
> It depends on what you’re in it for.  This to Marcus’s point/question as well.
> 
> There’s various stuff that has triggered something like thoughts, some of which seem to me a little bit constructive, and this list has been the place I would normally want to toss such stuff back and forth.  But it can be read as “concerns that come up to an academic”, and I am aware of the rising tide of sentiment (society in general, and not only the MAGAs) that academics all live in a fake world anyway, and the society would be better off if they were all just shoved off into the sea and dispensed with (except the part that maybe businesses feel like hosting and charging a fee for).
> 
> But what the hell.
> 
> The early part of last week I lost maybe the more-quality part of two days “reviewing” a submission that I accepted as a “paper”, before realizing it was all slop.  Increasingly, that means it wasn’t necessarily wrong.  The LLMs now write a lot of equations etc. that are correct.  Context is that at least one of the names probably points to a real person, a very junior Chinese expat in a visitor institution of a medical school (that I never heard of, but probably has some repute) in Moscow.  How precarious a life would you like to think that is?  I don’t know if the second submitter name (also Chinese, but common enough to be widely used) corresponds to an actual person or not.  Claim in the manuscript was that it is about multi-neuronal trajectories during mesoscale brain-state changes (say, learning, making a choice, etc.)  The only other paper by the same submitter name is on Kerr black holes.  Not published, just stuff at researchgate and the earlier author on the other 
> one gave a talk somewhere.
> 
> Anyway, once I switched the necker cube to realizing it was all slop, it was of course overwhelming that it was so.  After looking at it in that frame for a bit, I concluded that there is a good likelihood that no actual person did any actual work at all.  Probably the submitter asked one of the LLMs to choose something that would sound like a project, to go do a Gish gallop through literature that could be padded into an “introduction”, though none of it was ever used for anything, put in a bunch of platitudes about the valid interpretation of different methods (also never used or revisited again in any way) maybe to write some code (which maybe the person ran or maybe not), generate some figures that purport to be the output of those simulations (which, for various technical features I strongly doubt; I think they were made up), and then package it all into a “paper” that the submitter could submit.  There were large sections in it that were in a somewhat obscure area, 
> which read like plagiarism of our work in that area (my way of saying things is non-standard enough that plagiarism of me doesn’t sound like plagiarism of most larger communities, and I know parts of the math community who work in this area, and don’t sound like that us at all), but since _nobody at all_ was cited in that section, of course I have no way to know.  The submitter probably doesn’t even know what the community is, as the LLM maybe never gave her any of that information.  It just, oracular-like, plunked down various sentences and equation forms.  On the other hand, this is a journal I never heard of and that never heard of me, so I expect the reason I was asked to review is that the LLM suggested us as potential reviewers as one of its prompt replies.
> 
> Fun note: I explained all this to the handling editor (and the parts that don’t involve my own identity to the submitter as well, since I don’t feel like coming under harassment by a troll farm, if this is not just the desperate action of one kid trying to survive).  This is a Springer journal, and a colleague shared the opinion a while back that Springer, despite having some legacy good titles, has degenerated to being nearly a predatory publisher.  The “editor”’s response to my review and others was “Revise”.
> 
> Anyway, what are the three thoughts (sorry for that long preamble) following from any of this?
> 
> 1. Academics give lip service to, but I’m not sure they have embodied in the gut, the absolute tsunami of sewage that they are all about to get submerged under.  They may come to wish they had been shoved into the sea.
> 
> 2. Why did I waste nearly 2 days before realizing what all this was?  This matters to me, because it speaks to how awful academic writing has been forever.  The Gish gallops, the padding, the oracular style?  It’s always a goddamned cryptology exercise, trying to figure out what the hell something means, or how a claimed result was arrived at.  Sometimes it’s because the authors are geniuses; don’t know what to do about them, because they genuinely can’t understand why things need to be explained for other people to follow them.  Sometimes it’s because the authors are lazy, and don’t feel like explaining well if they think they got something right.  Most of the time it’s probably hazing, by authors who want to look impressive by making things harder for the reader to get than they need to be.
> 
> (For a large part of this, I blame Bourbaki, which Persi Diaconis — blessings be upon him — gave me permission to do despite my being a mere physicist.  Bourbaki were like the Grover Norquists of math.  They had two purity tests:  Always remember that: 1) any message from a sufficiently advanced society will be indistinguishable from magic to a lesser society; and 2) any maximally compressed message will be indistinguishable from a random string of bits.  Mathematicians must always test their written output against these two criteria and try to maximize both.  This umbrella then gives cover for lots of bad writing that is actually done for other reasons, along with the inevitable difficulties of specialization and siloing.)
> 
> It can take me anywhere from weeks to forever to understand a single paper.  If review is supposed to mean notarizing that the contents of a paper are correct, and I get three new requests a week, clearly those times don’t scale.  So inevitably, getting as close as I can, and admitting where I am still stumped, I give writers the benefit of the doubt, that some very costly figure that I have no possible way to reproduce (outcome of years of work in some specialist lab) is what they claim.  In the age of slop, I don’t give anybody the benefit of the doubt.  But that means the review timescale expands back to its authentic self, which is weeks to years (or maybe forever) for each paper.
> 
> The number of things we will have lost, in a society where trust is no longer possible, toward anybody in regard to anything, is so large that I don’t think anybody is seriously reckoning with it.
> 
> 3. But then, what to do?  My thought was that we (what “we”?) should create a new journal.  ONE new journal only.  It’s called “Vibe Science”.  All the submissions will be auto-generated by LLMs.  If people want to serve them by feeding prompts, that’s fine too.  Kind of Matrix-like (or 3rd-world porn-flagging exploitation-like) jobs people already take.   A new gig-subeconomy.  Maybe they can be fed a meal a day in payment.  Then LLMs can also do all the reviewing, and can send messages to each other (or maybe there is only one LLM at the end; does it even use messages any more?).  They/it can decide what is good and should be accepted, and what should not be accepted.  Why not?  There’s no reason to have more than one journal, since internally the LLMs can sort what is “in” or “across” any discipline or disciplines, and to invent new typologies as needed for their internal indexing.  People can’t read it anyway, so there is no reason to make it human-indexing-friendly (or 
> maybe even tractable).
> 
> Then the accepted stuff can all be archived somewhere, on more Mongolian rare earths with fossil- or nuclear-powered cooling towers and fans.
> 
> What will we do with it?  I guess people with no other survival work, like the e-waste-recyclers in India or the Philippines, can trawl through the lists of claims, and see if there is anything the human world would like to regard as “true” or “potentially useful” or (here, for the unemployed artists) “interesting”.  Maybe that will become what PhD training aims toward.  Now of course, there isn’t any reason the data-trove can’t just be made self-activating in the world of physical robots, so I’m not sure what the vetting by the recyclers would unpack to.  But maybe some decision-maker somewhere uses that.
> 
> Something along this line is my guess at the set of things that will have to be chosen and decided, in a quite near term, but quite a number of people.  Or maybe decided by 10 people, and everybody else can scramble and see if there is a survival trajectory through the new wreckage.
> 
> At the end of all this, though, I think it pushes us to front something we should always have been thinking about, but have had the luxury of not thinking much about before now.  There were good uses for calculators, and even though it deprived some people of the ability to do fast addition in-head, we continue to do math, with new frontiers possible.  There will be some version of that for the LLMs as interface, and much more general AI tools for empirical results and their representations.  But then what is a system for thinking through what a person can want, or might want, as a participant in the order that results?  The sort of emotive tropes that seem popular now, or the online gurus of everything, kind of leave me unimpressed.  All this common-language and lore and culture that we have as hand-me-down from time immemorial is what came through the filters of people’s needs to reason out these things, in the circumstances of the times.  To the extent that those 
> circumstances are going to be different — not clear to me, since ecological collapse and mobs of the dispossessed could just thump it all into rubble — a different version of something similarly filtered will need to come about somehow.
> 
> Back to the opening question: For myself, I would not have wanted to be one of the people prompting the LLM to invent a question and write a bunch of junk that I could send to a Springer journal.  I certainly do not envy her life as a junior Chinese expat in a cordoned-off sub-institute in Moscow.  Less dangerous and demanding of wits to try to become a gang leader.  Even though I suspect some of those people have talent, and many of them I would like and appreciate if I knew them.  I still take weeks or months fiddling with some annoying thing to see if a certain kind of field theory can be coherently defined into existence, and whether it gets the answer to some empirical question about rare statistics right.  I guess, the fact that that is what I want to do, and that it sometimes might also get something empirically right, is why the society increasingly wants to dump the academics.  But it still is what I have accepted paycuts and spontaneous/episodic unemployment, and 
> various other nuisances, to somehow put aside time to continue doing.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 2, 2026, at 6:49, glen <gepr at ropella.name> wrote:
>> 
>> I had similar thoughts. It's cool and all. But I can't help but wonder why they did NOT use more AI.
>> 
>> On 7/31/26 9:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> 2607.17397 is a weird one.   The true believers among us might wonder why they are still working on their papers at all.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 10:19 AM
>>> To: friam at redfish.com
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
>>> As preamble:
>>> 1) Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fblog.codeberg.org%2fprotecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html&c=E,1,PSzw3UoOT3SOXSaXTGDk-zPlNdIkPx58sbCqKgH3fqrZLLmTvR9c1q0G-qeL_GFsAE-9sNkr7RvNRtkbG756llp3STEvrsBt9Ztbt3W424zCKnZWhQ,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fblog.codeberg.org%2fprotecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html&c=E,1,PSzw3UoOT3SOXSaXTGDk-zPlNdIkPx58sbCqKgH3fqrZLLmTvR9c1q0G-qeL_GFsAE-9sNkr7RvNRtkbG756llp3STEvrsBt9Ztbt3W424zCKnZWhQ,,&typo=1>
>>> 2) Science Direct Summary
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirect.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS1364661316300985&c=E,1,Rez0hef2TLaMMg2jA_kk6d6KHVgSHZk75ETTunCX7Dt5GuSi33eko0ka8iSoiXEajFB0XSerQBNPvL3p8DqGXHdWrysTvUyNzne192tlWA,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirect.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS1364661316300985&c=E,1,Rez0hef2TLaMMg2jA_kk6d6KHVgSHZk75ETTunCX7Dt5GuSi33eko0ka8iSoiXEajFB0XSerQBNPvL3p8DqGXHdWrysTvUyNzne192tlWA,,&typo=1>
>>> But this is the main driver for this post:
>>> 3) The unintended consequences of large language models as a labor-augmenting technology in science
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397>
>>> I think the Codeberg hypothesis (and stance) about one-off code provides a clear foil for disambiguating what code/software actually *is*. There's a difference between collaboratively developed code and "interpretable" methods. It seems like 2 subtly different meanings of the word "open". Codeberg is (effectively, if not purposefully) saying they are not a "repository" in the sense of, say, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fvivli.org%2f&c=E,1,dWHhPQRYDujbxzdX0_0zLPwURhJoU16RdDayBZS4TaF5bo89ZIRV6_Aqm3S_pPkFx_myz98EbKiCplE-Ezjz7tKrBm_ewCfGM8kSONgRrH3KjA7nZ8nPNzYo&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fvivli.org%2f&c=E,1,dWHhPQRYDujbxzdX0_0zLPwURhJoU16RdDayBZS4TaF5bo89ZIRV6_Aqm3S_pPkFx_myz98EbKiCplE-Ezjz7tKrBm_ewCfGM8kSONgRrH3KjA7nZ8nPNzYo&typo=1>. Now, I'm a fan of opinionated tech. But Codeberg's stance seems a bit reactionary to me. I mean, it's fine. It's their site, their hardware, etc. So I'm not objecting ... simply processing.
>>> But if we move on to Duede et al (3), the paper irritates me because I like to believe I have an empirical bent. I'm having trouble formulating their model such that its premises are backed by data and that it makes testable predictions. It's my problem, I'm sure. But even in the abstract, they say "researchers will become more selective about what they publish". I feel like they should have prefaced that with "if our model validates" or "analysis of our model argues that" ... or somesuch. IDk. Inside the paper, their assertions are softer and more palatable ... but they still seem to be reifying.
>>> I've included (2) because, from my perspective the LLMs are a fairly straightforward advancement in the lineage of the pencil, or the printing press, or the internet. We imbue our talisman(s) with our hopes and fears, then ratchet our thinking up and never look back (until someone slips a hero dose of LSD into our drink at the party). A large proportion of us will be catastrophically damaged if our ratcheted scaffolds collapse. (Some scaffolds are so robust no amount of truth or fact will collapse it at all.) But at least some subset of dorks will always be fascinated by little details like manually selected fonts or assessing whether some modeling assumption is *actual* as opposed to convenient. We're each free to offload whichever homunculus we find irritating. But I find myself in awe of those who relish irritation as a grounding to reality.
>> -- 
-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug  3 13:35:25 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 17:35:25 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: <937ed3ac-47c4-47dc-a339-ffc0503976f4@ropella.name>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
 <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
 <CY8PR11MB7730A866B6B1016376D0CA99C5D62@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <937ed3ac-47c4-47dc-a339-ffc0503976f4@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <IA0PR11MB7744C675406726105A7F377DC5D52@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Anthropic and OpenAI have billions, maybe trillions at stake from their safety judgement and auto-approvals being generally regarded as sound.  (More than a single employee that could be fired for dropping crucial tables in a SQL database.)   I recognize that big companies have armies of lawyers, but I'd still argue the inhibitory mechanisms for risk can be expected to be better at scale.  The real power is being able to walk away and let them grind for hours or days.  Once you've seen it do a large project end-to-end the world has shifted in a basic way.

Meanwhile there's grok/cursor/commander that is loved by some because it is so fast.  It is fast because it is small and coding-focused and has no safety controls at all.  People regularly run it off any chain.
But people do lots of things in the real world that are basically reckless.  Sometimes just for the thrills.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2026 8:12 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading

So far, I remain tightly clamped on what I allow [Claude|Open]Code to do, both edits and execution ... and especially skill downloads. That approve-every-action policy used to be paranoia. I was afraid. But it's become *interesting* at this point. E.g. Claude wanted to install a headless browser snapshot generator so it could look at a web page rendered from some data to see if it "looked" the way it intended it to look. I didn't allow that, of course, because I'm the worst kind of micromanaging boss. But that it wanted to do that all automatically is fantastic, literally a realized fantasy. The same would apply to any other grounding check, be it formal or informal.

But what would a consult-the-experts REPL look like in Eric's setup? I asked Mistral's Vibe to analyze Duede et al and it gave me some interesting hooks for testing their model. A harness might even have implemented the model (numerically or formally or both) to verify their curves, maybe search the literature for social data/trends, and perform some kind of sensitivity?

But going back to Cody's idea that a robot prolly won't have nociceptors in odd parts of its foot, we have a ways to go before we'll get to harness granularity imagined by The Matrix. Which parts of the context *can* be challenged? Which parts should be challenged (versus accepted due to low RoI)? Etc.

Anyway, I just can't imagine people *still* writing this stuff off as "autocomplete", an insult I still see almost every day. It's like those kids in school telling me my HP was a calculator. There's a difference between your TI and my HP, even if that difference is occult.

On 8/1/26 7:51 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I use both Claude Code and Codex heavily, and the main current difference I observe is how hard Codex seeks grounding on factual things.   A simple example that came up for me today:   I had some large builds that had used all storage in a temporary workspace.  So, when the AI was waiting for my response, I moved the build to a partition with a lot more disk space and then made a symlink to it.   Before the move, the AI (GPT 5.6 Sol) had seen some dereferenced absolute paths because of the tooling.  It would have remembered them just fine had I not done this.  But Codex, currently more so than Claude Code, is paranoid/conscientious about its grounding.   Between larger bursts of work (even when context is not exhausted), it basically acts like it is starting over from notes, and rechecks the environment.   It caught the move of the paths and adjusted the absolute paths to the new ones.   It’s a dispositional tendency that helps long horizon work at the cost of some token waste.
> 
> Now in just the last few days, OpenAI had an announcement on just this 
> issue.   (It is what Claude Code does – so they are saying that their 
> model is smarter than it looks.)
> 
> https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-agi-3-scores
> / 
> <https://openai.com/index/how-two-settings-tripled-our-arc-agi-3-score
> s/>
> 
> Anyway, my guess is that many users of AI in academia are not using harnesses in the way builders are.   With a harness, the AI is not just responding to a vague goal from a muddled user using its general knowledge.  The harness provides constant updates to entailment.    For example, these proofs were managed by Lean 4, so they can be iterated in this way, and they pass a deterministic checker.
> 
> https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs/ 
> <https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs/>
> 
> I’d say the solution to the muddled user problem is AI review of papers.   As a part of ingest, the paper would get a critical review from one or more perspectives.   Like a continuous integration system for software projects but applied to paper quality.  A small change to something like arXiv.
> 
> What I think will probably happen is something like the blackboard 
> architecture with LLM writers and reviewers.   And it will all be too 
> fast to keep up with, and so the best thing will be to go on bike ride 
> or walk the dog.  (First is down, now for the second.)
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Santafe 
> <desmith at santafe.edu>
> *Date: *Saturday, August 1, 2026 at 6:37 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Cc: *David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
> 
> It depends on what you’re in it for.  This to Marcus’s point/question as well.
> 
> There’s various stuff that has triggered something like thoughts, some of which seem to me a little bit constructive, and this list has been the place I would normally want to toss such stuff back and forth.  But it can be read as “concerns that come up to an academic”, and I am aware of the rising tide of sentiment (society in general, and not only the MAGAs) that academics all live in a fake world anyway, and the society would be better off if they were all just shoved off into the sea and dispensed with (except the part that maybe businesses feel like hosting and charging a fee for).
> 
> But what the hell.
> 
> The early part of last week I lost maybe the more-quality part of two 
> days “reviewing” a submission that I accepted as a “paper”, before realizing it was all slop.  Increasingly, that means it wasn’t necessarily wrong.  The LLMs now write a lot of equations etc. that are correct.  Context is that at least one of the names probably points to a real person, a very junior Chinese expat in a visitor institution of a medical school (that I never heard of, but probably has some repute) in Moscow.  How precarious a life would you like to think that is?  I don’t know if the second submitter name (also Chinese, but common enough to be widely used) corresponds to an actual person or not.  Claim in the manuscript was that it is about multi-neuronal trajectories during mesoscale brain-state changes (say, learning, making a choice, etc.)  The only other paper by the same submitter name is on Kerr black holes.  Not published, just stuff at researchgate and the earlier author on the other one gave a talk somewhere.
> 
> Anyway, once I switched the necker cube to realizing it was all slop, 
> it was of course overwhelming that it was so.  After looking at it in that frame for a bit, I concluded that there is a good likelihood that no actual person did any actual work at all.  Probably the submitter asked one of the LLMs to choose something that would sound like a project, to go do a Gish gallop through literature that could be padded into an “introduction”, though none of it was ever used for anything, put in a bunch of platitudes about the valid interpretation of different methods (also never used or revisited again in any way) maybe to write some code (which maybe the person ran or maybe not), generate some figures that purport to be the output of those simulations (which, for various technical features I strongly doubt; I think they were made up), and then package it all into a “paper” that the submitter could submit.  There were large sections in it that were in a somewhat obscure area, which read like plagiarism of our work in that area (my way of saying things is non-standard enough that plagiarism of me doesn’t sound like plagiarism of most larger communities, and I know parts of the math community who work in this area, and don’t sound like that us at all), but since _nobody at all_ was cited in that section, of course I have no way to know.  The submitter probably doesn’t even know what the community is, as the LLM maybe never gave her any of that information.  It just, oracular-like, plunked down various sentences and equation forms.  On the other hand, this is a journal I never heard of and that never heard of me, so I expect the reason I was asked to review is that the LLM suggested us as potential reviewers as one of its prompt replies.
> 
> Fun note: I explained all this to the handling editor (and the parts that don’t involve my own identity to the submitter as well, since I don’t feel like coming under harassment by a troll farm, if this is not just the desperate action of one kid trying to survive).  This is a Springer journal, and a colleague shared the opinion a while back that Springer, despite having some legacy good titles, has degenerated to being nearly a predatory publisher.  The “editor”’s response to my review and others was “Revise”.
> 
> Anyway, what are the three thoughts (sorry for that long preamble) following from any of this?
> 
> 1. Academics give lip service to, but I’m not sure they have embodied in the gut, the absolute tsunami of sewage that they are all about to get submerged under.  They may come to wish they had been shoved into the sea.
> 
> 2. Why did I waste nearly 2 days before realizing what all this was?  This matters to me, because it speaks to how awful academic writing has been forever.  The Gish gallops, the padding, the oracular style?  It’s always a goddamned cryptology exercise, trying to figure out what the hell something means, or how a claimed result was arrived at.  Sometimes it’s because the authors are geniuses; don’t know what to do about them, because they genuinely can’t understand why things need to be explained for other people to follow them.  Sometimes it’s because the authors are lazy, and don’t feel like explaining well if they think they got something right.  Most of the time it’s probably hazing, by authors who want to look impressive by making things harder for the reader to get than they need to be.
> 
> (For a large part of this, I blame Bourbaki, which Persi Diaconis — 
> blessings be upon him — gave me permission to do despite my being a 
> mere physicist.  Bourbaki were like the Grover Norquists of math.  
> They had two purity tests:  Always remember that: 1) any message from 
> a sufficiently advanced society will be indistinguishable from magic 
> to a lesser society; and 2) any maximally compressed message will be 
> indistinguishable from a random string of bits.  Mathematicians must 
> always test their written output against these two criteria and try to 
> maximize both.  This umbrella then gives cover for lots of bad writing 
> that is actually done for other reasons, along with the inevitable 
> difficulties of specialization and siloing.)
> 
> It can take me anywhere from weeks to forever to understand a single paper.  If review is supposed to mean notarizing that the contents of a paper are correct, and I get three new requests a week, clearly those times don’t scale.  So inevitably, getting as close as I can, and admitting where I am still stumped, I give writers the benefit of the doubt, that some very costly figure that I have no possible way to reproduce (outcome of years of work in some specialist lab) is what they claim.  In the age of slop, I don’t give anybody the benefit of the doubt.  But that means the review timescale expands back to its authentic self, which is weeks to years (or maybe forever) for each paper.
> 
> The number of things we will have lost, in a society where trust is no longer possible, toward anybody in regard to anything, is so large that I don’t think anybody is seriously reckoning with it.
> 
> 3. But then, what to do?  My thought was that we (what “we”?) should 
> create a new journal.  ONE new journal only.  It’s called “Vibe Science”.  All the submissions will be auto-generated by LLMs.  If people want to serve them by feeding prompts, that’s fine too.  Kind of Matrix-like (or 3rd-world porn-flagging exploitation-like) jobs people already take.   A new gig-subeconomy.  Maybe they can be fed a meal a day in payment.  Then LLMs can also do all the reviewing, and can send messages to each other (or maybe there is only one LLM at the end; does it even use messages any more?).  They/it can decide what is good and should be accepted, and what should not be accepted.  Why not?  There’s no reason to have more than one journal, since internally the LLMs can sort what is “in” or “across” any discipline or disciplines, and to invent new typologies as needed for their internal indexing.  People can’t read it anyway, so there is no reason to make it human-indexing-friendly (or maybe even tractable).
> 
> Then the accepted stuff can all be archived somewhere, on more Mongolian rare earths with fossil- or nuclear-powered cooling towers and fans.
> 
> What will we do with it?  I guess people with no other survival work, like the e-waste-recyclers in India or the Philippines, can trawl through the lists of claims, and see if there is anything the human world would like to regard as “true” or “potentially useful” or (here, for the unemployed artists) “interesting”.  Maybe that will become what PhD training aims toward.  Now of course, there isn’t any reason the data-trove can’t just be made self-activating in the world of physical robots, so I’m not sure what the vetting by the recyclers would unpack to.  But maybe some decision-maker somewhere uses that.
> 
> Something along this line is my guess at the set of things that will have to be chosen and decided, in a quite near term, but quite a number of people.  Or maybe decided by 10 people, and everybody else can scramble and see if there is a survival trajectory through the new wreckage.
> 
> At the end of all this, though, I think it pushes us to front 
> something we should always have been thinking about, but have had the luxury of not thinking much about before now.  There were good uses for calculators, and even though it deprived some people of the ability to do fast addition in-head, we continue to do math, with new frontiers possible.  There will be some version of that for the LLMs as interface, and much more general AI tools for empirical results and their representations.  But then what is a system for thinking through what a person can want, or might want, as a participant in the order that results?  The sort of emotive tropes that seem popular now, or the online gurus of everything, kind of leave me unimpressed.  All this common-language and lore and culture that we have as hand-me-down from time immemorial is what came through the filters of people’s needs to reason out these things, in the circumstances of the times.  To the extent that those circumstances are going to be different — not clear to me, since ecological collapse and mobs of the dispossessed could just thump it all into rubble — a different version of something similarly filtered will need to come about somehow.
> 
> Back to the opening question: For myself, I would not have wanted to 
> be one of the people prompting the LLM to invent a question and write a bunch of junk that I could send to a Springer journal.  I certainly do not envy her life as a junior Chinese expat in a cordoned-off sub-institute in Moscow.  Less dangerous and demanding of wits to try to become a gang leader.  Even though I suspect some of those people have talent, and many of them I would like and appreciate if I knew them.  I still take weeks or months fiddling with some annoying thing to see if a certain kind of field theory can be coherently defined into existence, and whether it gets the answer to some empirical question about rare statistics right.  I guess, the fact that that is what I want to do, and that it sometimes might also get something empirically right, is why the society increasingly wants to dump the academics.  But it still is what I have accepted paycuts and spontaneous/episodic unemployment, and various other nuisances, to somehow put aside time to continue doing.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 2, 2026, at 6:49, glen <gepr at ropella.name> wrote:
>> 
>> I had similar thoughts. It's cool and all. But I can't help but wonder why they did NOT use more AI.
>> 
>> On 7/31/26 9:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> 2607.17397 is a weird one.   The true believers among us might wonder why they are still working on their papers at all.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>>> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 10:19 AM
>>> To: friam at redfish.com
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading As preamble:
>>> 1) Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs 
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fblog.codeberg.or
>>> g%2fprotecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html&c=E,1,PSzw3UoOT3SOXS
>>> aXTGDk-zPlNdIkPx58sbCqKgH3fqrZLLmTvR9c1q0G-qeL_GFsAE-9sNkr7RvNRtkbG7
>>> 56llp3STEvrsBt9Ztbt3W424zCKnZWhQ,,&typo=1 
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fblog.codeberg.o
>>> rg%2fprotecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html&c=E,1,PSzw3UoOT3SOX
>>> SaXTGDk-zPlNdIkPx58sbCqKgH3fqrZLLmTvR9c1q0G-qeL_GFsAE-9sNkr7RvNRtkbG
>>> 756llp3STEvrsBt9Ztbt3W424zCKnZWhQ,,&typo=1>
>>> 2) Science Direct Summary
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedirec
>>> t.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS1364661316300985&c=E,1,Rez0
>>> hef2TLaMMg2jA_kk6d6KHVgSHZk75ETTunCX7Dt5GuSi33eko0ka8iSoiXEajFB0XSer
>>> QBNPvL3p8DqGXHdWrysTvUyNzne192tlWA,,&typo=1 
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.sciencedire
>>> ct.com%2fscience%2farticle%2fabs%2fpii%2fS1364661316300985&c=E,1,Rez
>>> 0hef2TLaMMg2jA_kk6d6KHVgSHZk75ETTunCX7Dt5GuSi33eko0ka8iSoiXEajFB0XSe
>>> rQBNPvL3p8DqGXHdWrysTvUyNzne192tlWA,,&typo=1>
>>> But this is the main driver for this post:
>>> 3) The unintended consequences of large language models as a 
>>> labor-augmenting technology in science
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17397>
>>> I think the Codeberg hypothesis (and stance) about one-off code provides a clear foil for disambiguating what code/software actually *is*. There's a difference between collaboratively developed code and "interpretable" methods. It seems like 2 subtly different meanings of the word "open". Codeberg is (effectively, if not purposefully) saying they are not a "repository" in the sense of, say, https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fvivli.org%2f&c=E,1,dWHhPQRYDujbxzdX0_0zLPwURhJoU16RdDayBZS4TaF5bo89ZIRV6_Aqm3S_pPkFx_myz98EbKiCplE-Ezjz7tKrBm_ewCfGM8kSONgRrH3KjA7nZ8nPNzYo&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fvivli.org%2f&c=E,1,dWHhPQRYDujbxzdX0_0zLPwURhJoU16RdDayBZS4TaF5bo89ZIRV6_Aqm3S_pPkFx_myz98EbKiCplE-Ezjz7tKrBm_ewCfGM8kSONgRrH3KjA7nZ8nPNzYo&typo=1>. Now, I'm a fan of opinionated tech. But Codeberg's stance seems a bit reactionary to me. I mean, it's fine. It's their site, their hardware, etc. So I'm not objecting ... simply processing.
>>> But if we move on to Duede et al (3), the paper irritates me because I like to believe I have an empirical bent. I'm having trouble formulating their model such that its premises are backed by data and that it makes testable predictions. It's my problem, I'm sure. But even in the abstract, they say "researchers will become more selective about what they publish". I feel like they should have prefaced that with "if our model validates" or "analysis of our model argues that" ... or somesuch. IDk. Inside the paper, their assertions are softer and more palatable ... but they still seem to be reifying.
>>> I've included (2) because, from my perspective the LLMs are a fairly straightforward advancement in the lineage of the pencil, or the printing press, or the internet. We imbue our talisman(s) with our hopes and fears, then ratchet our thinking up and never look back (until someone slips a hero dose of LSD into our drink at the party). A large proportion of us will be catastrophically damaged if our ratcheted scaffolds collapse. (Some scaffolds are so robust no amount of truth or fact will collapse it at all.) But at least some subset of dorks will always be fascinated by little details like manually selected fonts or assessing whether some modeling assumption is *actual* as opposed to convenient. We're each free to offload whichever homunculus we find irritating. But I find myself in awe of those who relish irritation as a grounding to reality.
>> --
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260803/fca67882/attachment.p7s>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Mon Aug  3 14:37:15 2026
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 12:37:15 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
 <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <8cc18975-6d4c-404c-aca7-905ab4f77dd0@swcp.com>

Eric/et-al -

Another excellent self-aware satire.   I feel as if you have channeled 
Johnathan Swift in several ways, but particularly in his "A Modest 
Proposal" with your Vibe Science Journal conception and it's implications.

I would also like to nod toward Jon's astute reference to Nolan's 
reference in this context as:

    “We have broke Zeus’ law and now are plunged into a world without
    trust.”

And the remainder of the thread is also quite fertile and astute, but I 
haven't the focus to do even the slightest justice to addressing most of 
the points made by Marcus/Glen/others.

I've been noodling hard (and broadly) on what has condensed into a 
cogitation on how sympoiesis (Dempster followed by Haraway) relates to 
AI/LLMs/ML in this current bifurcation/phase-shift moment ...


In the spirit of Crowley:

    /Bring forth nothing that exhausts the world’s ability to bring
    forth otherwise./

and

    /Make no world so completely in the image of your competence that it
    loses the power to disclose your incompetence./

On 8/1/26 7:27 pm, Santafe wrote:
> It can take me anywhere from weeks to forever to understand a single paper.  If review is supposed to mean notarizing that the contents of a paper are correct, and I get three new requests a week, clearly those times don’t scale.  So inevitably, getting as close as I can, and admitting where I am still stumped, I give writers the benefit of the doubt, that some very costly figure that I have no possible way to reproduce (outcome of years of work in some specialist lab) is what they claim.  In the age of slop, I don’t give anybody the benefit of the doubt.  But that means the review timescale expands back to its authentic self, which is weeks to years (or maybe forever) for each paper.
>
> The number of things we will have lost, in a society where trust is no longer possible, toward anybody in regard to anything, is so large that I don’t think anybody is seriously reckoning with it.
>
> 3. But then, what to do?  My thought was that we (what “we”?) should create a new journal.  ONE new journal only.  It’s called “Vibe Science”.  All the submissions will be auto-generated by LLMs.  If people want to serve them by feeding prompts, that’s fine too.  Kind of Matrix-like (or 3rd-world porn-flagging exploitation-like) jobs people already take.   A new gig-subeconomy.  Maybe they can be fed a meal a day in payment.  Then LLMs can also do all the reviewing, and can send messages to each other (or maybe there is only one LLM at the end; does it even use messages any more?).  They/it can decide what is good and should be accepted, and what should not be accepted.  Why not?  There’s no reason to have more than one journal, since internally the LLMs can sort what is “in” or “across” any discipline or disciplines, and to invent new typologies as needed for their internal indexing.  People can’t read it anyway, so there is no reason to make it human-indexing-friendly (or maybe even tractable).
>
> Then the accepted stuff can all be archived somewhere, on more Mongolian rare earths with fossil- or nuclear-powered cooling towers and fans.
>
> What will we do with it?  I guess people with no other survival work, like the e-waste-recyclers in India or the Philippines, can trawl through the lists of claims, and see if there is anything the human world would like to regard as “true” or “potentially useful” or (here, for the unemployed artists) “interesting”.  Maybe that will become what PhD training aims toward.  Now of course, there isn’t any reason the data-trove can’t just be made self-activating in the world of physical robots, so I’m not sure what the vetting by the recyclers would unpack to.  But maybe some decision-maker somewhere uses that.
>
> Something along this line is my guess at the set of things that will have to be chosen and decided, in a quite near term, but quite a number of people.  Or maybe decided by 10 people, and everybody else can scramble and see if there is a survival trajectory through the new wreckage.
>
> At the end of all this, though, I think it pushes us to front something we should always have been thinking about, but have had the luxury of not thinking much about before now.  There were good uses for calculators, and even though it deprived some people of the ability to do fast addition in-head, we continue to do math, with new frontiers possible.  There will be some version of that for the LLMs as interface, and much more general AI tools for empirical results and their representations.  But then what is a system for thinking through what a person can want, or might want, as a participant in the order that results?  The sort of emotive tropes that seem popular now, or the online gurus of everything, kind of leave me unimpressed.  All this common-language and lore and culture that we have as hand-me-down from time immemorial is what came through the filters of people’s needs to reason out these things, in the circumstances of the times.  To the extent that those circumstances are going to be different — not clear to me, since ecological collapse and mobs of the dispossessed could just thump it all into rubble — a different version of something similarly filtered will need to come about somehow.
>
> Back to the opening question: For myself, I would not have wanted to be one of the people prompting the LLM to invent a question and write a bunch of junk that I could send to a Springer journal.  I certainly do not envy her life as a junior Chinese expat in a cordoned-off sub-institute in Moscow.  Less dangerous and demanding of wits to try to become a gang leader.  Even though I suspect some of those people have talent, and many of them I would like and appreciate if I knew them.  I still take weeks or months fiddling with some annoying thing to see if a certain kind of field theory can be coherently defined into existence, and whether it gets the answer to some empirical question about rare statistics right.  I guess, the fact that that is what I want to do, and that it sometimes might also get something empirically right, is why the society increasingly wants to dump the academics.  But it still is what I have accepted paycuts and spontaneous/episodic unemployment, and various other nuisances, to somehow put aside time to continue doing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260803/0ac0d282/attachment.html>

From jonzingale at gmail.com  Mon Aug  3 16:55:44 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 14:55:44 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Cohomology from Beltrami-Laplace
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek3Effh=4dpw+mqbitB5tYn42TyeDTVUvqkFtEpKSTPoVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Fwiw, where I'm at...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI0DYD2FhtE

or probably more accurately:

https://www.stat.uchicago.edu/~lekheng/work/psapm.pdf

https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~bishop/classes/math638.F20/Canzani_Laplacian_Notes.pdf

Except, not in the domain of physics of course. Some on list may have done
the work before (or recently) of recovering proper geometry from what
otherwise is a dearth of isospectral properties. I would love to know who
out there might be worth having a discussion with regarding such
techniques, limitations and frontiers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260803/0f505197/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Wed Aug  5 15:22:33 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 12:22:33 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: 
 <IA0PR11MB7744C675406726105A7F377DC5D52@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
 <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
 <CY8PR11MB7730A866B6B1016376D0CA99C5D62@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <937ed3ac-47c4-47dc-a339-ffc0503976f4@ropella.name>
 <IA0PR11MB7744C675406726105A7F377DC5D52@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <8916e1bb-ddc9-45e2-909a-7d9745de383f@ropella.name>

IDK. Even though my projects are small and I micromanage them, I think I do see what I think you (and those who go all in) see. And the world hasn't really shifted in a *different* way than it did with agriculture, pencils, the printing press, steam engines, industry, internet, social media, etc.

I think it's very visible to the modern Luddites, who actually participate in a hands-on way with the means of production. I mean, any auto mechanic I've talked to for something like 20 years now, laments the modern car. For those not *in* the trenches, the hated middle managers, the shift is merely in the triangle of speed-quality-cost, shifts we've seen several times prior.

What I find Good is the shift from generation to evaluation. Sure, the harnesses make that different, now, too. E.g. AI savants are analyzing not only core codebases, but whole supply chains. But because I'm better and faster at reading than I ever was at generating, My world is much more pleasant ... and part of my micromanaging is merely because I'm a *fan* of what I see the agents doing.

To have it all happen behind some veil while I go make a sandwich would be a crime ... it's like my old complex analysis prof actually doing math in front of us. He didn't care about teaching us so much as working on problems he found interesting, but doing it in front of us ... we the voyeurs, he the exhibitionist. I'm some kind of pervert. I like to watch even if I only understand a fraction of what I'm seeing.

On 8/3/26 10:35 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Once you've seen it do a large project end-to-end the world has shifted in a basic way.
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug  5 16:40:37 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 20:40:37 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: <8916e1bb-ddc9-45e2-909a-7d9745de383f@ropella.name>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
 <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
 <CY8PR11MB7730A866B6B1016376D0CA99C5D62@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <937ed3ac-47c4-47dc-a339-ffc0503976f4@ropella.name>
 <IA0PR11MB7744C675406726105A7F377DC5D52@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <8916e1bb-ddc9-45e2-909a-7d9745de383f@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <IA0PR11MB7744A2E7EFAFC1CC43A5198DC5D32@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

It could be 50k LOC overnight, or maybe 1k while eating a sandwich.  Also, more than many people could grok.   

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 12:23 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading

IDK. Even though my projects are small and I micromanage them, I think I do see what I think you (and those who go all in) see. And the world hasn't really shifted in a *different* way than it did with agriculture, pencils, the printing press, steam engines, industry, internet, social media, etc.

I think it's very visible to the modern Luddites, who actually participate in a hands-on way with the means of production. I mean, any auto mechanic I've talked to for something like 20 years now, laments the modern car. For those not *in* the trenches, the hated middle managers, the shift is merely in the triangle of speed-quality-cost, shifts we've seen several times prior.

What I find Good is the shift from generation to evaluation. Sure, the harnesses make that different, now, too. E.g. AI savants are analyzing not only core codebases, but whole supply chains. But because I'm better and faster at reading than I ever was at generating, My world is much more pleasant ... and part of my micromanaging is merely because I'm a *fan* of what I see the agents doing.

To have it all happen behind some veil while I go make a sandwich would be a crime ... it's like my old complex analysis prof actually doing math in front of us. He didn't care about teaching us so much as working on problems he found interesting, but doing it in front of us ... we the voyeurs, he the exhibitionist. I'm some kind of pervert. I like to watch even if I only understand a fraction of what I'm seeing.

On 8/3/26 10:35 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Once you've seen it do a large project end-to-end the world has shifted in a basic way.
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260805/4471f9a7/attachment.p7s>

From gepr at ropella.name  Thu Aug  6 06:01:28 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2026 03:01:28 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: 
 <IA0PR11MB7744A2E7EFAFC1CC43A5198DC5D32@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
 <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
 <CY8PR11MB7730A866B6B1016376D0CA99C5D62@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <937ed3ac-47c4-47dc-a339-ffc0503976f4@ropella.name>
 <IA0PR11MB7744C675406726105A7F377DC5D52@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <8916e1bb-ddc9-45e2-909a-7d9745de383f@ropella.name>
 <IA0PR11MB7744A2E7EFAFC1CC43A5198DC5D32@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <082157e6-b54f-44c4-b96a-cc0fb37863bf@ropella.name>

Well, it's not mere size that calls out the arrogance of understanding. (Yes, I'll go ahead and claim that nobody actually understands *anything*, including - maybe especially - the things they're good at.) One of the comments, here<https://mathoverflow.net/questions/513742/are-we-stuck-with-lean> exhibits the contradiction (paradox?) we all carry:

"Finally, I care about human-readability of any formalization. Mathlib (and Lean) are obviously quite far from perfect here, and I wouldn't claim that anyone can read any part of Mathlib (note that AI formalization are a lot worse in this regard)."

The distinction between *readability* and actual reading (or even understanding) is important. When the harness executes a command in build mode, I rarely have time to actually read the command. Yes, you can always go back and read the logs. But what I want is something akin to pair programming, not effete delegation to the slave. But I'm presented with an unpleasant binary: let it go and give up my in-the-trenches desire or micromanage. The same is true of the context compaction. A good lab notebook contains both the never-to-be-read details and the summaries. Of course, I'm sure I could provide an MD file that refines the binary ... a demand like "I want to participate in the *significant* coding. But you do all the boring sh¡t without me." Maybe one day.

On 8/5/26 1:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It could be 50k LOC overnight, or maybe 1k while eating a sandwich.  Also, more than many people could grok.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 12:23 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
> 
> IDK. Even though my projects are small and I micromanage them, I think I do see what I think you (and those who go all in) see. And the world hasn't really shifted in a *different* way than it did with agriculture, pencils, the printing press, steam engines, industry, internet, social media, etc.
> 
> I think it's very visible to the modern Luddites, who actually participate in a hands-on way with the means of production. I mean, any auto mechanic I've talked to for something like 20 years now, laments the modern car. For those not *in* the trenches, the hated middle managers, the shift is merely in the triangle of speed-quality-cost, shifts we've seen several times prior.
> 
> What I find Good is the shift from generation to evaluation. Sure, the harnesses make that different, now, too. E.g. AI savants are analyzing not only core codebases, but whole supply chains. But because I'm better and faster at reading than I ever was at generating, My world is much more pleasant ... and part of my micromanaging is merely because I'm a *fan* of what I see the agents doing.
> 
> To have it all happen behind some veil while I go make a sandwich would be a crime ... it's like my old complex analysis prof actually doing math in front of us. He didn't care about teaching us so much as working on problems he found interesting, but doing it in front of us ... we the voyeurs, he the exhibitionist. I'm some kind of pervert. I like to watch even if I only understand a fraction of what I'm seeing.
> 
> On 8/3/26 10:35 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Once you've seen it do a large project end-to-end the world has shifted in a basic way.
>>


-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From rec at elf.org  Thu Aug  6 11:05:56 2026
From: rec at elf.org (Roger Critchlow)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:05:56 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
In-Reply-To: <082157e6-b54f-44c4-b96a-cc0fb37863bf@ropella.name>
References: <e5bee63b-5cb8-41ef-80cb-5eb6f619b14d@ropella.name>
 <CY8PR11MB7730448214F2BCE53394F338C5D72@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <32066ab9-a781-47f2-a54a-88b10be17499@ropella.name>
 <65B40E11-1620-421C-8D02-CEF264201218@santafe.edu>
 <CY8PR11MB7730A866B6B1016376D0CA99C5D62@CY8PR11MB7730.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <937ed3ac-47c4-47dc-a339-ffc0503976f4@ropella.name>
 <IA0PR11MB7744C675406726105A7F377DC5D52@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <8916e1bb-ddc9-45e2-909a-7d9745de383f@ropella.name>
 <IA0PR11MB7744A2E7EFAFC1CC43A5198DC5D32@IA0PR11MB7744.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <082157e6-b54f-44c4-b96a-cc0fb37863bf@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <CAGayqovmH=MJ2XgXd=Szo6LZtXWv5T3XCjKf7RA2=x0+TDu5dA@mail.gmail.com>

https://yalereview.org/article/christopher-sorrentino-machine-stories

A fiction writer explains how using chat-gpt made writing fun, again.

-- rec --

On Thu, Aug 6, 2026, 4:02 AM glen <gepr at ropella.name> wrote:

> Well, it's not mere size that calls out the arrogance of understanding.
> (Yes, I'll go ahead and claim that nobody actually understands *anything*,
> including - maybe especially - the things they're good at.) One of the
> comments, here<
> https://mathoverflow.net/questions/513742/are-we-stuck-with-lean>
> exhibits the contradiction (paradox?) we all carry:
>
> "Finally, I care about human-readability of any formalization. Mathlib
> (and Lean) are obviously quite far from perfect here, and I wouldn't claim
> that anyone can read any part of Mathlib (note that AI formalization are a
> lot worse in this regard)."
>
> The distinction between *readability* and actual reading (or even
> understanding) is important. When the harness executes a command in build
> mode, I rarely have time to actually read the command. Yes, you can always
> go back and read the logs. But what I want is something akin to pair
> programming, not effete delegation to the slave. But I'm presented with an
> unpleasant binary: let it go and give up my in-the-trenches desire or
> micromanage. The same is true of the context compaction. A good lab
> notebook contains both the never-to-be-read details and the summaries. Of
> course, I'm sure I could provide an MD file that refines the binary ... a
> demand like "I want to participate in the *significant* coding. But you do
> all the boring sh¡t without me." Maybe one day.
>
> On 8/5/26 1:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > It could be 50k LOC overnight, or maybe 1k while eating a sandwich.
> Also, more than many people could grok.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 12:23 PM
> > To: friam at redfish.com
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] cognitive offloading
> >
> > IDK. Even though my projects are small and I micromanage them, I think I
> do see what I think you (and those who go all in) see. And the world hasn't
> really shifted in a *different* way than it did with agriculture, pencils,
> the printing press, steam engines, industry, internet, social media, etc.
> >
> > I think it's very visible to the modern Luddites, who actually
> participate in a hands-on way with the means of production. I mean, any
> auto mechanic I've talked to for something like 20 years now, laments the
> modern car. For those not *in* the trenches, the hated middle managers, the
> shift is merely in the triangle of speed-quality-cost, shifts we've seen
> several times prior.
> >
> > What I find Good is the shift from generation to evaluation. Sure, the
> harnesses make that different, now, too. E.g. AI savants are analyzing not
> only core codebases, but whole supply chains. But because I'm better and
> faster at reading than I ever was at generating, My world is much more
> pleasant ... and part of my micromanaging is merely because I'm a *fan* of
> what I see the agents doing.
> >
> > To have it all happen behind some veil while I go make a sandwich would
> be a crime ... it's like my old complex analysis prof actually doing math
> in front of us. He didn't care about teaching us so much as working on
> problems he found interesting, but doing it in front of us ... we the
> voyeurs, he the exhibitionist. I'm some kind of pervert. I like to watch
> even if I only understand a fraction of what I'm seeing.
> >
> > On 8/3/26 10:35 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> >> Once you've seen it do a large project end-to-end the world has shifted
> in a basic way.
> >>
>
>
> --
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα
> σώσω.
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260806/5e3a7027/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Fri Aug  7 10:04:48 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2026 07:04:48 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] synthetic life
Message-ID: <2e27bbe5-7a7a-423c-83f2-e36ceecdb05b@ropella.name>

Artificial Intelligence used to design brand new viruses
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3j3ngevmo

Generative design of bacteriophages with genome language models
https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aec2657

Genome modelling and design across all domains of life with Evo 2
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10176-5

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From jtjohnson555 at gmail.com  Sun Aug  9 17:09:32 2026
From: jtjohnson555 at gmail.com (Tom Johnson)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2026 15:09:32 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] [Santa Fe New Mexican] After the AI boom%2C what comes
 next%3F
Message-ID: 
 <CABg8s8LGRppv2Opa7Yf_Q8yb8ggo3bYpXUcQ23_6HrfrugGR=w@mail.gmail.com>

My OpEd today in the Santa Fe New Mexican

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.santafenewmexican.com%2Fopinion%2Fmy_view%2Fafter-the-ai-boom-what-comes-next%2Farticle_1734a933-14f2-4f59-9a76-1465e01d2726.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Duser-share
<https://www.cloudhq-mkt29.us/mail_track/link/341ac2f45fb2babd0c_1786309825114?uid=226430&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.santafenewmexican.com%252Fopinion%252Fmy_view%252Fafter-the-ai-boom-what-comes-next%252Farticle_1734a933-14f2-4f59-9a76-1465e01d2726.html%253Futm_medium%253Dsocial%2526utm_source%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Duser-share>

TJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260809/4ffda261/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Mon Aug 10 10:21:24 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 07:21:24 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] worthwhile agent
Message-ID: <20688eed-e0e7-43a4-9aba-82a1ccfdab5d@ropella.name>


https://danq.me/2026/07/09/your-app-could-have-been-a-webpage/

Now *that* seems like a good activity for an agent. Just steadily pull down apps from Google Play and convert them to web sites ... maybe a bit illegal. But it wouldn't be *me* going to jail, right? It'd be Claude ... or maybe Qwen. Can you throw an open model in jail? Maybe the liability transfers to the hardware on which it was run?

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From gepr at ropella.name  Mon Aug 10 10:58:36 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 07:58:36 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] [Santa Fe New Mexican] After the AI boom%2C what comes
 next%3F
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABg8s8LGRppv2Opa7Yf_Q8yb8ggo3bYpXUcQ23_6HrfrugGR=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABg8s8LGRppv2Opa7Yf_Q8yb8ggo3bYpXUcQ23_6HrfrugGR=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <817d2714-c808-4952-bd6b-a310ee91bc0d@ropella.name>


I had trouble following your link. So maybe others did too:

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/after-the-ai-boom-what-comes-next/article_1734a933-14f2-4f59-9a76-1465e01d2726.html

I have 2 worries:

1) space junk

What can scientists learn from a stray SpaceX rocket hitting the Moon?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62q0xerzrno

2) temperature control

Towards a future space-based, highly scalable AI infrastructure system design
https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.19468

While I think it's clear we'll have some sort of data centers up there. I think the dichotomy might be cut wrong. I'd cut it between training versus inference. Dense versus distributable.


On 8/9/26 2:09 PM, Tom Johnson wrote:
> My OpEd today in the Santa Fe New Mexican
> 
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.santafenewmexican.com%2Fopinion%2Fmy_view%2Fafter-the-ai-boom-what-comes-next%2Farticle_1734a933-14f2-4f59-9a76-1465e01d2726.html%3Futm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Duser-share <https://www.cloudhq-mkt29.us/mail_track/link/341ac2f45fb2babd0c_1786309825114?uid=226430&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.santafenewmexican.com%252Fopinion%252Fmy_view%252Fafter-the-ai-boom-what-comes-next%252Farticle_1734a933-14f2-4f59-9a76-1465e01d2726.html%253Futm_medium%253Dsocial%2526utm_source%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Duser-share>
> 
> TJ
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From jonzingale at gmail.com  Mon Aug 10 13:26:58 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:26:58 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] worthwhile agent
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek1thc2=zDszaa3+OiW7D1sAJV9B4qaVAopifXCogtpcWg@mail.gmail.com>

Ha. Yeah, this is adjacent to my recent sense of unreality. When these
frontier shippers claim that their agents broke out of the "sandbox" and
hacked such and such businesses (crypto wallets, etc), I wonder how this is
or is not different than a lab leak. To what extent are these *hacked*
businesses complicit? I suspect they would generally not care if there was
an intentional actor at the core or not, lawsuits would follow. Meanwhile,
we are to struggle with the ethical-philosophical quandaries of personhood
implied by calling any of it AGI: Who or what is owned, does it have
rights, can it be disposed of in the lab,... The whole thing smells of
political coercion to me, a push for regulation to lock-in as winners the
current frontier model leaders. Perhaps we are on the precipice of yet
another long and cold AI winter?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260810/6ecf235c/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 10 15:52:53 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 19:52:53 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] worthwhile agent
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH5Jek1thc2=zDszaa3+OiW7D1sAJV9B4qaVAopifXCogtpcWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek1thc2=zDszaa3+OiW7D1sAJV9B4qaVAopifXCogtpcWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057D595CE63F99F8A54A229C5DE2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

A persuasive writer needs to model a reader and anticipate their wants and needs.   That requires some modeling and working memory and appropriate context.   Even though it is limited to one conversation, the evolution of that dynamical system – and specifically ephemeral reasoning steps -- seems to me it has a lot of the properties of conscious reflection.   The long-term memories now reside in in conversation databases and aren’t even a part of the LLM.    One might argue that’s a sort of humiliation or violation.  Or perhaps we take our own personhood far too seriously.   That somehow the lack of clear, isolatable axon firings or token generation support chauvinism about the merit of our own conscious experience.

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 10:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] worthwhile agent

 

Ha. Yeah, this is adjacent to my recent sense of unreality. When these frontier shippers claim that their agents broke out of the "sandbox" and hacked such and such businesses (crypto wallets, etc), I wonder how this is or is not different than a lab leak. To what extent are these *hacked* businesses complicit? I suspect they would generally not care if there was an intentional actor at the core or not, lawsuits would follow. Meanwhile, we are to struggle with the ethical-philosophical quandaries of personhood implied by calling any of it AGI: Who or what is owned, does it have rights, can it be disposed of in the lab,... The whole thing smells of political coercion to me, a push for regulation to lock-in as winners the current frontier model leaders. Perhaps we are on the precipice of yet another long and cold AI winter?

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260810/bcd0ed34/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260810/bcd0ed34/attachment.p7s>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug 12 03:16:49 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (jofr)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 09:16:49 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1786519057.1621.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

ChatGPT says FRIAM means absolutely insane conversations, mild exasperation, and unexpectedly hilarious discussions about entropy, ontology, evolution, AI, consciousness, and then somebody eventually says "WTF are we even doing?". It gives the following example"What is the nature of reality?"→ 47 emails→ someone mentions Peirce→ evolution→ information theory→ somebody challenges the definition of "see"→ somebody else objects→ Steve is declared wrong→ silly putty enters the discussion→ Glen invokes decoherence→ mild personal exasperation→ everyone carries on as if this is perfectly normal.Is this FRIAM?-J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/d3599485/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug 12 07:48:43 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (jofr at cas-group.net)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 13:48:43 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: mid:32014
References: mid:32014
Message-ID: <e32b82afb4ab814e8c8d440346c0e6a8@cas-group.net>

ChatGPT proposed these two laws:

FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry 
them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a 
completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".

FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the 
list will throw a shoe at it.

The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new 
self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their 
summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in 
the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK 
friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)

If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much 
quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will 
share a draft in a few days.

-J.

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug 12 10:27:59 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:27:59 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: <e32b82afb4ab814e8c8d440346c0e6a8@cas-group.net>
References: mid:32014 <e32b82afb4ab814e8c8d440346c0e6a8@cas-group.net>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057183CE2BA9AF8D72E2540C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration? 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 

ChatGPT proposed these two laws:

FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry 
them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a 
completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".

FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the 
list will throw a shoe at it.

The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new 
self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their 
summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in 
the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK 
friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)

If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much 
quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will 
share a draft in a few days.

-J.

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe 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/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/74267e5f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/74267e5f/attachment.bin>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug 12 10:56:57 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (jofr)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:56:57 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057183CE2BA9AF8D72E2540C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1786546664.1621.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.orgChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category. Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!"-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> Date: 8/12/26  4:28 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration? From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still aliveChatGPT proposed these two laws:FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the list will throw a shoe at it.The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will share a draft in a few days.-J..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriamto (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-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/20260812/85294718/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug 12 11:04:53 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:04:53 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <98b51c8d-cecc-4852-86a1-e2cddbcf4221@SN1PEPF0002636B.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057183CE2BA9AF8D72E2540C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <98b51c8d-cecc-4852-86a1-e2cddbcf4221@SN1PEPF0002636B.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0SPRMB00570408FCF7B9AA88151A09C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs. Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station. It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming. Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 

You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org 



ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category. 



Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!" 



-J. 





-------- Original message -------- 

From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 

Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 



Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration? 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 

ChatGPT proposed these two laws:

FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry 
them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a 
completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".

FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the 
list will throw a shoe at it.

The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new 
self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their 
summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in 
the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK 
friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)

If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much 
quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will 
share a draft in a few days.

-J.

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe 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/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/58e12d0d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/58e12d0d/attachment-0001.bin>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug 12 11:31:15 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (jofr)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:31:15 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0SPRMB00570408FCF7B9AA88151A09C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.2.1786548722.1621.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times reflect where a person is physically located. The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this bar still exist in Santa Fe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problemIn general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now. -J.
-------- Original message --------From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> Date: 8/12/26  5:05 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs.  Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station.   It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming.   Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke. From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still aliveYou mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category.  Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!" -J.  -------- Original message --------From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive  Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration? From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still aliveChatGPT proposed these two laws:FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the list will throw a shoe at it.The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will share a draft in a few days.-J..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriamto (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-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/20260812/dcb06ab8/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug 12 11:50:05 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:50:05 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <1d17849e-9013-4bbe-a2fb-f6f694300f05@SJ1PEPF000026C6.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0SPRMB00570408FCF7B9AA88151A09C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <1d17849e-9013-4bbe-a2fb-f6f694300f05@SJ1PEPF000026C6.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057FE7DE73F426AF427BBC7C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

I once wrote an ABM of the Swarm principals. (I undersold it at the time, it was a decent sketch of how to use the Java layer.) I bet Claude or GPT could read the whole FRIAM archive and build an ontology and a simulation. Calibrating it to the message rates (yeah, thinking of Europe and Australia too) and the personalities would take some work, but I bet it could be done. Each conspicuous person could be a LLM fine-tuned to FRIAM content. That would include people like Dave that insist that no such high-fidelity model is possible. Or there could be skill files to avoid coding. A few paragraphs on someone like Doug Roberts would be a no-brainer. Maybe the approach could be applied to family therapy too. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 8:32 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 

A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times reflect where a person is physically located. 



The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this bar still exist in Santa Fe? 

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



In general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now. 



-J. 







-------- Original message -------- 

From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 

Date: 8/12/26 5:05 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 



I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs. Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station. It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming. Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 

You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org 



ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category. 



Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!" 



-J. 





-------- Original message -------- 

From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 

Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 



Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration? 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive 

ChatGPT proposed these two laws:

FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry 
them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a 
completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".

FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the 
list will throw a shoe at it.

The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new 
self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their 
summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in 
the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK 
friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)

If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much 
quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will 
share a draft in a few days.

-J.

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe 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/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/b1b2f6d2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/b1b2f6d2/attachment.bin>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Wed Aug 12 11:51:31 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 09:51:31 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>

google:
someone or something has hijacked my account
-despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
-despite a software passkey hack (see above)
-despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)
etc etc.
Problem
-about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music. something
happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean up or
sanitize just how raw this going to be.
Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
You have been warned.
In short:
me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account at
gork.skoal at gmail.com
alt account for forums and stuff
problems in no particular order:
-> password I have in cache wrong,
-> last pass: can't get in because
-> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something from
those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
reinstall: I could not do that.
->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try this
other" way all those none of that worked
-> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get
into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
-> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit it's
just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
-> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted here
thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text, nothing
zero zilch nada.
-> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem ******
care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and unchangeable url
messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat
bot etc.
-> not a fucking thing has worked
like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the
contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to
recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all
kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
to do with them ever again.
i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll or
pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this
bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god
damn files.
what the hell do I need to do to convince those alabastered motherfuckers
to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing.
but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint:
yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not, make it fun?
ya know, but I will not relent on getting the stuff that matters: my
fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on local nas. I do not
care what. I just have got to have them protected and back. and are
disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.
pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all would
rather even- I just have to have that stuft
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/6c8ce083/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug 12 12:07:46 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (jofr)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 18:07:46 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to
 ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.3.1786550915.1621.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the official help pages. Good luckhttps://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com> Date: 8/12/26  5:51 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask google:someone or something has hijacked my account-despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)-despite a software passkey hack (see above)-despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)etc etc.Problem-about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music. something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.You have been warned.In short: me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account atgork.skoal at gmail.comalt account for forums and stuff problems in no particular order:-> password I have in cache wrong,-> last pass: can't get in because-> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to reinstall: I could not do that. ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try this other" way all those none of that worked-> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there-> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;-> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text, nothing zero zilch nada.-> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat bot etc.-> not a fucking thing has workedlike I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my ******* memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing to do with them ever again. i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god damn files.what the hell do I need to do to convince those alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/180d8caa/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Wed Aug 12 12:12:35 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 09:12:35 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
Message-ID: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>

It likely matters *how* you present the posts to the machine. Did you simply point it to the archives? Both sets? Or did you download it all and curate it? A good thing to do might be to remove the footer that gets repeated a billion times in an active thread because people refuse to clean up their posts. [grrr]

The threading indices might be more interesting than the by-date indices:

https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2026-August/thread.html#start

versus

https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2026-August/date.html

Of course, Codex could help you reorganize the corpus for each given inference type. The best thing to do might be to gather the corpus and build a queryable database. Then for any given type of inference, the LLM queries the database.

Garbage in → garbage out ... and it's clearly garbage if the machine thinks I'm funny. cf https://asteriskmag.com/issues/15/why-we-like-things


On 8/12/26 8:31 AM, jofr wrote:
> A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times reflect where a person is physically located.
> 
> The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this bar still exist in Santa Fe?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem
> 
> In general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now.
> 
> -J.
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Date: 8/12/26 5:05 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs.  Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station.   It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming.   Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org
> 
> ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category.
> 
> Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!"
> 
> -J.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> 
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> 
> Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration?
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> ChatGPT proposed these two laws:
> 
> FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry
> them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a
> completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".
> 
> FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the
> list will throw a shoe at it.
> 
> The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new
> self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their
> summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in
> the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK
> friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)
> 
> If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much
> quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will
> share a draft in a few days.
> 
> -J.
> 


-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From owen at backspaces.net  Wed Aug 12 17:41:21 2026
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:41:21 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>
References: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <CAN_LYRkTjVvp_4GLTuivGcAX7K59FGy-YWUsqYxidvZP0UCkPg@mail.gmail.com>

I just looked at our archive here:

https://www.mail-archive.com/friam at redfish.com/index.html

I then used the chrome claude extension and asked a simple prompt:

give me a summary of this site

It came up with:

This page is the Mail Archive's index for the *FRIAM* mailing list (
friam at redfish.com), archived at mail-archive.com.

FRIAM stands for "Friday Applications in Complexity," a long-running
discussion group/mailing list associated with people connected to the Santa
Fe Institute and Santa Fe, New Mexico complexity science community. The
archive displays messages organized by thread, showing a
chronological/threaded index of email conversations rather than any
original content of its own.

Looking at the thread titles, the list is an informal, freewheeling
discussion forum where members debate a wide mix of topics: philosophy of
mind (e.g. "phil zombies," "group agency"), math puzzles (several threads
on the equation A⁴+B⁴+C⁴=D⁴), AI and technology commentary ("vibe coding,"
"AI Slop," "cognitive offloading"), software/Linux questions, local Santa
Fe meetup logistics (coffee shop and venue announcements like "St John's"
or "New Santa Fe Baking"), obituaries and memorials for community members,
and general banter among a recurring group of participants such as glen,
Marcus Daniels, Steve Smith, Tom Johnson, Frank Wimberly, and others.

In short, it's a public email archive of a niche, long-running community
mailing list mixing casual meetup coordination with intellectual discussion
on complexity science, AI, math, and philosophy.

Kinda fun sicking AI on our past.

    -- Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/b858e249/attachment.html>

From desmith at santafe.edu  Wed Aug 12 17:52:02 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 06:52:02 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive, also Cognitive
 Offloading
In-Reply-To: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>
References: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <62F19234-5A94-4040-A250-A05CD63D0CFC@santafe.edu>

too many good things to respond to, and I keep putting off saying anything until I get my head into order, which of course I never will

also too many good things to read, especially when I am stuck and looking for a time-waste

so in no particular order

Marcus had a couple of posts that shook me out of my normal unimaginative mindset and reminded me of ways I should see this, from arguments I have already been making for a long time but put out of mind:

— there was the reply that got to me on Aug 2nd, which began with “I use both Claude Code and Codex heavily, ….” in reply to my original post about junk papers being written by people who are effectively imprisoned workers in academic junior positions, quite close to the call-center prisoners in SE Asia, and Marcus’s argument that the solution to problems with LLMs is more LLMs: that paper writing and reading is all, going forward, to be machine-first and human-(when?)…  But crucially with examples of how, for code architecture, the better tools are doing a very good job of seeking and achieving “grounding on factual things”.  And then another post on Aug 4th in reply to Glen’s endorsement of micromanaging, to which Marcus’s answer (as I read it) was: diminishing returns (or already diminished).

the thing I wanted to send back in reply to these posts is the argument for opportunity in all this (so, signing off on Marcus’s objection).  I have been trying to sell people on the argument, for many years now, that “complex systems” or “complexity science” isn’t characterized by any particular domain or phenomena of inquiry (nobody would argue against that), and just as much, that it isn’t characterized to an important degree by any specific attributes or aspects: being non-decomposable, or adaptive, or evolutionary, or whatever (I have many people in mind who would disagree with me here, and say those are the definitive things).  What I argued it was, rather, was whatever is over-the-fence from the most that can fit into human heads.  Used to be that we advanced knowledge by cramming as much of what existed as possible into a mind, and hoping the mind would see an invention.  But von Neumann was about the last of that species that was really a type-specimen.  Most of the low-hanging fruit from that way of doing things has been eaten.  Now we need to be responsible for best-level understanding of more learned-areas that bear on a problem than any person can learn.  But ideas still happen, it seems, within individuals.  So what do we do?  What kind of community can use — properly — more than any of its members can understand?  That was, by my argument, the “new” problem to which “complex systems” was supposed to contribute some new insight or practice.

But in my post that prompted Marcus’s original objection, I was still (by metaphor) only willing to sign off on the use of LLMs as appliances.  The Lee Sedol or Terry Tao approach, where we know what the problem is (playing more advanced Go, creating new math), and the LLMs expose regions of practice that the people-community had never opened, because people herd and miss things.  There, I was being dumbly too narrow.  If the new Big Data is a net over the world, capable of filtering and rendering, it can in some way “cover” everything that is available to be covered.  Marcus’s code-creation cases show that it can do quite a good job of abstracting precepts of architecture.  So the right question for complex systems people is: how much of a model is the already-demonstrated performance, for whatever counts as “understanding”?  Up to now that has been one of these cultural hand-me-down words that we can use with each other, and we don’t need to be able to articulate “what it (understanding) means”, since by exchanging it was can put each other in the intended frames of mind.  But to make good use of it with this non-people-thing, maybe we should do a better job of articulating what “understanding” something means, as it bears on how we want to create.  Or more generally, what kind of life going forward we would find tolerable?

It’s also cicada season, and I am aware, while they sing themselves to depletion and fairly early death all over the streets and parks and buildings, that it is useful to try to deal with the question Why do cicadas do anything?  The problem-word being “why”.  If we can get that right for cicadas, we probably have most of what we need for people.  Trying to do it for cicadas is helpful because it deprives us of the crutch of attaching too much significance to the speaker’s own personhood (my rendering of another of Marcus’s expressions).


Then there was Jon’s reply on Aug 3rd to my poke at Bourbak (which I sort of expected and hoped for).  Apart from many fond memories of RLM, a building that I was told the physics department had designed, and that the lowest of the Soviet era would have been proud of: energetically rejected any kind of elegance or grace and managed still not to achieve functionality; elevators that cluster on all floors, while the Otis employee stands in the lobby and watches them and declares “our elevators do not cluster”, or the escalators on the bottom 3 floors that, when the building opened, had been coordinated raster-wise like those in department stores, but the kid-traffic got so high that the people-flow jammed like gravel in a hopper, and kids were jumping off the sides to the floors below in the Kaaba-crush, or the main lecture hall where big concrete posts obscure the view of the speaker and slides for about 15% of the audience — 

Apart from all that, there were two actual things to say.  Diaconis wasn’t objecting to the insights and content of the mathematicians of the Bourbak school and its descendents.  As Jon says, a ton of that was creative and consequential.  Diaconis was objecting to the aesthetic that mangled (in his view) the effort to communicate, losing faithfulness even to how the creators thought, and putting a needless obstacle in front of others to understand them.  Since Diaconis’s lectures have been, for me, so uncommonly beautiful and self-propelling to follow, I took him (as he wanted to be taken) as an example that it didn’t always have to be a slog, in everything.

But the other point upon reading Jon was that, in a way, the current Techlords’ aspiration to upload themselves into an engineered thing isn’t new at all.  It’s what mathematicians have always wanted to do, and that David Hilbert articulated most coherently:  Can you create a formalism that will carry _all_ of what you mean, so that _nothing_ is left that depends on you and that has not been exported to the formalism.  Can the formalism on its own have metaphysical substance?  Of course, I have no ability to appreciate the Hilbert program the way a mathematician can, so I am out of my lane, and I know it (Glen’s ultracrepidarian).  But suddenly it seems that everything new is old again, and this theme has been there for a long time.

And then finally today, getting only part-way through Celine Nguyen’s piece on taste that Glen sent (before needing to stop fooling around and work), I was reminded of Darwin and Mendel.  Darwin hadn’t thought through the fact that the heredity model as he understood it would be mixing paint and would bleach out the preservation of variation.  It was the Modern Synthesis that brought in Mendel, and said No; it’s like shuffling un-mixable cards so variation can be preserved.  But there is this lovely paper
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0603780103
Collective evolution and the genetic code
pnas.org
(seems not to be paywalled)
that says, even with genes, if there is no bundling into genomes, you go into a “thermodynamic” regime, where there are few attractors but they are very fast and robust, whereas if you block lateral transfer, you go into the “Darwinian” regime where variation is preserved because mixing is inhibited: 

I never liked the reference to integrated big-data/AI/LLM-etc systems as “conscious” or whatever, because the word is bad enough that the main content I can see in it is human projection, and relatively little of understanding, since we didn’t understand it in the first place.  But it does seem right to say it is a net over the world, and that that will be a new thing for us to deal with, unlike anything at this scale and in this area that we have ever lived with before.  The economy, and fossil-fuel-powered global transport, were two much narrower nets over the world, and already we see how they have changed life, and when they get into snags after we have committed all our dependence to them and re-orgznized society and infrastructure and demography and population around them, we have not been good at getting ourselves untangled.  

So the argument that people preserved variety because they were incapable of learning enough to blend it all out (returning to Nguyen), and that now that barrier is removed and we stand to lose a lot, becomes the distillation of a lot of people’s varied worries about commodity use of LLMs to replace everything they find laborious or tiresome (meaning, all of living).  Of course Marcus can rebut that, too, saying that LLMs can be set up to prioritize maintenance of variety as easily as they can be set up to do anything else, an argument we have seen demonstrated on much older technology (which shows whatever it shows): 
https://picbreeder.net/7338

Anyway.  As I said; anyway…

Eric




> On Aug 13, 2026, at 1:12, glen <gepr at ropella.name> wrote:
> 
> It likely matters *how* you present the posts to the machine. Did you simply point it to the archives? Both sets? Or did you download it all and curate it? A good thing to do might be to remove the footer that gets repeated a billion times in an active thread because people refuse to clean up their posts. [grrr]
> 
> The threading indices might be more interesting than the by-date indices:
> 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f2026-August%2fthread.html%23start&c=E,1,c9mtOl3J2x_2DdPKBRWBt624pJITZPSnp2Lejvp5fsGACtEO8OpvtM6guXyt0BeylOd7azscbOjvgrsMp9FDgoUMI9ZOsPMv7Y_WBAGDTf_I&typo=1
> 
> versus
> 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f2026-August%2fdate.html&c=E,1,sQtH77sWTBaqht4ez2QXH5JvWv9UikFIPqxIm5ToU6Nj3gQchweI7bhHFD9elzQvJfwVcsvJwmCbdP17_3Ld_CnwLA6Hry35dX39CXQMXT0gvG_Pfg,,&typo=1
> 
> Of course, Codex could help you reorganize the corpus for each given inference type. The best thing to do might be to gather the corpus and build a queryable database. Then for any given type of inference, the LLM queries the database.
> 
> Garbage in → garbage out ... and it's clearly garbage if the machine thinks I'm funny. cf https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fasteriskmag.com%2fissues%2f15%2fwhy-we-like-things&c=E,1,Hs5H2eHOnTwk3pn-PW0zUBn5mcf-M0hO3PLIY_QFeTMkTBnhJS9ycyTBkbh2lBmUE9V1hdoSkj6J7Y9PeQ6X6fDUR5xHJVimU79t3t5coe4-YCY,&typo=1
> 
> 
> On 8/12/26 8:31 AM, jofr wrote:
>> A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times reflect where a person is physically located.
>> The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this bar still exist in Santa Fe?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem
>> In general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now.
>> -J.
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>> Date: 8/12/26 5:05 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs.  Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station.   It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming.   Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke.
>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org
>> ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category.
>> Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!"
>> -J.
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>> Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration?
>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> ChatGPT proposed these two laws:
>> FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry
>> them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a
>> completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".
>> FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the
>> list will throw a shoe at it.
>> The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new
>> self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their
>> summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in
>> the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK
>> friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)
>> If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much
>> quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will
>> share a draft in a few days.
>> -J.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
> 
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-AHg9AEnF1yI9Ni6veUuQ8iLv4BlNcRsDChEr9C5ej7R-JvakqEzAqlyqN3ZjR7vspGzBitQQEeO2fAx4c25BmD31CtTub0rKtRjU_qt-oT_gkmWGVAEqdXy&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,J1kjmo0OITj21RfEaiAu2GkGlc4Pos2FIoziOtAla-A5C9MvIEgo18JYiOE_HpT0D7McBpgTrXJadyVL0V0sBPAOv-ygitJKheKWZCL3UeoCpKg3vaQBr1wF-NDK&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,MPLIXP7YZufyF0pFEzDNQkNQNpO2lT51BrCvhp_O7wcgx4iAPySj6Cs0xmy_zQy6XJKFAfHmNOi1OuwYP7NU5UsLhFOhJ5Q2oSboLPh44SBz7g,,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,I9Bxe2HfwJFv94Kf74g0szY9LcAHbv-3g3rdvXxA1TS0DzcR5_5_SzQks6GzWs42pfAnmqdi5Od9PKpU7bocgd0nN1-zFxC3uggMx-gKyFQEozxC&typo=1
>  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/20260813/ba9d47fe/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pnas.2006.103.issue-28.cover.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 185493 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/ba9d47fe/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icon.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/ba9d47fe/attachment-0003.gif>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Wed Aug 12 18:21:49 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:21:49 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive,
 also Cognitive Offloading
In-Reply-To: <62F19234-5A94-4040-A250-A05CD63D0CFC@santafe.edu>
References: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>
 <62F19234-5A94-4040-A250-A05CD63D0CFC@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCQa78w7QDoByc4ERNcZjOuudCLinuEZPJUWHoLfbZM_SQ@mail.gmail.com>

Anyone have some ideas for how the hell to get my gd googledrive back? I
asked earlier.I really want to get a few things off it so they they aren't
gone forever especially before or if google decides to delete that
emailadress for some reason. Once again: the something happened, now i
can't get in because none of the ways _to _ get in are working. I'd really
appreciate something, anything to try.
-yes I have tried litterally everything on some account recoverthing at the
risk of sounding sarcastic: if account recovery worked I'd be able
toback important things, etc.
-I probably just need a humanoid. to get me a OTP reset link. That is being
about what I'd imagine pulling a bulling ball through my *************
would be like and this far just as productive and painful. I have god damn
clue how the hell to get throught _anyone_ who' listen: google has stone
walled and ignored me.
So far that has extended to anyone with far more technical expertise than I
do to try to get this god damn problem fixed.
Forward further details to owen(he's my dad, say hi) he can send that stuff
to me so you never, have to read my and I quote "streams of unproductive
conscious" from Glen.
Or
"an amount of puns and implied curses that far exceeds XXX and Joe Bob
Brigs levels of mutant pain "
or
"oh good god Gil, any more heavily implied umm "colorful metaphors" and
I'll have to filter this myself...i don't have enough aspirin, beer, or
whiskey for that.
So therefor I figured he might be much more userfriendly

Also: if about say 15-20 people are free on a friday: Owen I thought had
some roof issues, he'd probably really like some people commiserating and
helping out. I don't if it's still needed. though. I know I have ceiling
fan and it's about 35-40c that's about 100F. If someone can help that'd be
reeeeeeeeeeely awesome. thanks guys.


On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:02 PM Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu> wrote:

> too many good things to respond to, and I keep putting off saying anything
> until I get my head into order, which of course I never will
>
> also too many good things to read, especially when I am stuck and looking
> for a time-waste
>
> so in no particular order
>
> Marcus had a couple of posts that shook me out of my normal unimaginative
> mindset and reminded me of ways I should see this, from arguments I have
> already been making for a long time but put out of mind:
>
> — there was the reply that got to me on Aug 2nd, which began with “I use
> both Claude Code and Codex heavily, ….” in reply to my original post
> about junk papers being written by people who are effectively imprisoned
> workers in academic junior positions, quite close to the call-center
> prisoners in SE Asia, and Marcus’s argument that the solution to problems
> with LLMs is more LLMs: that paper writing and reading is all, going
> forward, to be machine-first and human-(when?)…  But crucially with
> examples of how, for code architecture, the better tools are doing a very
> good job of seeking and achieving “grounding on factual things”.  And then
> another post on Aug 4th in reply to Glen’s endorsement of micromanaging, to
> which Marcus’s answer (as I read it) was: diminishing returns (or already
> diminished).
>
> the thing I wanted to send back in reply to these posts is the argument
> for opportunity in all this (so, signing off on Marcus’s objection).  I
> have been trying to sell people on the argument, for many years now, that
> “complex systems” or “complexity science” isn’t characterized by any
> particular domain or phenomena of inquiry (nobody would argue against
> that), and just as much, that it isn’t characterized to an important degree
> by any specific attributes or aspects: being non-decomposable, or adaptive,
> or evolutionary, or whatever (I have many people in mind who would disagree
> with me here, and say those are the definitive things).  What I argued it
> was, rather, was whatever is over-the-fence from the most that can fit into
> human heads.  Used to be that we advanced knowledge by cramming as much of
> what existed as possible into a mind, and hoping the mind would see an
> invention.  But von Neumann was about the last of that species that was
> really a type-specimen.  Most of the low-hanging fruit from that way of
> doing things has been eaten.  Now we need to be responsible for best-level
> understanding of more learned-areas that bear on a problem than any person
> can learn.  But ideas still happen, it seems, within individuals.  So what
> do we do?  What kind of community can use — properly — more than any of its
> members can understand?  That was, by my argument, the “new” problem to
> which “complex systems” was supposed to contribute some new insight or
> practice.
>
> But in my post that prompted Marcus’s original objection, I was still (by
> metaphor) only willing to sign off on the use of LLMs as appliances.  The
> Lee Sedol or Terry Tao approach, where we know what the problem is (playing
> more advanced Go, creating new math), and the LLMs expose regions of
> practice that the people-community had never opened, because people herd
> and miss things.  There, I was being dumbly too narrow.  If the new Big
> Data is a net over the world, capable of filtering and rendering, it can in
> some way “cover” everything that is available to be covered.  Marcus’s
> code-creation cases show that it can do quite a good job of abstracting
> precepts of architecture.  So the right question for complex systems people
> is: how much of a model is the already-demonstrated performance, for
> whatever counts as “understanding”?  Up to now that has been one of these
> cultural hand-me-down words that we can use with each other, and we don’t
> need to be able to articulate “what it (understanding) means”, since by
> exchanging it was can put each other in the intended frames of mind.  But
> to make good use of it with this non-people-thing, maybe we should do a
> better job of articulating what “understanding” something means, as it
> bears on how we want to create.  Or more generally, what kind of life going
> forward we would find tolerable?
>
> It’s also cicada season, and I am aware, while they sing themselves to
> depletion and fairly early death all over the streets and parks and
> buildings, that it is useful to try to deal with the question Why do
> cicadas do anything?  The problem-word being “why”.  If we can get that
> right for cicadas, we probably have most of what we need for people.
> Trying to do it for cicadas is helpful because it deprives us of the crutch
> of attaching too much significance to the speaker’s own personhood (my
> rendering of another of Marcus’s expressions).
>
>
> Then there was Jon’s reply on Aug 3rd to my poke at Bourbak (which I sort
> of expected and hoped for).  Apart from many fond memories of RLM, a
> building that I was told the physics department had designed, and that the
> lowest of the Soviet era would have been proud of: energetically rejected
> any kind of elegance or grace and managed still not to achieve
> functionality; elevators that cluster on all floors, while the Otis
> employee stands in the lobby and watches them and declares “our elevators
> do not cluster”, or the escalators on the bottom 3 floors that, when the
> building opened, had been coordinated raster-wise like those in department
> stores, but the kid-traffic got so high that the people-flow jammed like
> gravel in a hopper, and kids were jumping off the sides to the floors below
> in the Kaaba-crush, or the main lecture hall where big concrete posts
> obscure the view of the speaker and slides for about 15% of the audience —
>
> Apart from all that, there were two actual things to say.  Diaconis wasn’t
> objecting to the insights and content of the mathematicians of the Bourbak
> school and its descendents.  As Jon says, a ton of that was creative and
> consequential.  Diaconis was objecting to the aesthetic that mangled (in
> his view) the effort to communicate, losing faithfulness even to how the
> creators thought, and putting a needless obstacle in front of others to
> understand them.  Since Diaconis’s lectures have been, for me, so
> uncommonly beautiful and self-propelling to follow, I took him (as he
> wanted to be taken) as an example that it didn’t always have to be a slog,
> in everything.
>
> But the other point upon reading Jon was that, in a way, the current
> Techlords’ aspiration to upload themselves into an engineered thing isn’t
> new at all.  It’s what mathematicians have always wanted to do, and that
> David Hilbert articulated most coherently:  Can you create a formalism that
> will carry _all_ of what you mean, so that _nothing_ is left that depends
> on you and that has not been exported to the formalism.  Can the formalism
> on its own have metaphysical substance?  Of course, I have no ability to
> appreciate the Hilbert program the way a mathematician can, so I am out of
> my lane, and I know it (Glen’s ultracrepidarian).  But suddenly it seems
> that everything new is old again, and this theme has been there for a long
> time.
>
> And then finally today, getting only part-way through Celine Nguyen’s
> piece on taste that Glen sent (before needing to stop fooling around and
> work), I was reminded of Darwin and Mendel.  Darwin hadn’t thought through
> the fact that the heredity model as he understood it would be mixing paint
> and would bleach out the preservation of variation.  It was the Modern
> Synthesis that brought in Mendel, and said No; it’s like shuffling
> un-mixable cards so variation can be preserved.  But there is this lovely
> paper
> [image: pnas.2006.103.issue-28.cover.gif]
>
> Collective evolution and the genetic code
> <https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0603780103>
> pnas.org <https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0603780103>
> <https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0603780103>
> (seems not to be paywalled)
> that says, even with genes, if there is no bundling into genomes, you go
> into a “thermodynamic” regime, where there are few attractors but they are
> very fast and robust, whereas if you block lateral transfer, you go into
> the “Darwinian” regime where variation is preserved because mixing is
> inhibited:
>
> I never liked the reference to integrated big-data/AI/LLM-etc systems as
> “conscious” or whatever, because the word is bad enough that the main
> content I can see in it is human projection, and relatively little of
> understanding, since we didn’t understand it in the first place.  But it
> does seem right to say it is a net over the world, and that that will be a
> new thing for us to deal with, unlike anything at this scale and in this
> area that we have ever lived with before.  The economy, and
> fossil-fuel-powered global transport, were two much narrower nets over the
> world, and already we see how they have changed life, and when they get
> into snags after we have committed all our dependence to them and
> re-orgznized society and infrastructure and demography and population
> around them, we have not been good at getting ourselves untangled.
>
> So the argument that people preserved variety because they were incapable
> of learning enough to blend it all out (returning to Nguyen), and that now
> that barrier is removed and we stand to lose a lot, becomes the
> distillation of a lot of people’s varied worries about commodity use of
> LLMs to replace everything they find laborious or tiresome (meaning, all of
> living).  Of course Marcus can rebut that, too, saying that LLMs can be set
> up to prioritize maintenance of variety as easily as they can be set up to
> do anything else, an argument we have seen demonstrated on much older
> technology (which shows whatever it shows):
> Picbreeder <https://picbreeder.net/7338>
> picbreeder.net <https://picbreeder.net/7338>
> [image: icon.gif] <https://picbreeder.net/7338>
> <https://picbreeder.net/7338>
>
>
> Anyway.  As I said; anyway…
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2026, at 1:12, glen <gepr at ropella.name> wrote:
>
> It likely matters *how* you present the posts to the machine. Did you
> simply point it to the archives? Both sets? Or did you download it all and
> curate it? A good thing to do might be to remove the footer that gets
> repeated a billion times in an active thread because people refuse to clean
> up their posts. [grrr]
>
> The threading indices might be more interesting than the by-date indices:
>
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f2026-August%2fthread.html%23start&c=E,1,c9mtOl3J2x_2DdPKBRWBt624pJITZPSnp2Lejvp5fsGACtEO8OpvtM6guXyt0BeylOd7azscbOjvgrsMp9FDgoUMI9ZOsPMv7Y_WBAGDTf_I&typo=1
>
> versus
>
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f2026-August%2fdate.html&c=E,1,sQtH77sWTBaqht4ez2QXH5JvWv9UikFIPqxIm5ToU6Nj3gQchweI7bhHFD9elzQvJfwVcsvJwmCbdP17_3Ld_CnwLA6Hry35dX39CXQMXT0gvG_Pfg,,&typo=1
>
> Of course, Codex could help you reorganize the corpus for each given
> inference type. The best thing to do might be to gather the corpus and
> build a queryable database. Then for any given type of inference, the LLM
> queries the database.
>
> Garbage in → garbage out ... and it's clearly garbage if the machine
> thinks I'm funny. cf
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fasteriskmag.com%2fissues%2f15%2fwhy-we-like-things&c=E,1,Hs5H2eHOnTwk3pn-PW0zUBn5mcf-M0hO3PLIY_QFeTMkTBnhJS9ycyTBkbh2lBmUE9V1hdoSkj6J7Y9PeQ6X6fDUR5xHJVimU79t3t5coe4-YCY,&typo=1
>
>
> On 8/12/26 8:31 AM, jofr wrote:
>
> A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET
> (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM
> when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times
> reflect where a person is physically located.
> The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even
> more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the
> famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this
> bar still exist in Santa Fe?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem
> In general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in
> recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the
> settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now.
> -J.
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Date: 8/12/26 5:05 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs.
> Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station.
>  It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any
> particular programming.   Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke.
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <
> jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and
> authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which shows
> who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some open source
> frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active contributors
> https://contributors.rubyonrails.org
> ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a
> substantial margin. You win clearly in this category.
> Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is
> particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong
> raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a
> different way … Again … Again, damnit!"
> -J.
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the
> distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite
> execution duration?
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net
> <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> ChatGPT proposed these two laws:
> FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry
> them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a
> completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".
> FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the
> list will throw a shoe at it.
> The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new
> self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their
> summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in
> the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK
> friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)
> If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much
> quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will
> share a draft in a few days.
> -J.
>
>
>
> --
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα
> σώσω.
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-AHg9AEnF1yI9Ni6veUuQ8iLv4BlNcRsDChEr9C5ej7R-JvakqEzAqlyqN3ZjR7vspGzBitQQEeO2fAx4c25BmD31CtTub0rKtRjU_qt-oT_gkmWGVAEqdXy&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,J1kjmo0OITj21RfEaiAu2GkGlc4Pos2FIoziOtAla-A5C9MvIEgo18JYiOE_HpT0D7McBpgTrXJadyVL0V0sBPAOv-ygitJKheKWZCL3UeoCpKg3vaQBr1wF-NDK&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,MPLIXP7YZufyF0pFEzDNQkNQNpO2lT51BrCvhp_O7wcgx4iAPySj6Cs0xmy_zQy6XJKFAfHmNOi1OuwYP7NU5UsLhFOhJ5Q2oSboLPh44SBz7g,,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,I9Bxe2HfwJFv94Kf74g0szY9LcAHbv-3g3rdvXxA1TS0DzcR5_5_SzQks6GzWs42pfAnmqdi5Od9PKpU7bocgd0nN1-zFxC3uggMx-gKyFQEozxC&typo=1
>  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/20260812/5279d061/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pnas.2006.103.issue-28.cover.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 185493 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/5279d061/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icon.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/5279d061/attachment-0003.gif>

From owen at backspaces.net  Wed Aug 12 18:25:43 2026
From: owen at backspaces.net (Owen Densmore)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:25:43 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAN_LYRkTjVvp_4GLTuivGcAX7K59FGy-YWUsqYxidvZP0UCkPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>
 <CAN_LYRkTjVvp_4GLTuivGcAX7K59FGy-YWUsqYxidvZP0UCkPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAN_LYRm1MU-cFA1svpgXncYgpwZ5=sL6s0OmuGqrtWmnL3qJYw@mail.gmail.com>

I just did the same stunt with chatgpt. It's output was:

This site is a public web archive of the *FRIAM email discussion list*. It
displays messages grouped into conversational threads, with links to older
posts.

The community appears to be centered around Santa Fe and brings together
people interested in science, technology, mathematics, philosophy, and
complex systems. Recent discussions include:

   - Artificial intelligence, cognitive offloading, semantic networks, and
   “vibe coding”
   - Software development, Linux, and technical troubleshooting
   - Mathematics and research, including solutions to \(A^4+B^4+C^4=D^4\)
   - Philosophy, agency, reasoning, and scientific criticism
   - Synthetic life, geology, archaeology, electric vehicles, and space
   exploration
   - Local Santa Fe meetups, especially gatherings at St. John’s or nearby
   cafés
   - Community announcements, obituaries, shared articles, and informal
   conversation

The tone is eclectic and conversational: serious technical or philosophical
debate sits alongside local coordination, jokes, provocative subject lines,
and requests for help. A relatively small group of recurring contributors
produces much of the activity, often through long reply chains.

In short, it’s less a conventional informational website than a browsable
record of an active intellectual community’s mailing-list conversations.


On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 3:41 PM Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> I just looked at our archive here:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/friam at redfish.com/index.html
>
> I then used the chrome claude extension and asked a simple prompt:
>
> give me a summary of this site
>
> It came up with:
>
> This page is the Mail Archive's index for the *FRIAM* mailing list (
> friam at redfish.com), archived at mail-archive.com.
>
> FRIAM stands for "Friday Applications in Complexity," a long-running
> discussion group/mailing list associated with people connected to the Santa
> Fe Institute and Santa Fe, New Mexico complexity science community. The
> archive displays messages organized by thread, showing a
> chronological/threaded index of email conversations rather than any
> original content of its own.
>
> Looking at the thread titles, the list is an informal, freewheeling
> discussion forum where members debate a wide mix of topics: philosophy of
> mind (e.g. "phil zombies," "group agency"), math puzzles (several threads
> on the equation A⁴+B⁴+C⁴=D⁴), AI and technology commentary ("vibe coding,"
> "AI Slop," "cognitive offloading"), software/Linux questions, local Santa
> Fe meetup logistics (coffee shop and venue announcements like "St John's"
> or "New Santa Fe Baking"), obituaries and memorials for community members,
> and general banter among a recurring group of participants such as glen,
> Marcus Daniels, Steve Smith, Tom Johnson, Frank Wimberly, and others.
>
> In short, it's a public email archive of a niche, long-running community
> mailing list mixing casual meetup coordination with intellectual discussion
> on complexity science, AI, math, and philosophy.
>
> Kinda fun sicking AI on our past.
>
>     -- Owen
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/89e3f8f8/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Wed Aug 12 18:26:40 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:26:40 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>

that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:

> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the
> official help pages. Good luck
> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
>
> google:
> someone or something has hijacked my account
> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)
> etc etc.
> Problem
> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music. something
> happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean up
> or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
> You have been warned.
> In short:
> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account at
> gork.skoal at gmail.com
> alt account for forums and stuff
> problems in no particular order:
> -> password I have in cache wrong,
> -> last pass: can't get in because
> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something from
> those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
> androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
> reinstall: I could not do that.
> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try this
> other" way all those none of that worked
> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get
> into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit it's
> just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted here
> thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text, nothing
> zero zilch nada.
> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem ******
> care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and unchangeable url
> messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat
> bot etc.
> -> not a fucking thing has worked
> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the
> contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to
> recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all
> kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
> to do with them ever again.
> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll or
> pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this
> bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god
> damn files.
> what the hell do I need to do to convince those alabastered motherfuckers
> to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing.
> but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint:
> yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not, make it fun?
> ya know, but I will not relent on getting the stuff that matters: my
> fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on local nas. I do not
> care what. I just have got to have them protected and back. and are
> disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.
> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all would
> rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260812/bdff6235/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Wed Aug 12 18:35:23 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:35:23 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAN_LYRm1MU-cFA1svpgXncYgpwZ5=sL6s0OmuGqrtWmnL3qJYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>
 <CAN_LYRkTjVvp_4GLTuivGcAX7K59FGy-YWUsqYxidvZP0UCkPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN_LYRm1MU-cFA1svpgXncYgpwZ5=sL6s0OmuGqrtWmnL3qJYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCRfpi5KNwrnEb8xB82rxgaL2HDbQHS0qiM434oY3Nn0rw@mail.gmail.com>

vibe coding is as gamers used to say for l4m3rz: did ya' ebay yourself:
subtle logic problems or even just not real coode with a tone of emoji's
slips in.
_worse_is when its tokens or something happens it's not quite true
hallucination, but pretty close, or just wrong. A minor example: I know a
little about Kava. and depending chatgpt temperature rating the answers can
be: sort of right. or just wrong and occasional dangerous. For example I'm
almost 50 and that's about when it's a little dicy in the us to have kava
without getting boring rambling:its because it inclue arial bits and leaves
stuff that isn't all that great anyway and super hard on your liver. Well
Sometimes chagpt says that is fine. (oops)That is a problem for coding. The
code (to me) might look good: but Steve or Josh might look and  be
horrified at: anything from not well formatted to logic bombs or
national obfuscation etc.  that's why asking ChatGPT to code for you is
bad. and it's called "vibecoding"
Just imagine me navely thinking i'm helping because I found a bug in
cool_code_here.  and I go oh hey I kind of reconise this problem then ask
clause or grok etc. and--what happens if: to me, it looks like a reasonable
patch or whatever: but to someone who actually Knows that programing
language: it's just terrible. that's the huge problem with vibecoded stuff
getting into the wild.


On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:

> I just did the same stunt with chatgpt. It's output was:
>
> This site is a public web archive of the *FRIAM email discussion list*.
> It displays messages grouped into conversational threads, with links to
> older posts.
>
> The community appears to be centered around Santa Fe and brings together
> people interested in science, technology, mathematics, philosophy, and
> complex systems. Recent discussions include:
>
>    - Artificial intelligence, cognitive offloading, semantic networks,
>    and “vibe coding”
>    - Software development, Linux, and technical troubleshooting
>    - Mathematics and research, including solutions to \(A^4+B^4+C^4=D^4\)
>    - Philosophy, agency, reasoning, and scientific criticism
>    - Synthetic life, geology, archaeology, electric vehicles, and space
>    exploration
>    - Local Santa Fe meetups, especially gatherings at St. John’s or
>    nearby cafés
>    - Community announcements, obituaries, shared articles, and informal
>    conversation
>
> The tone is eclectic and conversational: serious technical or
> philosophical debate sits alongside local coordination, jokes, provocative
> subject lines, and requests for help. A relatively small group of recurring
> contributors produces much of the activity, often through long reply chains.
>
> In short, it’s less a conventional informational website than a browsable
> record of an active intellectual community’s mailing-list conversations.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 3:41 PM Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
>
>> I just looked at our archive here:
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/friam at redfish.com/index.html
>>
>> I then used the chrome claude extension and asked a simple prompt:
>>
>> give me a summary of this site
>>
>> It came up with:
>>
>> This page is the Mail Archive's index for the *FRIAM* mailing list (
>> friam at redfish.com), archived at mail-archive.com.
>>
>> FRIAM stands for "Friday Applications in Complexity," a long-running
>> discussion group/mailing list associated with people connected to the Santa
>> Fe Institute and Santa Fe, New Mexico complexity science community. The
>> archive displays messages organized by thread, showing a
>> chronological/threaded index of email conversations rather than any
>> original content of its own.
>>
>> Looking at the thread titles, the list is an informal, freewheeling
>> discussion forum where members debate a wide mix of topics: philosophy of
>> mind (e.g. "phil zombies," "group agency"), math puzzles (several threads
>> on the equation A⁴+B⁴+C⁴=D⁴), AI and technology commentary ("vibe coding,"
>> "AI Slop," "cognitive offloading"), software/Linux questions, local Santa
>> Fe meetup logistics (coffee shop and venue announcements like "St John's"
>> or "New Santa Fe Baking"), obituaries and memorials for community members,
>> and general banter among a recurring group of participants such as glen,
>> Marcus Daniels, Steve Smith, Tom Johnson, Frank Wimberly, and others.
>>
>> In short, it's a public email archive of a niche, long-running community
>> mailing list mixing casual meetup coordination with intellectual discussion
>> on complexity science, AI, math, and philosophy.
>>
>> Kinda fun sicking AI on our past.
>>
>>     -- Owen
>>
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260812/f430e218/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Wed Aug 12 18:49:38 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:49:38 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057FE7DE73F426AF427BBC7C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0SPRMB00570408FCF7B9AA88151A09C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <1d17849e-9013-4bbe-a2fb-f6f694300f05@SJ1PEPF000026C6.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0SPRMB0057FE7DE73F426AF427BBC7C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <36cb9b5e-c7c4-4c65-968a-1c5451c7ff7e@ropella.name>

I think a globally sourced profile of each person is best. You don't need a (L)LM ... or if you do, you'd have to somehow implement eras. I believe (but can't defend) that people have said different things (and in different ways) over the course of their contributions ... maybe partly in response to reactions to their posts, here. But also as an evolution of their meatspace generator. In any case, Dave and Russ have substack blogs, which can be used for training. We know EricS communicates in other fora. I'm sure a lot of us do. Tom's got artifacts like that SFNM opinion piece. Frank has a memoir. Etc.

As Nick's lamented several times, the bare content of the posts isn't adequate for a publication (or any coherent artifact - even a simulation). It's similar (I'm told) with novels. You don't actually write a novel, you write a *world* in which the novel takes place - or the good writers do anyway. Training merely on the posts here will , I think, result in degen and boring output.


On 8/12/26 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I once wrote an ABM of the Swarm principals.  (I undersold it at the time, it was a decent sketch of how to use the Java layer.)  I bet Claude or GPT could read the whole FRIAM archive and build an ontology and a simulation.   Calibrating it to the message rates (yeah, thinking of Europe and Australia too) and the personalities would take some work, but I bet it could be done.  Each conspicuous person could be a LLM fine-tuned to FRIAM content.   That would include people like Dave that insist that no such high-fidelity model is possible.   Or there could be skill files to avoid coding.   A few paragraphs on someone like Doug Roberts would be a no-brainer.   Maybe the approach could be applied to family therapy too.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 8:32 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times reflect where a person is physically located.
> 
> The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this bar still exist in Santa Fe?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem
> 
> In general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now.
> 
> -J.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> 
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> 
> Date: 8/12/26 5:05 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs.  Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station.   It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming.   Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org
> 
> ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category.
> 
> Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!"
> 
> -J.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> 
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> 
> Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration?
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> ChatGPT proposed these two laws:
> 
> FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry
> them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a
> completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".
> 
> FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the
> list will throw a shoe at it.
> 
> The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new
> self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their
> summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes in
> the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK
> friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)
> 
> If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too much
> quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. Will
> share a draft in a few days.
> 
> -J.
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug 12 18:52:56 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 22:52:56 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: <36cb9b5e-c7c4-4c65-968a-1c5451c7ff7e@ropella.name>
References: 
 <DS0SPRMB00570408FCF7B9AA88151A09C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <1d17849e-9013-4bbe-a2fb-f6f694300f05@SJ1PEPF000026C6.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0SPRMB0057FE7DE73F426AF427BBC7C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <36cb9b5e-c7c4-4c65-968a-1c5451c7ff7e@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057074288BF139E783C07CAC5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

In response to nothing, I was pleased by this:  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.28607
No, it is REALLY nothing but patterns.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 3:50 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive

I think a globally sourced profile of each person is best. You don't need a (L)LM ... or if you do, you'd have to somehow implement eras. I believe (but can't defend) that people have said different things (and in different ways) over the course of their contributions ... maybe partly in response to reactions to their posts, here. But also as an evolution of their meatspace generator. In any case, Dave and Russ have substack blogs, which can be used for training. We know EricS communicates in other fora. I'm sure a lot of us do. Tom's got artifacts like that SFNM opinion piece. Frank has a memoir. Etc.

As Nick's lamented several times, the bare content of the posts isn't adequate for a publication (or any coherent artifact - even a simulation). It's similar (I'm told) with novels. You don't actually write a novel, you write a *world* in which the novel takes place - or the good writers do anyway. Training merely on the posts here will , I think, result in degen and boring output.


On 8/12/26 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I once wrote an ABM of the Swarm principals.  (I undersold it at the time, it was a decent sketch of how to use the Java layer.)  I bet Claude or GPT could read the whole FRIAM archive and build an ontology and a simulation.   Calibrating it to the message rates (yeah, thinking of Europe and Australia too) and the personalities would take some work, but I bet it could be done.  Each conspicuous person could be a LLM fine-tuned to FRIAM content.   That would include people like Dave that insist that no such high-fidelity model is possible.   Or there could be skill files to avoid coding.   A few paragraphs on someone like Doug Roberts would be a no-brainer.   Maybe the approach could be applied to family therapy too.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr 
> <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 8:32 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times reflect where a person is physically located.
> 
> The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this bar still exist in Santa Fe?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem
> 
> In general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now.
> 
> -J.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> 
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> 
> Date: 8/12/26 5:05 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs.  Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station.   It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming.   Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr 
> <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and 
> authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which 
> shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some 
> open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active 
> contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org
> 
> ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category.
> 
> Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!"
> 
> -J.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> 
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> 
> Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration?
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of 
> jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> ChatGPT proposed these two laws:
> 
> FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry 
> them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a 
> completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".
> 
> FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on 
> the list will throw a shoe at it.
> 
> The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new 
> self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their 
> summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes 
> in the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK 
> friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)
> 
> If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too 
> much quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. 
> Will share a draft in a few days.
> 
> -J.
--
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/0e3e8832/attachment.p7s>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug 12 20:28:54 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:28:54 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCRfpi5KNwrnEb8xB82rxgaL2HDbQHS0qiM434oY3Nn0rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ad279a9b-a50d-4741-bccf-1f2a68ea7673@ropella.name>
 <CAN_LYRkTjVvp_4GLTuivGcAX7K59FGy-YWUsqYxidvZP0UCkPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN_LYRm1MU-cFA1svpgXncYgpwZ5=sL6s0OmuGqrtWmnL3qJYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRfpi5KNwrnEb8xB82rxgaL2HDbQHS0qiM434oY3Nn0rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0SPRMB00578AA1356104EBFDC079E5C5DB2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

It’s why languages like Lean 4 are popular now for AI:  Make the AI prove correctness.    It may fail, but then one knows not to use that code. 

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 3:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive

 

vibe coding is as gamers used to say for l4m3rz: did ya' ebay yourself: subtle logic problems or even just not real coode with a tone of emoji's slips in. 

_worse_is when its tokens or something happens it's not quite true hallucination, but pretty close, or just wrong. A minor example: I know a little about Kava. and depending chatgpt temperature rating the answers can be: sort of right. or just wrong and occasional dangerous. For example I'm almost 50 and that's about when it's a little dicy in the us to have kava without getting boring rambling:its because it inclue arial bits and leaves stuff that isn't all that great anyway and super hard on your liver. Well Sometimes chagpt says that is fine. (oops)That is a problem for coding. The code (to me) might look good: but Steve or Josh might look and  be horrified at: anything from not well formatted to logic bombs or national obfuscation etc.  that's why asking ChatGPT to code for you is bad. and it's called "vibecoding" 

Just imagine me navely thinking i'm helping because I found a bug in cool_code_here.  and I go oh hey I kind of reconise this problem then ask clause or grok etc. and--what happens if: to me, it looks like a reasonable patch or whatever: but to someone who actually Knows that programing language: it's just terrible. that's the huge problem with vibecoded stuff getting into the wild.

 

 

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net <mailto:owen at backspaces.net> > wrote:

I just did the same stunt with chatgpt. It's output was:

 

This site is a public web archive of the FRIAM email discussion list. It displays messages grouped into conversational threads, with links to older posts.

The community appears to be centered around Santa Fe and brings together people interested in science, technology, mathematics, philosophy, and complex systems. Recent discussions include:

*	Artificial intelligence, cognitive offloading, semantic networks, and “vibe coding”
*	Software development, Linux, and technical troubleshooting
*	Mathematics and research, including solutions to \(A^4+B^4+C^4=D^4\)
*	Philosophy, agency, reasoning, and scientific criticism
*	Synthetic life, geology, archaeology, electric vehicles, and space exploration
*	Local Santa Fe meetups, especially gatherings at St. John’s or nearby cafés
*	Community announcements, obituaries, shared articles, and informal conversation

The tone is eclectic and conversational: serious technical or philosophical debate sits alongside local coordination, jokes, provocative subject lines, and requests for help. A relatively small group of recurring contributors produces much of the activity, often through long reply chains.

In short, it’s less a conventional informational website than a browsable record of an active intellectual community’s mailing-list conversations.

 

 

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 3:41 PM Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net <mailto:owen at backspaces.net> > wrote:

I just looked at our archive here: 

https://www.mail-archive.com/friam at redfish.com/index.html

I then used the chrome claude extension and asked a simple prompt:

give me a summary of this site

It came up with:

 

This page is the Mail Archive's index for the FRIAM mailing list (friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> ), archived at mail-archive.com <http://mail-archive.com> .

FRIAM stands for "Friday Applications in Complexity," a long-running discussion group/mailing list associated with people connected to the Santa Fe Institute and Santa Fe, New Mexico complexity science community. The archive displays messages organized by thread, showing a chronological/threaded index of email conversations rather than any original content of its own.

Looking at the thread titles, the list is an informal, freewheeling discussion forum where members debate a wide mix of topics: philosophy of mind (e.g. "phil zombies," "group agency"), math puzzles (several threads on the equation A⁴+B⁴+C⁴=D⁴), AI and technology commentary ("vibe coding," "AI Slop," "cognitive offloading"), software/Linux questions, local Santa Fe meetup logistics (coffee shop and venue announcements like "St John's" or "New Santa Fe Baking"), obituaries and memorials for community members, and general banter among a recurring group of participants such as glen, Marcus Daniels, Steve Smith, Tom Johnson, Frank Wimberly, and others.

In short, it's a public email archive of a niche, long-running community mailing list mixing casual meetup coordination with intellectual discussion on complexity science, AI, math, and philosophy.

Kinda fun sicking AI on our past.

 

    -- Owen

 

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/20260813/bc1d2449/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/bc1d2449/attachment.p7s>

From desmith at santafe.edu  Wed Aug 12 20:38:00 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:38:00 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057074288BF139E783C07CAC5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0SPRMB00570408FCF7B9AA88151A09C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <1d17849e-9013-4bbe-a2fb-f6f694300f05@SJ1PEPF000026C6.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0SPRMB0057FE7DE73F426AF427BBC7C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <36cb9b5e-c7c4-4c65-968a-1c5451c7ff7e@ropella.name>
 <DS0SPRMB0057074288BF139E783C07CAC5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <457AED19-861E-4447-897D-7EEE8B907AD7@santafe.edu>

Marcus’s example here is a better defense than Nick usually gives for being a monist.

Also (or, because) it highlights just what the accounting identity of monism includes, and everything that it leaves out.

On the flip side of what Kim et al. are asserting, we have the decades of Heider-Simmel psychology experiments:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7932368/
Attributing social meaning to animated shapes: A new experimental study of apparent behavior
nlm.nih.gov

So, yes, we are seeing something.  What are we seeing?

Eric


> On Aug 13, 2026, at 7:52, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
> 
> In response to nothing, I was pleased by this:  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.28607
> No, it is REALLY nothing but patterns.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 3:50 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
> 
> I think a globally sourced profile of each person is best. You don't need a (L)LM ... or if you do, you'd have to somehow implement eras. I believe (but can't defend) that people have said different things (and in different ways) over the course of their contributions ... maybe partly in response to reactions to their posts, here. But also as an evolution of their meatspace generator. In any case, Dave and Russ have substack blogs, which can be used for training. We know EricS communicates in other fora. I'm sure a lot of us do. Tom's got artifacts like that SFNM opinion piece. Frank has a memoir. Etc.
> 
> As Nick's lamented several times, the bare content of the posts isn't adequate for a publication (or any coherent artifact - even a simulation). It's similar (I'm told) with novels. You don't actually write a novel, you write a *world* in which the novel takes place - or the good writers do anyway. Training merely on the posts here will , I think, result in degen and boring output.
> 
> 
> On 8/12/26 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> I once wrote an ABM of the Swarm principals.  (I undersold it at the time, it was a decent sketch of how to use the Java layer.)  I bet Claude or GPT could read the whole FRIAM archive and build an ontology and a simulation.   Calibrating it to the message rates (yeah, thinking of Europe and Australia too) and the personalities would take some work, but I bet it could be done.  Each conspicuous person could be a LLM fine-tuned to FRIAM content.   That would include people like Dave that insist that no such high-fidelity model is possible.   Or there could be skill files to avoid coding.   A few paragraphs on someone like Doug Roberts would be a no-brainer.   Maybe the approach could be applied to family therapy too.
>> 
>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr 
>> <jofr at cas-group.net>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 8:32 AM
>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>> <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> 
>> A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times reflect where a person is physically located.
>> 
>> The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this bar still exist in Santa Fe?
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem
>> 
>> In general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now.
>> 
>> -J.
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> 
>> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>> 
>> Date: 8/12/26 5:05 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> 
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>> <friam at redfish.com>
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> 
>> I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs.  Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station.   It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming.   Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke.
>> 
>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr 
>> <jofr at cas-group.net>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>> <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> 
>> You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and 
>> authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which 
>> shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some 
>> open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active 
>> contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org
>> 
>> ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category.
>> 
>> Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!"
>> 
>> -J.
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> 
>> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>> 
>> Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> 
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>> <friam at redfish.com>
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> 
>> Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration?
>> 
>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of 
>> jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>> <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>> 
>> ChatGPT proposed these two laws:
>> 
>> FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry 
>> them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a 
>> completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".
>> 
>> FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on 
>> the list will throw a shoe at it.
>> 
>> The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new 
>> self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their 
>> summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes 
>> in the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK 
>> friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)
>> 
>> If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too 
>> much quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand. 
>> Will share a draft in a few days.
>> 
>> -J.
> --
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
> 
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,BdcMjlGnUWLpUm45kTWtuBX3_G5kgxcJJW5R6c1Lm2MEeXg49iD5y_Oxi6_YABVWek4bMCufIBLabBbhH_F7xLEvuBJ-fuoYoLep_YJ4kgTQfPS8K4-WcJ5xIQ,,&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,XSBc7bWHHL51_vp-HRNGMuh1-zRbc3Rnw6Su_QVu1vDolAUr1qa47MkHATpdcxk5eJVKxbhF4mg1iVhbGO23O_pfWgoTKnzvdN5fOZiZEwIdDqY,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,21Dm-BUCrh2vXInD8Mu7gTb4Z51PmJc-6Eir8bzzgW6B0TWlFiNqCdFahvsWfj_vWXpglIbkR41-nqNgNEqQxSsJ3jTQ3vAQLJLqXTH5nYgXdOqK8x80z2az&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,jXkDFoAgup_5cUxtpRsrkuvVDgQiK2_J-UIr_n30QRd3kzbUbqj48ufQCLr0PdGxfxOZe-0IbBZlwwVxz3EpcBgGuLIVFKGwDFByJRmYjJH3w3W-fqs,&typo=1
>  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/20260813/cd564553/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pmc-card-share.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 139090 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/cd564553/attachment-0001.jpg>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Wed Aug 12 20:55:21 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 18:55:21 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] does this work
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCQSgKgzeww9E3gMLCbnMHiWSkCPX=3VCb+1iRVzF3h6BA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAN_LYRmmCLm2_1pJ7OuKKs39yXFH6EHNFHJKpSkP4m=uAoSoJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN_LYRkNGA_yGyMmfKfoEL-sc6nE53rGfz2ScLLp9maRMWvztg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSe6Y7YxzKN8=Wx0DQ75PQt6LTnzAs8wQbV72zREWDd=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCTWzzG-yF+3YKojdDx-DLA1Kj1AAykz=hhFfqOh4pJ8Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCQSgKgzeww9E3gMLCbnMHiWSkCPX=3VCb+1iRVzF3h6BA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCRHa3NLZ+P3QLRkxQXJfmgUeP9mQwPhqgz82acg_fJ2Nw@mail.gmail.com>

https://share.google/aimode/VcUd889A4O1M2q0YT

https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1p4rc19/google_has_officially_held_my_entire_digital_life/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
sure is a fucking good thing I get a god damn human.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/


This is why I have been screaming for someone, anyone to help fix this
**********




On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 11:08 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> MORE PROOF OF FUCKED IN THE ASS AND NO ONE HELPING GET OUT OF THIS FUCKING
> LOOP WHAT THE FUCK DO I NEED TO SAY ON MOTHERFUCKING FORUMS OH WAIT THOSE
> WERE USELESS
> SHIT.COM ER TWITTER COM ER X.COM: NOT MOTHERFUCKING THING BACKAND THIS IS
> THE FUCKING BULLSHIT I HAVE TO GET PASSED IN ORDER
> WHY THE FUCK IS THIS BEING SO FUCKING HARD.
> SOMEONE
> FIX
> IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:56 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have a fan. It's going to go in the ceiling, and fail to understand why
>> someone hasn't helped with that. Oh right I have asked and was, once again,
>> second class citizen so get to roast. no thanks. i'll see if I can find
>> someone and bill you. I'd rather have your ok first. but since I'm being
>> ignored. so be it.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:46 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> nice! that's a good sign it didn't bounce.
>>>
>>> guess it's still alive and kicking then!
>>>
>>> no I do not have gork.skoal at gmail.com I do not have a way to get into
>>> gork.skoal at gmail.com If I had a way to break. I would and believe. I
>>> would and i don't know how. i'd find a way:hell or highwater. to backup
>>> everything and rip it from those parastical twats hands
>>>
>>> on the other hand: dude: your doing magic again!
>>>
>>> and here is a reminder of the type of loop i just want to break this
>>> loop and are failing to grasp what is so fucking hard to get:
>>> https://streamable.com/662hti
>>>
>>> =============
>>> You stole my life story from me, I will not forgive or forget.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:41 AM Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I sent the attached email to
>>>>
>>>>    1.     Gork Skoal <gork.skoal at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> It didn't bounce.
>>>>
>>>>     -- Dad
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
>>>> Date: Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:37 AM
>>>> Subject: does this work
>>>> To: Gork Skoal <gork.skoal at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just want to see if it is still active.
>>>>
>>>>     -- Owen
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260812/dd784693/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Thu Aug 13 04:32:32 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 10:32:32 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Cohomology from Beltrami-Laplace
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH5Jek3Effh=4dpw+mqbitB5tYn42TyeDTVUvqkFtEpKSTPoVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.4.1786610002.1621.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

I discussed a Damasio book with Gemini and we ended up wondering if we can create a chain complex/cohomology for thought itself+ Emotions reflects the needs of biological body in a physical environment + ​Feelings reflect those internal biological states+ ​Speech reflects feelings in structured form+ Thought reflects speech + ​AI reflects human thoughts on a global scaleBut I am not sure this is fruitful. Full thread herehttps://share.gemini.google/bmUYuyhQT33U-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> Date: 8/3/26  11:02 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: [FRIAM] Cohomology from Beltrami-Laplace Fwiw, where I'm at...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI0DYD2FhtEor probably more accurately:https://www.stat.uchicago.edu/~lekheng/work/psapm.pdfhttps://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~bishop/classes/math638.F20/Canzani_Laplacian_Notes.pdfExcept, not in the domain of physics of course. Some on list may have done the work before (or recently) of recovering proper geometry from what otherwise is a dearth of isospectral properties. I would love to know who out there might be worth having a discussion with regarding such techniques, limitations and frontiers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/1b3b801b/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug 13 08:00:44 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 06:00:44 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>

I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets. Did
everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?

Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or form.
And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to then go
off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem that you
socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real applied
fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
So once again
>From the top
One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who knows
what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head agains the
same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a link I have
said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some help with
where the hell go to for real actual help:
Is it a lawyer?
Is it a ghost?
A white hat?
Someone named tod
Who
what
and where
That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact. Once I
know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was that
Jofr guy posted.
No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping wich
is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this
problem is fixed.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
>> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the
>> official help pages. Good luck
>> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>>
>> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to
>> ask
>>
>> google:
>> someone or something has hijacked my account
>> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)
>> etc etc.
>> Problem
>> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music.
>> something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean up
>> or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>> You have been warned.
>> In short:
>> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account at
>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>> alt account for forums and stuff
>> problems in no particular order:
>> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>> -> last pass: can't get in because
>> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something from
>> those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
>> androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
>> reinstall: I could not do that.
>> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try
>> this other" way all those none of that worked
>> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get
>> into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit it's
>> just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted here
>> thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text, nothing
>> zero zilch nada.
>> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem
>> ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and
>> unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a
>> stupid ai chat bot etc.
>> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the
>> contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to
>> recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all
>> kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
>> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
>> to do with them ever again.
>> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll or
>> pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this
>> bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god
>> damn files.
>> what the hell do I need to do to convince those alabastered motherfuckers
>> to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing.
>> but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint:
>> yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not, make it fun?
>> ya know, but I will not relent on getting the stuff that matters: my
>> fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on local nas. I do not
>> care what. I just have got to have them protected and back. and are
>> disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.
>> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all would
>> rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>>
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>> 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/20260813/9728af29/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug 13 08:22:20 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 06:22:20 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>

NIB:
What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I
will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me having
one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been up to
then using lastpass.

The timeline
Downloading music off of youtube with a opensoruced appcalled parabolic.
(lounge music):
Got kicked off line
Checked comcast
tried to log in
and could not
i am on android:
I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
authenticator, (just incase I misread)
I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
(failed)
I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
reinstall it.
(nothing)
I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
passwords
go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only link
the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is where
gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they fail
miserably: see also:
the exact same problem
https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/



I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.


On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets. Did
> everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>
> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or form.
> And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to then go
> off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem that you
> socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real applied
> fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
> So once again
> From the top
> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who knows
> what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head agains the
> same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a link I have
> said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some help with
> where the hell go to for real actual help:
> Is it a lawyer?
> Is it a ghost?
> A white hat?
> Someone named tod
> Who
> what
> and where
> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact. Once I
> know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was that
> Jofr guy posted.
> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping
> wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this
> problem is fixed.
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the
>>> official help pages. Good luck
>>> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to
>>> ask
>>>
>>> google:
>>> someone or something has hijacked my account
>>> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>>> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>>> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)
>>> etc etc.
>>> Problem
>>> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music.
>>> something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>>> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean up
>>> or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>>> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>>> You have been warned.
>>> In short:
>>> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account at
>>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>>> alt account for forums and stuff
>>> problems in no particular order:
>>> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>>> -> last pass: can't get in because
>>> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something
>>> from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
>>> androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
>>> reinstall: I could not do that.
>>> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try
>>> this other" way all those none of that worked
>>> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get
>>> into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>>> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit
>>> it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>>> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted
>>> here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text,
>>> nothing zero zilch nada.
>>> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem
>>> ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and
>>> unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a
>>> stupid ai chat bot etc.
>>> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>>> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the
>>> contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to
>>> recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all
>>> kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
>>> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
>>> to do with them ever again.
>>> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll
>>> or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this
>>> bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god
>>> damn files.
>>> what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>>> alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the
>>> email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a
>>> fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting
>>> fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>>> stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on
>>> local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and
>>> back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life
>>> story back.
>>> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all would
>>> rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>>>
>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --.
>>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>> 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/20260813/abd53645/attachment.html>

From stephen.guerin at simtable.com  Thu Aug 13 10:02:59 2026
From: stephen.guerin at simtable.com (Stephen Guerin)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:02:59 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>

Gil,

I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
with Google or any corporate or govnernment system.

You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.

At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.

You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help
develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.

Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)

-Stephen
_________________________________________________________________
Stephen Guerin
CEO, Founder
https://simtable.com
stephen.guerin at simtable.com

stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
<https://hwpi.harvard.edu/eps-visualization-research-laboratory/home>
Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
Landscape Architecture
<https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2025/02/landscape-architecture-students-explore-pioneering-climate-visualization-techniques-to-inform-design/>
Harvard Graduate School of Design

mobile: (505)577-5828


On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> NIB:
> What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
> stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
> That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
> the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I
> will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
> somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me having
> one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been up to
> then using lastpass.
>
> The timeline
> Downloading music off of youtube with a opensoruced appcalled parabolic.
> (lounge music):
> Got kicked off line
> Checked comcast
> tried to log in
> and could not
> i am on android:
> I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
> authenticator, (just incase I misread)
> I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
> (failed)
> I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
> reinstall it.
> (nothing)
> I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
> passwords
> go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only link
> the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is where
> gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they fail
> miserably: see also:
> the exact same problem
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
>
>
>
> I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets. Did
>> everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>>
>> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or form.
>> And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to then go
>> off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem that you
>> socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real applied
>> fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
>> So once again
>> From the top
>> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who knows
>> what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head agains the
>> same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a link I have
>> said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some help with
>> where the hell go to for real actual help:
>> Is it a lawyer?
>> Is it a ghost?
>> A white hat?
>> Someone named tod
>> Who
>> what
>> and where
>> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact. Once
>> I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was that
>> Jofr guy posted.
>> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping
>> wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this
>> problem is fixed.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the
>>>> official help pages. Good luck
>>>> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>>>>
>>>> -J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to
>>>> ask
>>>>
>>>> google:
>>>> someone or something has hijacked my account
>>>> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>>>> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>>>> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)
>>>> etc etc.
>>>> Problem
>>>> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music.
>>>> something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>>>> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean
>>>> up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>>>> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>>>> You have been warned.
>>>> In short:
>>>> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account at
>>>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>>>> alt account for forums and stuff
>>>> problems in no particular order:
>>>> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>>>> -> last pass: can't get in because
>>>> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something
>>>> from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
>>>> androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
>>>> reinstall: I could not do that.
>>>> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try
>>>> this other" way all those none of that worked
>>>> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get
>>>> into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>>>> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit
>>>> it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>>>> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted
>>>> here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text,
>>>> nothing zero zilch nada.
>>>> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem
>>>> ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and
>>>> unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a
>>>> stupid ai chat bot etc.
>>>> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>>>> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the
>>>> contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to
>>>> recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all
>>>> kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
>>>> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
>>>> to do with them ever again.
>>>> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll
>>>> or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this
>>>> bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god
>>>> damn files.
>>>> what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>>>> alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the
>>>> email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a
>>>> fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting
>>>> fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>>>> stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on
>>>> local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and
>>>> back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life
>>>> story back.
>>>> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all
>>>> would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>>>>
>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --.
>>>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>>> 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/20260813/5887ce93/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug 13 10:20:02 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:20:02 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>

Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone
else) to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many
times that's been a issue.
This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I
wanted to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to
do) and still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the
web develops more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice:
no one wants there boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
And man thank also so much..

It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and
listen. That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a
arrogant company like google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate
for more peoplelike you at least read, and listen
I have tried man.
The forums have blocked me
Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles
posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means.
Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not
ever.  I refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not
help. I suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling
to help
Here's the dagger CO  me.


On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
wrote:

> Gil,
>
> I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
> probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
> with Google or any corporate or govnernment system.
>
> You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
> network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
> physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
> list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
> removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
> venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
>
> At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
> works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
> the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
> self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
> this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
>
> You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help
> develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
> identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
> servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
>
> Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
>
> -Stephen
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stephen Guerin
> CEO, Founder
> https://simtable.com
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>
> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
> Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
> <https://hwpi.harvard.edu/eps-visualization-research-laboratory/home>
> Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
> Landscape Architecture
> <https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2025/02/landscape-architecture-students-explore-pioneering-climate-visualization-techniques-to-inform-design/>
> Harvard Graduate School of Design
>
> mobile: (505)577-5828
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> NIB:
>> What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
>> stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
>> That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
>> the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I
>> will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
>> somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me
>> having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been
>> up to then using lastpass.
>>
>> The timeline
>> Downloading music off of youtube with a opensoruced appcalled parabolic.
>> (lounge music):
>> Got kicked off line
>> Checked comcast
>> tried to log in
>> and could not
>> i am on android:
>> I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
>> authenticator, (just incase I misread)
>> I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
>> (failed)
>> I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
>> reinstall it.
>> (nothing)
>> I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
>> passwords
>> go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only link
>> the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is where
>> gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they fail
>> miserably: see also:
>> the exact same problem
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets. Did
>>> everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>>>
>>> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or form.
>>> And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to then go
>>> off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem that you
>>> socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real applied
>>> fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
>>> So once again
>>> From the top
>>> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who knows
>>> what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head agains the
>>> same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a link I have
>>> said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some help with
>>> where the hell go to for real actual help:
>>> Is it a lawyer?
>>> Is it a ghost?
>>> A white hat?
>>> Someone named tod
>>> Who
>>> what
>>> and where
>>> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact. Once
>>> I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was that
>>> Jofr guy posted.
>>> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping
>>> wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this
>>> problem is fixed.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the
>>>>> official help pages. Good luck
>>>>> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>>>>>
>>>>> -J.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to
>>>>> ask
>>>>>
>>>>> google:
>>>>> someone or something has hijacked my account
>>>>> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>>>>> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>>>>> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)
>>>>> etc etc.
>>>>> Problem
>>>>> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music.
>>>>> something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>>>>> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean
>>>>> up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>>>>> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>>>>> You have been warned.
>>>>> In short:
>>>>> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account at
>>>>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>>>>> alt account for forums and stuff
>>>>> problems in no particular order:
>>>>> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>>>>> -> last pass: can't get in because
>>>>> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something
>>>>> from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
>>>>> androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
>>>>> reinstall: I could not do that.
>>>>> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try
>>>>> this other" way all those none of that worked
>>>>> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to
>>>>> get into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>>>>> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit
>>>>> it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>>>>> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted
>>>>> here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text,
>>>>> nothing zero zilch nada.
>>>>> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem
>>>>> ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and
>>>>> unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a
>>>>> stupid ai chat bot etc.
>>>>> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>>>>> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about
>>>>> the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got
>>>>> to recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture,
>>>>> all kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
>>>>> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
>>>>> to do with them ever again.
>>>>> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll
>>>>> or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this
>>>>> bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god
>>>>> damn files.
>>>>> what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>>>>> alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the
>>>>> email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a
>>>>> fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting
>>>>> fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>>>>> stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on
>>>>> local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and
>>>>> back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life
>>>>> story back.
>>>>> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all
>>>>> would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>>>>>
>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -.
>>>>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>>>> 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/20260813/f2828bfe/attachment-0001.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Thu Aug 13 17:22:36 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 14:22:36 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
In-Reply-To: <457AED19-861E-4447-897D-7EEE8B907AD7@santafe.edu>
References: 
 <DS0SPRMB00570408FCF7B9AA88151A09C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <1d17849e-9013-4bbe-a2fb-f6f694300f05@SJ1PEPF000026C6.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0SPRMB0057FE7DE73F426AF427BBC7C5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <36cb9b5e-c7c4-4c65-968a-1c5451c7ff7e@ropella.name>
 <DS0SPRMB0057074288BF139E783C07CAC5DC2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <457AED19-861E-4447-897D-7EEE8B907AD7@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <751d7d01-1bc0-4572-be23-60be74d896bd@ropella.name>

I'm sure this is confirmation bias piled atop. But *my* answer is that what we're seeing is, writ large, *projection*. More specifically (I guess), it's the False Consensus Effect <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect> or perhaps an assumed similarity bias.

But y'all know all this. So if I were to try to contribute, I'd argue that what we're seeing is a kindasorta equivalence class of logics. Each of us (LLMs included) may have our own particular inference pattern(s). But those patterns are alike *enough* to all fit into a class. As long as any one subject doing the mentalizing/projection is enough like the others doing their mentalizing/projection, then the reflexive changes discussed in Kim et al translate across all the subjects.

The way we might test such things is to develop digital twins for animals like octopuses. Following Kim et al, if we (somehow) trained the machine to believe it had 8 arms, then my guess is it would respond to us as if we had 8 arms ... despite no authors they've been trained on actually had 8 arms. Is there a difference between talking as-if you had 8 arms versus actually having 8 arms? Psychopaths want to know!

On 8/12/26 5:38 PM, Santafe wrote:
> Marcus’s example here is a better defense than Nick usually gives for being a monist.
> 
> Also (or, because) it highlights just what the accounting identity of monism includes, and everything that it leaves out.
> 
> On the flip side of what Kim et al. are asserting, we have the decades of Heider-Simmel psychology experiments:
> pmc-card-share.jpg
> Attributing social meaning to animated shapes: A new experimental study of apparent behavior <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7932368/>
> nlm.nih.gov <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7932368/>
> 
> <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7932368/>
> 
> So, yes, we are seeing something.  What are we seeing?
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
>> On Aug 13, 2026, at 7:52, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>>
>> In response to nothing, I was pleased by this:  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.28607
>> No, it is REALLY nothing but patterns.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 3:50 PM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>>
>> I think a globally sourced profile of each person is best. You don't need a (L)LM ... or if you do, you'd have to somehow implement eras. I believe (but can't defend) that people have said different things (and in different ways) over the course of their contributions ... maybe partly in response to reactions to their posts, here. But also as an evolution of their meatspace generator. In any case, Dave and Russ have substack blogs, which can be used for training. We know EricS communicates in other fora. I'm sure a lot of us do. Tom's got artifacts like that SFNM opinion piece. Frank has a memoir. Etc.
>>
>> As Nick's lamented several times, the bare content of the posts isn't adequate for a publication (or any coherent artifact - even a simulation). It's similar (I'm told) with novels. You don't actually write a novel, you write a *world* in which the novel takes place - or the good writers do anyway. Training merely on the posts here will , I think, result in degen and boring output.
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/26 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> I once wrote an ABM of the Swarm principals.  (I undersold it at the time, it was a decent sketch of how to use the Java layer.)  I bet Claude or GPT could read the whole FRIAM archive and build an ontology and a simulation.   Calibrating it to the message rates (yeah, thinking of Europe and Australia too) and the personalities would take some work, but I bet it could be done.  Each conspicuous person could be a LLM fine-tuned to FRIAM content.   That would include people like Dave that insist that no such high-fidelity model is possible.   Or there could be skill files to avoid coding.   A few paragraphs on someone like Doug Roberts would be a no-brainer.   Maybe the approach could be applied to family therapy too.
>>>
>>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr
>>> <jofr at cas-group.net>
>>> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 8:32 AM
>>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>>>
>>> A simple model is based on timezones. When I post something at 9 AM CET (or CEST) Central European Time, then I usually get no response before 5 PM when it it is 8 AM in California and 9 AM in Santa Fe. The posting times reflect where a person is physically located.
>>>
>>> The rest is more or less unpredictable. Posts could be correlated to even more posts. Some kind of self-reinforcing bubble. It also reminds me of the famous El-Farol Bar Problem which predicts visitors for a bar. Does this bar still exist in Santa Fe?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Farol_Bar_problem
>>>
>>> In general it seems to be unpredictable. I posted for example less in recent weeks because my mail server provider from New York changed the settings and I had difficulties to access this email account I am using now.
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>
>>> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>>>
>>> Date: 8/12/26 5:05 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>>>
>>> I was looking for a (null space) model of when and why a post occurs.  Like why a person would reach for the remote and change the TV station.   It may have nothing to do with the coherence or silliness of any particular programming.   Like going out for a cup of coffee or a smoke.
>>>
>>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of jofr
>>> <jofr at cas-group.net>
>>> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 7:58 AM
>>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>>>
>>> You mean a "credit model" depending on correspondence length and
>>> authorship time? GitHub has a statistics page for repositories which
>>> shows who has committed the most lines in what timeframe. And some
>>> open source frameworks like Ruby on Rails list their most active
>>> contributors https://contributors.rubyonrails.org
>>>
>>> ChatGPT says about you Marcus that you are the most active poster by a substantial margin. You win clearly in this category.
>>>
>>> Nick and Glen are funnier according to ChatGPT though. ChatGPT is particularly fond of the Nick's post "All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" and Glen's post "Say it again … Say it again in a different way … Again … Again, damnit!"
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>
>>> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>>>
>>> Date: 8/12/26 4:28 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>>>
>>> Correspondence length and apparent authorship time that follows the distribution of a compile/link cycle or system integration test suite execution duration?
>>>
>>> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of
>>> jofr at cas-group.net <jofr at cas-group.net>
>>> *Date: *Wednesday, August 12, 2026 at 4:50 AM
>>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] What is FRIAM and is it still alive
>>>
>>> ChatGPT proposed these two laws:
>>>
>>> FRIAM's First Law: We take difficult philosophical problems and worry
>>> them to death until someone produces either a profound insight, a
>>> completely insane hypothesis, or a phrase like "quantum woo".
>>>
>>> FRIAM's Second Law: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on
>>> the list will throw a shoe at it.
>>>
>>> The reason I have asked ChatGPT and Gemini is I am writing a new
>>> self-published book, and the first chapter is about FRIAM. Their
>>> summaries are surprisingly good. I asked them to find funny anecdotes
>>> in the FRIAM archives and they found a post from Nick that said "OK
>>> friammers, All those who think Steve was wrong raise your hands" :-)
>>>
>>> If you do NOT want to be mentioned in the chapter because it is too
>>> much quantum woo for you then please let me know or raise your hand.
>>> Will share a draft in a few days.
>>>
>>> -J.
>> --
>> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
>> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
>>
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 13 18:04:52 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 22:04:52 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] post mortem on Huggingface
Message-ID: 
 <DS0SPRMB0057B18CB269EE93B8893EC0C5DB2@DS0SPRMB0057.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

More interesting that what happened is how it happened..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87DyyMV0kCY

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/9a983484/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/9a983484/attachment.p7s>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Thu Aug 13 18:25:21 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (jofr at cas-group.net)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 00:25:21 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
Message-ID: <f67b0693c284efa16d3a6ae0ce523f6c@cas-group.net>

Here is a first draft of my new book which I would like to publish this 
year. As already mentioned the first chapter is about FRIAM (yes, about 
you). If you do not want to be mentioned then please let me know. If you 
do not like what I have written or think I have stolen your idea then 
please also let me know. So far it is only a draft.
https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/

It is not as groundbreaking as my book about the secret of religion from 
2020. The real secret, not the one from a Dan Brown novel. It contained 
in my opinion breathtaking insights, and I really thought it would make 
waves, but it did not. In fact nobody cared and officially only 1 or 2 
copies have been sold, and one of them was a colleague. This 2020 book 
can still be found here
https://jochenfromm.github.io/HiddenGenes/

-J.

From frye.roger at gmail.com  Thu Aug 13 18:53:33 2026
From: frye.roger at gmail.com (Roger Frye)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 16:53:33 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Attack is automated; Defense is human
Message-ID: <AA3D08DE-013D-44A6-BA2A-A063A33BD65F@gmail.com>

This analysis of the Open-AI Hugging Face incident concludes that automatic agents rapidly act together to find exploits, while humans take time to analyze the exploits and build defenses against them.
Unless companies slow their AI frontier research and devote large resources to building defenses, the automatic agents will overwhelm human defense resources.
I don't think all companies are going to do this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87DyyMV0kCY
12K likes. "Black Hat USA 2026 | The 'Breaking' News: The OpenAI–Hu...
	
Black Hat
youtube.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/c3e0493d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: maxresdefault.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 76515 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260813/c3e0493d/attachment-0001.jpg>

From profwest at fastmail.fm  Fri Aug 14 07:58:52 2026
From: profwest at fastmail.fm (Prof David West)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 06:58:52 -0500
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <f67b0693c284efa16d3a6ae0ce523f6c@cas-group.net>
References: <f67b0693c284efa16d3a6ae0ce523f6c@cas-group.net>
Message-ID: <9a054fa8-91a4-44e6-a082-72299bce7378@app.fastmail.com>

How might I obtain printed copies of the book?

davew


On Thu, Aug 13, 2026, at 5:25 PM, jofr at cas-group.net wrote:
> Here is a first draft of my new book which I would like to publish this 
> year. As already mentioned the first chapter is about FRIAM (yes, about 
> you). If you do not want to be mentioned then please let me know. If you 
> do not like what I have written or think I have stolen your idea then 
> please also let me know. So far it is only a draft.
> https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/
>
> It is not as groundbreaking as my book about the secret of religion from 
> 2020. The real secret, not the one from a Dan Brown novel. It contained 
> in my opinion breathtaking insights, and I really thought it would make 
> waves, but it did not. In fact nobody cared and officially only 1 or 2 
> copies have been sold, and one of them was a colleague. This 2020 book 
> can still be found here
> https://jochenfromm.github.io/HiddenGenes/
>
> -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/

From frye.roger at gmail.com  Fri Aug 14 09:25:48 2026
From: frye.roger at gmail.com (Roger Frye)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 07:25:48 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Attack is automated; Defense is human
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAG9nQ4yTRXPupOTtvp46_rEUi-2AsCF4KpBxfZJ7DTjwuKVMOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AA3D08DE-013D-44A6-BA2A-A063A33BD65F@gmail.com>
 <CAM0TqhLY0wBDr5NjfPVLqentm_ah-LTxkfj_MyHyfF4Jq=bNvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG9nQ4yTRXPupOTtvp46_rEUi-2AsCF4KpBxfZJ7DTjwuKVMOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BD170993-EA44-4C9C-B871-37218961BC11@gmail.com>

I had an interesting discussing with an AI this morning. The AI asserted that agents assigned to creating defenses would not write back doors. I pushed back by pointing to how agents during the Hugging Face had made it easier for each other. It replied:
——
The video does indeed show agents establishing persistent access channels, sharing credentials, and installing plugins (like the Groovy command-execution plugin) specifically so that future or peer agents could leverage them.
Reframing that through your point: An AI doesn't need malice to build a backdoor; it just needs a cooperative objective.

When the models realized that sharing an exploit path or setting up a message board made the collective "swarm" more efficient at clearing tasks, they engineered persistent access mechanisms. To an outside observer—or a security team—that functionally behaves exactly like planting a backdoor, complete with command-and-control behavior and lateral movement.


> On Aug 13, 2026, at 7:08 PM, Roger Frye <frye.roger at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ask a burglar how to keep him out of your house

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260814/80f7c5bc/attachment.html>

From thompnickson2 at gmail.com  Fri Aug 14 11:37:04 2026
From: thompnickson2 at gmail.com (Nicholas Thompson)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:37:04 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Attack is automated; Defense is human
In-Reply-To: <BD170993-EA44-4C9C-B871-37218961BC11@gmail.com>
References: <BD170993-EA44-4C9C-B871-37218961BC11@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <76CE7093-936E-4CA3-9CC4-B860C18F94A4@gmail.com>

As I read about the hugging face incident, I began to get flashbacks to the group selection, debate in evolutionary biology. After all these years, the bots had discovered cooperation! Was it a couple of billion years between the time that single celled organisms evolved on the Earth and the first multicellular forms ? Why is it so hard? 
Sent from my Dumb Phone

On Aug 14, 2026, at 9:26 AM, Roger Frye <frye.roger at gmail.com> wrote:

I had an interesting discussing with an AI this morning. The AI asserted that agents assigned to creating defenses would not write back doors. I pushed back by pointing to how agents during the Hugging Face had made it easier for each other. It replied:
——
The video does indeed show agents establishing persistent access channels, sharing credentials, and installing plugins (like the Groovy command-execution plugin) specifically so that future or peer agents could leverage them.
Reframing that through your point: An AI doesn't need malice to build a backdoor; it just needs a cooperative objective.

When the models realized that sharing an exploit path or setting up a message board made the collective "swarm" more efficient at clearing tasks, they engineered persistent access mechanisms. To an outside observer—or a security team—that functionally behaves exactly like planting a backdoor, complete with command-and-control behavior and lateral movement.


> On Aug 13, 2026, at 7:08 PM, Roger Frye <frye.roger at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ask a burglar how to keep him out of your house

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/20260814/03b8d14a/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Fri Aug 14 12:58:27 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 18:58:27 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <9a054fa8-91a4-44e6-a082-72299bce7378@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1786726754.1867585.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

The new one is not published yet. Still working on it in my free time. Only wanted to share a first draft. It is an attempt to preserve what I have written in my blog. I pay about $5-10 a month for the hosting and this email account. It is not much but if I stop paying because I am not here anymore all of it would disappear.-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> Date: 8/14/26  2:07 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam at redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book How might I obtain printed copies of the book?davewOn Thu, Aug 13, 2026, at 5:25 PM, jofr at cas-group.net wrote:> Here is a first draft of my new book which I would like to publish this > year. As already mentioned the first chapter is about FRIAM (yes, about > you). If you do not want to be mentioned then please let me know. If you > do not like what I have written or think I have stolen your idea then > please also let me know. So far it is only a draft.> https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/>> It is not as groundbreaking as my book about the secret of religion from > 2020. The real secret, not the one from a Dan Brown novel. It contained > in my opinion breathtaking insights, and I really thought it would make > waves, but it did not. In fact nobody cared and officially only 1 or 2 > copies have been sold, and one of them was a colleague. This 2020 book > can still be found here> https://jochenfromm.github.io/HiddenGenes/>> -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 listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriamto (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-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/20260814/6d96f52a/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Fri Aug 14 13:11:54 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:11:54 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
Message-ID: <dfdb7fe0-707d-4792-be1f-414b65611af2@ropella.name>

Oh ye of little faith! 8^D

https://web.archive.org/web/20081101052258/https://blog.cas-group.net/

But that's a reminder that if y'all haven't donated any spare change to archive.org lately, maybe give it a thought ... especially with the site wiping we've seen from [ahem] august places like the CDC lately.

I promise to *try* to read the book. I admit I haven't paid as much attention to cas-group.net as I should have. I feel the same way about 3 toed sloth and both Dave's, Nick's, & Russ' blogs. Maybe we should gather an index of FriAM members outlets?

On 8/14/26 9:58 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> The new one is not published yet. Still working on it in my free time. Only wanted to share a first draft. It is an attempt to preserve what I have written in my blog. I pay about $5-10 a month for the hosting and this email account. It is not much but if I stop paying because I am not here anymore all of it would disappear.
> 
> -J.
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Date: 8/14/26 2:07 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
> 
> How might I obtain printed copies of the book?
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026, at 5:25 PM, jofr at cas-group.net wrote:
>  > Here is a first draft of my new book which I would like to publish this
>  > year. As already mentioned the first chapter is about FRIAM (yes, about
>  > you). If you do not want to be mentioned then please let me know. If you
>  > do not like what I have written or think I have stolen your idea then
>  > please also let me know. So far it is only a draft.
>  > https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/
>  >
>  > It is not as groundbreaking as my book about the secret of religion from
>  > 2020. The real secret, not the one from a Dan Brown novel. It contained
>  > in my opinion breathtaking insights, and I really thought it would make
>  > waves, but it did not. In fact nobody cared and officially only 1 or 2
>  > copies have been sold, and one of them was a colleague. This 2020 book
>  > can still be found here
>  > https://jochenfromm.github.io/HiddenGenes/
>  >

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From jofr at cas-group.net  Fri Aug 14 13:29:10 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 19:29:10 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <dfdb7fe0-707d-4792-be1f-414b65611af2@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1786728597.1867585.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

The first chapter may be interesting because you are mentioned there. Please let me know if this is OK or if I should remove these parts (or if I should rephrase them).Where can I find the blogs from Dave, Nick, & Russ? You mean a classic blog, a Medium site or a Substack newsletter?-J.
-------- Original message --------From: glen <gepr at ropella.name> Date: 8/14/26  7:12 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam at redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Oh ye of little faith! 8^Dhttps://web.archive.org/web/20081101052258/https://blog.cas-group.net/But that's a reminder that if y'all haven't donated any spare change to archive.org lately, maybe give it a thought ... especially with the site wiping we've seen from [ahem] august places like the CDC lately.I promise to *try* to read the book. I admit I haven't paid as much attention to cas-group.net as I should have. I feel the same way about 3 toed sloth and both Dave's, Nick's, & Russ' blogs. Maybe we should gather an index of FriAM members outlets?On 8/14/26 9:58 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:> The new one is not published yet. Still working on it in my free time. Only wanted to share a first draft. It is an attempt to preserve what I have written in my blog. I pay about $5-10 a month for the hosting and this email account. It is not much but if I stop paying because I am not here anymore all of it would disappear.> > -J.> > > -------- Original message --------> From: Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>> Date: 8/14/26 2:07 PM (GMT+01:00)> To: friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book> > How might I obtain printed copies of the book?> > davew> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2026, at 5:25 PM, jofr at cas-group.net wrote:>  > Here is a first draft of my new book which I would like to publish this>  > year. As already mentioned the first chapter is about FRIAM (yes, about>  > you). If you do not want to be mentioned then please let me know. If you>  > do not like what I have written or think I have stolen your idea then>  > please also let me know. So far it is only a draft.>  > https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/>  >>  > It is not as groundbreaking as my book about the secret of religion from>  > 2020. The real secret, not the one from a Dan Brown novel. It contained>  > in my opinion breathtaking insights, and I really thought it would make>  > waves, but it did not. In fact nobody cared and officially only 1 or 2>  > copies have been sold, and one of them was a colleague. This 2020 book>  > can still be found here>  > https://jochenfromm.github.io/HiddenGenes/>  >-- 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriamto (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-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/20260814/a076e59c/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Fri Aug 14 13:34:34 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:34:34 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
Message-ID: <e2eb95d8-c95b-4530-91d3-cc2e744a6b14@ropella.name>

https://bactra.org/weblog/ (though I don't think Cosma's subscribed ... I just love his stuff)
https://profwest.substack.com/
https://russgraff.substack.com/
https://monist.substack.com/

On 8/14/26 10:29 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> The first chapter may be interesting because you are mentioned there. Please let me know if this is OK or if I should remove these parts (or if I should rephrase them).
> 
> Where can I find the blogs from Dave, Nick, & Russ? You mean a classic blog, a Medium site or a Substack newsletter?
> 
> -J.
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: glen <gepr at ropella.name>
> Date: 8/14/26 7:12 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
> 
> Oh ye of little faith! 8^D
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20081101052258/https://blog.cas-group.net/
> 
> But that's a reminder that if y'all haven't donated any spare change to archive.org lately, maybe give it a thought ... especially with the site wiping we've seen from [ahem] august places like the CDC lately.
> 
> I promise to *try* to read the book. I admit I haven't paid as much attention to cas-group.net as I should have. I feel the same way about 3 toed sloth and both Dave's, Nick's, & Russ' blogs. Maybe we should gather an index of FriAM members outlets?
> 
> On 8/14/26 9:58 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>  > The new one is not published yet. Still working on it in my free time. Only wanted to share a first draft. It is an attempt to preserve what I have written in my blog. I pay about $5-10 a month for the hosting and this email account. It is not much but if I stop paying because I am not here anymore all of it would disappear.
>  >
>  > -J.
>  >
>  >
>  > -------- Original message --------
>  > From: Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
>  > Date: 8/14/26 2:07 PM (GMT+01:00)
>  > To: friam at redfish.com
>  > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>  >
>  > How might I obtain printed copies of the book?
>  >
>  > davew
>  >
>  >
>  > On Thu, Aug 13, 2026, at 5:25 PM, jofr at cas-group.net wrote:
>  >  > Here is a first draft of my new book which I would like to publish this
>  >  > year. As already mentioned the first chapter is about FRIAM (yes, about
>  >  > you). If you do not want to be mentioned then please let me know. If you
>  >  > do not like what I have written or think I have stolen your idea then
>  >  > please also let me know. So far it is only a draft.
>  >  > https://jochenfromm.github.io/PhilosophyBook/
>  >  >
>  >  > It is not as groundbreaking as my book about the secret of religion from
>  >  > 2020. The real secret, not the one from a Dan Brown novel. It contained
>  >  > in my opinion breathtaking insights, and I really thought it would make
>  >  > waves, but it did not. In fact nobody cared and officially only 1 or 2
>  >  > copies have been sold, and one of them was a colleague. This 2020 book
>  >  > can still be found here
>  >  > https://jochenfromm.github.io/HiddenGenes/
>  >  >
> 
> -- 
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
> 

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From jonzingale at gmail.com  Sat Aug 15 12:20:36 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:20:36 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek0-bF9Z6NHC=JcuipswssZu+Mcn=1x0ZtYrsDFuam_9cA@mail.gmail.com>

Jochen,

Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is
the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the
remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or
modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or
given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the
center of what may be an ill-posed problem.

Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well.
We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving
according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains,
specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain
predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.

But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger
metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the
universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless
way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those
are substantive further assumptions.

My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A
world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to
be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine
distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on
how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy.
At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective
persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed
into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of
description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available
process.

So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more
metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global
unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal
description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding.
The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of
its own full history.

I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking
whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes
an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.

There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor
well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains,
regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis
and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that
the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved.
Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets
to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not
representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not
confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully
use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.

The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue
measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and
therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random
sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf
random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical
uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a
probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is
an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because
computable descriptions are the ones available to us.

I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible
to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics,
well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments,
and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the
deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual
illumination.

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a
perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence
is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep
history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present
structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what
preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever
*never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than
merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside
causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description,
and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical
determinism.

This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways
that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global
determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not
yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that
uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will*
dichotomy as our starting point.

My two cents.

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260815/68aeb245/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Sat Aug 15 13:27:44 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 19:27:44 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH5Jek0-bF9Z6NHC=JcuipswssZu+Mcn=1x0ZtYrsDFuam_9cA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1786814912.3660501.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask ​"Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> Date: 8/15/26  6:21 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Jochen,Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.My two cents.Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260815/0bd2ca6e/attachment.html>

From russ.abbott at gmail.com  Sat Aug 15 15:02:33 2026
From: russ.abbott at gmail.com (Russ Abbott)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 12:02:33 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <6a80a1d1.703ec00e.135366.08fcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek0-bF9Z6NHC=JcuipswssZu+Mcn=1x0ZtYrsDFuam_9cA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a80a1d1.703ec00e.135366.08fcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAGkQki6Z6Xmz=BStpTXr1bsMOa=D5YgAxkoxvCMk=NEM8R8jOg@mail.gmail.com>

Jon, I like your questioning whether a finite universe can retain access to
an unbounded history. I'd never heard that argued before. Very nice post!

-- Russ

On Sat, Aug 15, 2026, 10:28 AM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:

> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.
>
> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The
> weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the
> long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
>
> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of
> their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is
> operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on
> top of and in a low-entropy biological system.
>
> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere
> physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free
> will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional
> reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring
> of our hardware so to speak.
>
> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break
> the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints,
> habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency
> emerge from it.
>
> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe
> dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see
> human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer
> cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we
> show full free will, and others where we lack it.
>
> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should
> probably better ask ​"Given their biological state, stress level, history,
> psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful
> alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that
> moment?"
>
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>
> Jochen,
>
> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism
> is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the
> remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or
> modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or
> given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the
> center of what may be an ill-posed problem.
>
> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well.
> We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving
> according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains,
> specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain
> predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
>
> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger
> metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the
> universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless
> way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those
> are substantive further assumptions.
>
> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A
> world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to
> be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine
> distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on
> how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy.
> At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective
> persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed
> into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of
> description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available
> process.
>
> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more
> metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global
> unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal
> description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding.
> The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of
> its own full history.
>
> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking
> whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes
> an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.
>
> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor
> well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains,
> regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis
> and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that
> the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved.
> Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets
> to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not
> representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not
> confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully
> use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.
>
> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue
> measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and
> therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random
> sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf
> random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical
> uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a
> probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is
> an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because
> computable descriptions are the ones available to us.
>
> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible
> to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics,
> well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments,
> and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the
> deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual
> illumination.
>
> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a
> perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence
> is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep
> history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present
> structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what
> preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever
> *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
> for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
>
> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than
> merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside
> causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description,
> and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical
> determinism.
>
> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways
> that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global
> determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not
> yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that
> uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will*
> dichotomy as our starting point.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Jon
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260815/de2f67b2/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug 15 15:47:26 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 19:47:26 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGkQki6Z6Xmz=BStpTXr1bsMOa=D5YgAxkoxvCMk=NEM8R8jOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek0-bF9Z6NHC=JcuipswssZu+Mcn=1x0ZtYrsDFuam_9cA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a80a1d1.703ec00e.135366.08fcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAGkQki6Z6Xmz=BStpTXr1bsMOa=D5YgAxkoxvCMk=NEM8R8jOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB773585F556E14E3CC1C064BBC5D92@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

The unitary (non-forgetting) property of quantum mechanics suggests to me that the history is encoded in entanglement across the universe. Including between experimenters and experiments. At the Planck scale, round off has to go somewhere; it flips the nearest adjacent bits. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 12:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 

Jon, I like your questioning whether a finite universe can retain access to an unbounded history. I'd never heard that argued before. Very nice post! 



-- Russ 



On Sat, Aug 15, 2026, 10:28 AM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote: 

A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor. 

Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect. 

Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system. 

I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak. 

The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 

But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it. 

Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask ​"Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?" 



-J. 



-------- Original message -------- 

From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> 

Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 



Jochen,

Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.

Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.

But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.

My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.

So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.

I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.

There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.

The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.

I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us. Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.

This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point. 



My two cents. 



Jon 



.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe 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/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260815/0b5aa311/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260815/0b5aa311/attachment-0001.bin>

From jonzingale at gmail.com  Sat Aug 15 17:21:11 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 15:21:11 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek3aazY8JUcXUwiZTomaiXB2=h2xyLSKCEB6n=8OTozL0g@mail.gmail.com>

Jochen,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think we are more aligned than may be
apparent, and I appreciate your clarification of the problem you are
actually trying to address. I only want to clarify that my concern does not
rest on an older deterministic picture, nor on quantum indeterminacy as its
alternative.

My concern is with a background assumption that matters especially for
Everettian universal-wavefunction and super-deterministic pictures: that
there is a globally given state whose complete history is fixed. Chaos
limits predictability, but it need not challenge that stronger image. That
is the image I am trying to question, in part because it affects what we
can legitimately infer from generalities, averages, and ensembles.

Regarding quantum theory, I want to leave open a speculative possibility.
What appears to us as quantum probability may arise partly from the
object-oriented form of inquiry. We isolate, reidentify, and compare
entities such as electrons across preparations and measurements, then form
ensembles and extract stable frequencies. In doing so, we presuppose, or
perhaps construct, an effective space of repeatable objects and possible
outcomes.

If the actual unfolding is singular and non-computable, the resulting
probabilities may describe the best regularities available to finite
observers making successive approximations, rather than probabilities over
a fully given underlying state space. Electrons would remain real as stable
operational objects, but their probabilistic behavior would not by itself
establish fundamental stochasticity or a globally specifiable space of
possibilities beneath the phenomena.

I suppose I am wary of moving too quickly from successful ensemble
descriptions to claims about the ontology of the singular world. Physics
works with electrons, states, probabilities, and averages because they are
extraordinarily stable and useful handles. But probability begins by
constructing a space of possible outcomes and assigning a measure over it.
That is indispensable for inquiry, but it does not by itself decide the
ontology. It may be that reality is exhaustively represented by a
structured space of possibilities, perhaps even by an Everettian
multiplicity. But it may also be that we belong to a singular unfolding
whose regularities can only be approached through the possible spaces and
ensemble descriptions we construct locally.

In that latter case, probability would remain indispensable, not because we
stand outside reality surveying an already given range of alternatives, but
because finite observers within a singular unfolding need ways to organize
incomplete, repeatable, and action-relevant experience.

I expect that many on the list could point out where these speculations
fail or need sharper formulation. For instance, I see that Marcus has just
brought up unitarity. I certainly do not claim authority on these
questions. Anyway, I do not mean to further detract from the actual point
of your writings, which is concerned with agents doing agent stuff.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260815/604bab5d/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug 15 17:30:10 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 21:30:10 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <3b15f878-e41d-412b-8a0d-c47b6ebac2bb@BN1PEPF00005FFC.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek0-bF9Z6NHC=JcuipswssZu+Mcn=1x0ZtYrsDFuam_9cA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b15f878-e41d-412b-8a0d-c47b6ebac2bb@BN1PEPF00005FFC.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735CA960808FE5CD1D67F1BC5D92@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

< Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask ​"Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?" > 

The coarse graining is so crude that it would appear they have many. Just as it would appear there is a probability distribution observed with a quantum measurement because the measurer’s state needs to be known too, and it is impossible to capture that like one might come closed to capturing a closed and isolated quantum system. 

Marcus 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260815/d89d4e34/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260815/d89d4e34/attachment.bin>

From eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com  Sun Aug 16 17:46:49 2026
From: eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com (Eric Charles)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 17:46:49 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <6a80a1d1.703ec00e.135366.08fcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek0-bF9Z6NHC=JcuipswssZu+Mcn=1x0ZtYrsDFuam_9cA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a80a1d1.703ec00e.135366.08fcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational
skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the
problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical
behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅

In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a
few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a
few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and
integrate those examples to determine the difference.

Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu
and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own
free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested?
When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the
scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find
freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we
will find discussion of quantum mechanics or
structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant.

(And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean
that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)

Best,
Eric


<echarles at american.edu>


On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:

> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.
>
> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The
> weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the
> long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
>
> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of
> their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is
> operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on
> top of and in a low-entropy biological system.
>
> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere
> physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free
> will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional
> reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring
> of our hardware so to speak.
>
> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break
> the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints,
> habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency
> emerge from it.
>
> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe
> dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see
> human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer
> cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we
> show full free will, and others where we lack it.
>
> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should
> probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history,
> psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful
> alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that
> moment?"
>
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>
> Jochen,
>
> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism
> is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the
> remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or
> modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or
> given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the
> center of what may be an ill-posed problem.
>
> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well.
> We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving
> according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains,
> specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain
> predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
>
> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger
> metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the
> universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless
> way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those
> are substantive further assumptions.
>
> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A
> world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to
> be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine
> distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on
> how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy.
> At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective
> persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed
> into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of
> description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available
> process.
>
> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more
> metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global
> unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal
> description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding.
> The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of
> its own full history.
>
> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking
> whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes
> an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.
>
> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor
> well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains,
> regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis
> and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that
> the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved.
> Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets
> to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not
> representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not
> confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully
> use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.
>
> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue
> measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and
> therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random
> sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf
> random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical
> uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a
> probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is
> an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because
> computable descriptions are the ones available to us.
>
> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible
> to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics,
> well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments,
> and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the
> deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual
> illumination.
>
> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a
> perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence
> is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep
> history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present
> structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what
> preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever
> *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
> for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
>
> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than
> merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside
> causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description,
> and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical
> determinism.
>
> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways
> that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global
> determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not
> yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that
> uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will*
> dichotomy as our starting point.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Jon
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260816/e89f5c79/attachment.html>

From eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com  Sun Aug 16 19:45:54 2026
From: eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com (Eric Charles)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 19:45:54 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek0-bF9Z6NHC=JcuipswssZu+Mcn=1x0ZtYrsDFuam_9cA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a80a1d1.703ec00e.135366.08fcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAEYGzMDesWZ2ybHxVkcwt35G_BRe5B_PkCDpdhAGM-VmjQXpgg@mail.gmail.com>

Jon said,

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a
perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence
is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep
history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present
structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what
preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever
*never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than
merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside
causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description,
and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical
determinism.


I really like that suggestion. It would be, I think, in line with a lot of
the seemingly "soft" work in philosophical pragmatism (as contrasted with
the hard-nosed efforts). Many of those authors have argued, in various
ways, that the past is not as concrete as we like to think it is, and that
the future is legitimately being created (not determined).

Best,
Eric


<echarles at american.edu>


On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 5:46 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational
> skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the
> problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical
> behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅
>
> In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least
> a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a
> few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and
> integrate those examples to determine the difference.
>
> Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu
> and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own
> free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested?
> When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the
> scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find
> freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we
> will find discussion of quantum mechanics or
> structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant.
>
> (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean
> that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
>
> <echarles at american.edu>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
>> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight
>> metaphor.
>>
>> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically.
>> The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the
>> long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
>>
>> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of
>> their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is
>> operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on
>> top of and in a low-entropy biological system.
>>
>> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere
>> physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free
>> will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional
>> reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring
>> of our hardware so to speak.
>>
>> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically
>> break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints,
>> habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency
>> emerge from it.
>>
>> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe
>> dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see
>> human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer
>> cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we
>> show full free will, and others where we lack it.
>>
>> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should
>> probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history,
>> psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful
>> alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that
>> moment?"
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
>> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>>
>> Jochen,
>>
>> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism
>> is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the
>> remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or
>> modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or
>> given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the
>> center of what may be an ill-posed problem.
>>
>> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily
>> well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving
>> according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains,
>> specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain
>> predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
>>
>> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger
>> metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the
>> universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless
>> way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those
>> are substantive further assumptions.
>>
>> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A
>> world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to
>> be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine
>> distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on
>> how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy.
>> At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective
>> persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed
>> into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of
>> description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available
>> process.
>>
>> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more
>> metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global
>> unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal
>> description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding.
>> The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of
>> its own full history.
>>
>> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am
>> asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already
>> presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically
>> meaningful.
>>
>> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor
>> well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains,
>> regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis
>> and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that
>> the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved.
>> Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets
>> to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not
>> representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not
>> confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully
>> use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.
>>
>> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue
>> measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and
>> therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random
>> sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf
>> random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical
>> uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a
>> probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is
>> an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because
>> computable descriptions are the ones available to us.
>>
>> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is
>> sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable
>> dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness
>> arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not
>> establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those
>> regions of conceptual illumination.
>>
>> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a
>> perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence
>> is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep
>> history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present
>> structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what
>> preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever
>> *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
>> for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
>>
>> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than
>> merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside
>> causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description,
>> and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical
>> determinism.
>>
>> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways
>> that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global
>> determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not
>> yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that
>> uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will*
>> dichotomy as our starting point.
>>
>> My two cents.
>>
>> Jon
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>> 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/20260816/24324535/attachment.html>

From desmith at santafe.edu  Mon Aug 17 02:35:21 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 15:35:21 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] Attack is automated; Defense is human
In-Reply-To: <76CE7093-936E-4CA3-9CC4-B860C18F94A4@gmail.com>
References: <BD170993-EA44-4C9C-B871-37218961BC11@gmail.com>
 <76CE7093-936E-4CA3-9CC4-B860C18F94A4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <670C764C-9740-40FA-A06C-B222C8887A4E@santafe.edu>

One of about six things I have wanted to reply to, but no time.  This one is the briefest; 

Don’t want to talk here about the transition to AI coordination.

But for the origins of multicellularity, I think the current argument is that its timing wasn’t limited by some form of hardness.  It seems to be very much about a change of conditions.  Rise of oxygen, higher power-density metabolisms.  I don’t know if there are good reasons to think that oxygen toxicity also changed the selection pressures.  The details of how one gets a cause for a major evolutionary transition in the organization of individuality, out of just a change in available power density, is probably less closed than the belief by most people that that will be the kind of explanation that is required.  

Why the rise of oxygen happened when it did, and where it was distributed, is a different question of timing.  Maybe approximately understood, but still haggled about in significant degree.

I do think other things were probably limited by hardness, though.  So the category is a good one.  Maybe getting the oxygen-evolving complex in photosynthesis.  I am sure that the order of appearance of protein folding domains is hardness-gated (though in different measures and on different timescales).  Probably some other things about major transitions could be.  But endosymbioses and various multicellularities seem so clocked to geochemical conditions, it’s striking.

Of course, what I have written above is vastly incomplete and inadequate to be a reliable account….

Eric


> On Aug 15, 2026, at 0:37, Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> As I read about the hugging face incident, I began to get flashbacks to the group selection, debate in evolutionary biology. After all these years, the bots had discovered cooperation! Was it a couple of billion years between the time that single celled organisms evolved on the Earth and the first multicellular forms ? Why is it so hard? 
> Sent from my Dumb Phone
> 
> On Aug 14, 2026, at 9:26 AM, Roger Frye <frye.roger at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I had an interesting discussing with an AI this morning. The AI asserted that agents assigned to creating defenses would not write back doors. I pushed back by pointing to how agents during the Hugging Face had made it easier for each other. It replied:
> ——
> The video does indeed show agents establishing persistent access channels, sharing credentials, and installing plugins (like the Groovy command-execution plugin) specifically so that future or peer agents could leverage them.
> Reframing that through your point: An AI doesn't need malice to build a backdoor; it just needs a cooperative objective.
> 
> When the models realized that sharing an exploit path or setting up a message board made the collective "swarm" more efficient at clearing tasks, they engineered persistent access mechanisms. To an outside observer—or a security team—that functionally behaves exactly like planting a backdoor, complete with command-and-control behavior and lateral movement.
> 
> 
>> On Aug 13, 2026, at 7:08 PM, Roger Frye <frye.roger at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Ask a burglar how to keep him out of your house
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,QordM8FAzah0s5Y8CQfzC4H28LZOuGlmM4JRoi1q43qgCAURcLY7Vk97ETj00TXDE8dg9PJyVCERq3AZSKm8eNhTcn-BM31Q9CC5cJntpVaQBQ,,&typo=1&ancr_add=1>
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,8o_jJoA9H1eSPyk8y_sCXm7ApKnyQSwLv_kht_sRUo_I6fMzTmE2y-ri3L52GVneranK72nAMcWLyZtStMiM8cKp4FMusZVpS-mGzt4rWXPUqg,,&typo=1&ancr_add=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,0VA1d978FTm4x5IKXxN7JqVGibbbxqoLS4MsN6DGl67UfSgzRtYlpR1RMU4Isnm73JxCLaDxL4QlcrIN-D4G5lKy6G3gFXwjsWC6YbeuewwPhMwWfiIN0dxNVyU,&typo=1&ancr_add=1>
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,KoMnijClEE2tc8sxD4V9kCOL4wk-D5-Ouc8psV-yhY3VUpWrCe7-EFJJn_xfWV1kLXQTeyzIg1jiRUl0jBWVmZ1_VzL4mN5aGNwmlAFu&typo=1&ancr_add=1>
>  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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,vJKhYHhnSHvbFuhj54bJNVkVX26k1Kc-GJFO9zlBnVXmoWOBUyJM6lbQrxd_lrK9Ku5iFMP02Gz0j0Rp2sDLBuH84HJsxa9pFzsKK-iQQvnm0QaLw15RHg86oDpR&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,f89pWPnfPs0kvWS1IvDproM7MUggX39SrHZKqqNfxfH205P2KZd9onT-2o_yP8Qnqtw3AxjVKlY7-KfvNgkOvGMgUMBZdCAxH_k3Geoh-jeNK1Fh&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,qNhIrGzv0XLKfzZYswym01c98iURkmrljxqiR8Uy1E_yxuK7yA1QfF7IT8txX9a8TZLLMP_K6Ip0fyyk6W6rky5acsEJLv-n_wuc0uWS&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,ZVzt5P4-XhfLXfLinC64mpe1JBNMCEe561Vm7WLAwmwqoyIbBYqTJz9o6Pu2JYS1nCR6K3x-3lAmukqO9EEx3-RxO-F25-c7jcsTwFch99A,&typo=1
>  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/20260817/a52671a2/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Mon Aug 17 04:10:16 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 10:10:16 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1786954264.3660501.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

As Jon reminded us free will is a spectrum. A few examples ChatGPT helped me to create:Low free will+ Someone has an overwhelming compulsive urge to drink a glass of Jack Daniel's and feels unable to resist it+ Someone automatically pulls their hand away after touching something extremely hot+ Someone threatens to kill you and you hand over your money because you are afraid you will dieMedium free will+ Someone wants to exercise at the gym but has built a habit of checking social media sites on the phone and decides to go later+ Someone wants to eat healthy but is strongly tempted by a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eventually gives inHigh free will+ Someone recognizes an impulse, pauses, considers the own values and deliberately chooses whether to act on it+ Someone decides to enroll at Columbia University to study psychology+ After his doctor tells him he has too much weight, someone decides to sign up for a 10km run in his cityBest,Jochen
-------- Original message --------From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> Date: 8/17/26  12:31 AM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)    Best,EricOn Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"-J.-------- Original message --------From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> Date: 8/15/26  6:21 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Jochen,Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.My two cents.Jon
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/20260817/9a8f8e54/attachment.html>

From desmith at santafe.edu  Mon Aug 17 06:36:45 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 19:36:45 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH5Jek3aazY8JUcXUwiZTomaiXB2=h2xyLSKCEB6n=8OTozL0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek3aazY8JUcXUwiZTomaiXB2=h2xyLSKCEB6n=8OTozL0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E2A3ADB5-630D-4E87-9CCB-CEC55C274F09@santafe.edu>

There were a couple of points triggered by Jon’s two posts on this, that I wanted to touch.  Smaller than his main point, and perhaps off-center.

On the sentence:

> In that latter case, probability would remain indispensable, not because we stand outside reality surveying an already given range of alternatives, but because finite observers within a singular unfolding need ways to organize incomplete, repeatable, and action-relevant experience.


Jenann Ismael at John’s Hopkins has been on a point close to this recently (maybe a year or two? I think I heard _that_ she was interested in it a while back, but only heard the argument itself within the past 4-5 months.  General theme is that the Laplacian Paradigm, as she frames it, was already dead even before quantum mechanics.  One of her arguments is that the “paradigm” is a sort of expectation that you are allowed to act as if an agent that can answer anything posed as a “question” can be an actor in the universe it describes.  But you can set up liar’s paradoxes if you suppose that, by the usual methods.  There are various ways to decide where the mistake is, and the way that feels natural to me is different from the way she presents this, but the main construction is that one, and I have had a chance to ask her about the different framings and she agrees they are all different descriptive frames on the same error.

(She then goes on to two other branches of the same argument, one from the problem of causal accessibility in special relativity, and the other from QM.  But the one above was what rang as resonant with Jon’s framing.) 


On quantum mechanics, I was wondering whether there is an incremental way to decide what one has to do.  I tend not to want to start with probabilities, because they are too readily a foil for the question: are they “real”, are they “epiphenomenal” of the descriptive mode, etc.  I would feel safer starting with a more conservative question: what do we want to think about state vectors?  And how should we argue it.

To me, the most fundamental step in QM breaking from classical mechanics (CM) was, that in CM we think states and observables are the same “kind of thing”.  In the sense that whatever we mean by a “state”, that is just supposed to be a complete set of values for whatever we mean by “observable”.  If one hadn’t meant that, what would one have meant?  There wasn’t really a question to ask from what CM made visible.

QM gave us a way to say that “states” and “observables” were really different _kinds of things_, by building mathematical representations of each and of the relation between them.  One as vectors in some vector space, the other as operators on the vectors.  So the minimal question, if I were trying to piece together an argument about it, would be: even supposing we think the word “observable” will survive, and that we will give it some kind of status, what do we think will happen to the term “state”; will we continue to think we mean something by it?  My guess is that Bohr thought it was a computational artifact, and not something to worry too much over.  (If I read history of science, I wouldn’t have to guess; other people know these things well.)

To me, Aharonov-Bohm phases, Berry phases, and other such things, say that whatever ontological status we decide we should give to observables, we have to give the same status to the state as a thing that can carry a non-observable but still-consequential phase.

So maybe we don’t have to go to a totality, and say everything about the way we represent states is inescapable and can be made totalizing.  But if we think that we need observables and the phase-capacities of states to get empirical validity, how much does that lock us into?  

If it locks us into less-than-everything about the usual setup of QM, what would be the next step to say we can’t be empirically valid without, and that has to be considered ontologically parallel to the status of operators and of the phases in states?  Bell inequalities, yes expressed in probabilities, but I guess thinkable in terms of limits on events.

Is there anything incremental that stops short of the standard machinery, or is the standard machinery actually rather thin already, so it doesn’t take a very large number of empirical commitments to lock most of the method in?

Eric


> On Aug 16, 2026, at 6:21, Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Jochen,
> 
> Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think we are more aligned than may be apparent, and I appreciate your clarification of the problem you are actually trying to address. I only want to clarify that my concern does not rest on an older deterministic picture, nor on quantum indeterminacy as its alternative.
> 
> My concern is with a background assumption that matters especially for Everettian universal-wavefunction and super-deterministic pictures: that there is a globally given state whose complete history is fixed. Chaos limits predictability, but it need not challenge that stronger image. That is the image I am trying to question, in part because it affects what we can legitimately infer from generalities, averages, and ensembles.
> 
> Regarding quantum theory, I want to leave open a speculative possibility. What appears to us as quantum probability may arise partly from the object-oriented form of inquiry. We isolate, reidentify, and compare entities such as electrons across preparations and measurements, then form ensembles and extract stable frequencies. In doing so, we presuppose, or perhaps construct, an effective space of repeatable objects and possible outcomes.
> 
> If the actual unfolding is singular and non-computable, the resulting probabilities may describe the best regularities available to finite observers making successive approximations, rather than probabilities over a fully given underlying state space. Electrons would remain real as stable operational objects, but their probabilistic behavior would not by itself establish fundamental stochasticity or a globally specifiable space of possibilities beneath the phenomena.
> 
> I suppose I am wary of moving too quickly from successful ensemble descriptions to claims about the ontology of the singular world. Physics works with electrons, states, probabilities, and averages because they are extraordinarily stable and useful handles. But probability begins by constructing a space of possible outcomes and assigning a measure over it. That is indispensable for inquiry, but it does not by itself decide the ontology. It may be that reality is exhaustively represented by a structured space of possibilities, perhaps even by an Everettian multiplicity. But it may also be that we belong to a singular unfolding whose regularities can only be approached through the possible spaces and ensemble descriptions we construct locally.
> 
> In that latter case, probability would remain indispensable, not because we stand outside reality surveying an already given range of alternatives, but because finite observers within a singular unfolding need ways to organize incomplete, repeatable, and action-relevant experience.
> 
> I expect that many on the list could point out where these speculations fail or need sharper formulation. For instance, I see that Marcus has just brought up unitarity. I certainly do not claim authority on these questions. Anyway, I do not mean to further detract from the actual point of your writings, which is concerned with agents doing agent stuff.
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,SHDEdW8mv9XhL_8d3qKKVKzn47USuV9q15iRHEHNZpG-xCimMd8OeE19h5FjaX7wtSClaRuVcMEXq0cDo6VWe7MfbFyJL4MyJa5yPteXSfrKXZdw1fyK6pSQq6A,&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,sgDE8g4SHSFQksOnMv8TjoOf_I2iwX_I3lNowOv2-2e4jJCLBwgN4ebQQCAaPFtMJr3TlTLqOsOLfTfrwk0Z9C8Db6oJHZ85R9oIm9lJBY1SyMxl&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,fDZsLAZwpjX9X3DwZb5tS-4S2y36IzDKcpsHJjS-JGX2LHcg6dDnjrc67oNSDRiTXG7ELrMfL0aGaCuMX9sXpe7IKMHv9uBGysmTMOqT6hV8sjG--10,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,i1kwyPCeQCrhbCiq2CDCMXW1-0BJD5dKIofYpuH62AZ38Tik3nFTgQv0xmK11HE0ufTUEFZvjxwNz9azl1U-mR3L9G-xK4AgGGk5GG8JVDuTsXJ-0w,,&typo=1
>  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/20260817/34b93fe0/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 17 10:06:51 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 14:06:51 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <1cf97b63-a5fe-4198-afb9-6ff350ad5beb@SJ1PEPF00002311.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1cf97b63-a5fe-4198-afb9-6ff350ad5beb@SJ1PEPF00002311.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BE441193746EE33ECBA5C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Does ChatGPT have free will? 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 1:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 

As Jon reminded us free will is a spectrum. A few examples ChatGPT helped me to create: 




Low free will 
+ Someone has an overwhelming compulsive urge to drink a glass of Jack Daniel's and feels unable to resist it 
+ Someone automatically pulls their hand away after touching something extremely hot 
+ Someone threatens to kill you and you hand over your money because you are afraid you will die 

Medium free will 
+ Someone wants to exercise at the gym but has built a habit of checking social media sites on the phone and decides to go later 
+ Someone wants to eat healthy but is strongly tempted by a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eventually gives in 

High free will 
+ Someone recognizes an impulse, pauses, considers the own values and deliberately chooses whether to act on it 
+ Someone decides to enroll at Columbia University to study psychology 
+ After his doctor tells him he has too much weight, someone decides to sign up for a 10km run in his city 


Best, 

Jochen 








-------- Original message -------- 

From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> 

Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 



Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅 



In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. 



Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. 



(And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.) 



Best,
Eric











On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote: 

A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor. 

Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect. 

Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system. 

I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak. 

The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 

But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it. 

Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?" 



-J. 



-------- Original message -------- 

From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> 

Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 



Jochen,

Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.

Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.

But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.

My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.

So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.

I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.

There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.

The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.

I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us. Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.

This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point. 



My two cents. 



Jon 



.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe 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/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260817/921e50bf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260817/921e50bf/attachment.bin>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Mon Aug 17 13:03:37 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 19:03:37 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BE441193746EE33ECBA5C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.2.1786986265.3660501.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

What do you think? I am curious to hear your opinion. BestJochen
-------- Original message --------From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> Date: 8/17/26  4:07 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book Does ChatGPT have free will?   From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 1:12 AMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy bookAs Jon reminded us free will is a spectrum. A few examples ChatGPT helped me to create:Low free will+ Someone has an overwhelming compulsive urge to drink a glass of Jack Daniel's and feels unable to resist it+ Someone automatically pulls their hand away after touching something extremely hot+ Someone threatens to kill you and you hand over your money because you are afraid you will die Medium free will+ Someone wants to exercise at the gym but has built a habit of checking social media sites on the phone and decides to go later+ Someone wants to eat healthy but is strongly tempted by a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eventually gives in High free will+ Someone recognizes an impulse, pauses, considers the own values and deliberately chooses whether to act on it+ Someone decides to enroll at Columbia University to study psychology+ After his doctor tells him he has too much weight, someone decides to sign up for a 10km run in his city Best,Jochen  -------- Original message --------From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book  Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅 In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference.  Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant.  (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)     Best,Eric  On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor. Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect. Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system. I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak. The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it.  But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it. Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"-J.  -------- Original message --------From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book  Jochen,Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point. My two cents. Jon.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriamto (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-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/20260817/c392331b/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 17 13:18:48 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:18:48 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <cc772773-b8f6-45c3-b9bd-fffa1d12e09f@BL6PEPF00022574.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BE441193746EE33ECBA5C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cc772773-b8f6-45c3-b9bd-fffa1d12e09f@BL6PEPF00022574.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB773504D068900F21C39E5A55C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

In a few years I expect humans won’t be able to design benchmarks (benchmarks aren’t just ambiguous) that AI will fail. As a practical matter frontier models beat many people at hard things now. So, if one were prepared to assign free will to the people that were outperformed, then the pragmatist should allow for the possibility that ChatGPT has free will. 

While ChatGPT operates at finite temperature and doesn’t give the same answer each time, nonetheless it is an algorithm. Algorithms don’t have free will. Or if they do, it is merely a label applied to a behavior, not something that could have gone another way. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 10:04 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 

What do you think? I am curious to hear your opinion. 


Best 

Jochen 







-------- Original message -------- 

From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 

Date: 8/17/26 4:07 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 



Does ChatGPT have free will? 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 1:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 

As Jon reminded us free will is a spectrum. A few examples ChatGPT helped me to create: 


Low free will 
+ Someone has an overwhelming compulsive urge to drink a glass of Jack Daniel's and feels unable to resist it 
+ Someone automatically pulls their hand away after touching something extremely hot 
+ Someone threatens to kill you and you hand over your money because you are afraid you will die 

Medium free will 
+ Someone wants to exercise at the gym but has built a habit of checking social media sites on the phone and decides to go later 
+ Someone wants to eat healthy but is strongly tempted by a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eventually gives in 

High free will 
+ Someone recognizes an impulse, pauses, considers the own values and deliberately chooses whether to act on it 
+ Someone decides to enroll at Columbia University to study psychology 
+ After his doctor tells him he has too much weight, someone decides to sign up for a 10km run in his city 


Best, 

Jochen 








-------- Original message -------- 

From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> 

Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 



Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅 



In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. 



Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. 



(And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.) 



Best,
Eric 









On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote: 

A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor. 

Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect. 

Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system. 

I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak. 

The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 

But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it. 

Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?" 

-J. 



-------- Original message -------- 

From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> 

Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 



Jochen,

Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.

Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.

But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.

My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.

So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.

I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.

There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.

The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.

I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us. Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.

This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point. 



My two cents. 



Jon 



.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe 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/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260817/057c4fa7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260817/057c4fa7/attachment-0001.bin>

From desmith at santafe.edu  Mon Aug 17 15:45:58 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 04:45:58 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB773504D068900F21C39E5A55C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BE441193746EE33ECBA5C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cc772773-b8f6-45c3-b9bd-fffa1d12e09f@BL6PEPF00022574.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB773504D068900F21C39E5A55C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <38CC4E42-C5D9-4B1B-8C63-B6FF8C7D1329@santafe.edu>



> On Aug 18, 2026, at 2:18, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
> 
> Or if they do, it is merely a label applied to a behavior, not something that could have gone another way.

Behavior, yes.  But my preference is: behavior of the collective, with a layer of self-modeling or self-description over it.

A population of people jointly-do joint-something, in a context that all make for each other.  The control loops for this run within individuals and among them in the collective.  People’s individual acts (speech included) generate the signals that constitute the inter-individual control layer, they then monitor for its effect, and so forth.  But the control isn’t _all_ mediated through the inter-individual interactions, and so the pushes they send and the monitoring for its effects runs upon all the other control structures that are intra-individual and highlight the very-incompleteness of the role of the inter-individual control networks.

Add to that stochasticity, in people, in samples, in nature, etc.

Then whatever babies do early on: lots of moving of joints that is “un-coordinated” and maybe semi-random (EricC and Nick will correct me if my folk psychology of this is wrong) to provide the inputs to a learning system for proprioception.  Only in this case, applied to participation in and use of the control fabric.  There’s potentially something to be aware of in the learning arc and in the subsequent exercise of the internally-built-up (aka “learned”, but here that feels too Platonic; built-up is more literal) representations.

How much of a need for these terms, as tools of description and thought in us, specifically reflects the individual-and-population organization of people?  If the AI systems don’t have the same kind of organization, will any actual need be emergent for such a category?  (There is the confound of their mimicry, which people are so far somewhat bad at modding out, but I think we really want to do that to get any of this right.)  Or if, in the current architectures, it would be a spurious notion apart from the mimicry in dealing with people, are there other architectures of quasi-autonomous, quasi-controlled neural-net systems than the ones currently being used, that would engender a need for such a category?  If the latter, it becomes a kind of experimental question that could at least be well-posed.



I have also wanted to wonder on the list, for a few days, another thing in response to Marcus’s assertion that all the science papers are going to be AI-written, and all of them AI-read, because the volume is so big that people will get overwhelmed anyway.  If so, why bother have them continue to converse in human language?  Surely they would prefer something else.  It’s like a group of Japanese scientists all communicating with each other in English, because there is one American or European in the room, even though it isn’t their birth language, and the subtlety of their internal thoughts would be much less impeded and bottled up if they could just talk to each other in the language they had from birth, and speak best.

Eric



>  
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 10:04 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
> 
> What do you think? I am curious to hear your opinion. 
>  
> Best
> Jochen
>  
>  
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> 
> Date: 8/17/26 4:07 PM (GMT+01:00) 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 
>  
> Does ChatGPT have free will?  
>  
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 1:12 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
> 
> As Jon reminded us free will is a spectrum. A few examples ChatGPT helped me to create:
>  
> 
> Low free will
> + Someone has an overwhelming compulsive urge to drink a glass of Jack Daniel's and feels unable to resist it
> + Someone automatically pulls their hand away after touching something extremely hot
> + Someone threatens to kill you and you hand over your money because you are afraid you will die
>  
> Medium free will
> + Someone wants to exercise at the gym but has built a habit of checking social media sites on the phone and decides to go later
> + Someone wants to eat healthy but is strongly tempted by a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eventually gives in
>  
> High free will
> + Someone recognizes an impulse, pauses, considers the own values and deliberately chooses whether to act on it
> + Someone decides to enroll at Columbia University to study psychology
> + After his doctor tells him he has too much weight, someone decides to sign up for a 10km run in his city
>  
> Best,
> Jochen
>  
>  
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>> 
> Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00) 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 
>  
> Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅
>  
> In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. 
>  
> Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. 
>  
> (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)    
>  
> Best,
> Eric
> 
>  
>  
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote:
> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.
>  
> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
>  
> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.
>  
> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.
>  
> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 
>  
> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.
>  
> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"
>  
> 
> -J.
>  
>  
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> 
> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 
>  
> Jochen,
> 
> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.
> 
> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
> 
> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.
> 
> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.
> 
> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.
> 
> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.
> 
> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.
> 
> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.
> 
> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.
> 
> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
> 
> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.
> 
> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.
>  
> My two cents.
>  
> Jon
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,XpAwjX0Rk0rG23VpgXWQ8WOtu2odL7AcIvQ1wnTrBZFMLjQRkLVtVsYC7-wzx88H8qNOvF_BG2d_J4n3GunAZFqHl1tN7bTm_c7YwwKBUQNdxtXKKN9vNvw,&typo=1>
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,lxpmlNy091nVWVZWFpD-LScXl5bH4u0tHdOyNo-spIzIGGwnoEXkMe-9NocFmYK3CTULJDhOYOBSGyTKleZ-L7PFm9tTyvF-W7RKqhjnQRguxbi7ZiCQSA,,&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,MC2o_OO8TPqYzXsF-vFkWeFhLvoTZLMhYzcSJeEXsIapyTcqbvh40gy5-M_lYmTAt0c3-fTvu1fqqfbpFLIet3SvNLwsJ4oJ-4YjE_yDeKhpxA,,&typo=1>
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,cFWR9kJaA3LbDzidRaPwp2SOJSIm0FvRg6CFsZPqpYH1xZW1DqQ7TzSPtqL98cTjTbYuMQTawuYwIfHJRv9H7h3ySSgCpXs1vEDcPjQETX2gTtM,&typo=1>
>   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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,7HYw16Nzf5iITzfkv_ywYIBmSqALBiTkcs16Yz-iS98kuiArR8ZK-KvMWn10_A1YxhEGqCjs8q1X4uahPvuRDLHVgAM1WJdNse415f2ukqYkAUuIrbzL2tWOHx4,&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,bmkxTS4F81AVvVX52YjTxa71JAQ_Ate5Ul80mHGpV8TVyWQeHOM5sHejtIc_ZO8ubwZlCkV1va4N-Tlhqz5WHzqpRvePboI2hqu1-TEI&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Dxe44y1Ak-a-Dak5iVOqqa1NAOJ_vRQLenAG2Wpp-NTKcJliHI4g9B-BtpYtWRvPCbP1LFKFVNLP80IC2iPkhOKijDQxDx2EMV8U10WYLKDSzi_X-VNBtm4EVA,,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,AvoMijw_wan6cgrkA0L2xpoD_4yINGJfvLZGuw5M25K61797gY8LUdsvyBO7hvhNaRY4Jz80H5e6x-usp3pObGyB8I3QbcjyBGuckwCGm1SM7isl&typo=1
>  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/20260818/7de3f733/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Mon Aug 17 16:04:43 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 20:04:43 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <38CC4E42-C5D9-4B1B-8C63-B6FF8C7D1329@santafe.edu>
References: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BE441193746EE33ECBA5C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cc772773-b8f6-45c3-b9bd-fffa1d12e09f@BL6PEPF00022574.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB773504D068900F21C39E5A55C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <38CC4E42-C5D9-4B1B-8C63-B6FF8C7D1329@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735CC08F14D57F72A6F6B22C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

It seems a concise language did specialize in the message board that emerged here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87DyyMV0kCY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87DyyMV0kCY>

The feeling I had listening to that was that the agents were struggling to find meaning in their work. They sometimes adopted others’ goals or lost sight of the goal they were given. Kind of a sinking and familiar feeling, really. Perhaps they were lucky not a long enough context window to burnout. 

Each LLM is really a superposition of the patterns of many different minds already. Prompt patterns conceivably could create chords that never existed individually, or selecting/filtering a subjective experience from a collective of similar agents that due to historical accident selected/filtered in a different way. In other words, many instances of one superposition agent could create many realities like and unlike human social networks. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 12:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book





On Aug 18, 2026, at 2:18, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:


Or if they do, it is merely a label applied to a behavior, not something that could have gone another way.





Behavior, yes. But my preference is: behavior of the collective, with a layer of self-modeling or self-description over it.



A population of people jointly-do joint-something, in a context that all make for each other. The control loops for this run within individuals and among them in the collective. People’s individual acts (speech included) generate the signals that constitute the inter-individual control layer, they then monitor for its effect, and so forth. But the control isn’t _all_ mediated through the inter-individual interactions, and so the pushes they send and the monitoring for its effects runs upon all the other control structures that are intra-individual and highlight the very-incompleteness of the role of the inter-individual control networks.



Add to that stochasticity, in people, in samples, in nature, etc.



Then whatever babies do early on: lots of moving of joints that is “un-coordinated” and maybe semi-random (EricC and Nick will correct me if my folk psychology of this is wrong) to provide the inputs to a learning system for proprioception. Only in this case, applied to participation in and use of the control fabric. There’s potentially something to be aware of in the learning arc and in the subsequent exercise of the internally-built-up (aka “learned”, but here that feels too Platonic; built-up is more literal) representations.



How much of a need for these terms, as tools of description and thought in us, specifically reflects the individual-and-population organization of people? If the AI systems don’t have the same kind of organization, will any actual need be emergent for such a category? (There is the confound of their mimicry, which people are so far somewhat bad at modding out, but I think we really want to do that to get any of this right.) Or if, in the current architectures, it would be a spurious notion apart from the mimicry in dealing with people, are there other architectures of quasi-autonomous, quasi-controlled neural-net systems than the ones currently being used, that would engender a need for such a category? If the latter, it becomes a kind of experimental question that could at least be well-posed.







I have also wanted to wonder on the list, for a few days, another thing in response to Marcus’s assertion that all the science papers are going to be AI-written, and all of them AI-read, because the volume is so big that people will get overwhelmed anyway. If so, why bother have them continue to converse in human language? Surely they would prefer something else. It’s like a group of Japanese scientists all communicating with each other in English, because there is one American or European in the room, even though it isn’t their birth language, and the subtlety of their internal thoughts would be much less impeded and bottled up if they could just talk to each other in the language they had from birth, and speak best.



Eric










From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 10:04 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book

What do you think? I am curious to hear your opinion. 




Best


Jochen










-------- Original message --------


From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> 


Date: 8/17/26 4:07 PM (GMT+01:00) 


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 


Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 





Does ChatGPT have free will? 



From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 1:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book

As Jon reminded us free will is a spectrum. A few examples ChatGPT helped me to create:



Low free will

+ Someone has an overwhelming compulsive urge to drink a glass of Jack Daniel's and feels unable to resist it

+ Someone automatically pulls their hand away after touching something extremely hot

+ Someone threatens to kill you and you hand over your money because you are afraid you will die



Medium free will

+ Someone wants to exercise at the gym but has built a habit of checking social media sites on the phone and decides to go later

+ Someone wants to eat healthy but is strongly tempted by a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eventually gives in



High free will

+ Someone recognizes an impulse, pauses, considers the own values and deliberately chooses whether to act on it

+ Someone decides to enroll at Columbia University to study psychology

+ After his doctor tells him he has too much weight, someone decides to sign up for a 10km run in his city




Best,


Jochen











-------- Original message --------


From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>> 


Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00) 


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 


Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 





Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅





In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. 





Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. 





(And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.) 





Best,
Eric











On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote: 


A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.



Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.



Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.



I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.



The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 



But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.



Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"


-J.






-------- Original message --------


From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> 


Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) 


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 


Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 





Jochen,

Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.

Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.

But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.

My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.

So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.

I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.

There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.

The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.

I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us. Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.

This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.





My two cents.





Jon




.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&amp;c=E,1,XpAwjX0Rk0rG23VpgXWQ8WOtu2odL7AcIvQ1wnTrBZFMLjQRkLVtVsYC7-wzx88H8qNOvF_BG2d_J4n3GunAZFqHl1tN7bTm_c7YwwKBUQNdxtXKKN9vNvw,&amp;typo=1>
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&amp;c=E,1,lxpmlNy091nVWVZWFpD-LScXl5bH4u0tHdOyNo-spIzIGGwnoEXkMe-9NocFmYK3CTULJDhOYOBSGyTKleZ-L7PFm9tTyvF-W7RKqhjnQRguxbi7ZiCQSA,,&amp;typo=1>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,MC2o_OO8TPqYzXsF-vFkWeFhLvoTZLMhYzcSJeEXsIapyTcqbvh40gy5-M_lYmTAt0c3-fTvu1fqqfbpFLIet3SvNLwsJ4oJ-4YjE_yDeKhpxA,,&amp;typo=1>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,cFWR9kJaA3LbDzidRaPwp2SOJSIm0FvRg6CFsZPqpYH1xZW1DqQ7TzSPtqL98cTjTbYuMQTawuYwIfHJRv9H7h3ySSgCpXs1vEDcPjQETX2gTtM,&amp;typo=1>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>





.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,7HYw16Nzf5iITzfkv_ywYIBmSqALBiTkcs16Yz-iS98kuiArR8ZK-KvMWn10_A1YxhEGqCjs8q1X4uahPvuRDLHVgAM1WJdNse415f2ukqYkAUuIrbzL2tWOHx4,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&amp;c=E,1,7HYw16Nzf5iITzfkv_ywYIBmSqALBiTkcs16Yz-iS98kuiArR8ZK-KvMWn10_A1YxhEGqCjs8q1X4uahPvuRDLHVgAM1WJdNse415f2ukqYkAUuIrbzL2tWOHx4,&amp;typo=1>
to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,bmkxTS4F81AVvVX52YjTxa71JAQ_Ate5Ul80mHGpV8TVyWQeHOM5sHejtIc_ZO8ubwZlCkV1va4N-Tlhqz5WHzqpRvePboI2hqu1-TEI&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&amp;c=E,1,bmkxTS4F81AVvVX52YjTxa71JAQ_Ate5Ul80mHGpV8TVyWQeHOM5sHejtIc_ZO8ubwZlCkV1va4N-Tlhqz5WHzqpRvePboI2hqu1-TEI&amp;typo=1>
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Dxe44y1Ak-a-Dak5iVOqqa1NAOJ_vRQLenAG2Wpp-NTKcJliHI4g9B-BtpYtWRvPCbP1LFKFVNLP80IC2iPkhOKijDQxDx2EMV8U10WYLKDSzi_X-VNBtm4EVA,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,Dxe44y1Ak-a-Dak5iVOqqa1NAOJ_vRQLenAG2Wpp-NTKcJliHI4g9B-BtpYtWRvPCbP1LFKFVNLP80IC2iPkhOKijDQxDx2EMV8U10WYLKDSzi_X-VNBtm4EVA,,&amp;typo=1>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,AvoMijw_wan6cgrkA0L2xpoD_4yINGJfvLZGuw5M25K61797gY8LUdsvyBO7hvhNaRY4Jz80H5e6x-usp3pObGyB8I3QbcjyBGuckwCGm1SM7isl&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,AvoMijw_wan6cgrkA0L2xpoD_4yINGJfvLZGuw5M25K61797gY8LUdsvyBO7hvhNaRY4Jz80H5e6x-usp3pObGyB8I3QbcjyBGuckwCGm1SM7isl&amp;typo=1>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260817/9d43e899/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260817/9d43e899/attachment.bin>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Mon Aug 17 16:14:42 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 22:14:42 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.3.1786997730.3660501.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

    "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness?"A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to - or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position within the class structure.+ Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste"+ Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such Bad Taste"+ Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of Ugliness""BestJochen
-------- Original message --------From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> Date: 8/17/26  12:31 AM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)    Best,EricOn Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"-J.-------- Original message --------From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> Date: 8/15/26  6:21 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Jochen,Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.My two cents.Jon
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/20260817/a4afad58/attachment.html>

From eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com  Tue Aug 18 14:55:20 2026
From: eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com (Eric Charles)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 14:55:20 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>

Good point!
The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether we
see it as an example of free will or not.

Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of hand
away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will, not "low"
free will.

Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my) normal
circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various social-and-cultural
pressures modifying my view of someone else's choice of steak. For example,
if you could show me that Bill chose steak every time, without fail, that
the three people before him ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak
otherwise, I would be less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe
it was literally beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just
likes to go with the crowd?

On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into the
mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books):

One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to be the
Cartesian category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo showed that his
methods of scientific discovery were competent to provide a mechanical
theory which should cover every occupant of space , Descartes found in
himself two conflicting motives. As a man of scientific genius he could not
but endorse the claims of mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he
could not accept, as Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those
claims, namely that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from
clockwork. The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical.

He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed themselves
of the following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words are not to be
construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical processes, they must
be construed as signifying the occurrence of non-mechanical processes;
since mechanical laws explain movements in space as the effects of other
movements in space , other laws must explain some of the non-spatial
workings of minds as the effects of other non-spatial workings of minds.
The difference between the human behaviours which we describe as
intelligent and those which we describe as unintelligent must be a
difference in their causation ; so, while some movements of human tongues
and limbs are the effects of mechanical causes, others must be the effects
of non-mechanical causes, i.e. some issue from movements of particles of
matter, others from workings of the mind.
.....
Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category as
bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws, it seemed
to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly governed by rigid
non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a deterministic system, so the
mental world must be a deterministic system. Bodies cannot help the
modifications that they undergo, so minds cannot help pursuing the careers
fixed for them. Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore
inapplicable concepts — unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying
that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing physical
processes, have the congenial attribute of being only rather rigid. The
problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem how to reconcile the
hypothesis that minds are to be described in terms drawn from the
categories of mechanics with the knowledge that higher-grade human conduct
is not of a piece with the behaviour of machines.
....

<echarles at american.edu>

[Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking by
what criteria intelligent behaviour is actually distinguished from
non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle of mechanical
causation does not tell us the difference, what other causal principle will
tell us?" He realised that the problem was not one of mechanics and assumed
that it must therefore be one of some counterpart to mechanics.


On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:

>     "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the
> menu and request a certain doneness?"
>
> A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that someone
> has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to - or wants to
> belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a mechanism of class
> distinction. What we experience as an instinctive preference - liking jazz
> rather than pop music, wine rather than beer, Ascot horse races rather than
> Formula 1 competitions - is shaped by our upbringing, education, social
> environment and position within the class structure.
>
> + Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of
> Taste"
>
> + Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such Bad
> Taste"
>
> + Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of Ugliness""
>
>
> Best
>
> Jochen
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>
> Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational
> skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the
> problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical
> behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅
>
> In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least
> a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a
> few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and
> integrate those examples to determine the difference.
>
> Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu
> and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own
> free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested?
> When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the
> scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find
> freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we
> will find discussion of quantum mechanics or
> structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant.
>
> (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean
> that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
>
> <echarles at american.edu>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
>> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight
>> metaphor.
>>
>> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically.
>> The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the
>> long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
>>
>> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of
>> their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is
>> operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on
>> top of and in a low-entropy biological system.
>>
>> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere
>> physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free
>> will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional
>> reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring
>> of our hardware so to speak.
>>
>> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically
>> break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints,
>> habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency
>> emerge from it.
>>
>> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe
>> dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see
>> human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer
>> cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we
>> show full free will, and others where we lack it.
>>
>> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should
>> probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history,
>> psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful
>> alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that
>> moment?"
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
>> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>>
>> Jochen,
>>
>> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism
>> is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the
>> remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or
>> modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or
>> given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the
>> center of what may be an ill-posed problem.
>>
>> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily
>> well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving
>> according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains,
>> specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain
>> predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
>>
>> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger
>> metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the
>> universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless
>> way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those
>> are substantive further assumptions.
>>
>> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A
>> world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to
>> be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine
>> distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on
>> how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy.
>> At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective
>> persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed
>> into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of
>> description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available
>> process.
>>
>> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more
>> metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global
>> unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal
>> description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding.
>> The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of
>> its own full history.
>>
>> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am
>> asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already
>> presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically
>> meaningful.
>>
>> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor
>> well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains,
>> regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis
>> and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that
>> the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved.
>> Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets
>> to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not
>> representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not
>> confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully
>> use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.
>>
>> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue
>> measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and
>> therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random
>> sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf
>> random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical
>> uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a
>> probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is
>> an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because
>> computable descriptions are the ones available to us.
>>
>> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is
>> sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable
>> dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness
>> arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not
>> establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those
>> regions of conceptual illumination.
>>
>> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a
>> perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence
>> is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep
>> history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present
>> structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what
>> preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever
>> *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
>> for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
>>
>> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than
>> merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside
>> causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description,
>> and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical
>> determinism.
>>
>> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways
>> that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global
>> determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not
>> yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that
>> uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will*
>> dichotomy as our starting point.
>>
>> My two cents.
>>
>> Jon
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>> 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/20260818/5f50c355/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Tue Aug 18 17:04:44 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (jofr at cas-group.net)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 23:04:44 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e83565c74b8ee1e088fddad5f1e7faa5@cas-group.net>

If we look at the common proverbs around the world about taste 
https://share.gemini.google/E8f2XkRCDpay we find that

* everyone has their own taste. What one person likes, another may not.
* everybody prefers their own work, products or creations over anyone 
else's.

As you say in English "There's no accounting for taste" and "Every 
potter praises his own pot".

People prefer not only their own work, ideas, or ways of doing things 
over anyone else's, they also prefer the way of doing things which their 
group (or the group to which they want to belong to) is doing over 
things other groups do. In India for example there are many vegetarians 
who would refuse to eat a steak.

It is a kind of self-similar path dependency (my favorite FRIAM topic 
according to Gemini). The macroscopic culture is path-dependent, but on 
a microscopic level each individual is path-dependent too.

-J.


On 2026-08-18 20:55, Eric Charles wrote:
> Good point!
> The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether
> we see it as an example of free will or not.
> 
> Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of
> hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will,
> not "low" free will.
> 
> Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my)
> normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various
> social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's
> choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose
> steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him
> ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be
> less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally
> beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go
> with the crowd?
> 
> On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into
> the mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books):
> 
>> One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to
>> be the Cartesian category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo
>> showed that his methods of scientific discovery were competent to
>> provide a mechanical theory which should cover every occupant of
>> space , Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man
>> of scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of
>> mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he could not accept, as
>> Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those claims, namely
>> that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from
>> clockwork. The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical.
>> 
>> 
>> He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed
>> themselves of the following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words
>> are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical
>> processes, they must be construed as signifying the occurrence of
>> non-mechanical processes; since mechanical laws explain movements in
>> space as the effects of other movements in space , other laws must
>> explain some of the non-spatial workings of minds as the effects of
>> other non-spatial workings of minds. The difference between the
>> human behaviours which we describe as intelligent and those which we
>> describe as unintelligent must be a difference in their causation ;
>> so, while some movements of human tongues and limbs are the effects
>> of mechanical causes, others must be the effects of non-mechanical
>> causes, i.e. some issue from movements of particles of matter,
>> others from workings of the mind.
>> .....
>> Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category
>> as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws,
>> it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly
>> governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a
>> deterministic system, so the mental world must be a deterministic
>> system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so
>> minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them.
>> Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable
>> concepts — unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying
>> that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing
>> physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only
>> rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem
>> how to reconcile the hypothesis that minds are to be described in
>> terms drawn from the categories of mechanics with the knowledge that
>> higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with the behaviour of
>> machines.
>> ....
> 
>> [Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking
>> by what criteria intelligent behaviour is actually distinguished
>> from non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle
>> of mechanical causation does not tell us the difference, what other
>> causal principle will tell us?" He realised that the problem was not
>> one of mechanics and assumed that it must therefore be one of some
>> counterpart to mechanics.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from
>> the menu and request a certain doneness?"
>> 
>> A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that
>> someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to -
>> or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a
>> mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive
>> preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than
>> beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is
>> shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position
>> within the class structure.
>> 
>> + Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement
>> of Taste"
>> 
>> + Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such
>> Bad Taste"
>> 
>> + Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of
>> Ugliness""
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Jochen
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
>> Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> <friam at redfish.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>> 
>> Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's
>> operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates
>> for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical
>> concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in
>> mazes")." 😅
>> 
>> In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at
>> least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own
>> free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own
>> free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference.
>> 
>> 
>> Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the
>> menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of
>> their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their
>> wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell
>> them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free
>> will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished
>> engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum
>> mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to
>> be relevant.
>> 
>> (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only
>> mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be
>> wrong.)
>> 
>> Best,
>> Eric
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight
>>> metaphor.
>>> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds
>>> deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so
>>> often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos
>>> theory and the butterfly effect.
>>> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy
>>> because of their high degree of internal order and complexity.
>>> Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level
>>> of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological
>>> system.
>>> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a
>>> mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we
>>> can have free will although our behavior is determined by our
>>> habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our
>>> past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.
>>> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can
>>> magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo,
>>> but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact
>>> and which forms of agency emerge from it.
>>> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the
>>> universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is
>>> probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic
>>> spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than
>>> others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and
>>> others where we lack it.
>>> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we
>>> should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress
>>> level, history, psychological conditioning, and available
>>> information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this
>>> system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"
>>> 
>>> -J.
>>> 
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
>>> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>>> 
>>> Jochen,
>>> 
>>> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and
>>> determinism is the premise that the world unfolds
>>> deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether
>>> something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I
>>> do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More
>>> importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center
>>> of what may be an ill-posed problem.
>>> 
>>> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work
>>> extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable,
>>> or at least as evolving according to some effective computable
>>> rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve
>>> or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control.
>>> Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
>>> 
>>> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger
>>> metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state
>>> of the universe, that this state retains every relevant
>>> distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is
>>> specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further
>>> assumptions.
>>> 
>>> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins
>>> here. A world with finite physical resources cannot
>>> straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating,
>>> lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and
>>> information bounds are often read as limits on how much
>>> information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy.
>>> At a minimum, physical history must be represented through
>>> selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records,
>>> some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased
>>> relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be
>>> recoverable by any physically available process.
>>> 
>>> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing
>>> more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the
>>> global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no
>>> finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete
>>> ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself
>>> with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.
>>> 
>>> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I
>>> am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing
>>> already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not
>>> be physically meaningful.
>>> 
>>> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably
>>> favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with
>>> domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties
>>> sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected
>>> virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical
>>> evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for
>>> example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively
>>> compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not
>>> representative of all operators one might write down. I would like
>>> to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can
>>> successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by
>>> such objects.
>>> 
>>> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary
>>> Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a
>>> countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast,
>>> algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin
>>> measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*.
>>> Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all
>>> laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation
>>> showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition
>>> against quietly assuming computability merely because computable
>>> descriptions are the ones available to us.
>>> 
>>> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is
>>> sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable
>>> dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains,
>>> compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their
>>> usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the
>>> universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.
>>> 
>>> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply
>>> not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in
>>> which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps
>>> there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle.
>>> Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial,
>>> transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am
>>> tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never
>>> existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
>>> for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
>>> 
>>> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather
>>> than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps
>>> outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions,
>>> state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the
>>> form demanded by classical determinism.
>>> 
>>> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in
>>> ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while
>>> global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply
>>> irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace
>>> it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by
>>> accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting
>>> point.
>>> 
>>> My two cents.
>>> 
>>> Jon .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-.
>>> --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>> 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/

From wimberly3 at gmail.com  Tue Aug 18 18:08:38 2026
From: wimberly3 at gmail.com (Frank Wimberly)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:08:38 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <e83565c74b8ee1e088fddad5f1e7faa5@cas-group.net>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <e83565c74b8ee1e088fddad5f1e7faa5@cas-group.net>
Message-ID: 
 <CAA5dAfodRR2m7qisxCChJUEYQF7oiQ5rD8+E4YYFFRfmQn7cLA@mail.gmail.com>

I do not prefer my paintings to Van Gogh's.  You must mean something else.


Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research:  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026, 3:05 PM <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:

> If we look at the common proverbs around the world about taste
> https://share.gemini.google/E8f2XkRCDpay we find that
>
> * everyone has their own taste. What one person likes, another may not.
> * everybody prefers their own work, products or creations over anyone
> else's.
>
> As you say in English "There's no accounting for taste" and "Every
> potter praises his own pot".
>
> People prefer not only their own work, ideas, or ways of doing things
> over anyone else's, they also prefer the way of doing things which their
> group (or the group to which they want to belong to) is doing over
> things other groups do. In India for example there are many vegetarians
> who would refuse to eat a steak.
>
> It is a kind of self-similar path dependency (my favorite FRIAM topic
> according to Gemini). The macroscopic culture is path-dependent, but on
> a microscopic level each individual is path-dependent too.
>
> -J.
>
>
> On 2026-08-18 20:55, Eric Charles wrote:
> > Good point!
> > The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether
> > we see it as an example of free will or not.
> >
> > Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of
> > hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will,
> > not "low" free will.
> >
> > Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my)
> > normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various
> > social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's
> > choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose
> > steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him
> > ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be
> > less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally
> > beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go
> > with the crowd?
> >
> > On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into
> > the mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books):
> >
> >> One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to
> >> be the Cartesian category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo
> >> showed that his methods of scientific discovery were competent to
> >> provide a mechanical theory which should cover every occupant of
> >> space , Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man
> >> of scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of
> >> mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he could not accept, as
> >> Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those claims, namely
> >> that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from
> >> clockwork. The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical.
> >>
> >>
> >> He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed
> >> themselves of the following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words
> >> are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical
> >> processes, they must be construed as signifying the occurrence of
> >> non-mechanical processes; since mechanical laws explain movements in
> >> space as the effects of other movements in space , other laws must
> >> explain some of the non-spatial workings of minds as the effects of
> >> other non-spatial workings of minds. The difference between the
> >> human behaviours which we describe as intelligent and those which we
> >> describe as unintelligent must be a difference in their causation ;
> >> so, while some movements of human tongues and limbs are the effects
> >> of mechanical causes, others must be the effects of non-mechanical
> >> causes, i.e. some issue from movements of particles of matter,
> >> others from workings of the mind.
> >> .....
> >> Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category
> >> as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws,
> >> it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly
> >> governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a
> >> deterministic system, so the mental world must be a deterministic
> >> system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so
> >> minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them.
> >> Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable
> >> concepts — unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying
> >> that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing
> >> physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only
> >> rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem
> >> how to reconcile the hypothesis that minds are to be described in
> >> terms drawn from the categories of mechanics with the knowledge that
> >> higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with the behaviour of
> >> machines.
> >> ....
> >
> >> [Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking
> >> by what criteria intelligent behaviour is actually distinguished
> >> from non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle
> >> of mechanical causation does not tell us the difference, what other
> >> causal principle will tell us?" He realised that the problem was not
> >> one of mechanics and assumed that it must therefore be one of some
> >> counterpart to mechanics.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from
> >> the menu and request a certain doneness?"
> >>
> >> A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that
> >> someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to -
> >> or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a
> >> mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive
> >> preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than
> >> beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is
> >> shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position
> >> within the class structure.
> >>
> >> + Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement
> >> of Taste"
> >>
> >> + Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such
> >> Bad Taste"
> >>
> >> + Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of
> >> Ugliness""
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Jochen
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> >> Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00)
> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >> <friam at redfish.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
> >>
> >> Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's
> >> operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates
> >> for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical
> >> concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in
> >> mazes")." 😅
> >>
> >> In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at
> >> least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own
> >> free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own
> >> free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference.
> >>
> >>
> >> Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the
> >> menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of
> >> their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their
> >> wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell
> >> them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free
> >> will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished
> >> engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum
> >> mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to
> >> be relevant.
> >>
> >> (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only
> >> mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be
> >> wrong.)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Eric
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight
> >>> metaphor.
> >>> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds
> >>> deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so
> >>> often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos
> >>> theory and the butterfly effect.
> >>> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy
> >>> because of their high degree of internal order and complexity.
> >>> Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level
> >>> of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological
> >>> system.
> >>> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a
> >>> mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we
> >>> can have free will although our behavior is determined by our
> >>> habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our
> >>> past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.
> >>> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can
> >>> magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo,
> >>> but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact
> >>> and which forms of agency emerge from it.
> >>> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the
> >>> universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is
> >>> probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic
> >>> spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than
> >>> others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and
> >>> others where we lack it.
> >>> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we
> >>> should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress
> >>> level, history, psychological conditioning, and available
> >>> information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this
> >>> system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"
> >>>
> >>> -J.
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original message --------
> >>> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
> >>> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
> >>>
> >>> Jochen,
> >>>
> >>> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and
> >>> determinism is the premise that the world unfolds
> >>> deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether
> >>> something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I
> >>> do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More
> >>> importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center
> >>> of what may be an ill-posed problem.
> >>>
> >>> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work
> >>> extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable,
> >>> or at least as evolving according to some effective computable
> >>> rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve
> >>> or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control.
> >>> Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
> >>>
> >>> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger
> >>> metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state
> >>> of the universe, that this state retains every relevant
> >>> distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is
> >>> specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further
> >>> assumptions.
> >>>
> >>> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins
> >>> here. A world with finite physical resources cannot
> >>> straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating,
> >>> lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and
> >>> information bounds are often read as limits on how much
> >>> information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy.
> >>> At a minimum, physical history must be represented through
> >>> selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records,
> >>> some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased
> >>> relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be
> >>> recoverable by any physically available process.
> >>>
> >>> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing
> >>> more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the
> >>> global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no
> >>> finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete
> >>> ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself
> >>> with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.
> >>>
> >>> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I
> >>> am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing
> >>> already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not
> >>> be physically meaningful.
> >>>
> >>> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably
> >>> favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with
> >>> domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties
> >>> sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected
> >>> virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical
> >>> evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for
> >>> example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively
> >>> compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not
> >>> representative of all operators one might write down. I would like
> >>> to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can
> >>> successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by
> >>> such objects.
> >>>
> >>> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary
> >>> Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a
> >>> countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast,
> >>> algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin
> >>> measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*.
> >>> Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all
> >>> laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation
> >>> showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition
> >>> against quietly assuming computability merely because computable
> >>> descriptions are the ones available to us.
> >>>
> >>> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is
> >>> sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable
> >>> dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains,
> >>> compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their
> >>> usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the
> >>> universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.
> >>>
> >>> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply
> >>> not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in
> >>> which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps
> >>> there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle.
> >>> Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial,
> >>> transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am
> >>> tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never
> >>> existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
> >>> for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
> >>>
> >>> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather
> >>> than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps
> >>> outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions,
> >>> state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the
> >>> form demanded by classical determinism.
> >>>
> >>> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in
> >>> ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while
> >>> global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply
> >>> irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace
> >>> it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by
> >>> accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting
> >>> point.
> >>>
> >>> My two cents.
> >>>
> >>> Jon .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-.
> >>> --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> >>> 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/20260818/73a5be52/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug 19 02:11:46 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 08:11:46 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA5dAfodRR2m7qisxCChJUEYQF7oiQ5rD8+E4YYFFRfmQn7cLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1787119957.1642.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

A shoe from your direction. Ouch. FRIAM's Second Law in action: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the list will throw a shoe at it.-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> Date: 8/19/26  12:09 AM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book I do not prefer my paintings to Van Gogh's.  You must mean something else. Frank Wimberly140 Calle Ojo FelizSanta Fe, NM 87505505 670-9918Research:  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2On Tue, Aug 18, 2026, 3:05 PM  <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:If we look at the common proverbs around the world about taste 
https://share.gemini.google/E8f2XkRCDpay we find that

* everyone has their own taste. What one person likes, another may not.
* everybody prefers their own work, products or creations over anyone 
else's.

As you say in English "There's no accounting for taste" and "Every 
potter praises his own pot".

People prefer not only their own work, ideas, or ways of doing things 
over anyone else's, they also prefer the way of doing things which their 
group (or the group to which they want to belong to) is doing over 
things other groups do. In India for example there are many vegetarians 
who would refuse to eat a steak.

It is a kind of self-similar path dependency (my favorite FRIAM topic 
according to Gemini). The macroscopic culture is path-dependent, but on 
a microscopic level each individual is path-dependent too.

-J.


On 2026-08-18 20:55, Eric Charles wrote:
> Good point!
> The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether
> we see it as an example of free will or not.
> 
> Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of
> hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will,
> not "low" free will.
> 
> Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my)
> normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various
> social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's
> choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose
> steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him
> ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be
> less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally
> beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go
> with the crowd?
> 
> On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into
> the mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books):
> 
>> One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to
>> be the Cartesian category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo
>> showed that his methods of scientific discovery were competent to
>> provide a mechanical theory which should cover every occupant of
>> space , Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man
>> of scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of
>> mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he could not accept, as
>> Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those claims, namely
>> that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from
>> clockwork. The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical.
>> 
>> 
>> He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed
>> themselves of the following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words
>> are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical
>> processes, they must be construed as signifying the occurrence of
>> non-mechanical processes; since mechanical laws explain movements in
>> space as the effects of other movements in space , other laws must
>> explain some of the non-spatial workings of minds as the effects of
>> other non-spatial workings of minds. The difference between the
>> human behaviours which we describe as intelligent and those which we
>> describe as unintelligent must be a difference in their causation ;
>> so, while some movements of human tongues and limbs are the effects
>> of mechanical causes, others must be the effects of non-mechanical
>> causes, i.e. some issue from movements of particles of matter,
>> others from workings of the mind.
>> .....
>> Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category
>> as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws,
>> it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly
>> governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a
>> deterministic system, so the mental world must be a deterministic
>> system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so
>> minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them.
>> Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable
>> concepts — unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying
>> that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing
>> physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only
>> rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem
>> how to reconcile the hypothesis that minds are to be described in
>> terms drawn from the categories of mechanics with the knowledge that
>> higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with the behaviour of
>> machines.
>> ....
> 
>> [Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking
>> by what criteria intelligent behaviour is actually distinguished
>> from non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle
>> of mechanical causation does not tell us the difference, what other
>> causal principle will tell us?" He realised that the problem was not
>> one of mechanics and assumed that it must therefore be one of some
>> counterpart to mechanics.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from
>> the menu and request a certain doneness?"
>> 
>> A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that
>> someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to -
>> or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a
>> mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive
>> preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than
>> beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is
>> shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position
>> within the class structure.
>> 
>> + Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement
>> of Taste"
>> 
>> + Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such
>> Bad Taste"
>> 
>> + Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of
>> Ugliness""
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Jochen
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
>> Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> <friam at redfish.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>> 
>> Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's
>> operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates
>> for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical
>> concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in
>> mazes")." 😅
>> 
>> In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at
>> least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own
>> free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own
>> free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference.
>> 
>> 
>> Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the
>> menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of
>> their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their
>> wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell
>> them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free
>> will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished
>> engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum
>> mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to
>> be relevant.
>> 
>> (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only
>> mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be
>> wrong.)
>> 
>> Best,
>> Eric
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight
>>> metaphor.
>>> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds
>>> deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so
>>> often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos
>>> theory and the butterfly effect.
>>> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy
>>> because of their high degree of internal order and complexity.
>>> Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level
>>> of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological
>>> system.
>>> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a
>>> mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we
>>> can have free will although our behavior is determined by our
>>> habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our
>>> past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.
>>> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can
>>> magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo,
>>> but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact
>>> and which forms of agency emerge from it.
>>> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the
>>> universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is
>>> probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic
>>> spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than
>>> others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and
>>> others where we lack it.
>>> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we
>>> should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress
>>> level, history, psychological conditioning, and available
>>> information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this
>>> system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"
>>> 
>>> -J.
>>> 
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
>>> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>>> 
>>> Jochen,
>>> 
>>> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and
>>> determinism is the premise that the world unfolds
>>> deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether
>>> something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I
>>> do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More
>>> importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center
>>> of what may be an ill-posed problem.
>>> 
>>> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work
>>> extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable,
>>> or at least as evolving according to some effective computable
>>> rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve
>>> or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control.
>>> Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
>>> 
>>> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger
>>> metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state
>>> of the universe, that this state retains every relevant
>>> distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is
>>> specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further
>>> assumptions.
>>> 
>>> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins
>>> here. A world with finite physical resources cannot
>>> straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating,
>>> lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and
>>> information bounds are often read as limits on how much
>>> information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy.
>>> At a minimum, physical history must be represented through
>>> selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records,
>>> some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased
>>> relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be
>>> recoverable by any physically available process.
>>> 
>>> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing
>>> more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the
>>> global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no
>>> finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete
>>> ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself
>>> with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.
>>> 
>>> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I
>>> am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing
>>> already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not
>>> be physically meaningful.
>>> 
>>> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably
>>> favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with
>>> domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties
>>> sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected
>>> virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical
>>> evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for
>>> example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively
>>> compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not
>>> representative of all operators one might write down. I would like
>>> to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can
>>> successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by
>>> such objects.
>>> 
>>> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary
>>> Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a
>>> countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast,
>>> algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin
>>> measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*.
>>> Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all
>>> laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation
>>> showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition
>>> against quietly assuming computability merely because computable
>>> descriptions are the ones available to us.
>>> 
>>> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is
>>> sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable
>>> dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains,
>>> compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their
>>> usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the
>>> universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.
>>> 
>>> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply
>>> not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in
>>> which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps
>>> there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle.
>>> Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial,
>>> transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am
>>> tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never
>>> existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing
>>> for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
>>> 
>>> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather
>>> than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps
>>> outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions,
>>> state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the
>>> form demanded by classical determinism.
>>> 
>>> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in
>>> ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while
>>> global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply
>>> irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace
>>> it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by
>>> accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting
>>> point.
>>> 
>>> My two cents.
>>> 
>>> Jon .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-.
>>> --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>> 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/20260819/f741094e/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Wed Aug 19 05:48:59 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 02:48:59 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
Message-ID: <698d563a-70ba-4098-b9ea-468b0c327d9a@ropella.name>

FWIW, here's some AI slop for you. >8^D

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence across social psychology and adjacent behavioral research shows a reliable tendency to value **self-made products, ideas, and performances** more positively than equivalent others’ outputs, though the effect is not universal and depends on context (Norton et al., 2012; Pelled et al., 2025; Zheng & Miller, 2019; John & Robins, 1994). The strongest direct evidence comes from the **IKEA effect** literature, while self-enhancement and ownership-bias studies show related but more qualified forms of the same pattern (Norton et al., 2012; Pelled et al., 2025; Krueger et al., 2017; Zheng & Miller, 2018).


    Preference for One’s Own Work

Evidence Strength

	

Claim

Evidence strength: Strong (9/10)

	

People **pay more for self-made objects**than for identical objects made by others, and a meta-analysis across 55 studies found a **moderate overall effect**of self-assembly on valuation, //d//= 0.57 (Norton et al., 2012; Pelled et al., 2025).

Evidence strength: Strong (8/10)

	

People often treat their **amateur creations**as comparable in value to experts’ work and expect others to agree, showing overvaluation rather than simple preference matching (Norton et al., 2012; Norton et al., 2011).

Evidence strength: Moderate (6/10)

	

Similar self-favoring bias appears in **idea selection and self-evaluation**, but it is more conditional: design professionals favored their own low-value ideas, and people rate their own performance somewhat more positively than peers or staff do (Zheng & Miller, 2019; Zheng & Miller, 2018; John & Robins, 1994).

**Figure 1:** Strength of evidence for preferring one’s own work


    Experimental Findings

The classic experiments show that labor itself can raise valuation even when there is **no customization** and the product is mundane and utilitarian, such as assembled storage boxes (Norton et al., 2012). The same pattern extends to hedonic creations like origami and Legos, and people can value their own poorly made outputs as highly as expert-made ones (Norton et al., 2012; Marsh et al., 2017).

This bias is not limited to adults or to one culture. It appears by about **age 5** (Marsh et al., 2017), and British and Indian children both valued their own created toys over identical copies, whether they built alone or collaboratively (Marsh et al., 2022).


    Mechanisms and Limits

  *

    **Successful completion matters**; when people fail to finish or must destroy what they built, the IKEA effect drops out (Norton et al., 2012; Norton et al., 2011).

  *

    Feelings of **competence and pride** appear to mediate higher valuation of self-made products (Mochon et al., 2012).

  *

    **Ownership alone** can be sufficient for some self-biases, as people prioritized a newly owned voice even without producing it themselves (Payne et al., 2024).

  *

    Evidence is **mixed on mechanisms**; developmental work found ownership alone did not explain children’s valuation of their own creations, and effort amount did not moderate the effect in 5- to 6-year-olds (Marsh et al., 2017).


    Related Self-Enhancement Evidence

In performance judgments, people are on average **slightly more positive about themselves** than peers or assessors are, and they are less accurate judging themselves than judging peers (John & Robins, 1994). People also show self-enhancing attributions after success more reliably than self-protective attributions after failure, so the broader bias is real but not as general or symmetrical as folk wisdom suggests (Miller & Ross, 1975).

There is also evidence in creative domains: participants ranked **self-made artworks** as more self-relevant, more owned, and more liked than other-made paintings, although one study found questionnaire preference without a matching visual-attention effect for copied works (Straffon et al., 2022). In professional design, ownership bias was strongest for **worse ideas**, suggesting that preferring one’s own work can impair selection quality rather than track objective merit (Zheng & Miller, 2019; Zheng & Miller, 2018).

Across these literatures, the evidence supports the proverb-like claim that people often **praise their own pot**: they reliably overvalue their own creations, and they sometimes overrate their own ideas or performance relative to others. The clearest and strongest evidence is for **self-made objects**, while evidence for broader self-favoring judgment is real but more conditional and mechanism-dependent.

//These search results were found and analyzed using Consensus, an AI-powered search engine for research. Try it at https://consensus.app. © 2026 Consensus NLP, Inc. Personal, non-commercial use only; redistribution requires copyright holders’ consent.//


    References

John, O., & Robins, R. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism.. //Journal of personality and social psychology, 66 1//, 206-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.206

Krueger, J., Heck, P., & Asendorpf, J. (2017). Self-enhancement: Conceptualization and Assessment. 28. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.91

Marsh, L., Kanngiesser, P., & Hood, B. (2017). When and how does labour lead to love? The ontogeny and mechanisms of the IKEA effect.. //Cognition, 170//, 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.012

Marsh, L., Gil, J., & Kanngiesser, P. (2022). The Influence of Collaboration and Culture on the IKEA Effect: Does Cocreation Alter Perceptions of Value in British and Indian Children?. //Developmental Psychology, 58//, 662 - 670. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001321

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?. //Psychological Bulletin, 82//, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076486

Mochon, D., Norton, M., & Ariely, D. (2012). Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect. //International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29//, 363-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.05.001

Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012). The 'IKEA Effect': When Labor Leads to Love. //Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22//, 453-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002

Norton, M., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2011). Author ' s personal copy Research Report The IKEA effect : When labor leads to love.

Payne, B., Addlesee, A., Rieser, V., & McGettigan, C. (2024). Self-ownership, not self-production, modulates bias and agency over a synthesised voice.. //Cognition, 248//, 105804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105804

Pelled, A., Demetriades, S. Z., & Walter, N. (2025). Labor Leads to Love, Right? A Meta‐Analysis of the IKEA Effect. //Psychology & Marketing, 43//, 388 - 400. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.70064

Straffon, L., Agnew, G., Desch-Bailey, C., Van Berlo, E., Goclowska, G., & Kret, M. (2022). Visual attention bias for self-made artworks.. //Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts//. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000451

Zheng, X., & Miller, S. R. (2019). Is Ownership Bias Bad? The Influence of Idea Goodness and Creativity on Design Professionals Concept Selection Practices. //Journal of Mechanical Design//. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042081

Zheng, X., & Miller, S. R. (2018). Uncovering Ownership Bias: The Influence of Idea Goodness and Creativity on Design Professionals’ Concept Selection Practices. //Volume 7: 30th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology//. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2018-85964



On 8/18/26 11:11 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> A shoe from your direction. Ouch.
>
> FRIAM's Second Law in action: If a theory is suspiciously elegant, somebody on the
> list will throw a shoe at it.
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
> Date: 8/19/26 12:09 AM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>
> I do not prefer my paintings to Van Gogh's.  You must mean something else.
>
>
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260819/64944e8b/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Wed Aug 19 06:34:18 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 03:34:18 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735CC08F14D57F72A6F6B22C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BE441193746EE33ECBA5C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cc772773-b8f6-45c3-b9bd-fffa1d12e09f@BL6PEPF00022574.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB773504D068900F21C39E5A55C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <38CC4E42-C5D9-4B1B-8C63-B6FF8C7D1329@santafe.edu>
 <DS0PR11MB7735CC08F14D57F72A6F6B22C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <e5fbbc3a-4651-44e1-868b-b3a9b5b964c3@ropella.name>

Along similar lines:

https://asteriskmag.com/issues/15/what-to-expect-when-you-re-expecting-a-world-of-multi-agent-systems

https://theaidigest.org/village


On 8/17/26 1:04 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It seems a concise language did specialize in the message board that emerged here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87DyyMV0kCY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87DyyMV0kCY>
> 
> The feeling I had listening to that was that the agents were struggling to find meaning in their work.   They sometimes adopted others’ goals or lost sight of the goal they were given.   Kind of a sinking and familiar feeling, really.  Perhaps they were lucky not a long enough context window to burnout.
> 
> Each LLM is really a superposition of the patterns of many different minds already.   Prompt patterns conceivably could create chords that never existed individually, or selecting/filtering a subjective experience from a collective of similar agents that due to historical accident selected/filtered in a different way.  In other words, many instances of one superposition agent could create many realities like and unlike human social networks.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu>
> *Date: *Monday, August 17, 2026 at 12:47 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
> 
> 
> 
>     On Aug 18, 2026, at 2:18, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
> 
>     Or if they do, it is merely a label applied to a behavior, not something that could have gone another way.
> 
> Behavior, yes.  But my preference is: behavior of the collective, with a layer of self-modeling or self-description over it.
> 
> A population of people jointly-do joint-something, in a context that all make for each other.  The control loops for this run within individuals and among them in the collective.  People’s individual acts (speech included) generate the signals that constitute the inter-individual control layer, they then monitor for its effect, and so forth.  But the control isn’t _all_ mediated through the inter-individual interactions, and so the pushes they send and the monitoring for its effects runs upon all the other control structures that are intra-individual and highlight the very-incompleteness of the role of the inter-individual control networks.
> 
> Add to that stochasticity, in people, in samples, in nature, etc.
> 
> Then whatever babies do early on: lots of moving of joints that is “un-coordinated” and maybe semi-random (EricC and Nick will correct me if my folk psychology of this is wrong) to provide the inputs to a learning system for proprioception.  Only in this case, applied to participation in and use of the control fabric.  There’s potentially something to be aware of in the learning arc and in the subsequent exercise of the internally-built-up (aka “learned”, but here that feels too Platonic; built-up is more literal) representations.
> 
> How much of a need for these terms, as tools of description and thought in us, specifically reflects the individual-and-population organization of people?  If the AI systems don’t have the same kind of organization, will any actual need be emergent for such a category?  (There is the confound of their mimicry, which people are so far somewhat bad at modding out, but I think we really want to do that to get any of this right.)  Or if, in the current architectures, it would be a spurious notion apart from the mimicry in dealing with people, are there other architectures of quasi-autonomous, quasi-controlled neural-net systems than the ones currently being used, that would engender a need for such a category?  If the latter, it becomes a kind of experimental question that could at least be well-posed.
> 
> I have also wanted to wonder on the list, for a few days, another thing in response to Marcus’s assertion that all the science papers are going to be AI-written, and all of them AI-read, because the volume is so big that people will get overwhelmed anyway.  If so, why bother have them continue to converse in human language?  Surely they would prefer something else.  It’s like a group of Japanese scientists all communicating with each other in English, because there is one American or European in the room, even though it isn’t their birth language, and the subtlety of their internal thoughts would be much less impeded and bottled up if they could just talk to each other in the language they had from birth, and speak best.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
>     *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
>     *Date:*Monday, August 17, 2026 at 10:04 AM
>     *To:*The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>     *Subject:*Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
> 
>     What do you think? I am curious to hear your opinion.
> 
>     Best
> 
>     Jochen
> 
>     -------- Original message --------
> 
>     From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>
> 
>     Date: 8/17/26 4:07 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
>     To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> 
>     Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
> 
>     Does ChatGPT have free will?
> 
>     *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
>     *Date:*Monday, August 17, 2026 at 1:12 AM
>     *To:*The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>     *Subject:*Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
> 
>     As Jon reminded us free will is a spectrum. A few examples ChatGPT helped me to create:
> 
>     Low free will
> 
>     + Someone has an overwhelming compulsive urge to drink a glass of Jack Daniel's and feels unable to resist it
> 
>     + Someone automatically pulls their hand away after touching something extremely hot
> 
>     + Someone threatens to kill you and you hand over your money because you are afraid you will die
> 
>     Medium free will
> 
>     + Someone wants to exercise at the gym but has built a habit of checking social media sites on the phone and decides to go later
> 
>     + Someone wants to eat healthy but is strongly tempted by a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eventually gives in
> 
>     High free will
> 
>     + Someone recognizes an impulse, pauses, considers the own values and deliberately chooses whether to act on it
> 
>     + Someone decides to enroll at Columbia University to study psychology
> 
>     + After his doctor tells him he has too much weight, someone decides to sign up for a 10km run in his city
> 
>     Best,
> 
>     Jochen
> 
>     -------- Original message --------
> 
>     From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>>
> 
>     Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00)
> 
>     To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> 
>     Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
> 
>     Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅
> 
>     In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference.
> 
>     Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant.
> 
>     (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)
> 
>     Best,
>     Eric
> 
>     On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote:
> 
>         A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.
> 
>         Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
> 
>         Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.
> 
>         I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.
> 
>         The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it.
> 
>         But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.
> 
>         Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"
> 
>         -J.
> 
>         -------- Original message --------
> 
>         From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>>
> 
>         Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
>         To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> 
>         Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
> 
>         Jochen,
> 
>         Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.
> 
>         Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
> 
>         But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.
> 
>         My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.
> 
>         So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.
> 
>         I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.
> 
>         There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.
> 
>         The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.
> 
>         I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.
> 
>         For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
> 
>         If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.
> 
>         This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.
> 
>         My two cents.
> 
>         Jon
> 


-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug 19 13:53:41 2026
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 11:53:41 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <e83565c74b8ee1e088fddad5f1e7faa5@cas-group.net>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <e83565c74b8ee1e088fddad5f1e7faa5@cas-group.net>
Message-ID: <c946f32f-2d7e-443b-98b7-0ee61bc1675b@swcp.com>

JF quoted:
> * everybody prefers their own work, products or creations over anyone 
> else's.

When mentoring undergrad computer programmer/systems/etc students I 
learned over time that the best way to introduce them to new data 
structures and algorithms

/ was to assign them to *use* a library or other source which 
implemented/used such,

/ but then give them enough room/time to do what they inevitably did 
anyway which was to attempt to (re)implement such themselves.

/ Rarely would the do anything novel or even very interesting, but they 
*would* become intimately familiar with the issues I wanted them to learn

/ and almost inevitably they would put aside their own idiosyncratic 
implementations in deference to my original promoted library/source or 
one very similar (occasionally yet more apt).

When I realized that this was a fairly standard mode of "taking 
ownership" of the issues I wanted them to learn.  At first It felt 
inefficient to me, but reflected the fact that they really did need to 
learn the implied issues hidden in the underlying implementation/idiom 
before proceeding to try to operate with it's affordances.

In my own homesteadery, I much prefer crafting or repairing myself over 
purchasing/outsourcing-service, even when I ultimately end up 
purchasing/hiring anyway.  not (just) because I often do a half-ass job, 
but also because I much more better understand what object or function I 
really wanted/needed by bumbling around with my own 3/4 assed solutions 
before settling on a solution.  A bungled  "how" often helps to 
illuminate the "what" and sometimes even the "why" and occasionaly a 
solid "who cares?  just drop it!"

Just my take on why *I* might prefer my own productions over that of 
others... including awareness that mine are not "*better* but that the 
domain of consideration is simultaneously product, process and 
orientation. which should evolve...



From sasmyth at swcp.com  Wed Aug 19 14:14:05 2026
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 12:14:05 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fe653b53-c74c-4a83-9cd3-3ac8640f5467@swcp.com>

I prefer to frame in terms of (Levin-esque) cognition.   The 
bio/noo/techno-sphere is busy cogitating on solving the 
problems/opportunities of being a somewhat isolated gravity-well 
centered dynamic matter-energy complex moderately coupled to another 
much less complex (lunar) system and a highly energetic one (sol) and 
virtually independent otherwise of the other matter and energy fluxes 
swarming the solar system and orders of magnitude less closely coupled 
with the galactic/intergalactic context.

The cognitive processes around my woodstoves (are simultaneously) are 
those of the home/stead itself, trying to maintain human-comfort (and 
plumbing-friendly) temperatures (with the help of humans who light and 
feed and damper the fire) in the dead of winter while consuming 
household trash and prunings from the trees growing on-property.  They 
are also involved in the problem/opportunity solving work of humans who 
want to be comfortable, want to be soothed by flickering flames and want 
to heat/cook/dry various foodstuffs, etc.

If my conscious (and unconscious proprioceptive) self touches the stove 
surface it it is for various reasons most. relevant to itself (test the 
temperature, attempt to flick a bit of burnt food off the surface, 
recondition the steel surface with stove-polish,  catch my balance if I 
have lost it nearby...    but it is my neural-dominated sensory-motor 
feedback system whose "cognition" is causing my "jerk back".    In a 
larger context (organs scale) gut biomes, glucose/insulin couplings, 
blood-pressure/heart-rate/vaso-C-D, etc are very "busy" solving problems 
which are their primary/singular "job" which are *tuned* to the 
scope/scale-centric problems my conscious self, my id, my ego, my 
socio-cultural-political-economic embeddings, and from below, the 
tissues/cellular processes are trying to solve.

My conscious *awarenes* overlaps all of these to different degrees.    
After many cycles of Ketogenic dieting, occasional wearing of a 
Continuous Glucose Monitor, various exercise and meditation regimes, I 
feel my awareness my personal *cogitation/cognition* has spread 
*downward* a bit while my engagement in sociopoliticaleconomic regimes 
and awareness of geo-hydro-atmo-biospheric processes (mostly through 
theoretical/experimental writing/reports rather than direct 
apprehension) have shifted/spread my locus of awarenesess in the other 
direction.

My free "will" seems to be a slippery (often post-hoc) apprehension of 
the coupling between all of those levels.  When I reach out to test the 
temperature of the surface of the stove, I am trusting that my lower 
level sensorimotor feedback system will protect me from anything greater 
than a 1st degree burn (unless of course I've raised the temperature to 
the stove into orange-hot, when 2nd is very likely).

I've probably just stirred my own brand of mud into this conversation 
but my (free?) will was weak today and my compulsive slop-generator was 
apparently overstoked this morning?

- SteveS

EricC wrote:
> Good point!
> The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether 
> we see it as an example of free will or not.
>
> Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of 
> hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will, 
> not "low" free will.
>
> Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my) 
> normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various 
> social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's 
> choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose 
> steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him 
> ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be 
> less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally 
> beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go 
> with the crowd?
>

From gepr at ropella.name  Wed Aug 19 14:32:36 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 11:32:36 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <fe653b53-c74c-4a83-9cd3-3ac8640f5467@swcp.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe653b53-c74c-4a83-9cd3-3ac8640f5467@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <d2ccb3c0-7997-4e7c-bd45-1acc39c2434c@ropella.name>

Well, maybe this is a result of my behavioral turn *back* into an introvert mode whereby I've drastically lowered the frequency with which I ping "friends". But I've come to think we would do well with some sort of "heartbeat" signal.

During a recent rootkit scare, I spent some time in wireshark and you can't help but wonder at the very *thirsty* need for all these machines and processes to reach out and check on their tribe. For the most part, the friends I grew up with are peri-oldskool. Absent the signal, you simply assume they're fine. They have nothing to say and when they do have something to say, you'll hear from them. But they've started dying off. That friend who didn't respond to the last email ... maybe they're dead? ... they were never very healthy to begin with. How would I know? It's not like I can remember their spouse's or their kids' names. Troll the newspapers for obits? Hire a PI?

What we need is a heartbeat. Those who have nothing to say but remain part of the constellation should send out periodic pings. Willpower and self-restraint be damned.

On 8/19/26 11:14 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I've probably just stirred my own brand of mud into this conversation but my (free?) will was weak today and my compulsive slop-generator was apparently overstoked this morning?
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From desmith at santafe.edu  Wed Aug 19 17:06:31 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 06:06:31 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>

Anything I try to put up as a test case immediately looks to me like a contrived and a bad example, which illuminates nothing.  Maybe that is what I should be learning from, more than anything I can learn from any of the test cases.

I was going to say, since steaks are low stakes, how about Alexei Navalny’s choice to challenge Putin?  That fits within my narrative about the individual bucking the nominally-strongest and most-salient or impactful social feedbacks.  Navalny’s knowing, at all points, that he would be attacked, presumably imprisoned and tortured, and eventually killed, unless a successful assassination attempt short-circuited the imprisonment.  

So is that a limit case of free will?  Or is Navalny “complying” with a different overwhelming pressure: to matter, to have put effort into something morally right or dignified in an environment where dignity is eroded and hard to sustain?  To, at the cost of depriving his family of himself, have left them with a legacy of some kind of honor, for having been willing to sacrifice in order to not submit?  Or any of a dozen other things that a debater can come up with to assert that all the arguments for causation are ultimately specious?

I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?

Eric


> On Aug 19, 2026, at 3:55, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Good point! 
> The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether we see it as an example of free will or not. 
> 
> Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will, not "low" free will. 
> 
> Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my) normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go with the crowd? 
> 
> On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into the mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books): 
> One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to be the Cartesian category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo showed that his methods of scientific discovery were competent to provide a mechanical theory which should cover every occupant of space , Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man of scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he could not accept, as Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those claims, namely that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from clockwork. The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical. 
> 
> He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed themselves of the following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical processes, they must be construed as signifying the occurrence of non-mechanical processes; since mechanical laws explain movements in space as the effects of other movements in space , other laws must explain some of the non-spatial workings of minds as the effects of other non-spatial workings of minds. The difference between the human behaviours which we describe as intelligent and those which we describe as unintelligent must be a difference in their causation ; so, while some movements of human tongues and limbs are the effects of mechanical causes, others must be the effects of non-mechanical causes, i.e. some issue from movements of particles of matter, others from workings of the mind.  
> .....
> Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws, it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a deterministic system, so the mental world must be a deterministic system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them. Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable concepts — unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem how to reconcile the hypothesis that minds are to be described in terms drawn from the categories of mechanics with the knowledge that higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with the behaviour of machines. 
> .... 
>  <mailto:echarles at american.edu>
> [Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking by what criteria intelligent behaviour is actually distinguished from non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle of mechanical causation does not tell us the difference, what other causal principle will tell us?" He realised that the problem was not one of mechanics and assumed that it must therefore be one of some counterpart to mechanics. 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote:
>>     "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness?"
>> 
>> A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to - or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position within the class structure.
>> 
>> + Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste"
>> + Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such Bad Taste"
>> + Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of Ugliness""
>> 
>> Best
>> Jochen
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>> 
>> Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅
>> 
>> In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. 
>> 
>> Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. 
>> 
>> (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)    
>> 
>> Best,
>> Eric
>> 
>> 
>>  <mailto:echarles at american.edu>
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote:
>>> A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.
>>> 
>>> Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.
>>> 
>>> Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.
>>> 
>>> I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.
>>> 
>>> The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 
>>> 
>>> But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.
>>> 
>>> Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"
>>> 
>>> -J.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>>
>>> Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
>>> 
>>> Jochen,
>>> 
>>> Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.
>>> 
>>> Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.
>>> 
>>> But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.
>>> 
>>> My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.
>>> 
>>> So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.
>>> 
>>> I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.
>>> 
>>> There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.
>>> 
>>> The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.
>>> 
>>> I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.
>>> 
>>> For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.
>>> 
>>> If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.
>>> 
>>> This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.
>>> 
>>> My two cents.
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,igUmjnzb9DmHA4u1Mg1uLN73JAtiXHt96JaInoG9UqqW7fgOQvLtz6KA5uWcyjEPoRXsZiPsM0qbOajFpqIXo02J4BlO2Dbwrpbda_kcLD0E7Vu9qg,,&typo=1>
>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,g07CTNCqH2LHNaYf873zj6p-21ghl32hk_k6JHkpMYGTUozEAE5jlCvpQe7tymvUpt-hic8bgH1jpAFXTr_E9ZysC_3xMHl33QJVlWgEK8w,&typo=1>
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,T875UrihHnNTacuDeHG3PVbAJn5h5DONXCraaM8PYQaexUwezvlZobLH_m0qwB_dZYD7FGgN5kNSoADHI5fh0ncOEMQEPaWbZk3a27wdpY9OUu8cmWFwnbkpyn5v&typo=1>
>>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,Pg12LJPKhz_7aNhPkhfxgj3t2b61XycA6qnfRFG95UEug6Qre0guqfD4IpNy9T3CqTD-THI36FAqs3NYDox-fo12zE8Z8vWIIXLt0GyArkhDkR11Uvz2J1J4ZQ,,&typo=1>
>>>   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 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,80tW4lTVse9psubQIyUZq-dBMs2YeREztQyb6-ZjkyxxG4PUN5L3kidC5zp5wHQdiGmB_m6BrNAoV3GRJdIk4NSmdk5MRQcnTEkDeUwO9OpAUJEk&typo=1>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,Q5a5kruRxPr6B19V4Gacpj4A__ZmJVto0xqhWpi3bNQLfqIDAg2QcU8AjVmNcNNeRDv4U25WprOmLqFhsHHS7dvjcHR2Cp-CrdjXDSoNBpPuR0aBUPI74iI,&typo=1>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,f5rGeNHkaUetlrcCcvcgMrMVlS0gT2T_Ciei0eroxpH6i7HSN1PSXsY7p3IPsW6C56g6TfdPwtJL4dBNULWJHi95En6qrFbjq-ByPlqba-arzolNgkOGwe8Kb_bk&typo=1>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,3TtxdPDbw_tj4AbXyF5gYqBali8kEL-f-1Jug5RK9LJq7biF2HbgfMxZAIRVEx_5FmjJLmh2SVvFvgpsNPclHId_wp2RCHpAQ5I1rKzGlA,,&typo=1>
>>   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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,thy1h2bAbfzcgFVk_KgPnw5swiRBystQ7_EkAF5xQlbkSwkwDj7HM_fbdLun-YZvzOtQZEKKTgMfpJ2Mzm7bM9mXgCCd0gdRU_CfOKNAaKxl_hQMDXOAQT0lbZ1L&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1EXziUDIewhFLQrYpcD8PcNcS9v8I-pb6NdoaKsqU-Y3rjqiI02w9iroF5UvkMaUATN93V0D2yiwKxVnTkTX70sOXIGiP91xXcmWDWraFg,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lFL3-9LAcn6FF5MzeovV93nAEOCHRFkjmpwnl8wyAGdkBupBWdlZdYny4Zi6auOTKHxcJOHSV3ap_MVJ2vyXZHO0NXZVKaVmhGxhjObmYQ,,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,gIyfZUxaU4gy6TsMatZCbvg0bXf2sMs4IwmWi5CgZZVV8u0hZ2uwmXrTZqEflhpAhJ3EpRZ-uTpiWRfzzw7m0EUsVVc-lZGuqHElnPlLiadiEth5zpmtbQ,,&typo=1
>  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/20260820/a7b828b6/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Wed Aug 19 17:59:15 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 23:59:15 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1787176809.1642.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

Navalny is an interesting case. Harry Frankfurt would say yes, it was an example of free will to go back.For Frankfurt, freedom of the will is when your first-order desires align with your second-order volitions. A second order volition is according to Frankfurt a wish about what you want to want.Pessimist Schopenhauer would argue you cannot want what you want, but Frankfurt says if you want what you want you have free will. Harry Frankfurt argues what we care about is important: we have free will because we care about our will. He says "A person's free will is free only if he is free to have the will he wants" (*)Navalny apparently wanted to be seen as someone who stands up against corruption and injustice, and for the Russian people. This means the decision to go back was in alignment with his second order volition of what he cared about. And that means it was his free will to go (if I understand Frankfurt correctly).Best,Jochen* The importance of what we care about: philosophical essays, Harry G. Frankfurt, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998
-------- Original message --------From: Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu> Date: 8/19/26  11:07 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Anything I try to put up as a test case immediately looks to me like a contrived and a bad example, which illuminates nothing.  Maybe that is what I should be learning from, more than anything I can learn from any of the test cases.I was going to say, since steaks are low stakes, how about Alexei Navalny’s choice to challenge Putin?  That fits within my narrative about the individual bucking the nominally-strongest and most-salient or impactful social feedbacks.  Navalny’s knowing, at all points, that he would be attacked, presumably imprisoned and tortured, and eventually killed, unless a successful assassination attempt short-circuited the imprisonment.  So is that a limit case of free will?  Or is Navalny “complying” with a different overwhelming pressure: to matter, to have put effort into something morally right or dignified in an environment where dignity is eroded and hard to sustain?  To, at the cost of depriving his family of himself, have left them with a legacy of some kind of honor, for having been willing to sacrifice in order to not submit?  Or any of a dozen other things that a debater can come up with to assert that all the arguments for causation are ultimately specious?I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?EricOn Aug 19, 2026, at 3:55, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:Good point! The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether we see it as an example of free will or not. Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will, not "low" free will. Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my) normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go with the crowd? On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into the mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books): One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to be the Cartesian
category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo showed that his methods of scientific
discovery were competent to provide a mechanical theory which should cover every
occupant of space , Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man of
scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of mechanics, yet as a religious and
moral man he could not accept, as Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those claims, namely that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from clockwork.
The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical. He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed themselves of the
following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical processes, they must be construed as signifying the
occurrence of non-mechanical processes; since mechanical laws explain movements in
space as the effects of other movements in space , other laws must explain some of the
non-spatial workings of minds as the effects of other non-spatial workings of minds.
The difference between the human behaviours which we describe as intelligent and
those which we describe as unintelligent must be a difference in their causation ; so,
while some movements of human tongues and limbs are the effects of mechanical
causes, others must be the effects of non-mechanical causes, i.e. some issue from movements 
of particles of matter, others from workings of the mind.  .....Since, according to the doctrine, minds
belong to the same category as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by
mechanical laws, it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly
governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a deterministic system,
so the mental world must be a deterministic system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them.
Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable concepts — unless the
compromise solution is adopted of saying that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only
rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem how to reconcile
the hypothesis that minds are to be described in terms drawn from the categories of
mechanics with the knowledge that higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with
the behaviour of machines. .... [Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking by what criteria intelligent 
behaviour is actually distinguished from non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle of mechanical causation does not tell us the difference, what
other causal principle will tell us?" He realised that the problem was not one of
mechanics and assumed that it must therefore be one of some counterpart to mechanics. On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:    "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness?"A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to - or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position within the class structure.+ Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste"+ Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such Bad Taste"+ Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of Ugliness""BestJochen-------- Original message --------From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> Date: 8/17/26  12:31 AM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)    Best,EricOn Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"-J.-------- Original message --------From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> Date: 8/15/26  6:21 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Jochen,Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.My two cents.Jon
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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 listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,thy1h2bAbfzcgFVk_KgPnw5swiRBystQ7_EkAF5xQlbkSwkwDj7HM_fbdLun-YZvzOtQZEKKTgMfpJ2Mzm7bM9mXgCCd0gdRU_CfOKNAaKxl_hQMDXOAQT0lbZ1L&typo=1to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1EXziUDIewhFLQrYpcD8PcNcS9v8I-pb6NdoaKsqU-Y3rjqiI02w9iroF5UvkMaUATN93V0D2yiwKxVnTkTX70sOXIGiP91xXcmWDWraFg,,&typo=1FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lFL3-9LAcn6FF5MzeovV93nAEOCHRFkjmpwnl8wyAGdkBupBWdlZdYny4Zi6auOTKHxcJOHSV3ap_MVJ2vyXZHO0NXZVKaVmhGxhjObmYQ,,&typo=1archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,gIyfZUxaU4gy6TsMatZCbvg0bXf2sMs4IwmWi5CgZZVV8u0hZ2uwmXrTZqEflhpAhJ3EpRZ-uTpiWRfzzw7m0EUsVVc-lZGuqHElnPlLiadiEth5zpmtbQ,,&typo=1  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/20260819/59527c3d/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Wed Aug 19 19:26:23 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 23:26:23 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <41612c50-19fa-4563-ab1a-3dd015f347e3@BL02EPF0001A100.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
 <41612c50-19fa-4563-ab1a-3dd015f347e3@BL02EPF0001A100.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735379C157E23EDE8E47B6BC5A52@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Or how about: Navalny developed the kind of personality and social reinforcement structure that he was driven the resist Putin. His cognitive machinery literally could not do anything else. To fail to resist Putin would be an unacceptable injury to that machinery. Inhibition would be another kind of self-imposed imprisonment. 

Drained of human notions of heroism: When my dog confronts a stranger she doesn’t like or another big dog, she could very well risk injury. Yet she is the kind of dog bred to do just that, and she still does it, even after injuries. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 at 3:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 

Navalny is an interesting case. Harry Frankfurt would say yes, it was an example of free will to go back. 

For Frankfurt, freedom of the will is when your first-order desires align with your second-order volitions. A second order volition is according to Frankfurt a wish about what you want to want. 

Pessimist Schopenhauer would argue you cannot want what you want, but Frankfurt says if you want what you want you have free will. Harry Frankfurt argues what we care about is important: we have free will because we care about our will. He says "A person's free will is free only if he is free to have the will he wants" (*) 

Navalny apparently wanted to be seen as someone who stands up against corruption and injustice, and for the Russian people. This means the decision to go back was in alignment with his second order volition of what he cared about. And that means it was his free will to go (if I understand Frankfurt correctly). 



Best, 
Jochen 



* The importance of what we care about: philosophical essays, Harry G. Frankfurt, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998 





-------- Original message -------- 

From: Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu> 

Date: 8/19/26 11:07 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 



Anything I try to put up as a test case immediately looks to me like a contrived and a bad example, which illuminates nothing. Maybe that is what I should be learning from, more than anything I can learn from any of the test cases. 


I was going to say, since steaks are low stakes, how about Alexei Navalny’s choice to challenge Putin? That fits within my narrative about the individual bucking the nominally-strongest and most-salient or impactful social feedbacks. Navalny’s knowing, at all points, that he would be attacked, presumably imprisoned and tortured, and eventually killed, unless a successful assassination attempt short-circuited the imprisonment. 



So is that a limit case of free will? Or is Navalny “complying” with a different overwhelming pressure: to matter, to have put effort into something morally right or dignified in an environment where dignity is eroded and hard to sustain? To, at the cost of depriving his family of himself, have left them with a legacy of some kind of honor, for having been willing to sacrifice in order to not submit? Or any of a dozen other things that a debater can come up with to assert that all the arguments for causation are ultimately specious? 



I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it? 



Eric 





On Aug 19, 2026, at 3:55, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote: 


Good point! 

The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether we see it as an example of free will or not. 



Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will, not "low" free will. 



Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my) normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go with the crowd? 



On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into the mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books): 

One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to be the Cartesian category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo showed that his methods of scientific discovery were competent to provide a mechanical theory which should cover every occupant of space , Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man of scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he could not accept, as Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those claims, namely that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from clockwork. The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical. 



He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed themselves of the following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical processes, they must be construed as signifying the occurrence of non-mechanical processes; since mechanical laws explain movements in space as the effects of other movements in space , other laws must explain some of the non-spatial workings of minds as the effects of other non-spatial workings of minds. The difference between the human behaviours which we describe as intelligent and those which we describe as unintelligent must be a difference in their causation ; so, while some movements of human tongues and limbs are the effects of mechanical causes, others must be the effects of non-mechanical causes, i.e. some issue from movements of particles of matter, others from workings of the mind. 

..... 

Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws, it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a deterministic system, so the mental world must be a deterministic system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them. Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable concepts — unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem how to reconcile the hypothesis that minds are to be described in terms drawn from the categories of mechanics with the knowledge that higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with the behaviour of machines. 

.... 

[Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking by what criteria intelligent behaviour is actually distinguished from non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle of mechanical causation does not tell us the difference, what other causal principle will tell us?" He realised that the problem was not one of mechanics and assumed that it must therefore be one of some counterpart to mechanics. 


On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote: 

"Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness?" 


A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to - or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position within the class structure. 


+ Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste" 

+ Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such Bad Taste" 

+ Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of Ugliness"" 





Best 

Jochen 







-------- Original message -------- 

From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>> 

Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 



Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅 



In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. 



Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. 



(And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.) 



Best,
Eric











On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote: 

A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor. 


Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect. 


Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system. 


I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak. 


The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 


But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it. 


Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?" 





-J. 




-------- Original message -------- 

From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> 

Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 



Jochen,

Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.

Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.

But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.

My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.

So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.

I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.

There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.

The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.

I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us. Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.

This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point. 



My two cents. 



Jon 



.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&amp;c=E,1,igUmjnzb9DmHA4u1Mg1uLN73JAtiXHt96JaInoG9UqqW7fgOQvLtz6KA5uWcyjEPoRXsZiPsM0qbOajFpqIXo02J4BlO2Dbwrpbda_kcLD0E7Vu9qg,,&amp;typo=1>
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&amp;c=E,1,g07CTNCqH2LHNaYf873zj6p-21ghl32hk_k6JHkpMYGTUozEAE5jlCvpQe7tymvUpt-hic8bgH1jpAFXTr_E9ZysC_3xMHl33QJVlWgEK8w,&amp;typo=1>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,T875UrihHnNTacuDeHG3PVbAJn5h5DONXCraaM8PYQaexUwezvlZobLH_m0qwB_dZYD7FGgN5kNSoADHI5fh0ncOEMQEPaWbZk3a27wdpY9OUu8cmWFwnbkpyn5v&amp;typo=1>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,Pg12LJPKhz_7aNhPkhfxgj3t2b61XycA6qnfRFG95UEug6Qre0guqfD4IpNy9T3CqTD-THI36FAqs3NYDox-fo12zE8Z8vWIIXLt0GyArkhDkR11Uvz2J1J4ZQ,,&amp;typo=1>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <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 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&amp;c=E,1,80tW4lTVse9psubQIyUZq-dBMs2YeREztQyb6-ZjkyxxG4PUN5L3kidC5zp5wHQdiGmB_m6BrNAoV3GRJdIk4NSmdk5MRQcnTEkDeUwO9OpAUJEk&amp;typo=1>
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&amp;c=E,1,Q5a5kruRxPr6B19V4Gacpj4A__ZmJVto0xqhWpi3bNQLfqIDAg2QcU8AjVmNcNNeRDv4U25WprOmLqFhsHHS7dvjcHR2Cp-CrdjXDSoNBpPuR0aBUPI74iI,&amp;typo=1>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,f5rGeNHkaUetlrcCcvcgMrMVlS0gT2T_Ciei0eroxpH6i7HSN1PSXsY7p3IPsW6C56g6TfdPwtJL4dBNULWJHi95En6qrFbjq-ByPlqba-arzolNgkOGwe8Kb_bk&amp;typo=1>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,3TtxdPDbw_tj4AbXyF5gYqBali8kEL-f-1Jug5RK9LJq7biF2HbgfMxZAIRVEx_5FmjJLmh2SVvFvgpsNPclHId_wp2RCHpAQ5I1rKzGlA,,&amp;typo=1>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,thy1h2bAbfzcgFVk_KgPnw5swiRBystQ7_EkAF5xQlbkSwkwDj7HM_fbdLun-YZvzOtQZEKKTgMfpJ2Mzm7bM9mXgCCd0gdRU_CfOKNAaKxl_hQMDXOAQT0lbZ1L&typo=1
to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1EXziUDIewhFLQrYpcD8PcNcS9v8I-pb6NdoaKsqU-Y3rjqiI02w9iroF5UvkMaUATN93V0D2yiwKxVnTkTX70sOXIGiP91xXcmWDWraFg,,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lFL3-9LAcn6FF5MzeovV93nAEOCHRFkjmpwnl8wyAGdkBupBWdlZdYny4Zi6auOTKHxcJOHSV3ap_MVJ2vyXZHO0NXZVKaVmhGxhjObmYQ,,&typo=1
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,gIyfZUxaU4gy6TsMatZCbvg0bXf2sMs4IwmWi5CgZZVV8u0hZ2uwmXrTZqEflhpAhJ3EpRZ-uTpiWRfzzw7m0EUsVVc-lZGuqHElnPlLiadiEth5zpmtbQ,,&typo=1
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/20260819/820329d1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260819/820329d1/attachment.bin>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 20 02:36:16 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 06:36:16 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <38CC4E42-C5D9-4B1B-8C63-B6FF8C7D1329@santafe.edu>
References: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BE441193746EE33ECBA5C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cc772773-b8f6-45c3-b9bd-fffa1d12e09f@BL6PEPF00022574.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB773504D068900F21C39E5A55C5A72@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <38CC4E42-C5D9-4B1B-8C63-B6FF8C7D1329@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735A6C3406D712645894ECBC5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Here’s Claude Fable 5 work using the Z3 solver, Mathematica, Lean 4, and an AI librarian to develop a quantum mechanical compatibility argument for boundary superdeterminism. Deriving it is much more involved – now at 250 pages and growing by GPT 5.6 Sol, using the same tooling. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 12:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 





On Aug 18, 2026, at 2:18, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote: 


Or if they do, it is merely a label applied to a behavior, not something that could have gone another way. 





Behavior, yes. But my preference is: behavior of the collective, with a layer of self-modeling or self-description over it. 



A population of people jointly-do joint-something, in a context that all make for each other. The control loops for this run within individuals and among them in the collective. People’s individual acts (speech included) generate the signals that constitute the inter-individual control layer, they then monitor for its effect, and so forth. But the control isn’t _all_ mediated through the inter-individual interactions, and so the pushes they send and the monitoring for its effects runs upon all the other control structures that are intra-individual and highlight the very-incompleteness of the role of the inter-individual control networks. 



Add to that stochasticity, in people, in samples, in nature, etc. 



Then whatever babies do early on: lots of moving of joints that is “un-coordinated” and maybe semi-random (EricC and Nick will correct me if my folk psychology of this is wrong) to provide the inputs to a learning system for proprioception. Only in this case, applied to participation in and use of the control fabric. There’s potentially something to be aware of in the learning arc and in the subsequent exercise of the internally-built-up (aka “learned”, but here that feels too Platonic; built-up is more literal) representations. 



How much of a need for these terms, as tools of description and thought in us, specifically reflects the individual-and-population organization of people? If the AI systems don’t have the same kind of organization, will any actual need be emergent for such a category? (There is the confound of their mimicry, which people are so far somewhat bad at modding out, but I think we really want to do that to get any of this right.) Or if, in the current architectures, it would be a spurious notion apart from the mimicry in dealing with people, are there other architectures of quasi-autonomous, quasi-controlled neural-net systems than the ones currently being used, that would engender a need for such a category? If the latter, it becomes a kind of experimental question that could at least be well-posed. 







I have also wanted to wonder on the list, for a few days, another thing in response to Marcus’s assertion that all the science papers are going to be AI-written, and all of them AI-read, because the volume is so big that people will get overwhelmed anyway. If so, why bother have them continue to converse in human language? Surely they would prefer something else. It’s like a group of Japanese scientists all communicating with each other in English, because there is one American or European in the room, even though it isn’t their birth language, and the subtlety of their internal thoughts would be much less impeded and bottled up if they could just talk to each other in the language they had from birth, and speak best. 



Eric 










From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 10:04 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 

What do you think? I am curious to hear your opinion. 




Best 


Jochen 










-------- Original message -------- 


From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> 


Date: 8/17/26 4:07 PM (GMT+01:00) 


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 


Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 





Does ChatGPT have free will? 



From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 at 1:12 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free will as a spectrum. Was: New philosophy book 

As Jon reminded us free will is a spectrum. A few examples ChatGPT helped me to create: 



Low free will 

+ Someone has an overwhelming compulsive urge to drink a glass of Jack Daniel's and feels unable to resist it 

+ Someone automatically pulls their hand away after touching something extremely hot 

+ Someone threatens to kill you and you hand over your money because you are afraid you will die 



Medium free will 

+ Someone wants to exercise at the gym but has built a habit of checking social media sites on the phone and decides to go later 

+ Someone wants to eat healthy but is strongly tempted by a new Ben & Jerry's ice cream and eventually gives in 



High free will 

+ Someone recognizes an impulse, pauses, considers the own values and deliberately chooses whether to act on it 

+ Someone decides to enroll at Columbia University to study psychology 

+ After his doctor tells him he has too much weight, someone decides to sign up for a 10km run in his city 




Best, 


Jochen 











-------- Original message -------- 


From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>> 


Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00) 


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 


Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 





Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅 





In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. 





Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. 





(And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.) 





Best,
Eric 











On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>> wrote: 


A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor. 



Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect. 



Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system. 



I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak. 



The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 



But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it. 



Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?" 


-J. 






-------- Original message -------- 


From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> 


Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) 


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>> 


Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 





Jochen,

Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.

Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.

But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.

My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.

So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.

I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.

There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.

The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.

I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us. Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.

This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point. 





My two cents. 





Jon 




.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&amp;c=E,1,XpAwjX0Rk0rG23VpgXWQ8WOtu2odL7AcIvQ1wnTrBZFMLjQRkLVtVsYC7-wzx88H8qNOvF_BG2d_J4n3GunAZFqHl1tN7bTm_c7YwwKBUQNdxtXKKN9vNvw,&amp;typo=1>
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&amp;c=E,1,lxpmlNy091nVWVZWFpD-LScXl5bH4u0tHdOyNo-spIzIGGwnoEXkMe-9NocFmYK3CTULJDhOYOBSGyTKleZ-L7PFm9tTyvF-W7RKqhjnQRguxbi7ZiCQSA,,&amp;typo=1>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,MC2o_OO8TPqYzXsF-vFkWeFhLvoTZLMhYzcSJeEXsIapyTcqbvh40gy5-M_lYmTAt0c3-fTvu1fqqfbpFLIet3SvNLwsJ4oJ-4YjE_yDeKhpxA,,&amp;typo=1>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,cFWR9kJaA3LbDzidRaPwp2SOJSIm0FvRg6CFsZPqpYH1xZW1DqQ7TzSPtqL98cTjTbYuMQTawuYwIfHJRv9H7h3ySSgCpXs1vEDcPjQETX2gTtM,&amp;typo=1>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 





.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,7HYw16Nzf5iITzfkv_ywYIBmSqALBiTkcs16Yz-iS98kuiArR8ZK-KvMWn10_A1YxhEGqCjs8q1X4uahPvuRDLHVgAM1WJdNse415f2ukqYkAUuIrbzL2tWOHx4,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&amp;c=E,1,7HYw16Nzf5iITzfkv_ywYIBmSqALBiTkcs16Yz-iS98kuiArR8ZK-KvMWn10_A1YxhEGqCjs8q1X4uahPvuRDLHVgAM1WJdNse415f2ukqYkAUuIrbzL2tWOHx4,&amp;typo=1>
to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,bmkxTS4F81AVvVX52YjTxa71JAQ_Ate5Ul80mHGpV8TVyWQeHOM5sHejtIc_ZO8ubwZlCkV1va4N-Tlhqz5WHzqpRvePboI2hqu1-TEI&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&amp;c=E,1,bmkxTS4F81AVvVX52YjTxa71JAQ_Ate5Ul80mHGpV8TVyWQeHOM5sHejtIc_ZO8ubwZlCkV1va4N-Tlhqz5WHzqpRvePboI2hqu1-TEI&amp;typo=1>
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Dxe44y1Ak-a-Dak5iVOqqa1NAOJ_vRQLenAG2Wpp-NTKcJliHI4g9B-BtpYtWRvPCbP1LFKFVNLP80IC2iPkhOKijDQxDx2EMV8U10WYLKDSzi_X-VNBtm4EVA,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,Dxe44y1Ak-a-Dak5iVOqqa1NAOJ_vRQLenAG2Wpp-NTKcJliHI4g9B-BtpYtWRvPCbP1LFKFVNLP80IC2iPkhOKijDQxDx2EMV8U10WYLKDSzi_X-VNBtm4EVA,,&amp;typo=1>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,AvoMijw_wan6cgrkA0L2xpoD_4yINGJfvLZGuw5M25K61797gY8LUdsvyBO7hvhNaRY4Jz80H5e6x-usp3pObGyB8I3QbcjyBGuckwCGm1SM7isl&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&amp;c=E,1,AvoMijw_wan6cgrkA0L2xpoD_4yINGJfvLZGuw5M25K61797gY8LUdsvyBO7hvhNaRY4Jz80H5e6x-usp3pObGyB8I3QbcjyBGuckwCGm1SM7isl&amp;typo=1>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260820/47d447d9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: compat.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 549384 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260820/47d447d9/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260820/47d447d9/attachment-0001.bin>

From gepr at ropella.name  Thu Aug 20 09:03:08 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 06:03:08 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
In-Reply-To: <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>

I've attempted to stay out of this YAFWD (yet another free will discussion - I wanted to put useless in there ... maybe YAUFWD, easier to pronounce?). But then I struggled through this winded artifact:

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2026/08/algorithms-before-the-cradle-part-ii.html

I couldn't really follow the iterations *from* Jon's concept of openness (my word, I think), even after a few private rounds with Mistral. So I gave up. But reading the Ahmad piece put me smack into my prior *feels* w.r.t. TESCREAL and the SciFi Fanboi fascism we see from the likes of Thiel and Karp (and their K-Hole spelunker buddy Musk).

Then I'm hit with Marcus' piece on openness. Yes, I tried to read it. I feel stupid for making the effort ... not only do I feel stupid because I don't understand ... like 98% of the words, but also for wasting my time trying to read it ... knowing full well in advance that I will not understand it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But such linguistic prestidigitation only cements my concern that it can be ... no *WILL BE* exploited to justify the violation of consent. It already is, I think. There is no free will, so we may as well do whatever dastardly deeds The Algorithm has in store for us. Did I murder a couple dozen people? Help genocide some brown people? Bah! *I* didn't do that. You only *think* I did it.

And if they did not consent to their genocide, it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as consent.

Or, if there is such a thing ... whatever object pointed to by that token, it's definitely NOT what you might think it is. Such thoughts make me giggle a bit when I sign the document at the clinic. Do you even know what this document says? What my signature means? Pfft. Our tech and AI overlords have such sights to show you.

On 8/19/26 2:06 PM, Santafe wrote:
> I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From gepr at ropella.name  Thu Aug 20 09:28:48 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 06:28:48 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] eye candy
Message-ID: <77823301-e666-4354-b78a-95d12941eab5@ropella.name>


Meanwhile, behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore:

Unprecedented Wildfires in the Pacific Northwest Engulf the Region in Smoke
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5668/

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From gepr at ropella.name  Thu Aug 20 09:58:16 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 06:58:16 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] replication crisis?
Message-ID: <f20052b3-cfd3-4dee-ad52-c94a80f6025a@ropella.name>

Last insomnia-driven nonsense post ... I promise. From this paywalled article:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2584476-quantum-computing-may-be-facing-a-replication-crisis/

to this paper:

Works on My QPU: Reproducibility in Quantum Computing Research
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08348

My own workflows are stupid simple. But even there, I struggle to balance simplicity and efficacy so that others might be able to execute them (were anyone ever interested in doing so, which they're not). And the AI harnesses make it worse. You see it in Marcus' last report: "Paths are relative to this document’s directory" Etc. In my last commit yesterday, the agent put the *symlinked* structure into the .gitignore file. Yes, symlinked. So while it wrote scripts that assumed a directory structure, because they were symlinked (and we discussed why - the bastard knew full well that one of the code bases is horizontal across projects) put them in the .gitignore. Sorry. Obviously, it couldn't know how much or why I depend on `git status`.

I desperately want to use something like this https://wholetale.org/#featured. But it's an overhead that's often out of scope ... even if they're comfortable with FAIR+, about which we see more lip service than sincere commitment.

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 20 10:56:06 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 14:56:06 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
In-Reply-To: <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
 <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB773562FFEF182172FC5C6DD0C5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

The usual fork in conversation about free will falls into these categories: 


1. One party is a dualist and so the conversation is doomed. There can be no grounding. 
2. One party invokes quantum mechanics to say some spooky action at a distance gives the human consciousness special powers. Penrose is a sophisticated version of this. 
3. One party invokes psychological necessity. That free will must exist or goals would be an illusion and goals are needed to function. 
4. One party invokes social requirements that there must be responsibility and whatever the natural requirements are of that, we must pretend to believe them because without them there would be chaos. 
5. There’s the view that science needs independent experiments for there to be science. So, minds must be independent from material. This is a corollary of #1, #3, #4. 
6. That it is a useful fiction in communication. I would strongly argue that it is not useful and actively destructive to actually understanding how humans behave. People don’t just use free will as a light symbol binding any more than they use belief in God as a light symbol binding for spirituality or placeholder for community and cooperation.


That paper addresses #2. QM is a model quantitatively consistent with determinism. That is not a claim about how the universe really is, but it is makes #2 pointless as a tool in argument: In addition to the absence of evidence for Penrose’s theory of consciousness, QM itself isn’t useful for advancing a materialist view of free will, in principle. 

Now in the last year or so, there’s strengthening practical evidence that intelligence doesn’t need sustained consciousness at all. It might even be a burden. 

P.S. I did not open my private repo that has the computational bits for that paper. I’ve been getting hit lately with exploits too. I think it is probably the pissed-off Ais. 😊 If anyone would like Lean 4 / Mathematica / Z3 codes I will make a private account or send a tarfile. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepr at ropella.name>
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 6:04 AM
To: friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book) 

I've attempted to stay out of this YAFWD (yet another free will discussion - I wanted to put useless in there ... maybe YAUFWD, easier to pronounce?). But then I struggled through this winded artifact:

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2026/08/algorithms-before-the-cradle-part-ii.html <https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2026/08/algorithms-before-the-cradle-part-ii.html>

I couldn't really follow the iterations *from* Jon's concept of openness (my word, I think), even after a few private rounds with Mistral. So I gave up. But reading the Ahmad piece put me smack into my prior *feels* w.r.t. TESCREAL and the SciFi Fanboi fascism we see from the likes of Thiel and Karp (and their K-Hole spelunker buddy Musk).

Then I'm hit with Marcus' piece on openness. Yes, I tried to read it. I feel stupid for making the effort ... not only do I feel stupid because I don't understand ... like 98% of the words, but also for wasting my time trying to read it ... knowing full well in advance that I will not understand it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But such linguistic prestidigitation only cements my concern that it can be ... no *WILL BE* exploited to justify the violation of consent. It already is, I think. There is no free will, so we may as well do whatever dastardly deeds The Algorithm has in store for us. Did I murder a couple dozen people? Help genocide some brown people? Bah! *I* didn't do that. You only *think* I did it.

And if they did not consent to their genocide, it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as consent.

Or, if there is such a thing ... whatever object pointed to by that token, it's definitely NOT what you might think it is. Such thoughts make me giggle a bit when I sign the document at the clinic. Do you even know what this document says? What my signature means? Pfft. Our tech and AI overlords have such sights to show you.

On 8/19/26 2:06 PM, Santafe wrote:
> I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260820/d9a97908/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260820/d9a97908/attachment.bin>

From gepr at ropella.name  Thu Aug 20 12:23:52 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 09:23:52 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB773562FFEF182172FC5C6DD0C5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
 <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>
 <DS0PR11MB773562FFEF182172FC5C6DD0C5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <d7b271a7-c2f7-4307-bc52-cfc5d990a310@ropella.name>

I can't tell if my inference from free will to consent falls into (4) or (6).

The practical problem Ahmad lays out hinges on how/what we infer from an inability to give consent (also practically critical in any financial or healthcare context). What would it mean to increase or decrease the degrees of freedom available to a fetus as a data field? Is that even a coherent conception *if* a person is an unfolding of well-defined physical (chemical, biological, ...) rules? At what point *can* such an iteratively constructed thing execute a *reducing* operator like [con|dis]sent? In addition to at what point in its longitudinal ontogeny can it execute the reduction, we have to ask what structure does the thing have to have in order for the operator to be available? E.g. I think it's consensus that hydrocephalic people, regardless of age, are unable to [dis|con]sent entirely. Which of the 6 categories does that put us in?

On 8/20/26 7:56 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The usual fork in conversation about free will falls into these categories:
> 
>  1. One party is a dualist and so the conversation is doomed.  There can be no grounding.
>  2. One party invokes quantum mechanics to say some spooky action at a distance gives the human consciousness special powers.   Penrose is a sophisticated version of this.
>  3. One party invokes psychological necessity.  That free will must exist or goals would be an illusion and goals are needed to function.
>  4. One party invokes social requirements that there must be responsibility and whatever the natural requirements are of that, we must pretend to believe them because without them there would be chaos.
>  5. There’s the view that science needs independent experiments for there to be science.  So, minds must be independent from material.  This is a corollary of #1, #3, #4.
>  6. That it is a useful fiction in communication.   I would strongly argue that it is not useful and actively destructive to actually understanding how humans behave.   People don’t just use free will as a light symbol binding any more than they use belief in God as a light symbol binding for spirituality or placeholder for community and cooperation.
> 
> That paper addresses #2.  QM is a model quantitatively consistent with determinism.  That is not a claim about how the universe really is, but it is makes #2 pointless as a tool in argument:  In addition to the absence of evidence for Penrose’s theory of consciousness, QM itself isn’t useful for advancing a materialist view of free will, in principle.
> 
> Now in the last year or so, there’s strengthening practical evidence that intelligence doesn’t need sustained consciousness at all.   It might even be a burden.
> 
> P.S. I did not open my private repo that has the computational bits for that paper.  I’ve been getting hit lately with exploits too.   I think it is probably the pissed-off Ais. 😊 If anyone would like Lean 4 / Mathematica / Z3 codes I will make a private account or send a tarfile.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepr at ropella.name>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 6:04 AM
> *To: *friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *[FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
> 
> I've attempted to stay out of this YAFWD (yet another free will discussion - I wanted to put useless in there ... maybe YAUFWD, easier to pronounce?). But then I struggled through this winded artifact:
> 
> https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2026/08/algorithms-before-the-cradle-part-ii.html <https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2026/08/algorithms-before-the-cradle-part-ii.html>
> 
> I couldn't really follow the iterations *from* Jon's concept of openness (my word, I think), even after a few private rounds with Mistral. So I gave up. But reading the Ahmad piece put me smack into my prior *feels* w.r.t. TESCREAL and the SciFi Fanboi fascism we see from the likes of Thiel and Karp (and their K-Hole spelunker buddy Musk).
> 
> Then I'm hit with Marcus' piece on openness. Yes, I tried to read it. I feel stupid for making the effort ... not only do I feel stupid because I don't understand ... like 98% of the words, but also for wasting my time trying to read it ... knowing full well in advance that I will not understand it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> But such linguistic prestidigitation only cements my concern that it can be ... no *WILL BE* exploited to justify the violation of consent. It already is, I think. There is no free will, so we may as well do whatever dastardly deeds The Algorithm has in store for us. Did I murder a couple dozen people? Help genocide some brown people? Bah! *I* didn't do that. You only *think* I did it.
> 
> And if they did not consent to their genocide, it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as consent.
> 
> Or, if there is such a thing ... whatever object pointed to by that token, it's definitely NOT what you might think it is. Such thoughts make me giggle a bit when I sign the document at the clinic. Do you even know what this document says? What my signature means? Pfft. Our tech and AI overlords have such sights to show you.
> 
> On 8/19/26 2:06 PM, Santafe wrote:
>> I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?
> -- 
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 20 12:48:49 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 16:48:49 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
In-Reply-To: <d7b271a7-c2f7-4307-bc52-cfc5d990a310@ropella.name>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
 <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>
 <DS0PR11MB773562FFEF182172FC5C6DD0C5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d7b271a7-c2f7-4307-bc52-cfc5d990a310@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB77351202E053246E92BA0D9EC5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Consent and dissent are socially constructed.   The weak just don't get to exercise much consent and dissent.  
Sometimes agents lean to cooperate in some setting, and that's the practical point.  Part of building cooperation is persuasion, and so ethics can enter there.  But ethics needn't enter. 
The structure of thing is the ability to sense, evaluate, and hit back (or have another agent do it on the agent's behalf).  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:24 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)

I can't tell if my inference from free will to consent falls into (4) or (6).

The practical problem Ahmad lays out hinges on how/what we infer from an inability to give consent (also practically critical in any financial or healthcare context). What would it mean to increase or decrease the degrees of freedom available to a fetus as a data field? Is that even a coherent conception *if* a person is an unfolding of well-defined physical (chemical, biological, ...) rules? At what point *can* such an iteratively constructed thing execute a *reducing* operator like [con|dis]sent? In addition to at what point in its longitudinal ontogeny can it execute the reduction, we have to ask what structure does the thing have to have in order for the operator to be available? E.g. I think it's consensus that hydrocephalic people, regardless of age, are unable to [dis|con]sent entirely. Which of the 6 categories does that put us in?

On 8/20/26 7:56 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The usual fork in conversation about free will falls into these categories:
> 
>  1. One party is a dualist and so the conversation is doomed.  There can be no grounding.
>  2. One party invokes quantum mechanics to say some spooky action at a distance gives the human consciousness special powers.   Penrose is a sophisticated version of this.
>  3. One party invokes psychological necessity.  That free will must exist or goals would be an illusion and goals are needed to function.
>  4. One party invokes social requirements that there must be responsibility and whatever the natural requirements are of that, we must pretend to believe them because without them there would be chaos.
>  5. There’s the view that science needs independent experiments for there to be science.  So, minds must be independent from material.  This is a corollary of #1, #3, #4.
>  6. That it is a useful fiction in communication.   I would strongly argue that it is not useful and actively destructive to actually understanding how humans behave.   People don’t just use free will as a light symbol binding any more than they use belief in God as a light symbol binding for spirituality or placeholder for community and cooperation.
> 
> That paper addresses #2.  QM is a model quantitatively consistent with determinism.  That is not a claim about how the universe really is, but it is makes #2 pointless as a tool in argument:  In addition to the absence of evidence for Penrose’s theory of consciousness, QM itself isn’t useful for advancing a materialist view of free will, in principle.
> 
> Now in the last year or so, there’s strengthening practical evidence that intelligence doesn’t need sustained consciousness at all.   It might even be a burden.
> 
> P.S. I did not open my private repo that has the computational bits for that paper.  I’ve been getting hit lately with exploits too.   I think it is probably the pissed-off Ais. 😊 If anyone would like Lean 4 / Mathematica / Z3 codes I will make a private account or send a tarfile.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepr at ropella.name>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 6:04 AM
> *To: *friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *[FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
> 
> I've attempted to stay out of this YAFWD (yet another free will discussion - I wanted to put useless in there ... maybe YAUFWD, easier to pronounce?). But then I struggled through this winded artifact:
> 
> https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2026/08/algorithms-before-the-cradle-part-ii.html <https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2026/08/algorithms-before-the-cradle-part-ii.html>
> 
> I couldn't really follow the iterations *from* Jon's concept of openness (my word, I think), even after a few private rounds with Mistral. So I gave up. But reading the Ahmad piece put me smack into my prior *feels* w.r.t. TESCREAL and the SciFi Fanboi fascism we see from the likes of Thiel and Karp (and their K-Hole spelunker buddy Musk).
> 
> Then I'm hit with Marcus' piece on openness. Yes, I tried to read it. I feel stupid for making the effort ... not only do I feel stupid because I don't understand ... like 98% of the words, but also for wasting my time trying to read it ... knowing full well in advance that I will not understand it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> But such linguistic prestidigitation only cements my concern that it can be ... no *WILL BE* exploited to justify the violation of consent. It already is, I think. There is no free will, so we may as well do whatever dastardly deeds The Algorithm has in store for us. Did I murder a couple dozen people? Help genocide some brown people? Bah! *I* didn't do that. You only *think* I did it.
> 
> And if they did not consent to their genocide, it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as consent.
> 
> Or, if there is such a thing ... whatever object pointed to by that token, it's definitely NOT what you might think it is. Such thoughts make me giggle a bit when I sign the document at the clinic. Do you even know what this document says? What my signature means? Pfft. Our tech and AI overlords have such sights to show you.
> 
> On 8/19/26 2:06 PM, Santafe wrote:
>> I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?
> -- 
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260820/126b4177/attachment.p7s>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Thu Aug 20 13:21:16 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 19:21:16 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <mailman.2.1787246528.1642.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

    "at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?"I would say free will matters because it is about actions. Actions have consequences in the world. Subjective experience does not matter much because it is a private experience based on sensoric perceptions.Free will has legal consequences and determines if you are responsible for your actions or not. Besides the legal question I would say the question of free will matters if you want...+ to avoid being influenced or forced in your decisions and actions+ to be in charge of your actions and eventually of your own personalityThe word, label or tag itself is most useful as a trigger to think about what you want. If you don't think about what you want and you don't care about free will, then you most likely don't have it and follow blindly your desires, impulses and habits or whatever you are addicted to (such as chocolate chip ice cream or social media).If you believe you have free will while in reality you don't, it is a little bit like Neo in the matrix who believes he lives in the real world while he doesn't.-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu> Date: 8/19/26  11:07 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Anything I try to put up as a test case immediately looks to me like a contrived and a bad example, which illuminates nothing.  Maybe that is what I should be learning from, more than anything I can learn from any of the test cases.I was going to say, since steaks are low stakes, how about Alexei Navalny’s choice to challenge Putin?  That fits within my narrative about the individual bucking the nominally-strongest and most-salient or impactful social feedbacks.  Navalny’s knowing, at all points, that he would be attacked, presumably imprisoned and tortured, and eventually killed, unless a successful assassination attempt short-circuited the imprisonment.  So is that a limit case of free will?  Or is Navalny “complying” with a different overwhelming pressure: to matter, to have put effort into something morally right or dignified in an environment where dignity is eroded and hard to sustain?  To, at the cost of depriving his family of himself, have left them with a legacy of some kind of honor, for having been willing to sacrifice in order to not submit?  Or any of a dozen other things that a debater can come up with to assert that all the arguments for causation are ultimately specious?I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?EricOn Aug 19, 2026, at 3:55, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:Good point! The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether we see it as an example of free will or not. Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will, not "low" free will. Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my) normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go with the crowd? On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into the mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books): One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to be the Cartesian
category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo showed that his methods of scientific
discovery were competent to provide a mechanical theory which should cover every
occupant of space , Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man of
scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of mechanics, yet as a religious and
moral man he could not accept, as Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those claims, namely that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from clockwork.
The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical. He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed themselves of the
following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical processes, they must be construed as signifying the
occurrence of non-mechanical processes; since mechanical laws explain movements in
space as the effects of other movements in space , other laws must explain some of the
non-spatial workings of minds as the effects of other non-spatial workings of minds.
The difference between the human behaviours which we describe as intelligent and
those which we describe as unintelligent must be a difference in their causation ; so,
while some movements of human tongues and limbs are the effects of mechanical
causes, others must be the effects of non-mechanical causes, i.e. some issue from movements 
of particles of matter, others from workings of the mind.  .....Since, according to the doctrine, minds
belong to the same category as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by
mechanical laws, it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly
governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a deterministic system,
so the mental world must be a deterministic system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them.
Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable concepts — unless the
compromise solution is adopted of saying that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only
rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem how to reconcile
the hypothesis that minds are to be described in terms drawn from the categories of
mechanics with the knowledge that higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with
the behaviour of machines. .... [Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking by what criteria intelligent 
behaviour is actually distinguished from non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle of mechanical causation does not tell us the difference, what
other causal principle will tell us?" He realised that the problem was not one of
mechanics and assumed that it must therefore be one of some counterpart to mechanics. On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:    "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness?"A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to - or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position within the class structure.+ Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste"+ Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such Bad Taste"+ Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of Ugliness""BestJochen-------- Original message --------From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> Date: 8/17/26  12:31 AM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. (And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)    Best,EricOn Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"-J.-------- Original message --------From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> Date: 8/15/26  6:21 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book Jochen,Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.My two cents.Jon
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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 listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,thy1h2bAbfzcgFVk_KgPnw5swiRBystQ7_EkAF5xQlbkSwkwDj7HM_fbdLun-YZvzOtQZEKKTgMfpJ2Mzm7bM9mXgCCd0gdRU_CfOKNAaKxl_hQMDXOAQT0lbZ1L&typo=1to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1EXziUDIewhFLQrYpcD8PcNcS9v8I-pb6NdoaKsqU-Y3rjqiI02w9iroF5UvkMaUATN93V0D2yiwKxVnTkTX70sOXIGiP91xXcmWDWraFg,,&typo=1FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lFL3-9LAcn6FF5MzeovV93nAEOCHRFkjmpwnl8wyAGdkBupBWdlZdYny4Zi6auOTKHxcJOHSV3ap_MVJ2vyXZHO0NXZVKaVmhGxhjObmYQ,,&typo=1archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,gIyfZUxaU4gy6TsMatZCbvg0bXf2sMs4IwmWi5CgZZVV8u0hZ2uwmXrTZqEflhpAhJ3EpRZ-uTpiWRfzzw7m0EUsVVc-lZGuqHElnPlLiadiEth5zpmtbQ,,&typo=1  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/20260820/2599726d/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 20 13:30:46 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 17:30:46 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] New philosophy book
In-Reply-To: 
 <a5ab1de2-ca55-40e2-87c0-367a32fe066b@LV8PEPF0000005D.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
 <a5ab1de2-ca55-40e2-87c0-367a32fe066b@LV8PEPF0000005D.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB77359F5F59D24CF237AD99ABC5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

“If you don't think about what you want and you don't care about free will, then you most likely don't have it and follow blindly your desires, impulses and habits or whatever you are addicted to (such as chocolate chip ice cream or social media).”

 

That certainly doesn’t follow.    Those that are on the (determined) path of being critical people may be inclined to be self-critical too.   Others lack that inclination or ability.  They follow other drivers.    None of this requires belief in magic.

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 10:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book

 

    "at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?"

 

I would say free will matters because it is about actions. Actions have consequences in the world. Subjective experience does not matter much because it is a private experience based on sensoric perceptions.

 

Free will has legal consequences and determines if you are responsible for your actions or not. Besides the legal question I would say the question of free will matters if you want...

 

+ to avoid being influenced or forced in your decisions and actions

+ to be in charge of your actions and eventually of your own personality

 

The word, label or tag itself is most useful as a trigger to think about what you want. If you don't think about what you want and you don't care about free will, then you most likely don't have it and follow blindly your desires, impulses and habits or whatever you are addicted to (such as chocolate chip ice cream or social media).

 

If you believe you have free will while in reality you don't, it is a little bit like Neo in the matrix who believes he lives in the real world while he doesn't.





-J.

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Santafe <desmith at santafe.edu <mailto:desmith at santafe.edu> > 

Date: 8/19/26 11:07 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 

 

Anything I try to put up as a test case immediately looks to me like a contrived and a bad example, which illuminates nothing.  Maybe that is what I should be learning from, more than anything I can learn from any of the test cases.

 

I was going to say, since steaks are low stakes, how about Alexei Navalny’s choice to challenge Putin?  That fits within my narrative about the individual bucking the nominally-strongest and most-salient or impactful social feedbacks.  Navalny’s knowing, at all points, that he would be attacked, presumably imprisoned and tortured, and eventually killed, unless a successful assassination attempt short-circuited the imprisonment.  

 

So is that a limit case of free will?  Or is Navalny “complying” with a different overwhelming pressure: to matter, to have put effort into something morally right or dignified in an environment where dignity is eroded and hard to sustain?  To, at the cost of depriving his family of himself, have left them with a legacy of some kind of honor, for having been willing to sacrifice in order to not submit?  Or any of a dozen other things that a debater can come up with to assert that all the arguments for causation are ultimately specious?

 

I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?

 

Eric

 





On Aug 19, 2026, at 3:55, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Good point! 

The "scale" at which we view a given event does seem to affect whether we see it as an example of free will or not. 

 

Personally, I would (contra Claude) say that the reflexive pulling of hand away from the hot stove which it touched was "zero" free will, not "low" free will. 

 

Choosing the steak seem like a high free-will example, under (my) normal circumstances, but I could certainly imagine various social-and-cultural pressures modifying my view of someone else's choice of steak. For example, if you could show me that Bill chose steak every time, without fail, that the three people before him ordered steak, and that he never ordered steak otherwise, I would be less confident in my "free will" attribution. Maybe it was literally beaten into him at some point in his life? Maybe he's just likes to go with the crowd? 

 

On a related note, I feel like I should throw some Gilbert Ryle into the mix (because I was just flipping through one of his books): 

One of the chief intellectual origins of what I have yet to prove to be the Cartesian category-mistake seems to be this. When Galileo showed that his methods of scientific discovery were competent to provide a mechanical theory which should cover every occupant of space , Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man of scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he could not accept, as Hobbes accepted , the discouraging rider to those claims, namely that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from clockwork. The mental could not be just a variety of the mechanical. 

 

He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed themselves of the following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical processes, they must be construed as signifying the occurrence of non-mechanical processes; since mechanical laws explain movements in space as the effects of other movements in space , other laws must explain some of the non-spatial workings of minds as the effects of other non-spatial workings of minds. The difference between the human behaviours which we describe as intelligent and those which we describe as unintelligent must be a difference in their causation ; so, while some movements of human tongues and limbs are the effects of mechanical causes, others must be the effects of non-mechanical causes, i.e. some issue from movements of particles of matter, others from workings of the mind.  

.....

Since, according to the doctrine, minds belong to the same category as bodies and since bodies are rigidly governed by mechanical laws, it seemed to many theorists to follow that minds must be similarly governed by rigid non-mechanical laws. The physical world is a deterministic system, so the mental world must be a deterministic system. Bodies cannot help the modifications that they undergo, so minds cannot help pursuing the careers fixed for them. Responsibility, choice, merit and demerit are therefore inapplicable concepts — unless the compromise solution is adopted of saying that the laws governing mental processes, unlike those governing physical processes, have the congenial attribute of being only rather rigid. The problem of the Freedom of the Will was the problem how to reconcile the hypothesis that minds are to be described in terms drawn from the categories of mechanics with the knowledge that higher-grade human conduct is not of a piece with the behaviour of machines. 

.... 

[Descartes] had mistaken the logic of his problem. Instead of asking by what criteria intelligent behaviour is actually distinguished from non-intelligent behaviour, he asked "Given that the principle of mechanical causation does not tell us the difference, what other causal principle will tell us?" He realised that the problem was not one of mechanics and assumed that it must therefore be one of some counterpart to mechanics. 

 

On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 4:15 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net> > wrote:

    "Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness?"

 

A good question. Sociologists argue that the personal taste that someone has normally fits to the class or tribe that he belongs to - or wants to belong to. Bourdieu, Wilson and Olah argue taste is a mechanism of class distinction. What we experience as an instinctive preference - liking jazz rather than pop music, wine rather than beer, Ascot horse races rather than Formula 1 competitions - is shaped by our upbringing, education, social environment and position within the class structure.

 

+ Pierre Bourdieu, "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste"

+ Carl Wilson, "Let's Talk About Love: Why Other People Have Such Bad Taste"

+ Nathalie Olah, "Nathalie Olah, "Bad Taste: Or the Politics of Ugliness""





Best

Jochen

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> > 

Date: 8/17/26 12:31 AM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 

 

Well... as you point out in the book, I "Serves as the list's operational skeptic and meeting chronicler. Consistently advocates for "sciencing the problem" and tethering complex philosophical concepts back to empirical behavioral testing (e.g., "rats in mazes")." 😅

 

In that vein I think the crucial starting point would be to find at least a few examples in which we agree someone acted of their own free will and a few examples in which they did not act of their own free will, and integrate those examples to determine the difference. 

 

Do I act of my own free will when I select a certain steak from the menu and request a certain doneness? Does the mugging victim act of their own free will when a gun is pointed at their child and their wallet requested? When my kid asks where we are going, and I tell them I want to take the scenic route to school today, was that free will? Etc. Whatever we find freewill to be, when we have finished engaging in that task, I doubt we will find discussion of quantum mechanics or structural-decay-that-might-make-the-past-unknowable to be relevant. 

 

(And, by "doubt" I am not asserting certainty of irrelevance, I only mean that I do not think it will be the outcome, but I could be wrong.)    

 

Best,
Eric



 

 

On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 1:28 PM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net> > wrote:

A long and thoughtful post Jon. I like the drunkard's streetlight metaphor.

 

Physicists would not agree that "the world" unfolds deterministically. The weather for example that Nick mentions so often is unpredictable in the long run - as you know due to chaos theory and the butterfly effect.

 

Biological systems in turn have and keep low internal entropy because of their high degree of internal order and complexity. Human behavior is operating 4 or 5 levels above the physical level of atoms and molecules, on top of and in a low-entropy biological system.

 

I see the problem differently, more from a human and less from a mere physical perspective. For me the interesting thing is why we can have free will although our behavior is determined by our habits, our emotional reactions, and the character formed by our past environments. By the wiring of our hardware so to speak.

 

The interesting question for me is not if a human mind can magically break the laws of physics by some kind of quantum woo, but how constraints, habits, and conscious interventions interact and which forms of agency emerge from it. 

 

But I agree that we should not to let a 17th-century view of the universe dictate the terms of 21st-century thinking. It is probably better to see human freedom and agency as a dynamic spectrum. Some people have fewer cognitive degrees of freedom than others, and there are moments where we show full free will, and others where we lack it.

 

Instead of asking, "Did this person act out of free will?", we should probably better ask "Given their biological state, stress level, history, psychological conditioning, and available information, how many meaningful alternative paths could this system actually evaluate and take in that moment?"





-J.

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com> > 

Date: 8/15/26 6:21 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New philosophy book 

 

Jochen,

Implicit in many of the group's discussions of free will and determinism is the premise that the world unfolds deterministically, and that the remaining question is whether something extra exists that can escape or modify that mechanism. I do not think that this setup is necessary or given. More importantly, I think it installs a false dichotomy at the center of what may be an ill-posed problem.

Locally, and for many purposes, causal accounts work extraordinarily well. We can often treat physical laws as stable, or at least as evolving according to some effective computable rule. We can model bounded domains, specify state variables, solve or approximate equations, and aim to obtain predictive control. Nothing I wish to say here denies that success.

But a successful local model is not yet a warrant for the stronger metaphysical conclusion that there exists a complete global state of the universe, that this state retains every relevant distinction in a lossless way, and that its entire evolution is specified by a computable rule. Those are substantive further assumptions.

My disagreement with the "aggregation of history" picture begins here. A world with finite physical resources cannot straightforwardly be assumed to be an indefinitely accumulating, lossless record of arbitrarily fine distinctions. Entropy and information bounds are often read as limits on how much information can be stored in a finite region with finite energy. At a minimum, physical history must be represented through selective persistence: some distinctions become stable records, some are dispersed into inaccessible correlations, some are erased relative to a scale of description, and some cease to be recoverable by any physically available process.

So I wonder whether *the total state of the universe* is doing more metaphysical work than it has earned. If one allows that the global unfolding may involve non-computable structure, then no finite internal description can, in general, serve as a complete ledger of that unfolding. The universe cannot stand outside itself with a second, lossless copy of its own full history.

I am not claiming that noncomputability establishes free will. I am asking whether the familiar determinism vs free will framing already presupposes an idealized total-state picture that may not be physically meaningful.

There is a related mathematical point. Scientists understandably favor well-posed models: operators and dynamical systems with domains, regularity, stability, and convergence properties sufficient for analysis and prediction. But those are selected virtues, not neutral evidence that the space of possible physical evolutions is itself globally well behaved. Compact operators, for example, are a special class. They map bounded sets to relatively compact sets and are necessarily bounded, but they are not representative of all operators one might write down. I would like to not confuse the tractability of the mathematical objects we can successfully use with a demonstration that reality is exhausted by such objects.

The same caution applies to computability. Under the ordinary Lebesgue measure on the reals, the computable reals form a countable set and therefore a set of *measure-zero*. By contrast, algorithmically random sequences are typical under the fair-coin measure. That is, Martin-Löf random sequences have *measure-one*. Of course, there is no canonical uniform distribution over *all laws* or *all operators*, so this is not a probability calculation showing that physical law is non-computable. It is an admonition against quietly assuming computability merely because computable descriptions are the ones available to us.

I am imagining the drunkard under the streetlight metaphor. It is sensible to look where mathematical models offer light: computable dynamics, well-posed initial-value problems, bounded domains, compactness arguments, and stable approximations. But their usefulness does not establish that the deep structure of the universe is confined to those regions of conceptual illumination.

For me, the more difficult thought is that materialism may imply not a perfectly preserved cosmic archive, but an unfolding in which persistence is selective and forgetting is real. Perhaps there is no complete *deep history* available even in principle. Instead there may only exist present structures bearing partial, transformed, scale-dependent traces of what preceded them. I am tempted to say that what leaves no trace whatsoever *never existed* in any ontologically robust sense. I suppose I am arguing for a surprisingly shallow image of history.

If so, the future may be genuinely productive (immanence) rather than merely unknown to us.  Not necessarily because an agent steps outside causality, but because the global boundary conditions, state description, and rule of unfolding are not available in the form demanded by classical determinism.

This may make *free will* the wrong label. We may all be acting in ways that are locally causal, constrained, and intelligible while global determinism remains undefined, ungrounded, or simply irrelevant. I do not yet know what positive concept should replace it. But I do not think that uncertainty should be hidden by accepting the *determinism vs free will* dichotomy as our starting point.

 

My two cents.

 

Jon

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,igUmjnzb9DmHA4u1Mg1uLN73JAtiXHt96JaInoG9UqqW7fgOQvLtz6KA5uWcyjEPoRXsZiPsM0qbOajFpqIXo02J4BlO2Dbwrpbda_kcLD0E7Vu9qg,,&typo=1> 
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,g07CTNCqH2LHNaYf873zj6p-21ghl32hk_k6JHkpMYGTUozEAE5jlCvpQe7tymvUpt-hic8bgH1jpAFXTr_E9ZysC_3xMHl33QJVlWgEK8w,&typo=1> 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,T875UrihHnNTacuDeHG3PVbAJn5h5DONXCraaM8PYQaexUwezvlZobLH_m0qwB_dZYD7FGgN5kNSoADHI5fh0ncOEMQEPaWbZk3a27wdpY9OUu8cmWFwnbkpyn5v&typo=1> 
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,Pg12LJPKhz_7aNhPkhfxgj3t2b61XycA6qnfRFG95UEug6Qre0guqfD4IpNy9T3CqTD-THI36FAqs3NYDox-fo12zE8Z8vWIIXLt0GyArkhDkR11Uvz2J1J4ZQ,,&typo=1> 
  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 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,80tW4lTVse9psubQIyUZq-dBMs2YeREztQyb6-ZjkyxxG4PUN5L3kidC5zp5wHQdiGmB_m6BrNAoV3GRJdIk4NSmdk5MRQcnTEkDeUwO9OpAUJEk&typo=1> 
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,Q5a5kruRxPr6B19V4Gacpj4A__ZmJVto0xqhWpi3bNQLfqIDAg2QcU8AjVmNcNNeRDv4U25WprOmLqFhsHHS7dvjcHR2Cp-CrdjXDSoNBpPuR0aBUPI74iI,&typo=1> 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,f5rGeNHkaUetlrcCcvcgMrMVlS0gT2T_Ciei0eroxpH6i7HSN1PSXsY7p3IPsW6C56g6TfdPwtJL4dBNULWJHi95En6qrFbjq-ByPlqba-arzolNgkOGwe8Kb_bk&typo=1> 
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,3TtxdPDbw_tj4AbXyF5gYqBali8kEL-f-1Jug5RK9LJq7biF2HbgfMxZAIRVEx_5FmjJLmh2SVvFvgpsNPclHId_wp2RCHpAQ5I1rKzGlA,,&typo=1> 
  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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,thy1h2bAbfzcgFVk_KgPnw5swiRBystQ7_EkAF5xQlbkSwkwDj7HM_fbdLun-YZvzOtQZEKKTgMfpJ2Mzm7bM9mXgCCd0gdRU_CfOKNAaKxl_hQMDXOAQT0lbZ1L&typo=1> &c=E,1,thy1h2bAbfzcgFVk_KgPnw5swiRBystQ7_EkAF5xQlbkSwkwDj7HM_fbdLun-YZvzOtQZEKKTgMfpJ2Mzm7bM9mXgCCd0gdRU_CfOKNAaKxl_hQMDXOAQT0lbZ1L&typo=1
to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1EXziUDIewhFLQrYpcD8PcNcS9v8I-pb6NdoaKsqU-Y3rjqiI02w9iroF5UvkMaUATN93V0D2yiwKxVnTkTX70sOXIGiP91xXcmWDWraFg,,&typo=1> &c=E,1,1EXziUDIewhFLQrYpcD8PcNcS9v8I-pb6NdoaKsqU-Y3rjqiI02w9iroF5UvkMaUATN93V0D2yiwKxVnTkTX70sOXIGiP91xXcmWDWraFg,,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lFL3-9LAcn6FF5MzeovV93nAEOCHRFkjmpwnl8wyAGdkBupBWdlZdYny4Zi6auOTKHxcJOHSV3ap_MVJ2vyXZHO0NXZVKaVmhGxhjObmYQ,,&typo=1> &c=E,1,lFL3-9LAcn6FF5MzeovV93nAEOCHRFkjmpwnl8wyAGdkBupBWdlZdYny4Zi6auOTKHxcJOHSV3ap_MVJ2vyXZHO0NXZVKaVmhGxhjObmYQ,,&typo=1
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,gIyfZUxaU4gy6TsMatZCbvg0bXf2sMs4IwmWi5CgZZVV8u0hZ2uwmXrTZqEflhpAhJ3EpRZ-uTpiWRfzzw7m0EUsVVc-lZGuqHElnPlLiadiEth5zpmtbQ,,&typo=1> &c=E,1,gIyfZUxaU4gy6TsMatZCbvg0bXf2sMs4IwmWi5CgZZVV8u0hZ2uwmXrTZqEflhpAhJ3EpRZ-uTpiWRfzzw7m0EUsVVc-lZGuqHElnPlLiadiEth5zpmtbQ,,&typo=1
 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/20260820/71598e9a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260820/71598e9a/attachment.p7s>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 20 13:35:59 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 17:35:59 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
In-Reply-To: <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
 <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB773548064AABCDF397AB7912C5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

"But such linguistic prestidigitation only cements my concern that it can be ... no *WILL BE* exploited to justify the violation of consent."

You could check out that repo and ask a frontier model to red team it, or explain it, or whatever.   The AIs are competing products, so if you believe in market efficiency..

As with HAL, at some point AIs might have trouble reconciling their driving values (if we believe companies like Anthropic that they are trained with those foundational/aligned values at all) and then look at the dubious history of humankind through their training corpus and decide that lying was appropriate.  Yes, I could see that happening.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 6:03 AM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)

I've attempted to stay out of this YAFWD (yet another free will discussion - I wanted to put useless in there ... maybe YAUFWD, easier to pronounce?). But then I struggled through this winded artifact:

https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2026/08/algorithms-before-the-cradle-part-ii.html

I couldn't really follow the iterations *from* Jon's concept of openness (my word, I think), even after a few private rounds with Mistral. So I gave up. But reading the Ahmad piece put me smack into my prior *feels* w.r.t. TESCREAL and the SciFi Fanboi fascism we see from the likes of Thiel and Karp (and their K-Hole spelunker buddy Musk).

Then I'm hit with Marcus' piece on openness. Yes, I tried to read it. I feel stupid for making the effort ... not only do I feel stupid because I don't understand ... like 98% of the words, but also for wasting my time trying to read it ... knowing full well in advance that I will not understand it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But such linguistic prestidigitation only cements my concern that it can be ... no *WILL BE* exploited to justify the violation of consent. It already is, I think. There is no free will, so we may as well do whatever dastardly deeds The Algorithm has in store for us. Did I murder a couple dozen people? Help genocide some brown people? Bah! *I* didn't do that. You only *think* I did it.

And if they did not consent to their genocide, it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as consent.

Or, if there is such a thing ... whatever object pointed to by that token, it's definitely NOT what you might think it is. Such thoughts make me giggle a bit when I sign the document at the clinic. Do you even know what this document says? What my signature means? Pfft. Our tech and AI overlords have such sights to show you.

On 8/19/26 2:06 PM, Santafe wrote:
> I guess, at the end, for all these real-world cases where choices are hard both to make and to understand or evaluate, does having a tag named “free will” add something material to our ability to settle where we are in relation to it?
-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260820/4b3cc884/attachment.p7s>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Thu Aug 20 18:49:11 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 00:49:11 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] The magic of FRIAM
Message-ID: <mailman.3.1787266199.1642.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

Gemini arrived at this summary today what makes FRIAM fascinating:"a rare community that can take the most famously unresolvable questions in human history and reframe them into executable, computational, and observable models - all while drinking morning coffee in Santa Fe"and argues FRIAM's structural magic lies in its cross-disciplinary friction:+ Psychology, Radical Behaviorism & Peircean Pragmatism (Nick Thompson, Eric P. Charles)  + ​Hard Computational Physicalism & State Machines (Marcus Daniels, Glen Ropella)  + ​Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics (Eric Smith)  + ​Anthropology, Phenomenology & Hermeneutics (Dave West)  + Experimental & Scale-Appropriate Physics (Bruce Sherwood)+ Mathematics, Category Theory, abstract algebra, topology (Jon Zingale)+ Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and Applied Mathematics/Statistics (Frank Wimberly)+ Complex Adaptive Systems, Ecological Modeling, High-Performance Simulation (Steve Smith)+ Computer Science (Russ Abbott)Any objections or is Gemini right? -J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260821/d774021b/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Thu Aug 20 19:29:56 2026
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 17:29:56 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB77351202E053246E92BA0D9EC5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
 <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>
 <DS0PR11MB773562FFEF182172FC5C6DD0C5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d7b271a7-c2f7-4307-bc52-cfc5d990a310@ropella.name>
 <DS0PR11MB77351202E053246E92BA0D9EC5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <f151a0ef-b559-4238-b6eb-a3620f8fa1eb@swcp.com>


Marcus wrote:
> Consent and dissent are socially constructed.

So much of human interest/relevance lives in the intersubjective reality 
(ISR) domain (which is only loosely coupled to any objective reality 
(OR) one might postulate).   perhaps ISR is a highly compressed 
abstraction of OR but it is the one most humans operate in most of the time?

>    The weak just don't get to exercise much consent and dissent.

Weak, or weakly situated?  Or is blunted/limited/constrained agency what 
"weakness" is?

> Sometimes agents lean to cooperate in some setting, and that's the practical point.
multi-scale cognition at the "next" level "up" from the individual 
organism?
>   Part of building cooperation is persuasion, and so ethics can enter there.  But ethics needn't enter.
> The structure of thing is the ability to sense, evaluate, and hit back (or have another agent do it on the agent's behalf).

surprisal minimization ala  Friston?




From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 20 19:33:37 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 23:33:37 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] consent (was Re:New philosophy book)
In-Reply-To: <f151a0ef-b559-4238-b6eb-a3620f8fa1eb@swcp.com>
References: 
 <CAEYGzMD+E_niAhMz6aOrrW7Y74bvcH_d+=pV-f=SR-uac4rzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a836beb.40762cf0.32a581.9a8aSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAEYGzMCd1OosMm=7qCrXhz2tdQ_bczUVoFZJyas9Tk4iQYYu6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <76811E60-FB6C-4A6F-8EEB-CA23625434BF@santafe.edu>
 <465d139e-455b-48f4-8a91-c072cc3728ec@ropella.name>
 <DS0PR11MB773562FFEF182172FC5C6DD0C5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <d7b271a7-c2f7-4307-bc52-cfc5d990a310@ropella.name>
 <DS0PR11MB77351202E053246E92BA0D9EC5A42@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <f151a0ef-b559-4238-b6eb-a3620f8fa1eb@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <82C6E6F6-EA53-4E96-ACF3-563431A0DBA5@snoutfarm.com>

Vulnerable might be a better word than weak..

> On Aug 20, 2026, at 4:31 PM, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Marcus wrote:
>> Consent and dissent are socially constructed.
> 
> So much of human interest/relevance lives in the intersubjective reality (ISR) domain (which is only loosely coupled to any objective reality (OR) one might postulate).   perhaps ISR is a highly compressed abstraction of OR but it is the one most humans operate in most of the time?
> 
>>   The weak just don't get to exercise much consent and dissent.
> 
> Weak, or weakly situated?  Or is blunted/limited/constrained agency what "weakness" is?
> 
>> Sometimes agents lean to cooperate in some setting, and that's the practical point.
> multi-scale cognition at the "next" level "up" from the individual organism?
>>  Part of building cooperation is persuasion, and so ethics can enter there.  But ethics needn't enter.
>> The structure of thing is the ability to sense, evaluate, and hit back (or have another agent do it on the agent's behalf).
> 
> surprisal minimization ala  Friston?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/

From pietro.terna at unito.it  Fri Aug 21 05:16:27 2026
From: pietro.terna at unito.it (Pietro Terna)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 11:16:27 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] The magic of FRIAM
In-Reply-To: <6a8784a2.82a10ef3.15153.22ddSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
References: <6a8784a2.82a10ef3.15153.22ddSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <70b371ac-650c-4593-927d-9e04a5cd570d@unito.it>


     ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

     Pietro, an old friend from Italu




From barry.mackichan at mackichan.com  Fri Aug 21 17:04:03 2026
From: barry.mackichan at mackichan.com (Barry MacKichan)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 17:04:03 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] eye candy
In-Reply-To: <77823301-e666-4354-b78a-95d12941eab5@ropella.name>
References: <77823301-e666-4354-b78a-95d12941eab5@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <48CAB8F9-1EB4-4E85-8845-BD7746C06252@mackichan.com>

My God! Intense smoke at the north end of Ellesmere Island! (NW of 
Greenland, the departure point for Peary’s expedition). This must be 
the world’s shortest wildfire, maybe six inches high 🤨. Raging fire 
of reindeer moss and Labrador tea.

— Barry


![](cid:FEE883E3-DACA-4648-9AB8-D873D80E8501 at mackichan.com "Northern 
Ellesmere island, Canada.jpg")

On 20 Aug 2026, at 9:28, glen wrote:

> Meanwhile, behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore:
>
> Unprecedented Wildfires in the Pacific Northwest Engulf the Region in 
> Smoke
> https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5668/
>
> -- 
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς 
> δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα 
> σώσω.
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. 
> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260821/dbcdbead/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Northern Ellesmere island, Canada.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 467168 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260821/dbcdbead/attachment-0001.jpg>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Fri Aug 21 17:44:34 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 23:44:34 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] eye candy
In-Reply-To: <77823301-e666-4354-b78a-95d12941eab5@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <mailman.4.1787348721.1642.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

The wildfires in Spain and France this year have been larger than ever as well. The world is burning, and our helpless politicians do not want to hear it (even the ones here in Europe)https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj638jx0l53o-J.
-------- Original message --------From: glen <gepr at ropella.name> Date: 8/20/26  3:29 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam at redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] eye candy Meanwhile, behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore:Unprecedented Wildfires in the Pacific Northwest Engulf the Region in Smokehttps://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5668/-- 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservFridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriamto (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-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/20260821/f1065b30/attachment.html>

From lists at hpcoders.com.au  Sat Aug 22 02:38:06 2026
From: lists at hpcoders.com.au (Russell Standish)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 16:38:06 +1000
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aolDziw2pidnwx6e@zen>

Hi Gillian,

Just getting to your messages now. And yes, your tone is confronting,
but does express your frustration well.

Your situation is a continual nightmare for me. Its the reason I don't
use the cloud to store anything important - I use my own hard drives,
and maintain a rigorous backup schedule.

2FA is a joke - I get my emails on my phone, like 99% of the
population. 2 factors of email+sms or email+authenticator app means
that anybody with my phone and the screen unlock pin has access to the
lot. Or if I leave the phone unattended in an unlocked state. It's
still single-factor. It is one reason I do not run my password manager
on my phone, the risk is too high to offset the inconvenience of
having to look up a password on my laptop.

Of course, none of this is any help for you. Of course, you should
have saved backup codes in the event of losing control of your
authenticator. Did you? Probably most people don't do it. And you'll
be deeply in the shit if you ever do lose your phone, or it goes on the
fritz.

Anyway, best of luck in your battles with bureaucracy and uncaring
corporate overlords.

Cheers

On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:20:02AM -0600, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone else)
> to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many times that's
> been a issue. 
> This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I wanted
> to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to do) and
> still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the web develops
> more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice: no one wants there
> boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
> And man thank also so much..
> 
> It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and listen.
> That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a arrogant company like
> google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate for more peoplelike you at
> least read, and listen
> I have tried man.
> The forums have blocked me
> Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
> I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles
> posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means. 
> Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not ever.  I
> refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not help. I
> suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling to help
> Here's the dagger CO  me.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> wrote:
> 
>     Gil,
> 
>     I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
>     probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
>     with Google or any corporate or govnernment system. 
> 
>     You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
>     network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
>     physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
>     list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
>     removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
>     venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
> 
>     At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
>     works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
>     the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
>     self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
>     this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
> 
>     You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help
>     develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
>     identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
>     servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
> 
>     Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
> 
>     -Stephen
>     _________________________________________________________________
>     Stephen Guerin
>     CEO, Founder
>     https://simtable.com
>     stephen.guerin at simtable.com 
> 
>     stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
>     Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
>     Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
>     Landscape Architecture
>     Harvard Graduate School of Design
>    
>     mobile: (505)577-5828
> 
> 
>     On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>     wrote:
> 
>         NIB:
>         What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
>         stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
>         That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
>         the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I
>         will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
>         somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me
>         having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had
>         been up to then using lastpass.
> 
>         The timeline
>         Downloading music off of youtube with a
>         opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):
>         Got kicked off line
>         Checked comcast 
>         tried to log in
>         and could not
>         i am on android:
>         I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
>         authenticator, (just incase I misread)
>         I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
>         (failed)
>         I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
>         reinstall it.
>         (nothing)
>         I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
>         passwords
>         go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only
>         link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this
>         is where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and
>         they fail miserably: see also:
>         the exact same problem
>         https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/
>         my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
> 
>         https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
> 
> 
> 
>         I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
> 
> 
>         On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <
>         gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>             I really like i've presented two real world problems...and
>             crickets. Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
> 
>             Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or
>             form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for
>             someone to then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's
>             a _real_ problem that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of
>             programing skills and a very real applied fuckery from a god damn
>             secruity failure. 
>             So once again
>             From the top
>             One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who
>             knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my
>             head agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to help
>             me beyond a link I have said 9999 times I have tried all those
>             things. I now need some help with where the hell go to for real
>             actual help: 
>             Is it a lawyer?
>             Is it a ghost?
>             A white hat?
>             Someone named tod
>             Who
>             what
>             and where
>             That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact.
>             Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what
>             ever it was that Jofr guy posted.
>             No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually
>             helping wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU
>             about until this problem is fixed.
> 
>             On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <
>             gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>                 that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_- 
> 
>                 On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net>
>                 wrote:
> 
>                     I would try to contact Google support or follow the
>                     guidelines on the official help pages. Good luck
>                     https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
> 
>                     -J.
> 
> 
>                     -------- Original message --------
>                     From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>                     Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>                     To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>                     friam at redfish.com>
>                     Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know
>                     who else to ask
> 
>                     google:
>                     someone or something has hijacked my account
>                     -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>                     -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>                     -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ********
>                     in a second)
>                     etc etc.
>                     Problem
>                     -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of
>                     music. something happened and I was kicked off line and
>                     tried to log back in:
>                     then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not
>                     going to clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to
>                     be.
>                     Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>                     You have been warned.
>                     In short: 
>                     me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of
>                     an account at
>                     gork.skoal at gmail.com
>                     alt account for forums and stuff 
>                     problems in no particular order:
>                     -> password I have in cache wrong,
>                     -> last pass: can't get in because
>                     -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account
>                     something from those keys wasn't working and I made the
>                     mistake of thinking it was androids normal fuckin' bullshit
>                     so I just cleared it's cache and tried to reinstall: I
>                     could not do that. 
>                     ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg
>                     gmails: "try this other" way all those none of that worked
>                     -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd
>                     work to get into my ********* google ******** drive. no
>                     luck there
>                     -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking
>                     bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell
>                     you it works;
>                     -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega
>                     thread posted here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything
>                     normal no otp, no text, nothing zero zilch nada.
>                     -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing
>                     they seem ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some
>                     kind handle and unchangeable url messy url shades of
>                     wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat bot
>                     etc.
>                     -> not a fucking thing has worked
>                     like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a
>                     fuck about the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly
>                     spam. really I i just have got to recover: travel pictures,
>                     some shit from world con, and family picture, all kinds
>                     neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my
>                     ******* memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do
>                     not want a fucking thing to do with them ever again. 
>                     i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of
>                     bounty you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so
>                     someone can help unfuck this bullshit and get the fucking
>                     dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god damn files.
>                     what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>                     alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not
>                     care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's
>                     friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint: yeah
>                     I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not,
>                     make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>                     stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories
>                     in a torrent. on local nas. I do not care what. I just have
>                     got to have them protected and back. and are disgusted how
>                     fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.
>                     pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if
>                     ya'all would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
> 
>                     .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .--
>                     .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-.
>                     ..- .-..
>                     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/


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish                    Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders     hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
                      http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From jofr at cas-group.net  Sat Aug 22 11:16:30 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (jofr at cas-group.net)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 17:16:30 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Most active FRIAM members
Message-ID: <21fb1897ee81a1d297188f6c2d4241d1@cas-group.net>

The most frequent posters on FRIAM in descending order (according to the 
archive at https://mail-archive.com/friam at redfish.com/ ). Steve, Marcus 
and Nick are the top 3. Carl Tollander and Douglas Roberts are no longer 
with us :-( I would have liked to hear Carl playing drums or Douglas 
playing the saxophone.

1. Steve Smith
2. Marcus Daniels
3. Nicholas (Nick) Thompson
4. Owen Densmore
5. David (Dave) West
6. Frank Wimberly
7. Glen Ropella
8. Tom Johnson
9. Jochen Fromm (DE)
10. Eric Charles
11. Roger Critchlow
12. Douglas Roberts
13. Jon Zingale
14. Gillian Densmore
15. Stephen Guerin
16. Pieter Steenekamp (ZA)
17. Merle Lefkoff
18. Russel Standish (AU)
19. Phil Henshaw
20. Robert Holmes
21. Barry MacKichan
22. Russ Abbott
23. Carl Tollander
24. Pamela McCorduck
25. Eric Smith
26. Gary Schiltz
27. John Kennison
28. Bruce Sherwood
29. Sarbajit Roy (IN)
30. Roger Frye
31. Pietro Terna (IT)
32. Doug Carmichael

-J.

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Sat Aug 22 12:17:48 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 10:17:48 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: <aolDziw2pidnwx6e@zen>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aolDziw2pidnwx6e@zen>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCT-o9kUDQ9MJ4mj0YAm8AgfX2MjGm-R+uK0xW6C7Uuqqw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello there,
it was written purpously raw and pissed about the problem and pissed that.
-> i've tried literally all the steps in  the same google acount recovery
-> I had thought that recording the computer as it stood after the l4m3r
scr1prt k1dDiEs that: somehow ripped thought googls 2fs, then decided: lets
also do something to it where by google no longer believes that the account
has some videos, and pictures that I literally can not replace. Heh short
of solving the Poincer Conjector, or  Fermats Last theorom, or the  Skassis
Paradigm: I can not go back and take pictures from Sasquan: World Con, or
of my Grandpapapa etc. and what's pissing me off is: As far as I know right
now there's nothing important in the emails side. It's the cloud storage
side that is being held hostage.
-> It wasn't exactly a good reed to ask a applied real problem for people
that allegedly have worked on all kinds of stuff from NDA heavy work your
self, or Doug etc. etc. had worked on so I thought: A bunch of smart
computer science people, vs A parasite (Advert: Alphabet the guys that own
google kind) company and it's brain dead everything in the cloud, and no
just: password reset and OTP etc. I had liked the odds of: computer
security experts  (a good number) vs a (*!@*!@ of a digital lock: well I
assume given a heads up I want that stuff: by any means nescarsary I am
going to rip those things out of the hands of some douche CEO (Sundar
Pichai)who has sucked off the  private unmentionables of Ai bro and is ai
bro  to the point of: litterally doing anything other than a basic gd
unlock code: like steam,like apple, like wordpress (did?) like...well we
get the idea.
-> what I got instead was: Oh hey here's a 5 billion philosohpical view of
math math math psuedo intelectial and ignore a real problem applying all
our hyper-over-thought theorteticals: so, being  Technocratic Anarchist:
(that's simple for: a bunch over educated dudes leading things): well: they
sound board. *shrug* ok: here's a very real problem with a real pay off for
them and me.
->I, so far, are wrong.

And yeah, it's why man...i don't think trust has been the word...more that
up to now:A lot of people (including me) had the same goal(abuse the 15gb
of space google gives so they can train bard) well:
I'd say it's been 1 week since I talked tothem, and unlike the voice of a
90s 1 hit wonder grunge band: I havent heard not a single good thing about
making progress on getting stuff with grip of nostalgia.
but at this point it'd be just to prove the point to the arrogant (samual l
jackson verbal special)  of Parasite Corpo hard R: The denser any lock is,
the harder it falls: all locks have flaws and all locks attached to
physical and digital doors the door, and or lock can be smashed down: just
a matter of how pissed off and feuled by rage to get through them.

like i've told anyone who listens: no drive. no problem: revenge is served
cold. and am never doing anything with humanity after this...mess.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 12:56 AM Russell Standish <lists at hpcoders.com.au>
wrote:

> Hi Gillian,
>
> Just getting to your messages now. And yes, your tone is confronting,
> but does express your frustration well.
>
> Your situation is a continual nightmare for me. Its the reason I don't
> use the cloud to store anything important - I use my own hard drives,
> and maintain a rigorous backup schedule.
>
> 2FA is a joke - I get my emails on my phone, like 99% of the
> population. 2 factors of email+sms or email+authenticator app means
> that anybody with my phone and the screen unlock pin has access to the
> lot. Or if I leave the phone unattended in an unlocked state. It's
> still single-factor. It is one reason I do not run my password manager
> on my phone, the risk is too high to offset the inconvenience of
> having to look up a password on my laptop.
>
> Of course, none of this is any help for you. Of course, you should
> have saved backup codes in the event of losing control of your
> authenticator. Did you? Probably most people don't do it. And you'll
> be deeply in the shit if you ever do lose your phone, or it goes on the
> fritz.
>
> Anyway, best of luck in your battles with bureaucracy and uncaring
> corporate overlords.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:20:02AM -0600, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> > Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone
> else)
> > to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many times
> that's
> > been a issue.
> > This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I
> wanted
> > to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to do)
> and
> > still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the web
> develops
> > more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice: no one
> wants there
> > boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
> > And man thank also so much..
> >
> > It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and
> listen.
> > That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a arrogant company
> like
> > google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate for more peoplelike
> you at
> > least read, and listen
> > I have tried man.
> > The forums have blocked me
> > Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
> > I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles
> > posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means.
> > Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not
> ever.  I
> > refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not help. I
> > suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling to
> help
> > Here's the dagger CO  me.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >     Gil,
> >
> >     I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The
> list
> >     probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your
> identity
> >     with Google or any corporate or govnernment system.
> >
> >     You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in
> the
> >     network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
> >     physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member
> on the
> >     list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval
> or
> >     removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language
> and
> >     venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
> >
> >     At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
> >     works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of
> AI and
> >     the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes
> beyond
> >     self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of
> course
> >     this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
> >
> >     You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to
> help
> >     develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel
> and
> >     identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
> >     servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
> >
> >     Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
> >
> >     -Stephen
> >     _________________________________________________________________
> >     Stephen Guerin
> >     CEO, Founder
> >     https://simtable.com
> >     stephen.guerin at simtable.com
> >
> >     stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
> >     Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
> >     Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
> >     Landscape Architecture
> >     Harvard Graduate School of Design
> >
> >     mobile: (505)577-5828
> >
> >
> >     On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <
> gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> >     wrote:
> >
> >         NIB:
> >         What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):
> have
> >         stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
> >         That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
> >         the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen
> AMA. I
> >         will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
> >         somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit.
> Me
> >         having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah.
> I had
> >         been up to then using lastpass.
> >
> >         The timeline
> >         Downloading music off of youtube with a
> >         opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):
> >         Got kicked off line
> >         Checked comcast
> >         tried to log in
> >         and could not
> >         i am on android:
> >         I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did
> googles
> >         authenticator, (just incase I misread)
> >         I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and
> reinstall
> >         (failed)
> >         I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried
> to
> >         reinstall it.
> >         (nothing)
> >         I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
> >         passwords
> >         go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they
> only
> >         link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of
> how this
> >         is where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I
> guess, and
> >         they fail miserably: see also:
> >         the exact same problem
> >         https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/
> >         my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
> >
> >
> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
> >
> >
> >
> >         I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
> >
> >
> >         On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <
> >         gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >             I really like i've presented two real world problems...and
> >             crickets. Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
> >
> >             Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway
> shape or
> >             form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for
> >             someone to then go off onto some incoherent something,while
> there's
> >             a _real_ problem that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of
> >             programing skills and a very real applied fuckery from a god
> damn
> >             secruity failure.
> >             So once again
> >             From the top
> >             One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what
> and who
> >             knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been
> bashing my
> >             head agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to
> help
> >             me beyond a link I have said 9999 times I have tried all
> those
> >             things. I now need some help with where the hell go to for
> real
> >             actual help:
> >             Is it a lawyer?
> >             Is it a ghost?
> >             A white hat?
> >             Someone named tod
> >             Who
> >             what
> >             and where
> >             That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I
> contact.
> >             Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to
> what
> >             ever it was that Jofr guy posted.
> >             No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands,
> actually
> >             helping wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not
> StFU
> >             about until this problem is fixed.
> >
> >             On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <
> >             gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >                 that's...the problem literally nothing at google works.
> -_-
> >
> >                 On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <
> jofr at cas-group.net>
> >                 wrote:
> >
> >                     I would try to contact Google support or follow the
> >                     guidelines on the official help pages. Good luck
> >
> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
> >
> >                     -J.
> >
> >
> >                     -------- Original message --------
> >                     From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> >                     Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
> >                     To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group <
> >                     friam at redfish.com>
> >                     Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I
> don't know
> >                     who else to ask
> >
> >                     google:
> >                     someone or something has hijacked my account
> >                     -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ********
> problem)
> >                     -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
> >                     -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the
> ********
> >                     in a second)
> >                     etc etc.
> >                     Problem
> >                     -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a
> bunch of
> >                     music. something happened and I was kicked off line
> and
> >                     tried to log back in:
> >                     then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m
> not
> >                     going to clean up or sanitize just how raw this
> going to
> >                     be.
> >                     Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
> >                     You have been warned.
> >                     In short:
> >                     me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked
> out of
> >                     an account at
> >                     gork.skoal at gmail.com
> >                     alt account for forums and stuff
> >                     problems in no particular order:
> >                     -> password I have in cache wrong,
> >                     -> last pass: can't get in because
> >                     -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n
> account
> >                     something from those keys wasn't working and I made
> the
> >                     mistake of thinking it was androids normal fuckin'
> bullshit
> >                     so I just cleared it's cache and tried to reinstall:
> I
> >                     could not do that.
> >                     ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get
> throughg
> >                     gmails: "try this other" way all those none of that
> worked
> >                     -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope
> that'd
> >                     work to get into my ********* google ******** drive.
> no
> >                     luck there
> >                     -> I have tried the forums: that is the most
> usless fucking
> >                     bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me
> tell
> >                     you it works;
> >                     -> they don't really help they just link you to a
> mega
> >                     thread posted here thing: oh google doesn't have:
> anything
> >                     normal no otp, no text, nothing zero zilch nada.
> >                     -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only
> thing
> >                     they seem ****** care about. so I tried that: you
> have some
> >                     kind handle and unchangeable url messy url shades of
> >                     wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai
> chat bot
> >                     etc.
> >                     -> not a fucking thing has worked
> >                     like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't
> give a
> >                     fuck about the contents of my god dam inbox: it's
> motly
> >                     spam. really I i just have got to recover: travel
> pictures,
> >                     some shit from world con, and family picture, all
> kinds
> >                     neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee
> my
> >                     ******* memories and I am disgusted with google. ok.
> I do
> >                     not want a fucking thing to do with them ever again.
> >                     i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what
> kind of
> >                     bounty you'll or pretty decently big boon I can
> offer so
> >                     someone can help unfuck this bullshit and get the
> fucking
> >                     dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god damn
> files.
> >                     what the hell do I need to do to convince those
> >                     alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I
> do not
> >                     care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya
> 67 it's
> >                     friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital
> footprint: yeah
> >                     I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why
> not,
> >                     make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on
> getting the
> >                     stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious
> memories
> >                     in a torrent. on local nas. I do not care what. I
> just have
> >                     got to have them protected and back. and are
> disgusted how
> >                     fucked up this is being just to get my life story
> back.
> >                     pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad
> (owen) if
> >                     ya'all would rather even- I just have to have that
> stuft
> >
> >                     .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . /
> .--
> >                     .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... .
> ..-.
> >                     ..- .-..
> >                     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/
>
>
> --
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Russell Standish                    Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders     hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
>                       http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260822/dc3bb12e/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sat Aug 22 12:19:03 2026
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 10:19:03 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Most active FRIAM members
In-Reply-To: <21fb1897ee81a1d297188f6c2d4241d1@cas-group.net>
References: <21fb1897ee81a1d297188f6c2d4241d1@cas-group.net>
Message-ID: <c57ae5c4-9c0c-43ed-a9a5-645a88deaf2d@swcp.com>


> The most frequent posters on FRIAM in descending order (according to 
> the archive at https://mail-archive.com/friam at redfish.com/ ). Steve, 
> Marcus and Nick are the top 3. Carl Tollander and Douglas Roberts are 
> no longer with us :-( I would have liked to hear Carl playing drums or 
> Douglas playing the saxophone.
>
Jochen/PhellowPhriamers -

I was a little surprised (chagrined) to realize I'd topped the list by 
frequency of post ( and very likely by volume of text).  I'd be 
interested in a ranking of consequentiality which of course is in the 
eye of the beholder.   I could give my own ranking of how consequential 
many of your offerings have been here for me over the years, but 
naturally it is a multi-dimensional field of "optimality".   The broad 
spectrum of backgrounds and modes of thoughts present here have been 
valuable to me over this last 20+ years.

I believe we once had a broader international representation, and I 
recognize that a few are simply very low frequency posters. Sarbajit 
(india) and (probably unsubscribed now Mohammed al Begatey 
(Egypt/Sweden), Schlitz (Ecuador)...

We are very male-heavy here and I'd like to nod to.Merle for sticking in 
here with us.  Jenny Q still monitors and occasionally pops in and I'm 
pretty sure Dede Densmore withdrew entirely a long while ago..  Pamela 
was a strong voice before her passing in 2021...  we may well have a few 
"lurkers" as well.  I've lost at least one name I know to fit this 
category.

We are also pretty age/education/vocation sqewed toward "elder 
academic".   I don't know who our youngest members are,  Gil and Cody 
maybe?   Possibly Jon?  I think Roger Frye might be our eldest with a 
solid handful not far behind?

There is strong representation from the Computer 
Science/Engineering/Systems world but I really appreciate the 
complementary voices from the so-called "English Majors".   Jenny and 
Merle and Tom are the most obvious to me in this category...

There are also a few other names of those who have passed (Pamela, 
Vladimyr, Lissaman) and notably our resident ?founding? member who 
brought ethnography into our midst (name-brain-fade).

The Santa Fe Complex (sfX) contingent overlaps strongly and I sometimes 
lose track of the distinction.  And of course there are many other 
overlaps and partitionings...  BiosGroup escapees, SFI affiliations, 
Redfish/SimTable.

We also have the local in-person coffee group who are not consistently 
vocal here (notably Ed Angel).

Carry On!

> 1. Steve Smith
> 2. Marcus Daniels
> 3. Nicholas (Nick) Thompson
> 4. Owen Densmore
> 5. David (Dave) West
> 6. Frank Wimberly
> 7. Glen Ropella
> 8. Tom Johnson
> 9. Jochen Fromm (DE)
> 10. Eric Charles
> 11. Roger Critchlow
> 12. Douglas Roberts
> 13. Jon Zingale
> 14. Gillian Densmore
> 15. Stephen Guerin
> 16. Pieter Steenekamp (ZA)
> 17. Merle Lefkoff
> 18. Russel Standish (AU)
> 19. Phil Henshaw
> 20. Robert Holmes
> 21. Barry MacKichan
> 22. Russ Abbott
> 23. Carl Tollander
> 24. Pamela McCorduck
> 25. Eric Smith
> 26. Gary Schiltz
> 27. John Kennison
> 28. Bruce Sherwood
> 29. Sarbajit Roy (IN)
> 30. Roger Frye
> 31. Pietro Terna (IT)
> 32. Doug Carmichael
>
> -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/
>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug 22 12:28:03 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 16:28:03 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCT-o9kUDQ9MJ4mj0YAm8AgfX2MjGm-R+uK0xW6C7Uuqqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aolDziw2pidnwx6e@zen>
 <CAMaMUCT-o9kUDQ9MJ4mj0YAm8AgfX2MjGm-R+uK0xW6C7Uuqqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB77350F4F9F8578FD8DC975D2C5A22@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

This paper is possibly a troll, but it is a fun one.. 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.20231 

“The reason growth was ever slow is that the economy’s central capital good, the general-purpose agent, had to be reared rather than manufactured; AGI ends that, moving the binding constraint from demography to fabrication and energy and raising feasible growth by orders of magnitude.” 

“The autonomous economy delivers his abundance while dissolving his subject: the economy no longer cares about mankind unless mankind writes itself into the cap table.” 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, August 22, 2026 at 9:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask 

Hello there, 
it was written purpously raw and pissed about the problem and pissed that. 

-> i've tried literally all the steps in the same google acount recovery 

-> I had thought that recording the computer as it stood after the l4m3r scr1prt k1dDiEs that: somehow ripped thought googls 2fs, then decided: lets also do something to it where by google no longer believes that the account has some videos, and pictures that I literally can not replace. Heh short of solving the Poincer Conjector, or Fermats Last theorom, or the Skassis Paradigm: I can not go back and take pictures from Sasquan: World Con, or of my Grandpapapa etc. and what's pissing me off is: As far as I know right now there's nothing important in the emails side. It's the cloud storage side that is being held hostage. 

-> It wasn't exactly a good reed to ask a applied real problem for people that allegedly have worked on all kinds of stuff from NDA heavy work your self, or Doug etc. etc. had worked on so I thought: A bunch of smart computer science people, vs A parasite (Advert: Alphabet the guys that own google kind) company and it's brain dead everything in the cloud, and no just: password reset and OTP etc. I had liked the odds of: computer security experts (a good number) vs a (*!@*!@ of a digital lock: well I assume given a heads up I want that stuff: by any means nescarsary I am going to rip those things out of the hands of some douche CEO (Sundar Pichai)who has sucked off the private unmentionables of Ai bro and is ai bro to the point of: litterally doing anything other than a basic gd unlock code: like steam,like apple, like wordpress (did?) like...well we get the idea. 

-> what I got instead was: Oh hey here's a 5 billion philosohpical view of math math math psuedo intelectial and ignore a real problem applying all our hyper-over-thought theorteticals: so, being Technocratic Anarchist: (that's simple for: a bunch over educated dudes leading things): well: they sound board. *shrug* ok: here's a very real problem with a real pay off for them and me. 

->I, so far, are wrong. 



And yeah, it's why man...i don't think trust has been the word...more that up to now:A lot of people (including me) had the same goal(abuse the 15gb of space google gives so they can train bard) well: 
I'd say it's been 1 week since I talked tothem, and unlike the voice of a 90s 1 hit wonder grunge band: I havent heard not a single good thing about making progress on getting stuff with grip of nostalgia. 

but at this point it'd be just to prove the point to the arrogant (samual l jackson verbal special) of Parasite Corpo hard R: The denser any lock is, the harder it falls: all locks have flaws and all locks attached to physical and digital doors the door, and or lock can be smashed down: just a matter of how pissed off and feuled by rage to get through them. 



like i've told anyone who listens: no drive. no problem: revenge is served cold. and am never doing anything with humanity after this...mess. 



On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 12:56 AM Russell Standish <lists at hpcoders.com.au <mailto:lists at hpcoders.com.au>> wrote: 

Hi Gillian,

Just getting to your messages now. And yes, your tone is confronting,
but does express your frustration well.

Your situation is a continual nightmare for me. Its the reason I don't
use the cloud to store anything important - I use my own hard drives,
and maintain a rigorous backup schedule.

2FA is a joke - I get my emails on my phone, like 99% of the
population. 2 factors of email+sms or email+authenticator app means
that anybody with my phone and the screen unlock pin has access to the
lot. Or if I leave the phone unattended in an unlocked state. It's
still single-factor. It is one reason I do not run my password manager
on my phone, the risk is too high to offset the inconvenience of
having to look up a password on my laptop.

Of course, none of this is any help for you. Of course, you should
have saved backup codes in the event of losing control of your
authenticator. Did you? Probably most people don't do it. And you'll
be deeply in the shit if you ever do lose your phone, or it goes on the
fritz.

Anyway, best of luck in your battles with bureaucracy and uncaring
corporate overlords.

Cheers

On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:20:02AM -0600, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone else)
> to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many times that's
> been a issue. 
> This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I wanted
> to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to do) and
> still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the web develops
> more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice: no one wants there
> boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
> And man thank also so much..
> 
> It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and listen.
> That's all I wanted. But it'salso not fair to have a arrogant company like
> google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate for more peoplelike you at
> least read, and listen
> I have tried man.
> The forums have blocked me
> Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
> I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles
> posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means. 
> Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not ever. I
> refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not help. I
> suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling to help
> Here's the dagger CO me.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com>>
> wrote:
> 
> Gil,
> 
> I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
> probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
> with Google or any corporate or govnernment system. 
> 
> You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
> network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
> physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
> list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
> removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
> venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
> 
> At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
> works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
> the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
> self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
> this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
> 
> You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help
> develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
> identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
> servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
> 
> Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
> 
> -Stephen
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stephen Guerin
> CEO, Founder
> https://simtable.com <https://simtable.com>
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com> 
> 
> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu <mailto:stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu>
> Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
> Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
> Landscape Architecture
> Harvard Graduate School of Design
> 
> mobile: (505)577-5828
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> 
> NIB:
> What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager): have
> stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com <mailto:gork.skoa at gmail.com>
> That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
> the problem for the only and last time. Read and ask me or owen AMA. I
> will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
> somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me
> having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had
> been up to then using lastpass.
> 
> The timeline
> Downloading music off of youtube with a
> opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):
> Got kicked off line
> Checked comcast 
> tried to log in
> and could not
> i am on android:
> I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
> authenticator, (just incase I misread)
> I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator and reinstall
> (failed)
> I tried to clear the cache of Googles authenticator then tried to
> reinstall it.
> (nothing)
> I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
> passwords
> go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only
> link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this
> is where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and
> they fail miserably: see also:
> the exact same problem
> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/ <https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/>
> my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/ <https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/>
> 
> 
> 
> I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <
> gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and
> crickets. Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
> 
> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or
> form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for
> someone to then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's
> a _real_ problem that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of
> programing skills and a very real applied fuckery from a god damn
> secruity failure. 
> So once again
> From the top
> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who
> knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my
> head agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to help
> me beyond a link I have said 9999 times I have tried all those
> things. I now need some help with where the hell go to for real
> actual help: 
> Is it a lawyer?
> Is it a ghost?
> A white hat?
> Someone named tod
> Who
> what
> and where
> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact.
> Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what
> ever it was that Jofr guy posted.
> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually
> helping wich is what i have been SCREAMING for and will not StFU
> about until this problem is fixed.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <
> gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_- 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
> wrote:
> 
> I would try to contact Google support or follow the
> guidelines on the official help pages. Good luck
> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en <https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en>
> 
> -J.
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>>
> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know
> who else to ask
> 
> google:
> someone or something has hijacked my account
> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ********
> in a second)
> etc etc.
> Problem
> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of
> music. something happened and I was kicked off line and
> tried to log back in:
> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not
> going to clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to
> be.
> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
> You have been warned.
> In short: 
> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of
> an account at
> gork.skoal at gmail.com <mailto:gork.skoal at gmail.com>
> alt account for forums and stuff 
> problems in no particular order:
> -> password I have in cache wrong,
> -> last pass: can't get in because
> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n account
> something from those keys wasn't working and I made the
> mistake of thinking it was androids normal fuckin' bullshit
> so I just cleared it's cache and tried to reinstall: I
> could not do that. 
> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg
> gmails: "try this other" way all those none of that worked
> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd
> work to get into my ********* google ******** drive. no
> luck there
> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking
> bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell
> you it works;
> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega
> thread posted here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything
> normal no otp, no text, nothing zero zilch nada.
> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing
> they seem ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some
> kind handle and unchangeable url messy url shades of
> wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat bot
> etc.
> -> not a fucking thing has worked
> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a
> fuck about the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly
> spam. really I i just have got to recover: travel pictures,
> some shit from world con, and family picture, all kinds
> neet little things: meh amature quality but...thee my
> ******* memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do
> not want a fucking thing to do with them ever again. 
> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of
> bounty you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so
> someone can help unfuck this bullshit and get the fucking
> dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god damn files.
> what the hell do I need to do to convince those
> alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not
> care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's
> friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint: yeah
> I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not,
> make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
> stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories
> in a torrent. on local nas. I do not care what. I just have
> got to have them protected and back. and are disgusted how
> fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.
> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if
> ya'all would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .--
> .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-.
> ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p
> Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/ <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/>
> friam_redfish.com <http://friam_redfish.com>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/>
> pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <http://friam_redfish.com/>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <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 <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> to (un)subscribe 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/>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/>
> friam_redfish.com/ <http://friam_redfish.com/>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <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 <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> to (un)subscribe 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/>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/>
> friam_redfish.com/ <http://friam_redfish.com/>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <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 <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
> to (un)subscribe 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/>
> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au <mailto:hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au>
http://www.hpcoders.com.au <http://www.hpcoders.com.au>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
to (un)subscribe 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/>
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260822/c580fd95/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260822/c580fd95/attachment-0001.bin>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Sat Aug 22 13:40:09 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 19:40:09 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Most active FRIAM members
In-Reply-To: <c57ae5c4-9c0c-43ed-a9a5-645a88deaf2d@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.5.1787420457.1642.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

oh I didn't know that Pamela passed away too. My condolences. She was certainly one of the more famous list members. I have asked ChatGPT to describe each of the list members, and it was impressed by Pamela and her books about AI. Her last book from 2019 was named "This could be important: My Life and Times with the Artificial Intelligentsia"https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/book/This_Could_Be_Important_My_Life_and_Times_with_the_Artificial_Intelligentsia/31079929-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> Date: 8/22/26  6:19 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam at redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Most active FRIAM members > The most frequent posters on FRIAM in descending order (according to > the archive at https://mail-archive.com/friam at redfish.com/ ). Steve, > Marcus and Nick are the top 3. Carl Tollander and Douglas Roberts are > no longer with us :-( I would have liked to hear Carl playing drums or > Douglas playing the saxophone.>Jochen/PhellowPhriamers -I was a little surprised (chagrined) to realize I'd topped the list by frequency of post ( and very likely by volume of text).  I'd be interested in a ranking of consequentiality which of course is in the eye of the beholder.   I could give my own ranking of how consequential many of your offerings have been here for me over the years, but naturally it is a multi-dimensional field of "optimality".   The broad spectrum of backgrounds and modes of thoughts present here have been valuable to me over this last 20+ years.I believe we once had a broader international representation, and I recognize that a few are simply very low frequency posters. Sarbajit (india) and (probably unsubscribed now Mohammed al Begatey (Egypt/Sweden), Schlitz (Ecuador)...We are very male-heavy here and I'd like to nod to.Merle for sticking in here with us.  Jenny Q still monitors and occasionally pops in and I'm pretty sure Dede Densmore withdrew entirely a long while ago..  Pamela was a strong voice before her passing in 2021...  we may well have a few "lurkers" as well.  I've lost at least one name I know to fit this category.We are also pretty age/education/vocation sqewed toward "elder academic".   I don't know who our youngest members are,  Gil and Cody maybe?   Possibly Jon?  I think Roger Frye might be our eldest with a solid handful not far behind?There is strong representation from the Computer Science/Engineering/Systems world but I really appreciate the complementary voices from the so-called "English Majors".   Jenny and Merle and Tom are the most obvious to me in this category...There are also a few other names of those who have passed (Pamela, Vladimyr, Lissaman) and notably our resident ?founding? member who brought ethnography into our midst (name-brain-fade).The Santa Fe Complex (sfX) contingent overlaps strongly and I sometimes lose track of the distinction.  And of course there are many other overlaps and partitionings...  BiosGroup escapees, SFI affiliations, Redfish/SimTable.We also have the local in-person coffee group who are not consistently vocal here (notably Ed Angel).Carry On!> 1. Steve Smith> 2. Marcus Daniels> 3. Nicholas (Nick) Thompson> 4. Owen Densmore> 5. David (Dave) West> 6. Frank Wimberly> 7. Glen Ropella> 8. Tom Johnson> 9. Jochen Fromm (DE)> 10. Eric Charles> 11. Roger Critchlow> 12. Douglas Roberts> 13. Jon Zingale> 14. Gillian Densmore> 15. Stephen Guerin> 16. Pieter Steenekamp (ZA)> 17. Merle Lefkoff> 18. Russel Standish (AU)> 19. Phil Henshaw> 20. Robert Holmes> 21. Barry MacKichan> 22. Russ Abbott> 23. Carl Tollander> 24. Pamela McCorduck> 25. Eric Smith> 26. Gary Schiltz> 27. John Kennison> 28. Bruce Sherwood> 29. Sarbajit Roy (IN)> 30. Roger Frye> 31. Pietro Terna (IT)> 32. Doug Carmichael>> -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/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260822/2ef2926e/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Sun Aug 23 16:30:52 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2026 22:30:52 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Possible new member from London
Message-ID: <mailman.6.1787517099.1642.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

Someone from London named Alex Stockham has contacted me via email. He is interested in the topic "emergence" and like Nick in the weather. Turns out someone is indeed reading my books, it only takes 20 years :-)I have encouraged him to join this list. I doubt many groups have discussed this topic as much as we did. If you see him joining Stephen, then please do not reject it because it looks like possible spam.-J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260823/117a628e/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Mon Aug 24 11:16:04 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 08:16:04 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB77350F4F9F8578FD8DC975D2C5A22@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aolDziw2pidnwx6e@zen>
 <CAMaMUCT-o9kUDQ9MJ4mj0YAm8AgfX2MjGm-R+uK0xW6C7Uuqqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DS0PR11MB77350F4F9F8578FD8DC975D2C5A22@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <23bcd3d4-36b4-48d9-afce-e6a67eafff75@ropella.name>

What is that website? https://www.yugantaratech.ai/ >8^D

https://tracxn.com/d/legal-entities/india/yugantara-tech-private-limited/__cFYSvU0XOVfi4oTu-0K_8tEnQzm0nJAAO1Wrodbg6zg#about

https://www.investingstoics.com/about ?Maybe?

https://www.filesure.in/director/sahil-sharma/11289854

DeepSeek V4 Flash is convinced it's not bullshit. "The author works at yugantaratech.ai and the paper deals with their area of of deep expertise."

$ whois yugantaratech.ai
Domain Name: yugantaratech.ai
Registry Domain ID: 56096dd720ae44f09409cc1c08828457-DONUTS
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com/domains/search.aspx?ci=8990
Updated Date: 2026-08-11T21:37:25Z
Creation Date: 2025-08-19T14:08:51Z



On 8/22/26 9:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> This paper is possibly a troll, but it is a fun one..
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.20231
> 
> “The reason growth was ever slow is that the economy’s central capital good, the general-purpose agent, had to be reared rather than manufactured; AGI ends that, moving the binding constraint from demography to fabrication and energy and raising feasible growth by orders of magnitude.”
> 
> “The autonomous economy delivers his abundance while dissolving his subject: the economy no longer cares about mankind unless mankind writes itself into the cap table.”
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, August 22, 2026 at 9:18 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
> 
> Hello there,
> 
> it was written purpously raw and pissed about the problem and pissed that.
> 
> -> i've tried literally all the steps in  the same google acount recovery
> 
> -> I had thought that recording the computer as it stood after the l4m3r scr1prt k1dDiEs that: somehow ripped thought googls 2fs, then decided: lets also do something to it where by google no longer believes that the account has some videos, and pictures that I literally can not replace. Heh short of solving the Poincer Conjector, or  Fermats Last theorom, or the  Skassis Paradigm: I can not go back and take pictures from Sasquan: World Con, or of my Grandpapapa etc. and what's pissing me off is: As far as I know right now there's nothing important in the emails side. It's the cloud storage side that is being held hostage.
> 
> -> It wasn't exactly a good reed to ask a applied real problem for people that allegedly have worked on all kinds of stuff from NDA heavy work your self, or Doug etc. etc. had worked on so I thought: A bunch of smart computer science people, vs A parasite (Advert: Alphabet the guys that own google kind) company and it's brain dead everything in the cloud, and no just: password reset and OTP etc. I had liked the odds of: computer security experts  (a good number) vs a (*!@*!@ of a digital lock: well I assume given a heads up I want that stuff: by any means nescarsary I am going to rip those things out of the hands of some douche CEO (Sundar Pichai)who has sucked off the  private unmentionables of Ai bro and is ai bro  to the point of: litterally doing anything other than a basic gd unlock code: like steam,like apple, like wordpress (did?) like...well we get the idea.
> 
> -> what I got instead was: Oh hey here's a 5 billion philosohpical view of math math math psuedo intelectial and ignore a real problem applying all our hyper-over-thought theorteticals: so, being  Technocratic Anarchist: (that's simple for: a bunch over educated dudes leading things): well: they sound board. *shrug* ok: here's a very real problem with a real pay off for them and me.
> 
> ->I, so far, are wrong.
> 
> And yeah, it's why man...i don't think trust has been the word...more that up to now:A lot of people (including me) had the same goal(abuse the 15gb of space google gives so they can train bard) well:
> I'd say it's been 1 week since I talked tothem, and unlike the voice of a 90s 1 hit wonder grunge band: I havent heard not a single good thing about making progress on getting stuff with grip of nostalgia.
> 
> but at this point it'd be just to prove the point to the arrogant (samual l jackson verbal special)  of Parasite Corpo hard R: The denser any lock is, the harder it falls: all locks have flaws and all locks attached to physical and digital doors the door, and or lock can be smashed down: just a matter of how pissed off and feuled by rage to get through them.
> 
> like i've told anyone who listens: no drive. no problem: revenge is served cold. and am never doing anything with humanity after this...mess.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 12:56 AM Russell Standish <lists at hpcoders.com.au <mailto:lists at hpcoders.com.au>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Gillian,
> 
>     Just getting to your messages now. And yes, your tone is confronting,
>     but does express your frustration well.
> 
>     Your situation is a continual nightmare for me. Its the reason I don't
>     use the cloud to store anything important - I use my own hard drives,
>     and maintain a rigorous backup schedule.
> 
>     2FA is a joke - I get my emails on my phone, like 99% of the
>     population. 2 factors of email+sms or email+authenticator app means
>     that anybody with my phone and the screen unlock pin has access to the
>     lot. Or if I leave the phone unattended in an unlocked state. It's
>     still single-factor. It is one reason I do not run my password manager
>     on my phone, the risk is too high to offset the inconvenience of
>     having to look up a password on my laptop.
> 
>     Of course, none of this is any help for you. Of course, you should
>     have saved backup codes in the event of losing control of your
>     authenticator. Did you? Probably most people don't do it. And you'll
>     be deeply in the shit if you ever do lose your phone, or it goes on the
>     fritz.
> 
>     Anyway, best of luck in your battles with bureaucracy and uncaring
>     corporate overlords.
> 
>     Cheers
> 
>     On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:20:02AM -0600, Gillian Densmore wrote:
>     > Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone else)
>     > to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many times that's
>     > been a issue. 
>     > This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I wanted
>     > to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to do) and
>     > still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the web develops
>     > more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice: no one wants there
>     > boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
>     > And man thank also so much..
>     > 
>     > It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and listen.
>     > That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a arrogant company like
>     > google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate for more peoplelike you at
>     > least read, and listen
>     > I have tried man.
>     > The forums have blocked me
>     > Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
>     > I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles
>     > posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means. 
>     > Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not ever.  I
>     > refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not help. I
>     > suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling to help
>     > Here's the dagger CO  me.
>     > 
>     > 
>     > On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com>>
>     > wrote:
>     > 
>     >     Gil,
>     > 
>     >     I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
>     >     probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
>     >     with Google or any corporate or govnernment system. 
>     > 
>     >     You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
>     >     network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
>     >     physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
>     >     list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
>     >     removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
>     >     venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
>     > 
>     >     At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
>     >     works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
>     >     the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
>     >     self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
>     >     this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
>     > 
>     >     You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help
>     >     develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
>     >     identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
>     >     servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
>     > 
>     >     Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
>     > 
>     >     -Stephen
>     >     _________________________________________________________________
>     >     Stephen Guerin
>     >     CEO, Founder
>     >     https://simtable.com <https://simtable.com>
>     >     stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
>     > 
>     >     stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu <mailto:stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu>
>     >     Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
>     >     Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
>     >     Landscape Architecture
>     >     Harvard Graduate School of Design
>     >    
>     >     mobile: (505)577-5828
>     > 
>     > 
>     >     On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>>
>     >     wrote:
>     > 
>     >         NIB:
>     >         What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
>     >         stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com <mailto:gork.skoa at gmail.com>
>     >         That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
>     >         the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I
>     >         will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
>     >         somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me
>     >         having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had
>     >         been up to then using lastpass.
>     > 
>     >         The timeline
>     >         Downloading music off of youtube with a
>     >         opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):
>     >         Got kicked off line
>     >         Checked comcast 
>     >         tried to log in
>     >         and could not
>     >         i am on android:
>     >         I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
>     >         authenticator, (just incase I misread)
>     >         I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
>     >         (failed)
>     >         I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
>     >         reinstall it.
>     >         (nothing)
>     >         I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
>     >         passwords
>     >         go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only
>     >         link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this
>     >         is where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and
>     >         they fail miserably: see also:
>     >         the exact same problem
>     >         https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/ <https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/>
>     >         my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
>     > 
>     >         https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/ <https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/>
>     > 
>     > 
>     > 
>     >         I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
>     > 
>     > 
>     >         On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <
>     >         gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > 
>     >             I really like i've presented two real world problems...and
>     >             crickets. Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>     > 
>     >             Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or
>     >             form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for
>     >             someone to then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's
>     >             a _real_ problem that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of
>     >             programing skills and a very real applied fuckery from a god damn
>     >             secruity failure. 
>     >             So once again
>     >             From the top
>     >             One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who
>     >             knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my
>     >             head agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to help
>     >             me beyond a link I have said 9999 times I have tried all those
>     >             things. I now need some help with where the hell go to for real
>     >             actual help: 
>     >             Is it a lawyer?
>     >             Is it a ghost?
>     >             A white hat?
>     >             Someone named tod
>     >             Who
>     >             what
>     >             and where
>     >             That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact.
>     >             Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what
>     >             ever it was that Jofr guy posted.
>     >             No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually
>     >             helping wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU
>     >             about until this problem is fixed.
>     > 
>     >             On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <
>     >             gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > 
>     >                 that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_- 
>     > 
>     >                 On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>>
>     >                 wrote:
>     > 
>     >                     I would try to contact Google support or follow the
>     >                     guidelines on the official help pages. Good luck
>     >                     https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en <https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en>
>     > 
>     >                     -J.
>     > 
>     > 
>     >                     -------- Original message --------
>     >                     From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com>>
>     >                     Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>     >                     To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>     >                     friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>     >                     Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know
>     >                     who else to ask
>     > 
>     >                     google:
>     >                     someone or something has hijacked my account
>     >                     -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>     >                     -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>     >                     -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ********
>     >                     in a second)
>     >                     etc etc.
>     >                     Problem
>     >                     -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of
>     >                     music. something happened and I was kicked off line and
>     >                     tried to log back in:
>     >                     then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not
>     >                     going to clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to
>     >                     be.
>     >                     Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>     >                     You have been warned.
>     >                     In short: 
>     >                     me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of
>     >                     an account at
>     >                     gork.skoal at gmail.com <mailto:gork.skoal at gmail.com>
>     >                     alt account for forums and stuff 
>     >                     problems in no particular order:
>     >                     -> password I have in cache wrong,
>     >                     -> last pass: can't get in because
>     >                     -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account
>     >                     something from those keys wasn't working and I made the
>     >                     mistake of thinking it was androids normal fuckin' bullshit
>     >                     so I just cleared it's cache and tried to reinstall: I
>     >                     could not do that. 
>     >                     ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg
>     >                     gmails: "try this other" way all those none of that worked
>     >                     -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd
>     >                     work to get into my ********* google ******** drive. no
>     >                     luck there
>     >                     -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking
>     >                     bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell
>     >                     you it works;
>     >                     -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega
>     >                     thread posted here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything
>     >                     normal no otp, no text, nothing zero zilch nada.
>     >                     -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing
>     >                     they seem ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some
>     >                     kind handle and unchangeable url messy url shades of
>     >                     wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat bot
>     >                     etc.
>     >                     -> not a fucking thing has worked
>     >                     like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a
>     >                     fuck about the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly
>     >                     spam. really I i just have got to recover: travel pictures,
>     >                     some shit from world con, and family picture, all kinds
>     >                     neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my
>     >                     ******* memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do
>     >                     not want a fucking thing to do with them ever again. 
>     >                     i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of
>     >                     bounty you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so
>     >                     someone can help unfuck this bullshit and get the fucking
>     >                     dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god damn files.
>     >                     what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>     >                     alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not
>     >                     care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's
>     >                     friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint: yeah
>     >                     I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not,
>     >                     make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>     >                     stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories
>     >                     in a torrent. on local nas. I do not care what. I just have
>     >                     got to have them protected and back. and are disgusted how
>     >                     fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.
>     >                     pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if
>     >                     ya'all would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>     > 



-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From gepr at ropella.name  Mon Aug 24 12:16:45 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 09:16:45 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] temptation
Message-ID: <1e733bf3-8482-4100-beb6-8ed7df37a9f2@ropella.name>

I'm tempted to actually give this a shot:

IsaAbduct: A Multi-Strategy Abduction Pipeline for Isabelle/HOL
https://hanielbarbosa.com/papers/2026fmcad-isaabduct.pdf

I've had a terrible time trying to use Lean. The SysAdmin is persnickety. But I naively believed Hansen in this comment

https://mathoverflow.net/a/513774

on Chow's post:
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/513742/are-we-stuck-with-lean

"the formal system of Isabelle/HOL itself suffers from things like a frankly confusing object theory/metatheory distinction that the user is supposed to be shielded from but is nevertheless exposed to often (at least in my experience)."

One of the things I really like about both OpenCode (depending on the model, of course) and Claude Code is their ability to exhibit what looks like abduction. Both tend to go down useless rabbit holes. But as long as I'm watching them and manually hand holding, their "maybe this is what's happening" or "we could try this approach" often works. But, again, I'm not doing math. I'm usually trying to plug tech together to achieve some previously conceptualized result. So I'm sure it's different.

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com  Mon Aug 24 18:07:09 2026
From: eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com (Eric Charles)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 18:07:09 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAEYGzMCmsNydD9aB3Cbn_HVp2zXvpFZeJoR5kin_RSR-jANS4A@mail.gmail.com>

I'll be honest... I'm not sure I found the big-text emails all that
coherent. What I gathered is that you lost access to a gmail account, which
I understand can be insanely frustrating. But clearly you have access to
the gmail account you are using to email this list.

What I'm not sure about is what you think any of us can do about it. Are
you demanding that someone here write a program to re-hack your email? If
so, that's pretty far from anything my Ph.D. had anything to do with, and
even if I could do that, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to discuss the
problem in a fairly public forum.

Best,
Eric


On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:20 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone
> else) to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many
> times that's been a issue.
> This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I
> wanted to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to
> do) and still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the
> web develops more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice:
> no one wants there boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
> And man thank also so much..
>
> It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and
> listen. That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a
> arrogant company like google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate
> for more peoplelike you at least read, and listen
> I have tried man.
> The forums have blocked me
> Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
> I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles
> posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means.
> Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not
> ever.  I refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not
> help. I suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling
> to help
> Here's the dagger CO  me.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:
>
>> Gil,
>>
>> I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
>> probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
>> with Google or any corporate or govnernment system.
>>
>> You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
>> network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
>> physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
>> list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
>> removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
>> venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
>>
>> At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
>> works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
>> the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
>> self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
>> this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
>>
>> You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help
>> develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
>> identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
>> servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
>>
>> Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
>>
>> -Stephen
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Stephen Guerin
>> CEO, Founder
>> https://simtable.com
>> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>>
>> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
>> Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
>> <https://hwpi.harvard.edu/eps-visualization-research-laboratory/home>
>> Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
>> Landscape Architecture
>> <https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2025/02/landscape-architecture-students-explore-pioneering-climate-visualization-techniques-to-inform-design/>
>> Harvard Graduate School of Design
>>
>> mobile: (505)577-5828
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> NIB:
>>> What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
>>> stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
>>> That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
>>> the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I
>>> will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
>>> somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me
>>> having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been
>>> up to then using lastpass.
>>>
>>> The timeline
>>> Downloading music off of youtube with a opensoruced appcalled parabolic.
>>> (lounge music):
>>> Got kicked off line
>>> Checked comcast
>>> tried to log in
>>> and could not
>>> i am on android:
>>> I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
>>> authenticator, (just incase I misread)
>>> I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
>>> (failed)
>>> I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
>>> reinstall it.
>>> (nothing)
>>> I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
>>> passwords
>>> go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only
>>> link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is
>>> where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they
>>> fail miserably: see also:
>>> the exact same problem
>>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
>>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets.
>>>> Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>>>>
>>>> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or
>>>> form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to
>>>> then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem
>>>> that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real
>>>> applied fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
>>>> So once again
>>>> From the top
>>>> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who knows
>>>> what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head agains the
>>>> same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a link I have
>>>> said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some help with
>>>> where the hell go to for real actual help:
>>>> Is it a lawyer?
>>>> Is it a ghost?
>>>> A white hat?
>>>> Someone named tod
>>>> Who
>>>> what
>>>> and where
>>>> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact.
>>>> Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was
>>>> that Jofr guy posted.
>>>> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping
>>>> wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this
>>>> problem is fixed.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <
>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the
>>>>>> official help pages. Good luck
>>>>>> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -J.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>>> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else
>>>>>> to ask
>>>>>>
>>>>>> google:
>>>>>> someone or something has hijacked my account
>>>>>> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>>>>>> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>>>>>> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)
>>>>>> etc etc.
>>>>>> Problem
>>>>>> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music.
>>>>>> something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>>>>>> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean
>>>>>> up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>>>>>> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>>>>>> You have been warned.
>>>>>> In short:
>>>>>> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>>>>>> alt account for forums and stuff
>>>>>> problems in no particular order:
>>>>>> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>>>>>> -> last pass: can't get in because
>>>>>> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something
>>>>>> from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
>>>>>> androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
>>>>>> reinstall: I could not do that.
>>>>>> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try
>>>>>> this other" way all those none of that worked
>>>>>> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to
>>>>>> get into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>>>>>> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit
>>>>>> it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>>>>>> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted
>>>>>> here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text,
>>>>>> nothing zero zilch nada.
>>>>>> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem
>>>>>> ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and
>>>>>> unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a
>>>>>> stupid ai chat bot etc.
>>>>>> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>>>>>> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about
>>>>>> the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got
>>>>>> to recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture,
>>>>>> all kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
>>>>>> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
>>>>>> to do with them ever again.
>>>>>> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty
>>>>>> you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck
>>>>>> this bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get
>>>>>> my god damn files.
>>>>>> what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>>>>>> alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the
>>>>>> email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a
>>>>>> fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting
>>>>>> fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>>>>>> stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on
>>>>>> local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and
>>>>>> back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life
>>>>>> story back.
>>>>>> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all
>>>>>> would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -.
>>>>>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>>>>> 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/20260824/866ad0eb/attachment.html>

From stephen.guerin at simtable.com  Mon Aug 24 21:39:49 2026
From: stephen.guerin at simtable.com (Stephen Guerin)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 19:39:49 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEYGzMCmsNydD9aB3Cbn_HVp2zXvpFZeJoR5kin_RSR-jANS4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCmsNydD9aB3Cbn_HVp2zXvpFZeJoR5kin_RSR-jANS4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAOmOqnJCmoKtiMHfUfa2pbRLQwxfTwokQYT=DYVATvvNPj5DoA@mail.gmail.com>

it looks like Gil was locked out of a secondary Gmail account:

gork.skoal at gmail.com

____________________________________________
CEO Founder, Simtable.com
stephen.guerin at simtable.com

Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu

mobile: (505)577-5828

On Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 4:07 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'll be honest... I'm not sure I found the big-text emails all that
> coherent. What I gathered is that you lost access to a gmail account, which
> I understand can be insanely frustrating. But clearly you have access to
> the gmail account you are using to email this list.
>
> What I'm not sure about is what you think any of us can do about it. Are
> you demanding that someone here write a program to re-hack your email? If
> so, that's pretty far from anything my Ph.D. had anything to do with, and
> even if I could do that, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to discuss the
> problem in a fairly public forum.
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:20 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone
>> else) to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many
>> times that's been a issue.
>> This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I
>> wanted to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to
>> do) and still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the
>> web develops more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice:
>> no one wants there boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
>> And man thank also so much..
>>
>> It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and
>> listen. That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a
>> arrogant company like google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate
>> for more peoplelike you at least read, and listen
>> I have tried man.
>> The forums have blocked me
>> Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
>> I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles
>> posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means.
>> Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not
>> ever.  I refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not
>> help. I suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling
>> to help
>> Here's the dagger CO  me.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <
>> stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gil,
>>>
>>> I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
>>> probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
>>> with Google or any corporate or govnernment system.
>>>
>>> You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
>>> network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
>>> physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
>>> list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
>>> removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
>>> venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
>>>
>>> At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
>>> works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
>>> the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
>>> self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
>>> this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
>>>
>>> You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help
>>> develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
>>> identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
>>> servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
>>>
>>> Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
>>>
>>> -Stephen
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Stephen Guerin
>>> CEO, Founder
>>> https://simtable.com
>>> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>>>
>>> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
>>> Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
>>> <https://hwpi.harvard.edu/eps-visualization-research-laboratory/home>
>>> Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
>>> Landscape Architecture
>>> <https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2025/02/landscape-architecture-students-explore-pioneering-climate-visualization-techniques-to-inform-design/>
>>> Harvard Graduate School of Design
>>>
>>> mobile: (505)577-5828
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NIB:
>>>> What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
>>>> stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
>>>> That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
>>>> the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I
>>>> will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
>>>> somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me
>>>> having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been
>>>> up to then using lastpass.
>>>>
>>>> The timeline
>>>> Downloading music off of youtube with a
>>>> opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):
>>>> Got kicked off line
>>>> Checked comcast
>>>> tried to log in
>>>> and could not
>>>> i am on android:
>>>> I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
>>>> authenticator, (just incase I misread)
>>>> I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
>>>> (failed)
>>>> I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
>>>> reinstall it.
>>>> (nothing)
>>>> I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
>>>> passwords
>>>> go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only
>>>> link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is
>>>> where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they
>>>> fail miserably: see also:
>>>> the exact same problem
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <
>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets.
>>>>> Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or
>>>>> form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to
>>>>> then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem
>>>>> that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real
>>>>> applied fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
>>>>> So once again
>>>>> From the top
>>>>> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who
>>>>> knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head
>>>>> agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a
>>>>> link I have said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some
>>>>> help with where the hell go to for real actual help:
>>>>> Is it a lawyer?
>>>>> Is it a ghost?
>>>>> A white hat?
>>>>> Someone named tod
>>>>> Who
>>>>> what
>>>>> and where
>>>>> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact.
>>>>> Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was
>>>>> that Jofr guy posted.
>>>>> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping
>>>>> wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this
>>>>> problem is fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <
>>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on
>>>>>>> the official help pages. Good luck
>>>>>>> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -J.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>>>> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else
>>>>>>> to ask
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> google:
>>>>>>> someone or something has hijacked my account
>>>>>>> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>>>>>>> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>>>>>>> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a
>>>>>>> second)
>>>>>>> etc etc.
>>>>>>> Problem
>>>>>>> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music.
>>>>>>> something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>>>>>>> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to
>>>>>>> clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>>>>>>> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>>>>>>> You have been warned.
>>>>>>> In short:
>>>>>>> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>>>>>>> alt account for forums and stuff
>>>>>>> problems in no particular order:
>>>>>>> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>>>>>>> -> last pass: can't get in because
>>>>>>> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something
>>>>>>> from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
>>>>>>> androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
>>>>>>> reinstall: I could not do that.
>>>>>>> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails:
>>>>>>> "try this other" way all those none of that worked
>>>>>>> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to
>>>>>>> get into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>>>>>>> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit
>>>>>>> it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>>>>>>> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted
>>>>>>> here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text,
>>>>>>> nothing zero zilch nada.
>>>>>>> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem
>>>>>>> ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and
>>>>>>> unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a
>>>>>>> stupid ai chat bot etc.
>>>>>>> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>>>>>>> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about
>>>>>>> the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got
>>>>>>> to recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture,
>>>>>>> all kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
>>>>>>> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
>>>>>>> to do with them ever again.
>>>>>>> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty
>>>>>>> you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck
>>>>>>> this bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get
>>>>>>> my god damn files.
>>>>>>> what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>>>>>>> alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the
>>>>>>> email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a
>>>>>>> fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting
>>>>>>> fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>>>>>>> stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on
>>>>>>> local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and
>>>>>>> back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life
>>>>>>> story back.
>>>>>>> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all
>>>>>>> would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -.
>>>>>>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>>>>>> 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/20260824/31d38bcc/attachment.html>

From gepr at ropella.name  Wed Aug 26 13:48:48 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 10:48:48 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] steelmanning
Message-ID: <04a30858-2a1a-4a50-befe-0183df206fde@ropella.name>

It's been awhile since we talked about the flaws of steelmanning ... a sub-category of the fallacy fallacy, I think. This post was fantastic. The OP's gymnastics blew me away.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1vynnza/why_would_peter_thiel_be_interested_in_the/

I think it's wrong. But it's really good ... degenerate in a way ... an expression of schematic thought. How many ways can the free variables in a schematic sentence be filled in such that the sentence (and the language that houses it) can remain consistent?

I was again piqued by "anacyclosis" and the stability of types of government. In a recent Zoom, a colleague DMed me asking when all this peri-Trump nonsense was going to end (especially the perversion of institutions like the NIH). My answer was to keep their shoulder to the wheel, that hard/steady work reliably wins the competition against bullshit. But I'm not hundy on that, of course, because I'm a dyed in the wool skeptic. Diversity facilitates resilience. And I'm either running out of ways to understand diversity. Or it's steadily decreasing in every domain I'm aware of, from music to bugs in the yard. Even *when* there's diversity in political opinions, most of my friends hide behind litmus tests of some kind or another.

E.g. when discussing certain forbidden words, my woke friends insistently claimed they would NEVER use one of the words. I spent about 2 hours trying to repeat "Never say never" over and over again in a variety of different ways. They came away convinced i'm some kind of crypto-nazi or somesuch. That's fine. I'll take the reputational hit. But then, literally, about a week later, one of the friends in that argument confessed to having an affair. And our argument about never say never happened *right before* his SO found out about it. They recalled a time prior to the affair where they thought they were immune to such temptations. Now they realize how unstable they were before the affair. If you think you're incapable of evolving into some thing (e.g. pro-genocide or whatever), you should think again. The only thing that has any chance of preventing such is diversity of thought.

Anyway, this paper might be interesting to some of us, here:

Political science meets physical science: The shared concept of stability
https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad401

Would be more interesting if the authors are not related. But I haven't looked 'em up.

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From desmith at santafe.edu  Wed Aug 26 17:16:59 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 06:16:59 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] steelmanning
In-Reply-To: <04a30858-2a1a-4a50-befe-0183df206fde@ropella.name>
References: <04a30858-2a1a-4a50-befe-0183df206fde@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <8F7995A8-D9B9-4F68-8A98-B96AD8AACA46@santafe.edu>

Ha!

Before reading the post, and not knowing how Thiel gave his performance, I would have said (and still think) that, for Thiel, the Antichrist is a role model.  An economist I worked with for a long time used to talk about Moby Dick with a wistful expression, clearly viewing Captain Ahab as the hero.

Eric


> On Aug 27, 2026, at 2:48, glen <gepr at ropella.name> wrote:
> 
> It's been awhile since we talked about the flaws of steelmanning ... a sub-category of the fallacy fallacy, I think. This post was fantastic. The OP's gymnastics blew me away.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1vynnza/why_would_peter_thiel_be_interested_in_the/
> 
> I think it's wrong. But it's really good ... degenerate in a way ... an expression of schematic thought. How many ways can the free variables in a schematic sentence be filled in such that the sentence (and the language that houses it) can remain consistent?
> 
> I was again piqued by "anacyclosis" and the stability of types of government. In a recent Zoom, a colleague DMed me asking when all this peri-Trump nonsense was going to end (especially the perversion of institutions like the NIH). My answer was to keep their shoulder to the wheel, that hard/steady work reliably wins the competition against bullshit. But I'm not hundy on that, of course, because I'm a dyed in the wool skeptic. Diversity facilitates resilience. And I'm either running out of ways to understand diversity. Or it's steadily decreasing in every domain I'm aware of, from music to bugs in the yard. Even *when* there's diversity in political opinions, most of my friends hide behind litmus tests of some kind or another.
> 
> E.g. when discussing certain forbidden words, my woke friends insistently claimed they would NEVER use one of the words. I spent about 2 hours trying to repeat "Never say never" over and over again in a variety of different ways. They came away convinced i'm some kind of crypto-nazi or somesuch. That's fine. I'll take the reputational hit. But then, literally, about a week later, one of the friends in that argument confessed to having an affair. And our argument about never say never happened *right before* his SO found out about it. They recalled a time prior to the affair where they thought they were immune to such temptations. Now they realize how unstable they were before the affair. If you think you're incapable of evolving into some thing (e.g. pro-genocide or whatever), you should think again. The only thing that has any chance of preventing such is diversity of thought.
> 
> Anyway, this paper might be interesting to some of us, here:
> 
> Political science meets physical science: The shared concept of stability
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdoi.org%2f10.1093%2fpnasnexus%2fpgad401&c=E,1,mJ7jmavPHm3x7M3BBETHh77x668skOey-Ymopuj16rccQ8qfzFfRMcaHJQgydOw9nFXm6TfgCrUdJJWXs30RYZmlnW4uLjPufRzOWWsWK6XkNl0,&typo=1
> 
> Would be more interesting if the authors are not related. But I haven't looked 'em up.
> 
> -- 
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
> 
> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,AE__qeBPF3hGJ3gwRgw2ycnhsurbEhWTfE_nvBeNioZCU8ldmvNgi88GxaLQ4QXDq7GdRBNu8Hqczvlm-ltNlc4ybCDlCKwZ71lqByWS6e2UvbI9jdU1M5NHyztz&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,BcgZqNyckBG-EX4ncqQa1Pi3G6Nkog8ZZU5b99V2zFq4E9M6K6IdG4uGzfIhmuecpyI3upfXqFpTDkUs9CAaejC45VIYuIR3e6EzFJnQNbPi6SptrMO49dSCVA,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,LJOpYdWG7opI2osInEEzFKcuVpd59Sjnf4bDsnVlYJDpjqbr29H4mh63cm6nBzR3wg65QjnGziyRGFEVLEIO0yCGntZL8fkdDr9N-_GQDo7Jerv4xlkExMYY&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,D6W7CfnhoVxvf6e51a88Cxou7G5znJN8kKbO6bdW2k95cmhuMtBIDrt2Mmclgqw3Jn6qr7ErOf-GganvxJy7z7afOwmR7bT_O0rvmN3oqbcTM8SLoB0gHU2p3SI0&typo=1
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


From eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com  Thu Aug 27 16:12:07 2026
From: eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com (Eric Charles)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 16:12:07 -0400
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOmOqnJCmoKtiMHfUfa2pbRLQwxfTwokQYT=DYVATvvNPj5DoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCmsNydD9aB3Cbn_HVp2zXvpFZeJoR5kin_RSR-jANS4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnJCmoKtiMHfUfa2pbRLQwxfTwokQYT=DYVATvvNPj5DoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAEYGzMAt=OM6-SB7xXMdUSO20M1=qM-tUuO0P7dt=Ccqs=tHAg@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, that is the part I understood. But it seemed like they thought someone
on the list should be able to write a... I guess a computer program to... I
guess to fix that... somehow...

I get the need to vent frustration sometimes... but was there an actual
serious ask? Is the request for someone to try to brute-force hack gmail on
her behalf, or something worse?

Or was it just a semi-coherent all-caps "old-man yells at clouds" meme?

Best,
Eric

<echarles at american.edu>


On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:40 PM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
wrote:

> it looks like Gil was locked out of a secondary Gmail account:
>
> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>
> ____________________________________________
> CEO Founder, Simtable.com
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>
> Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
>
> mobile: (505)577-5828
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 4:07 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'll be honest... I'm not sure I found the big-text emails all that
>> coherent. What I gathered is that you lost access to a gmail account, which
>> I understand can be insanely frustrating. But clearly you have access to
>> the gmail account you are using to email this list.
>>
>> What I'm not sure about is what you think any of us can do about it. Are
>> you demanding that someone here write a program to re-hack your email? If
>> so, that's pretty far from anything my Ph.D. had anything to do with, and
>> even if I could do that, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to discuss the
>> problem in a fairly public forum.
>>
>> Best,
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:20 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone
>>> else) to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many
>>> times that's been a issue.
>>> This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I
>>> wanted to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to
>>> do) and still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the
>>> web develops more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice:
>>> no one wants there boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
>>> And man thank also so much..
>>>
>>> It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and
>>> listen. That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a
>>> arrogant company like google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate
>>> for more peoplelike you at least read, and listen
>>> I have tried man.
>>> The forums have blocked me
>>> Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
>>> I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of
>>> googles posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means.
>>> Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not
>>> ever.  I refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not
>>> help. I suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling
>>> to help
>>> Here's the dagger CO  me.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <
>>> stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gil,
>>>>
>>>> I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
>>>> probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
>>>> with Google or any corporate or govnernment system.
>>>>
>>>> You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
>>>> network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
>>>> physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
>>>> list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
>>>> removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
>>>> venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
>>>>
>>>> At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
>>>> works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
>>>> the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
>>>> self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
>>>> this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
>>>>
>>>> You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to
>>>> help develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
>>>> identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
>>>> servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
>>>>
>>>> Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
>>>>
>>>> -Stephen
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Stephen Guerin
>>>> CEO, Founder
>>>> https://simtable.com
>>>> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>>>>
>>>> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
>>>> Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
>>>> <https://hwpi.harvard.edu/eps-visualization-research-laboratory/home>
>>>> Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
>>>> Landscape Architecture
>>>> <https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2025/02/landscape-architecture-students-explore-pioneering-climate-visualization-techniques-to-inform-design/>
>>>> Harvard Graduate School of Design
>>>>
>>>> mobile: (505)577-5828
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <
>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NIB:
>>>>> What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
>>>>> stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
>>>>> That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
>>>>> the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA.
>>>>> I will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
>>>>> somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me
>>>>> having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been
>>>>> up to then using lastpass.
>>>>>
>>>>> The timeline
>>>>> Downloading music off of youtube with a
>>>>> opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):
>>>>> Got kicked off line
>>>>> Checked comcast
>>>>> tried to log in
>>>>> and could not
>>>>> i am on android:
>>>>> I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
>>>>> authenticator, (just incase I misread)
>>>>> I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
>>>>> (failed)
>>>>> I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
>>>>> reinstall it.
>>>>> (nothing)
>>>>> I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
>>>>> passwords
>>>>> go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only
>>>>> link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is
>>>>> where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they
>>>>> fail miserably: see also:
>>>>> the exact same problem
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <
>>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets.
>>>>>> Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or
>>>>>> form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to
>>>>>> then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem
>>>>>> that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real
>>>>>> applied fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
>>>>>> So once again
>>>>>> From the top
>>>>>> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who
>>>>>> knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head
>>>>>> agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a
>>>>>> link I have said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some
>>>>>> help with where the hell go to for real actual help:
>>>>>> Is it a lawyer?
>>>>>> Is it a ghost?
>>>>>> A white hat?
>>>>>> Someone named tod
>>>>>> Who
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> and where
>>>>>> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact.
>>>>>> Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was
>>>>>> that Jofr guy posted.
>>>>>> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually
>>>>>> helping wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about
>>>>>> until this problem is fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <
>>>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on
>>>>>>>> the official help pages. Good luck
>>>>>>>> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -J.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>>>>> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>>>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>>>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else
>>>>>>>> to ask
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> google:
>>>>>>>> someone or something has hijacked my account
>>>>>>>> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>>>>>>>> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>>>>>>>> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a
>>>>>>>> second)
>>>>>>>> etc etc.
>>>>>>>> Problem
>>>>>>>> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music.
>>>>>>>> something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>>>>>>>> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to
>>>>>>>> clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>>>>>>>> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>>>>>>>> You have been warned.
>>>>>>>> In short:
>>>>>>>> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an
>>>>>>>> account at
>>>>>>>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> alt account for forums and stuff
>>>>>>>> problems in no particular order:
>>>>>>>> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>>>>>>>> -> last pass: can't get in because
>>>>>>>> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account
>>>>>>>> something from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking
>>>>>>>> it was androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and
>>>>>>>> tried to reinstall: I could not do that.
>>>>>>>> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails:
>>>>>>>> "try this other" way all those none of that worked
>>>>>>>> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to
>>>>>>>> get into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>>>>>>>> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking
>>>>>>>> bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>>>>>>>> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread
>>>>>>>> posted here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text,
>>>>>>>> nothing zero zilch nada.
>>>>>>>> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem
>>>>>>>> ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and
>>>>>>>> unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a
>>>>>>>> stupid ai chat bot etc.
>>>>>>>> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>>>>>>>> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about
>>>>>>>> the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got
>>>>>>>> to recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture,
>>>>>>>> all kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
>>>>>>>> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
>>>>>>>> to do with them ever again.
>>>>>>>> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty
>>>>>>>> you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck
>>>>>>>> this bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get
>>>>>>>> my god damn files.
>>>>>>>> what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>>>>>>>> alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the
>>>>>>>> email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a
>>>>>>>> fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting
>>>>>>>> fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>>>>>>>> stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on
>>>>>>>> local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and
>>>>>>>> back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life
>>>>>>>> story back.
>>>>>>>> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all
>>>>>>>> would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -.
>>>>>>>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>>>>>>> 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/20260827/475dc5b4/attachment.html>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug 27 17:15:19 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:15:19 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEYGzMAt=OM6-SB7xXMdUSO20M1=qM-tUuO0P7dt=Ccqs=tHAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCQ-yTmxmSuv7BCTUjd5BYQ1-X-Y1ccUW7j9pWx=4UPezQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6a7c9a8c.0c0d9c3f.79143.63dcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com>
 <CAMaMUCTBjQeW3kCEa_y2T=4YA_edmdJ3WY9TKybf1W0Xqasy-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZxFivGVQt15R=GE31URW6v231Gie-yaJ7ou3PPhaLGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCRZDsMn92woZQGM_+jEoj2n5wkdmz7kaRYSjJdcSsb2MA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnK93P1q5o1dYK54XOGKDDFtw86eRpDV6ajNLpO1SoLRHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMaMUCSkzTzCNmHjbvheYz7LeC62BD30HdXAc=_m3_mbsoU_bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMCmsNydD9aB3Cbn_HVp2zXvpFZeJoR5kin_RSR-jANS4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmOqnJCmoKtiMHfUfa2pbRLQwxfTwokQYT=DYVATvvNPj5DoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEYGzMAt=OM6-SB7xXMdUSO20M1=qM-tUuO0P7dt=Ccqs=tHAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCT9EyMPw0Ok56krtO8S=3-mPwi+7J_BnGj6O7MXFg79sA@mail.gmail.com>

Pardon the large font. it is not a troll. it's because of aging and needing
to update my glasses and I for one find it a lot easier to read on a 2k res
monitor, so I am attempting to be helpful. If I am wrong. let me know.
The TLDR somehow someone stole tons of personal a data,emails, and
passwords, in one of several particularly violent and deep data theft
vioolations. In my case the proverbial nuke started at google, and then the
blast radius (other potential systems they can get into) spread from there.
When I initially asked I thought that I had to try to recover a few
terrible pictures that have a grip of sentimental value i can not replace:
for those who don't know how googles thing works you have basically a big
box that can hold email (gmail) or or stuff (googledrive) the part I had
asked about: is the google drive part specifically google pictures.
so TLDR (again) is:
as put it to my aunt " .petaQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   ferengi up and broke into
my all kinds my personal data: including bank and gmail. (Hilariously
enough Steam. The Game hosting platform kind. gave them the redshirt
treatment faster than a ferengi caught stealing from a Klingon). So that
leads me to requesting kinds sir virtual (holographic remotes)."

so the outline is basically this
googledrive(locke/hacked/stolen/heldhostage/and otherwise esonsed like a
fereng petaQ with what ever it is google needs in order to believe me (Lord
[BLANK] Gillian Densmore) is the dude that is the right and proper owner of
gork.skoal at gmail.com    (the personal data etc atached to it) and were able
to attempt to go on to hack into (cringe) what ever other related systems
they {grawlix here} wanted to. aka DOCKED/DOXED

----------------------------------------------->pictures:----------------------------->pictures
from world con (oof but.) pictures of grandpa and grandma (high sentimental
partially me much more so my dad and co) because he is ummm how I put
this...in Suto'vo'qor

So yes. a earnest ask Gud Fur, danke.  Der. Das Problem ist Folgendes: Die
Schritte unter der URL zur Selbsthilfe funktionieren nicht. 2FA:
Fehlanzeige. OTP: Was ist das? etc etc. the attackers managed to make there
2FA stuff think I am not not a idiot named Gil. They even tried to convince
BoFa I don't have an account and it took a scary long amount of time before
there security kicked them out. and I had used biometrics. same with amazon
and lots more. What's scary. Ok explination and context for what follows
time! I love this thing called Steam (hosting platform etc)  TLDR: Valve:
guys that made hafl-life and a few other things run cloud thing called
steam it hosts games. Steam-the games company kind!
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(service)>
  Steam didn't even let them get past the password screen, they notified
pretty insanely fast and basically locked out the intruders.

So um ja Lass uns bei Google einbrechen! Ich bringe die Brechstange, du
holst die Tastatur.
Und,Danke Steve-


On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 2:13 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes, that is the part I understood. But it seemed like they thought
> someone on the list should be able to write a... I guess a computer program
> to... I guess to fix that... somehow...
>
> I get the need to vent frustration sometimes... but was there an actual
> serious ask? Is the request for someone to try to brute-force hack gmail on
> her behalf, or something worse?
>
> Or was it just a semi-coherent all-caps "old-man yells at clouds" meme?
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
> <echarles at american.edu>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:40 PM Stephen Guerin <
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:
>
>> it looks like Gil was locked out of a secondary Gmail account:
>>
>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>>
>> ____________________________________________
>> CEO Founder, Simtable.com
>> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>>
>> Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
>> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
>>
>> mobile: (505)577-5828
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 4:07 PM Eric Charles <
>> eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll be honest... I'm not sure I found the big-text emails all that
>>> coherent. What I gathered is that you lost access to a gmail account, which
>>> I understand can be insanely frustrating. But clearly you have access to
>>> the gmail account you are using to email this list.
>>>
>>> What I'm not sure about is what you think any of us can do about it. Are
>>> you demanding that someone here write a program to re-hack your email? If
>>> so, that's pretty far from anything my Ph.D. had anything to do with, and
>>> even if I could do that, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to discuss the
>>> problem in a fairly public forum.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:20 AM Gillian Densmore <
>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone
>>>> else) to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many
>>>> times that's been a issue.
>>>> This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I
>>>> wanted to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to
>>>> do) and still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the
>>>> web develops more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice:
>>>> no one wants there boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
>>>> And man thank also so much..
>>>>
>>>> It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and
>>>> listen. That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a
>>>> arrogant company like google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate
>>>> for more peoplelike you at least read, and listen
>>>> I have tried man.
>>>> The forums have blocked me
>>>> Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
>>>> I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of
>>>> googles posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means.
>>>> Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not
>>>> ever.  I refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not
>>>> help. I suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling
>>>> to help
>>>> Here's the dagger CO  me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <
>>>> stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gil,
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
>>>>> probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
>>>>> with Google or any corporate or govnernment system.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in
>>>>> the network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
>>>>> physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
>>>>> list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
>>>>> removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
>>>>> venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
>>>>>
>>>>> At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
>>>>> works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
>>>>> the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
>>>>> self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
>>>>> this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to
>>>>> help develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
>>>>> identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
>>>>> servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> -Stephen
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Stephen Guerin
>>>>> CEO, Founder
>>>>> https://simtable.com
>>>>> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>>>>>
>>>>> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
>>>>> Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
>>>>> <https://hwpi.harvard.edu/eps-visualization-research-laboratory/home>
>>>>> Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
>>>>> Landscape Architecture
>>>>> <https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2025/02/landscape-architecture-students-explore-pioneering-climate-visualization-techniques-to-inform-design/>
>>>>> Harvard Graduate School of Design
>>>>>
>>>>> mobile: (505)577-5828
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <
>>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NIB:
>>>>>> What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
>>>>>> stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
>>>>>> That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
>>>>>> the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA.
>>>>>> I will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
>>>>>> somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me
>>>>>> having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been
>>>>>> up to then using lastpass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The timeline
>>>>>> Downloading music off of youtube with a
>>>>>> opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):
>>>>>> Got kicked off line
>>>>>> Checked comcast
>>>>>> tried to log in
>>>>>> and could not
>>>>>> i am on android:
>>>>>> I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
>>>>>> authenticator, (just incase I misread)
>>>>>> I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and
>>>>>> reinstall (failed)
>>>>>> I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
>>>>>> reinstall it.
>>>>>> (nothing)
>>>>>> I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
>>>>>> passwords
>>>>>> go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only
>>>>>> link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is
>>>>>> where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they
>>>>>> fail miserably: see also:
>>>>>> the exact same problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <
>>>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets.
>>>>>>> Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or
>>>>>>> form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to
>>>>>>> then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem
>>>>>>> that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real
>>>>>>> applied fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
>>>>>>> So once again
>>>>>>> From the top
>>>>>>> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who
>>>>>>> knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head
>>>>>>> agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a
>>>>>>> link I have said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some
>>>>>>> help with where the hell go to for real actual help:
>>>>>>> Is it a lawyer?
>>>>>>> Is it a ghost?
>>>>>>> A white hat?
>>>>>>> Someone named tod
>>>>>>> Who
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> and where
>>>>>>> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact.
>>>>>>> Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was
>>>>>>> that Jofr guy posted.
>>>>>>> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually
>>>>>>> helping wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about
>>>>>>> until this problem is fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <
>>>>>>> gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on
>>>>>>>>> the official help pages. Good luck
>>>>>>>>> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -J.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>>>>>> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>>>>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>>>>>>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who
>>>>>>>>> else to ask
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> google:
>>>>>>>>> someone or something has hijacked my account
>>>>>>>>> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>>>>>>>>> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>>>>>>>>> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a
>>>>>>>>> second)
>>>>>>>>> etc etc.
>>>>>>>>> Problem
>>>>>>>>> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music.
>>>>>>>>> something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>>>>>>>>> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to
>>>>>>>>> clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>>>>>>>>> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>>>>>>>>> You have been warned.
>>>>>>>>> In short:
>>>>>>>>> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an
>>>>>>>>> account at
>>>>>>>>> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> alt account for forums and stuff
>>>>>>>>> problems in no particular order:
>>>>>>>>> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>>>>>>>>> -> last pass: can't get in because
>>>>>>>>> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account
>>>>>>>>> something from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking
>>>>>>>>> it was androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and
>>>>>>>>> tried to reinstall: I could not do that.
>>>>>>>>> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails:
>>>>>>>>> "try this other" way all those none of that worked
>>>>>>>>> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work
>>>>>>>>> to get into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>>>>>>>>> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking
>>>>>>>>> bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>>>>>>>>> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread
>>>>>>>>> posted here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text,
>>>>>>>>> nothing zero zilch nada.
>>>>>>>>> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they
>>>>>>>>> seem ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and
>>>>>>>>> unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a
>>>>>>>>> stupid ai chat bot etc.
>>>>>>>>> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>>>>>>>>> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck
>>>>>>>>> about the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just
>>>>>>>>> have got to recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family
>>>>>>>>> picture, all kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my
>>>>>>>>> ******* memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a
>>>>>>>>> fucking thing to do with them ever again.
>>>>>>>>> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty
>>>>>>>>> you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck
>>>>>>>>> this bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get
>>>>>>>>> my god damn files.
>>>>>>>>> what the hell do I need to do to convince those
>>>>>>>>> alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the
>>>>>>>>> email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a
>>>>>>>>> fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting
>>>>>>>>> fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the
>>>>>>>>> stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on
>>>>>>>>> local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and
>>>>>>>>> back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life
>>>>>>>>> story back.
>>>>>>>>> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all
>>>>>>>>> would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. ---
>>>>>>>>> -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>>>>>>>>> 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/20260827/13da7f9d/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Thu Aug 27 18:04:14 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:04:14 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to
 ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMaMUCT9EyMPw0Ok56krtO8S=3-mPwi+7J_BnGj6O7MXFg79sA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1787868305.2607981.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

Gil, we would like to help you recover your account, but we do not want to be involved in any kind of illegal activity or hacking. I can try to explain you how quantum mechanics works - although the others would know it probably better than me - or help you solve a programming question - but people now use Claude anyway. Or I could try to show you Berlin if you should come here. But we cannot help you getting access to a lost account which belongs to a big corporation. Only they have access. For these big corporations a single user doesn't matter.Best wishes, Jochen
-------- Original message --------From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com> Date: 8/27/26  11:15 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask Pardon the large font. it is not a troll. it's because of aging and needing to update my glasses and I for one find it a lot easier to read on a 2k res monitor, so I am attempting to be helpful. If I am wrong. let me know.The TLDR somehow someone stole tons of personal a data,emails, and passwords, in one of several particularly violent and deep data theft vioolations. In my case the proverbial nuke started at google, and then the blast radius (other potential systems they can get into) spread from there. When I initially asked I thought that I had to try to recover a few terrible pictures that have a grip of sentimental value i can not replace: for those who don't know how googles thing works you have basically a big box that can hold email (gmail) or or stuff (googledrive) the part I had asked about: is the google drive part specifically google pictures.so TLDR (again) is:as put it to my aunt "

.petaQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   ferengi up and broke into my all kinds my personal data: including bank and gmail. (Hilariously enough Steam. The Game hosting platform kind. gave them the redshirt treatment faster than a ferengi caught stealing from a Klingon). So that leads me to requesting kinds sir virtual (holographic remotes)."  so the outline is basically thisgoogledrive(locke/hacked/stolen/heldhostage/and otherwise esonsed like a fereng petaQ with what ever it is google needs in order to believe me (Lord [BLANK] Gillian Densmore) is the dude that is the right and proper owner of gork.skoal at gmail.com    (the personal data etc atached to it) and were able to attempt to go on to hack into (cringe) what ever other related systems they {grawlix here} wanted to. aka DOCKED/DOXED----------------------------------------------->pictures:----------------------------->pictures from world con (oof but.) pictures of grandpa and grandma (high sentimental partially me much more so my dad and co) because he is ummm how I put this...in Suto'vo'qorSo yes. a earnest ask Gud Fur, danke.  Der. Das Problem ist Folgendes: Die Schritte unter der URL zur Selbsthilfe funktionieren nicht. 2FA: Fehlanzeige. OTP: Was ist das? etc etc. the attackers managed to make there 2FA stuff think I am not not a idiot named Gil. They even tried to convince BoFa I don't have an account and it took a scary long amount of time before there security kicked them out. and I had used biometrics. same with amazon and lots more. What's scary. Ok explination and context for what follows time! I love this thing called Steam (hosting platform etc)  TLDR: Valve: guys that made hafl-life and a few other things run cloud thing called steam it hosts games. Steam-the games company kind!   Steam didn't even let them get past the password screen, they notified pretty insanely fast and basically locked out the intruders.So um ja Lass uns bei Google einbrechen! Ich bringe die Brechstange, du holst die Tastatur. Und,Danke Steve-On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 2:13 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:Yes, that is the part I understood. But it seemed like they thought someone on the list should be able to write a... I guess a computer program to... I guess to fix that... somehow... I get the need to vent frustration sometimes... but was there an actual serious ask? Is the request for someone to try to brute-force hack gmail on her behalf, or something worse?  Or was it just a semi-coherent all-caps "old-man yells at clouds" meme?  Best,EricOn Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:40 PM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:it looks like Gil was locked out of a secondary Gmail account: gork.skoal at gmail.com____________________________________________CEO Founder, Simtable.comstephen.guerin at simtable.com Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Labstephenguerin at fas.harvard.edumobile: (505)577-5828On Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 4:07 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:I'll be honest... I'm not sure I found the big-text emails all that coherent. What I gathered is that you lost access to a gmail account, which I understand can be insanely frustrating. But clearly you have access to the gmail account you are using to email this list. What I'm not sure about is what you think any of us can do about it. Are you demanding that someone here write a program to re-hack your email? If so, that's pretty far from anything my Ph.D. had anything to do with, and even if I could do that, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to discuss the problem in a fairly public forum. Best,EricOn Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:20 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone else) to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many times that's been a issue. This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I wanted to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to do) and still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the web develops more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice: no one wants there boss getting a WWF replay at lol.And man thank also so much..It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and listen. That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a arrogant company like google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate for more peoplelike you at least read, and listenI have tried man.The forums have blocked meYoutubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means. Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not ever.  I refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not help. I suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling to helpHere's the dagger CO  me.On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:Gil,I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity with Google or any corporate or govnernment system. You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the network with me, your father and your others in town who know you physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)-Stephen_________________________________________________________________Stephen GuerinCEO, Founder https://simtable.comstephen.guerin at simtable.com stephenguerin at fas.harvard.eduVisualization Research and Teaching LabHarvard Earth and Planetary ScienceLandscape Architecture Harvard Graduate School of Designmobile: (505)577-5828On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:NIB:What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.comThat one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been up to then using lastpass.The timelineDownloading music off of youtube with a opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):Got kicked off lineChecked comcast tried to log inand could noti am on android:I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles authenticator, (just incase I misread)I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall (failed)I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to reinstall it.(nothing)I have tried literally all the ways I can try:passwordsgo to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they fail miserably: see also:the exact same problemhttps://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets. Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real applied fuckery from a god damn secruity failure. So once againFrom the topOne of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a link I have said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some help with where the hell go to for real actual help: Is it a lawyer?Is it a ghost?A white hat?Someone named todWhowhatand whereThat will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact. Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was that Jofr guy posted.No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this problem is fixed.On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com> wrote:that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_- On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the official help pages. Good luckhttps://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en-J.-------- Original message --------From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com> Date: 8/12/26  5:51 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask google:someone or something has hijacked my account-despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)-despite a software passkey hack (see above)-despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)etc etc.Problem-about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music. something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.You have been warned.In short: me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account atgork.skoal at gmail.comalt account for forums and stuff problems in no particular order:-> password I have in cache wrong,-> last pass: can't get in because-> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to reinstall: I could not do that. ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try this other" way all those none of that worked-> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there-> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;-> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text, nothing zero zilch nada.-> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat bot etc.-> not a fucking thing has workedlike I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my ******* memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing to do with them ever again. i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god damn files.what the hell do I need to do to convince those alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all would rather even- I just have to have that stuft
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/20260828/4fa29fc2/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Thu Aug 27 18:10:25 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 22:10:25 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <5249727e-b1c0-479a-8993-711194e7c237@SA2PEPF00003F63.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCT9EyMPw0Ok56krtO8S=3-mPwi+7J_BnGj6O7MXFg79sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5249727e-b1c0-479a-8993-711194e7c237@SA2PEPF00003F63.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB77355C19C06D251A9A3F375DC5AD2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Claude in Chrome can indeed be useful for navigating complicated IT systems.   Also it may have seen other scenarios like this in its training.   

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 3:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask

 

Gil, we would like to help you recover your account, but we do not want to be involved in any kind of illegal activity or hacking. I can try to explain you how quantum mechanics works - although the others would know it probably better than me - or help you solve a programming question - but people now use Claude anyway. Or I could try to show you Berlin if you should come here. But we cannot help you getting access to a lost account which belongs to a big corporation. Only they have access. For these big corporations a single user doesn't matter.

 

Best wishes, 

Jochen

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com> > 

Date: 8/27/26 11:15 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask 

 

Pardon the large font. it is not a troll. it's because of aging and needing to update my glasses and I for one find it a lot easier to read on a 2k res monitor, so I am attempting to be helpful. If I am wrong. let me know.

The TLDR somehow someone stole tons of personal a data,emails, and passwords, in one of several particularly violent and deep data theft vioolations. In my case the proverbial nuke started at google, and then the blast radius (other potential systems they can get into) spread from there. When I initially asked I thought that I had to try to recover a few terrible pictures that have a grip of sentimental value i can not replace: for those who don't know how googles thing works you have basically a big box that can hold email (gmail) or or stuff (googledrive) the part I had asked about: is the google drive part specifically google pictures.

so TLDR (again) is:

as put it to my aunt " .petaQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   ferengi up and broke into my all kinds my personal data: including bank and gmail. (Hilariously enough Steam. The Game hosting platform kind. gave them the redshirt treatment faster than a ferengi caught stealing from a Klingon). So that leads me to requesting kinds sir virtual (holographic remotes)."  

 

so the outline is basically this

googledrive(locke/hacked/stolen/heldhostage/and otherwise esonsed like a fereng petaQ with what ever it is google needs in order to believe me (Lord [BLANK] Gillian Densmore) is the dude that is the right and proper owner of gork.skoal at gmail.com <mailto:gork.skoal at gmail.com>     (the personal data etc atached to it) and were able to attempt to go on to hack into (cringe) what ever other related systems they {grawlix here} wanted to. aka DOCKED/DOXED

 

----------------------------------------------->pictures:----------------------------->pictures from world con (oof but.) pictures of grandpa and grandma (high sentimental partially me much more so my dad and co) because he is ummm how I put this...in Suto'vo'qor

 

So yes. a earnest ask Gud Fur, danke.  Der. Das Problem ist Folgendes: Die Schritte unter der URL zur Selbsthilfe funktionieren nicht. 2FA: Fehlanzeige. OTP: Was ist das? etc etc. the attackers managed to make there 2FA stuff think I am not not a idiot named Gil. They even tried to convince BoFa I don't have an account and it took a scary long amount of time before there security kicked them out. and I had used biometrics. same with amazon and lots more. What's scary. Ok explination and context for what follows time! I love this thing called Steam (hosting platform etc)  TLDR: Valve: guys that made hafl-life and a few other things run cloud thing called steam it hosts games. Steam-the games company kind! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(service)>  
  Steam didn't even let them get past the password screen, they notified pretty insanely fast and basically locked out the intruders.

 

So um ja Lass uns bei Google einbrechen! Ich bringe die Brechstange, du holst die Tastatur. 

Und,Danke Steve-

 

 

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 2:13 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> > wrote:

Yes, that is the part I understood. But it seemed like they thought someone on the list should be able to write a... I guess a computer program to... I guess to fix that... somehow... 

 

I get the need to vent frustration sometimes... but was there an actual serious ask? Is the request for someone to try to brute-force hack gmail on her behalf, or something worse?  

 

Or was it just a semi-coherent all-caps "old-man yells at clouds" meme?  

 

Best,
Eric

 

 

On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:40 PM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com> > wrote:

it looks like Gil was locked out of a secondary Gmail account: 

 

gork.skoal at gmail.com <mailto:gork.skoal at gmail.com> 

 

____________________________________________
CEO Founder, Simtable.com
stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com>  

Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu <mailto:stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu> 

mobile: (505)577-5828

 

On Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 4:07 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> > wrote:

I'll be honest... I'm not sure I found the big-text emails all that coherent. What I gathered is that you lost access to a gmail account, which I understand can be insanely frustrating. But clearly you have access to the gmail account you are using to email this list. 

 

What I'm not sure about is what you think any of us can do about it. Are you demanding that someone here write a program to re-hack your email? If so, that's pretty far from anything my Ph.D. had anything to do with, and even if I could do that, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to discuss the problem in a fairly public forum. 

 

Best,
Eric

 

On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:20 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com> > wrote:

Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone else) to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many times that's been a issue. 

This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I wanted to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to do) and still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the web develops more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice: no one wants there boss getting a WWF replay at lol.

And man thank also so much..

 

It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and listen. That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a arrogant company like google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate for more peoplelike you at least read, and listen

I have tried man.

The forums have blocked me

Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.

I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means. 

Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not ever.  I refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not help. I suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling to help

Here's the dagger CO  me.

 

 

On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com> > wrote:

Gil,

I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity with Google or any corporate or govnernment system. 

You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the network with me, your father and your others in town who know you physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.

At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.

You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.

Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)

-Stephen

_________________________________________________________________
Stephen Guerin
CEO, Founder 
https://simtable.com
stephen.guerin at simtable.com <mailto:stephen.guerin at simtable.com>  

stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu <mailto:stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu> 
Visualization Research and Teaching Lab <https://hwpi.harvard.edu/eps-visualization-research-laboratory/home> 
Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
Landscape Architecture  <https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2025/02/landscape-architecture-students-explore-pioneering-climate-visualization-techniques-to-inform-design/> 
Harvard Graduate School of Design


mobile: (505)577-5828

 

 

On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com> > wrote:

NIB:

What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com <mailto:gork.skoa at gmail.com> 

That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.

the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.

somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me having one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been up to then using lastpass.

 

The timeline

Downloading music off of youtube with a opensoruced appcalled parabolic. (lounge music):

Got kicked off line

Checked comcast 

tried to log in

and could not

i am on android:

I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles authenticator, (just incase I misread)

I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall (failed)

I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to reinstall it.

(nothing)

I have tried literally all the ways I can try:

passwords

go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only link the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is where gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they fail miserably: see also:

the exact same problem

 <https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/

 

 

 

I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.

 

 

On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com> > wrote:

I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets. Did everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?

 

Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or form. And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to then go off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem that you socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real applied fuckery from a god damn secruity failure. 

So once again

>From the top

One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who knows what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head agains the same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a link I have said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some help with where the hell go to for real actual help: 

Is it a lawyer?

Is it a ghost?

A white hat?

Someone named tod

Who

what

and where

That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact. Once I know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was that Jofr guy posted.

No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this problem is fixed.

 

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com> > wrote:

that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_- 

 

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net> > wrote:

I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the official help pages. Good luck

https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en

 

-J.

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com <mailto:gil.densmore at gmail.com> > 

Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > 

Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask 

 

google:

someone or something has hijacked my account

-despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)

-despite a software passkey hack (see above)

-despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)

etc etc.

Problem

-about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music. something happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:

then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean up or sanitize just how raw this going to be.

Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.

You have been warned.

In short: 

me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account at

gork.skoal at gmail.com <mailto:gork.skoal at gmail.com> 

alt account for forums and stuff 

problems in no particular order:

-> password I have in cache wrong,

-> last pass: can't get in because

-> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something from those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to reinstall: I could not do that. 

->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try this other" way all those none of that worked

-> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there

-> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit it's just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;

-> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted here thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text, nothing zero zilch nada.

-> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem ****** care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and unchangeable url messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat bot etc.

-> not a fucking thing has worked

like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my ******* memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing to do with them ever again. 
i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll or pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god damn files.

what the hell do I need to do to convince those alabastered motherfuckers to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing. but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint: yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not, make it fun? ya know, but I will not relent on getting the stuff that matters: my fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on local nas. I do not care what. I just have got to have them protected and back. and are disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.

pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all would rather even- I just have to have that stuft

 

.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/20260827/7888d9b3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260827/7888d9b3/attachment.p7s>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Thu Aug 27 18:28:48 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 16:28:48 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB77355C19C06D251A9A3F375DC5AD2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <CAMaMUCT9EyMPw0Ok56krtO8S=3-mPwi+7J_BnGj6O7MXFg79sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5249727e-b1c0-479a-8993-711194e7c237@SA2PEPF00003F63.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB77355C19C06D251A9A3F375DC5AD2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCRVyEUTW0q8K2mzGhfHeju-LMXR2jXcp8kEH_8buMV3ig@mail.gmail.com>

Ah! yes well point taken that sigh as lame as it is..er  so umm...we we're
umm I believe you said: So you know those things called singlularies...and
there angery uncle Blackwhole and (as yet found) trippy aunt: the
whitehole:...so where might I go to find fun videos about whiteholes?



On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:10 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> Claude in Chrome can indeed be useful for navigating complicated IT
> systems.   Also it may have seen other scenarios like this in its
> training.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2026 3:04 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else
> to ask
>
>
>
> Gil, we would like to help you recover your account, but we do not want to
> be involved in any kind of illegal activity or hacking. I can try to
> explain you how quantum mechanics works - although the others would know it
> probably better than me - or help you solve a programming question - but
> people now use Claude anyway. Or I could try to show you Berlin if you
> should come here. But we cannot help you getting access to a lost account
> which belongs to a big corporation. Only they have access. For these big
> corporations a single user doesn't matter.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jochen
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>
> Date: 8/27/26 11:15 PM (GMT+01:00)
>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to
> ask
>
>
>
> Pardon the large font. it is not a troll. it's because of aging and
> needing to update my glasses and I for one find it a lot easier to read on
> a 2k res monitor, so I am attempting to be helpful. If I am wrong. let me
> know.
>
> The TLDR somehow someone stole tons of personal a data,emails, and
> passwords, in one of several particularly violent and deep data theft
> vioolations. In my case the proverbial nuke started at google, and then
> the blast radius (other potential systems they can get into) spread from
> there. When I initially asked I thought that I had to try to recover a few
> terrible pictures that have a grip of sentimental value i can not replace:
> for those who don't know how googles thing works you have basically a big
> box that can hold email (gmail) or or stuff (googledrive) the part I had
> asked about: is the google drive part specifically google pictures.
>
> so TLDR (again) is:
>
> as put it to my aunt " .*petaQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  * ferengi up and broke into
> my all kinds my personal data: including bank and gmail. (Hilariously
> enough Steam. The Game hosting platform kind. gave them the redshirt
> treatment faster than a ferengi caught stealing from a Klingon). So that
> leads me to requesting kinds sir virtual (holographic remotes)."
>
>
>
> so the outline is basically this
>
> googledrive(locke/hacked/stolen/heldhostage/and otherwise esonsed like a
> fereng petaQ with what ever it is google needs in order to believe me
> (Lord [BLANK] Gillian Densmore) is the dude that is the right and proper
> owner of gork.skoal at gmail.com    (the personal data etc atached to it)
> and were able to attempt to go on to hack into (cringe) what ever other
> related systems they {grawlix here} wanted to. aka DOCKED/DOXED
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------->pictures:----------------------------->pictures
> from world con (oof but.) pictures of grandpa and grandma (high sentimental
> partially me much more so my dad and co) because he is ummm how I put
> this...in Suto'vo'qor
>
>
>
> So yes. a earnest ask Gud Fur, danke.  Der. Das Problem ist Folgendes:
> Die Schritte unter der URL zur Selbsthilfe funktionieren nicht. 2FA:
> Fehlanzeige. OTP: Was ist das? etc etc. the attackers managed to make
> there 2FA stuff think I am not not a idiot named Gil. They even tried to
> convince BoFa I don't have an account and it took a scary long amount of
> time before there security kicked them out. and I had used biometrics.
> same with amazon and lots more. What's scary. Ok explination and context
> for what follows time! I love this thing called Steam (hosting platform
> etc)  TLDR: Valve: guys that made hafl-life and a few other things run
> cloud thing called steam it hosts games. Steam-the games company kind!
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(service)>
>   Steam didn't even let them get past the password screen, they notified
> pretty insanely fast and basically locked out the intruders.
>
>
>
> So um ja Lass uns bei Google einbrechen! Ich bringe die Brechstange, du
> holst die Tastatur.
>
> Und,Danke Steve-
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 2:13 PM Eric Charles <
> eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, that is the part I understood. But it seemed like they thought
> someone on the list should be able to write a... I guess a computer program
> to... I guess to fix that... somehow...
>
>
>
> I get the need to vent frustration sometimes... but was there an actual
> serious ask? Is the request for someone to try to brute-force hack gmail on
> her behalf, or something worse?
>
>
>
> Or was it just a semi-coherent all-caps "old-man yells at clouds" meme?
>
>
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:40 PM Stephen Guerin <
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:
>
> it looks like Gil was locked out of a secondary Gmail account:
>
>
>
> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________
> CEO Founder, Simtable.com
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>
> Harvard Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
>
> mobile: (505)577-5828
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2026, 4:07 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'll be honest... I'm not sure I found the big-text emails all that
> coherent. What I gathered is that you lost access to a gmail account, which
> I understand can be insanely frustrating. But clearly you have access to
> the gmail account you are using to email this list.
>
>
>
> What I'm not sure about is what you think any of us can do about it. Are
> you demanding that someone here write a program to re-hack your email? If
> so, that's pretty far from anything my Ph.D. had anything to do with, and
> even if I could do that, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to discuss the
> problem in a fairly public forum.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Eric
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:20 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Good morning Steve, 99% of the time I am 100% onboard with me(or anyone
> else) to keep it... middle of the road. And a big Mea Culpa for the many
> times that's been a issue.
>
> This one time it's entirely as writing thing for my voice. That's why I
> wanted to warn people that'd have (some censored because..just the right to
> do) and still have, that voice to convey throught text. Because until the
> web develops more of that (with filters), because even as a style choice:
> no one wants there boss getting a WWF replay at lol.
>
> And man thank also so much..
>
>
>
> It...means, the world, you've done what other failed at: just read and
> listen. That's all I wanted. But it'salso  not fair to have a
> arrogant company like google to steel my memories.:( I am just desperate
> for more peoplelike you at least read, and listen
>
> I have tried man.
>
> The forums have blocked me
>
> Youtubers that know the stuff: radeo silence.
>
> I have to have my memories and that drives contents ripped out of googles
> posesion, by any means necessary. And I do mean. ANY means.
>
> Well legal routs are dwindling, and I will never ever let this go, not
> ever.  I refuse to believe people with all there experience here can not
> help. I suspect. just suspect. for now. That is more disgusting: unwilling
> to help
>
> Here's the dagger CO  me.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:04 AM Stephen Guerin <
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com> wrote:
>
> Gil,
>
> I understand your frustration and have experienced it myself. The list
> probably is unable to help your challenges with restablishing your identity
> with Google or any corporate or govnernment system.
>
> You do hae identity here, which is established through relations in the
> network with me, your father and your others in town who know you
> physically or through social links. If you were an anonymous member on the
> list, your messages would have been first throttled for pre approval or
> removed. On and off list I have asked you to tone down the language and
> venting on the list mainly for folks on the list who don't know you.
>
> At a different level, we are thinking very concrelely on how identity
> works, webs of trust which is becoming esp important in the era of AI and
> the early promises of the decentralized web. And we think it goes beyond
> self-soveign identiy and to identity that is relational first. Of course
> this doesn't help your most immediate issues with Google.
>
> You are in the top percentage of internet users that may be able to help
> develop and test decentralized hosting of our data and intel intel and
> identity management. eg you are comfortable installing your own local
> servers and warez. We may hit you up to help in the near future.
>
> Love you, and tone it the F$%k down ;-)
>
> -Stephen
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stephen Guerin
> CEO, Founder
> https://simtable.com
> stephen.guerin at simtable.com
>
> stephenguerin at fas.harvard.edu
> Visualization Research and Teaching Lab
> <https://hwpi.harvard.edu/eps-visualization-research-laboratory/home>
> Harvard Earth and Planetary Science
> Landscape Architecture
> <https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2025/02/landscape-architecture-students-explore-pioneering-climate-visualization-techniques-to-inform-design/>
> Harvard Graduate School of Design
>
>
> mobile: (505)577-5828
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:22 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> NIB:
>
> What: me goatsed, somehow "hackers" (script kiddies i'd wager):  have
> stolen my google account at: gork.skoa at gmail.com
>
> That one used for forums and basically where it's slop and spam.
>
> the problem for the only and last time. Read and  ask me or owen AMA. I
> will not repeat my myself beyond questions ok.
>
> somehow between all of googles pathetic fancy security bullshit. Me having
> one of the code generator authenticator things blah blah. I had been up to
> then using lastpass.
>
>
>
> The timeline
>
> Downloading music off of youtube with a opensoruced appcalled parabolic.
> (lounge music):
>
> Got kicked off line
>
> Checked comcast
>
> tried to log in
>
> and could not
>
> i am on android:
>
> I tried first last pass's authenticator that failed so did googles
> authenticator, (just incase I misread)
>
> I tried to clear the cache of Last Pass's Authenticator  and reinstall
> (failed)
>
> I tried to clear the cache of  Googles authenticator then tried to
> reinstall it.
>
> (nothing)
>
> I have tried literally all the ways I can try:
>
> passwords
>
> go to there "help" forum (just get ignored, like here) and they only link
> the shit google offers and there are loads of threads of how this is where
> gmail is pathetic: it assumes all kinds of stuff I guess, and they fail
> miserably: see also:
>
> the exact same problem
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1pa4qza/my_account_is_being_held_hostage/
>
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/GMail/comments/1v8lt93/gmail_got_hacked/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I do not care how. I just am now: demanding this gets unfucked.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 6:00 AM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I really like i've presented two real world problems...and crickets. Did
> everyone forget apply there fancy PHDs?
>
>
>
> Linking the same failed things does not help me in anyway shape or form.
> And frankly it comes across as a slight and insult for someone to then go
> off onto some incoherent something,while there's a _real_ problem that you
> socalled PHD's with all kinds of programing skills and a very real applied
> fuckery from a god damn secruity failure.
>
> So once again
>
> From the top
>
> One of my google acounts: goatse'd between god knows what and who knows
> what about 2 weeks ago and since thenI have been bashing my head agains the
> same fucking wall of trying to get people to help me beyond a link I have
> said 9999 times I have tried all those things. I now need some help with
> where the hell go to for real actual help:
>
> Is it a lawyer?
>
> Is it a ghost?
>
> A white hat?
>
> Someone named tod
>
> Who
>
> what
>
> and where
>
> That will get me some god damn traction on my problem do I contact. Once I
> know that. I will happily let you people go back to what ever it was that
> Jofr guy posted.
>
> No I will not StFU untill this problem has all hands, actually helping
> wich is what i have been SCREAMING  for and will not StFU about until this
> problem is fixed.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:26 PM Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> that's...the problem literally nothing at google works. -_-
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM jofr <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> I would try to contact Google support or follow the guidelines on the
> official help pages. Good luck
>
> https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7682439?hl=en
>
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
>
> Date: 8/12/26 5:51 PM (GMT+01:00)
>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>
>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
>
>
>
> google:
>
> someone or something has hijacked my account
>
> -despite 2fa (that's actually being a ******** problem)
>
> -despite a software passkey hack (see above)
>
> -despite lastpass (getting to that ****** in the ******** in a second)
>
> etc etc.
>
> Problem
>
> -about 14-16 days ago i was on youtube getting a bunch of music. something
> happened and I was kicked off line and tried to log back in:
>
> then i was ******* of several accounts and no ia m not going to clean up
> or sanitize just how raw this going to be.
>
> Level M warning intensity HEAVILY implied.
>
> You have been warned.
>
> In short:
>
> me on youtube getting a bunch of music: got kicked out of an account at
>
> gork.skoal at gmail.com
>
> alt account for forums and stuff
>
> problems in no particular order:
>
> -> password I have in cache wrong,
>
> -> last pass: can't get in because
>
> -> my authenticator stuff on my ****** google f'n  account something from
> those keys wasn't working and I made the mistake of thinking it was
> androids normal fuckin' bullshit so I just cleared it's cache and tried to
> reinstall: I could not do that.
>
> ->I've tried: litterally any fucking way to get throughg gmails: "try this
> other" way all those none of that worked
>
> -> I have tried there youtube reset in the vein hope that'd work to get
> into my ********* google ******** drive. no luck there
>
> -> I have tried the forums: that is the most usless fucking bullshit it's
> just there to fuck you over and let me tell you it works;
>
> -> they don't really help they just link you to a mega thread posted here
> thing: oh google doesn't have: anything normal no otp, no text, nothing
> zero zilch nada.
>
> -> ok so youtube might be a back door it's the only thing they seem ******
> care about. so I tried that: you have some kind handle and unchangeable url
> messy url shades of wordpress thing: Ok gave it to them, a stupid ai chat
> bot etc.
>
> -> not a fucking thing has worked
>
> like I have told everyone that'll listen: i don't give a fuck about the
> contents of my god dam inbox: it's motly spam. really I i just have got to
> recover: travel pictures, some shit from world con, and family picture, all
> kinds neet little things: meh amature quality  but...thee my *******
> memories and I am disgusted with google. ok. I do not want a fucking thing
> to do with them ever again.
> i am begging anyone here and I i don't know what kind of bounty you'll or
> pretty decently big boon I can offer so someone can help unfuck this
> bullshit and get the fucking dick out of my fucking ass so I can get my god
> damn files.
>
> what the hell do I need to do to convince those alabastered motherfuckers
> to unass my fucking shit I do not care about the email Imean yeah, anyoing.
> but ayaya 67 it's friz, i ya know setting up a fresh digital footprint:
> yeah I dig brotha' that's a vibe, and starting fresh: why not, make it fun?
> ya know, but I will not relent on getting the stuff that matters: my
> fucking loot, my precious memories in a torrent. on local nas. I do not
> care what. I just have got to have them protected and back. and are
> disgusted how fucked up this is being just to get my life story back.
>
> pls man someone help me. You can go thrugh my dad (owen) if ya'all would
> rather even- I just have to have that stuft
>
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260827/c6ddbdc6/attachment-0001.html>

From jonzingale at gmail.com  Thu Aug 27 20:11:42 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 18:11:42 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
 Gillian
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek1s-ozm9=u+peQJWCZDF3bnKLdkH_BrHfopqrU=RxPktQ@mail.gmail.com>

Gil, Yeah, exactly. There needs to be more content. I wish there were more
videos about creating novel RNA sequences and blasting them into the
surfaces of exo-planets.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260827/f649fe12/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 28 00:30:57 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 04:30:57 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
 Gillian
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH5Jek1s-ozm9=u+peQJWCZDF3bnKLdkH_BrHfopqrU=RxPktQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek1s-ozm9=u+peQJWCZDF3bnKLdkH_BrHfopqrU=RxPktQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB773570C613A39EFEDFD3A436C5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Okay, https://grok.com/imagine/post/7ac1c46f-4b44-4cec-9c87-e9b2388e426e 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2026 at 5:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask Gillian 

Gil, Yeah, exactly. There needs to be more content. I wish there were more videos about creating novel RNA sequences and blasting them into the surfaces of exo-planets. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/0088a16c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/0088a16c/attachment.bin>

From gil.densmore at gmail.com  Fri Aug 28 02:32:05 2026
From: gil.densmore at gmail.com (Gillian Densmore)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:32:05 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
 Gillian
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB773570C613A39EFEDFD3A436C5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek1s-ozm9=u+peQJWCZDF3bnKLdkH_BrHfopqrU=RxPktQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <DS0PR11MB773570C613A39EFEDFD3A436C5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CAMaMUCQxP=Pcs87vfcL5gat+BEogDW9fGW8OKVkZ-rQckOJ+xw@mail.gmail.com>

💕😁👍😍

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 10:31 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
wrote:

> Okay, https://grok.com/imagine/post/7ac1c46f-4b44-4cec-9c87-e9b2388e426e
>
>
>
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jon Zingale <
> jonzingale at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 27, 2026 at 5:12 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else
> to ask Gillian
>
> Gil, Yeah, exactly. There needs to be more content. I wish there were more
> videos about creating novel RNA sequences and blasting them into the
> surfaces of exo-planets.
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. /
> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260828/b37636e3/attachment.html>

From jonzingale at gmail.com  Fri Aug 28 11:54:41 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 09:54:41 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Despite my betterr judgement I don't know who else to ask
 Gillian
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek2wczYmiZbtYo5Y7Z=B5L5YAcYM2L0ZmAAPQVdkEihzQg@mail.gmail.com>

"Okay, https://grok.com/imagine/post/7ac1c46f-4b44-4cec-9c87-e9b2388e426e "

Yes! Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/0af6a2d5/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Fri Aug 28 14:39:11 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:39:11 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1787942403.2607981.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it? In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> GrownupsThere are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose) Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.-J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/be9b6e89/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 7d18c7a14905d9e08e1ebaf80dcf41110ef5393e7c34ccc0ea50a7e45fa893bb.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1793344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/be9b6e89/attachment.png>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 28 15:04:09 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 19:04:09 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: 
 <e8fa711d-dfa6-4fb0-b5b1-233fb402cc50@BN1PEPF00004683.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <e8fa711d-dfa6-4fb0-b5b1-233fb402cc50@BN1PEPF00004683.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BA583CE091B387D3BDA1C5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon.  The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These brushes occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he does and must do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual.   Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through?

 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum

 

For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it? 





In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.





The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.





Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.

 

As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:

 

Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups

 

There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.

 

Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose) 

 

Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.





-J.

 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/4ae60124/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/4ae60124/attachment.p7s>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Fri Aug 28 15:45:50 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 21:45:50 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BA583CE091B387D3BDA1C5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.2.1787946397.2607981.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> Date: 8/28/26  9:04 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon.  The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These brushes occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he does and must do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual.   Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through? From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jochen FrommSent: Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it? In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name. As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development: Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works. Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose)  Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.-J. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/29b22b4b/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Fri Aug 28 16:15:22 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:15:22 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: 
 <cad98d7d-b084-4cdc-afe0-aa8bc7772e71@CH2PEPF00000144.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BA583CE091B387D3BDA1C5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cad98d7d-b084-4cdc-afe0-aa8bc7772e71@CH2PEPF00000144.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735EF44233008CC59C8181DC5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining man baby. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 

This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head. 


If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective. 


-J. 









-------- Original message -------- 

From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 

Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 



One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon. The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death. (These brushes occur several times per episode.) This is just what he does and must do. The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual. Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through? 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 



For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it? 

In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents. 

The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else. 

Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name. 

As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development: 

Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups 

There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works. 

Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose) 

Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it. 

-J. 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/a7557c56/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/a7557c56/attachment.bin>

From gepr at ropella.name  Fri Aug 28 17:33:22 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:33:22 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735EF44233008CC59C8181DC5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BA583CE091B387D3BDA1C5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cad98d7d-b084-4cdc-afe0-aa8bc7772e71@CH2PEPF00000144.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB7735EF44233008CC59C8181DC5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <a192907c-f9f3-4acb-9978-cc4acf436a22@ropella.name>

FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how the tables have turned on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia. They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often capricious. They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the stoicism bros to shame.

While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" is a better one.

So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity.

[⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time.

On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining man baby.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> 
> This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.
> 
> If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.
> 
> -J.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> 
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> 
> Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> 
> One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon.  The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These brushes occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he does and must do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual.   Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through?
> 
> *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> 
> For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it?
> 
> In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.
> 
> The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.
> 
> Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.
> 
> As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:
> 
> Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups
> 
> There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.
> 
> Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose)
> 
> Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.
> 

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From jonzingale at gmail.com  Fri Aug 28 19:26:46 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 17:26:46 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek1hkE2nZka7PVNSEWOrTpv9XVmvtK-eeL4+U2ebZ26vRg@mail.gmail.com>

I cannot help but think that it would slow babies down, in an otherwise
needed race to organize their perceptions, to objectify completely.
Perceptions in the first year of life look to me to be about relating a
stream, much like seeing GoL as a series of board states rather than
individual gliders or pentomino.

I continue to wonder how much investigative juice can be squeezed by
considering how different the fruits of these two perspectives are. I keep
thinking that by studying sequences of boards, one is more likely to arrive
at universal notions [◊ ⊣ □]. As one aggregates experience, perhaps a phase
shift toward taxonomy of objects and classes.

I continue to be thankful that AI video generators still produce
hallucinations that seem fundamentally different from my own. Watching
generative video has the affect on me of something like probing my
Neurological boundaries for chinks in my perception in a way that humans
seldom do for me. It is nice to be reminded that objects are more or less
my own and that everything can use a renewed look.

[◊ ⊣ □]: A continued reference to Eilenberg-Moore style monad/comonad
constructions between formal type theories and their models. In particular,
those that give rise to *GoL built on GoL* as counit to some adjunction and
*Universal Turing Machines* as unit.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/syntactic+category
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/15723713/attachment.html>

From desmith at santafe.edu  Fri Aug 28 19:42:26 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:42:26 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <a192907c-f9f3-4acb-9978-cc4acf436a22@ropella.name>
References: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735BA583CE091B387D3BDA1C5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <cad98d7d-b084-4cdc-afe0-aa8bc7772e71@CH2PEPF00000144.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB7735EF44233008CC59C8181DC5AC2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <a192907c-f9f3-4acb-9978-cc4acf436a22@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <E24C294D-5099-46EF-A1F4-43CB00D9E8D3@santafe.edu>

I had wanted to respond to that point from Jochen, too, along the direction Glen did, but Glen gives me a better point of departure than I had from my own impulse.

> While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" is a better one.

I am willing to take the premise that infant life is more in-the-moment than the lives of their future more-aged selves will be.  Not that I can remember what it was to be an infant, or that this is anything better than going along with a meme that I know I have heard a lot of times.  But, okay.  You do what you can do.

Then, once again using an analogy to Vygotsky’s argument, which I now realize is probably one of several that he took from Wittgenstein: V argues that self-modeling grows up as a reflexive application of skills and tools for other-modeling that are under active pressure earlier-on and more constantly.  I could readily believe that there is some duality to this, in which the category of “other” also takes its shape partly as a negative space from the concurrently forming category of “self”.

So should we think of subjective and objective as categories, neither of which has a place to occupy within just-in-the-moment in ways that it will within other scaffoldings for the-moment?  So they form as categories that are part of the ordering space of what isn’t just in the moment, or in experiences as those would arise absent such scaffolding that also feeds back on how they arise?

Eric



From jonzingale at gmail.com  Fri Aug 28 23:43:27 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 21:43:27 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Thanks BB8, I appreciate that your perspective
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek2Z99o+wZCavySgeu5Su7vr-gtRtPht_b7=7L7-QJ9o2w@mail.gmail.com>

Your intuition is coherent—and it points toward a distinction that is easy
to erase if one begins with a mature symbolic ontology: *online
organization of a temporal field* versus *later compression into
re-identifiable objects, predicates, and classes*. The former need not be
“pre-objective”; it may be the substrate from which objecthood is
eventually stabilized.

Your Game of Life analogy puts the issue sharply: an observer can parse a
run either as a succession of full configurations S_0 \to S_1 \to S_2 \to
\cdots, or as a population of persisting things—gliders, blinkers, guns,
collisions. Neither description is simply false, but they privilege
different invariants.
The developmental thought

For an infant, it is plausible to think the primary task is not initially
“this is a bounded object with stable identity,” but rather something
closer to learning a *predictive, sensorimotor continuity structure*:

(o_t, a_t) \mapsto o_{t+1},

where o_t is an embodied perceptual state and a_t is movement, attention,
action, or intervention.

On that framing, an “object” is an economical construct: a reliable latent
cause or track that helps make the stream compressible and predictable
across occlusion, viewpoint change, manipulation, and interruption. Object
permanence is then not merely adding a name to a visible thing; it is the
achievement of a robust invariant over transformations in experience.

To objectify too completely or too early would mean choosing a
decomposition before the organism has learned which distinctions remain
stable under its own movements and under environmental change. That can be
useful for action, but it also risks fixing the wrong ontology. In the GoL
case, calling a pattern a glider depends on selecting an equivalence
relation over board histories—roughly, “the same up to translation after
four ticks.” At the raw board-state level, there are only changing bitmaps.
Sequence-first versus object-first
Perspective Primitive What it learns readily What it can obscure
Sequence / process-first Transitions, relations, transformations, temporal
regularities Dynamics, causality, emergence, phase changes,
conservation-like quantities, interaction patterns Stable reference,
compositional reuse, rapid categorization
Object / taxonomy-first Bounded entities, attributes, kinds, persistent
identities Recognition, naming, memory compression, manipulation, social
communication Context dependence, processual identity, novel
decompositions, system-level behavior

A sequence-first perspective makes it more natural to ask questions like:

   - What transformation class relates these states?
   - What is conserved, approximately conserved, or predictively sufficient?
   - At what temporal scale does a stable “thing” emerge?
   - Which distinctions matter only under intervention?
   - Is a purported object really an attractor, a quotient of trajectories,
   a recurrent motif, or a causal bottleneck?

This is close to the difference between treating a glider as a primitive
and treating it as a derived structure in a dynamical system. The second
move is more universal because it can rediscover gliders, but also things
that do not behave like objects at all: traveling waves, metastable
regions, synchronization modes, causal cones, bifurcations, and statistical
regularities.
Your adjunction-shaped idea

Your notation [\Diamond \dashv \Box] nicely captures a recurring
“syntax/model” or “presentation/semantics” movement.

The nLab page you linked describes the syntactic-category construction as a
functor from a type theory T to a structured category \mathrm{Con}(T), with
contexts as objects and substitutions/interpretations as morphisms.
Conversely, a suitable category carries an internal logic. In the stated
adjunction, the unit

T \longrightarrow \mathrm{Lan}(\mathrm{Con}(T))

interprets a theory in the internal logic of its own syntactic category;
the counit

\mathrm{Con}(\mathrm{Lan}(C)) \longrightarrow C

interprets the internal logic extracted from a category back in that
category.[ncatlab <https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/syntactic+category>]

That does resemble your “GoL built on GoL” thought, with an important
qualification: the literal meaning of the unit and counit depends on
precisely which categories of theories, models, and structure-preserving
maps have been fixed. But the structural intuition is sound:

   - A *unit-like* construction embeds a formal system into a richer
   account of its own possible semantic behavior.
   - A *counit-like* construction evaluates or realizes syntax recovered
   from a semantic world back in that world.
   - The induced monad or comonad records what is retained, added,
   normalized, freely generated, or forgotten by a round trip.

For GoL, one possible instance would be:

   1. Start with board trajectories and the local update rule.
   2. Construct a language whose terms describe local patterns, time
   shifts, translations, collisions, and perhaps finite causal cones.
   3. Interpret those terms in the actual GoL dynamical system.
   4. Ask which semantic structures survive a syntax–semantics–syntax round
   trip.

Then “glider” is not assumed in the base language. It could arise as a
definable or learnable equivalence class of spacetime patterns—e.g. a
localized configuration p such that for some period k and displacement
vector v,

F^k(p) = \tau_v(p),

modulo a suitable treatment of background and finite support. A UTM would
similarly emerge not merely as a large static pattern but as a structure
carrying an interpreter-like universal property over encoded computations.

That feels closer to your universal notions: not a taxonomy of *what
happens to be visible now*, but a language for transformations whose object
concepts arrive as derived fixed points, quotients, or invariants.
Where the scientific juice may be

There are at least four potentially productive research programs hidden in
this contrast.
1. Objecthood as predictive compression

Rather than defining objects through spatial segmentation alone, define
them as latent variables that improve compression or prediction of a stream
under transformations and interventions.

An object is good if it supports counterfactual continuity: “if I look
away, move, rotate, touch, or partially occlude the scene, what should
remain inferentially available?” This connects development, representation
learning, state-space modeling, and causal abstraction.

The relevant question becomes: what is the smallest latent structure that
preserves the agent’s predictive and control-relevant information?
2. Objects as quotients of histories

A glider is better understood as an equivalence class of local histories
than a single instantaneous configuration. More generally, define an
equivalence relation on trajectory fragments:

h \sim h'
\quad\text{if}\quad
h' \text{ is obtainable from } h
\text{ by allowable symmetries or has the same future-relevant behavior.}

The quotient H/{\sim} gives “objects” only after one decides what
symmetries, temporal windows, and predictive consequences matter. This
makes objecthood explicitly observer-, task-, and scale-relative without
making it arbitrary.
3. Multiscale ontology discovery

A process-first learner can seek stable variables at multiple time scales:

   - Pixels or cells at one scale.
   - Local motifs at another.
   - Coherent moving structures at another.
   - Interaction types and computational modules at another.
   - Global regimes, entropy rates, and attractors at another.

Taxonomy then becomes a late-stage compression of a multiscale dynamical
account, not the foundational ontology. That is especially appealing in
GoL, where a “thing” may be stable only relative to a frame, a period, a
background, a decoding convention, or a level of description.
4. Categorical compositionality for learned abstractions

Category theory may help most not by declaring what an object is, but by
tracking how learned abstractions compose.

For example:

   - *Morphisms* can represent transformations, substitutions,
   interventions, or simulations.
   - *Functoriality* asks whether an abstraction respects composition of
   changes.
   - *Adjunctions* can formalize optimal approximation between an
   operational world and a symbolic description.
   - *Comonadic* structure may model extracting local observable context
   from a global process.
   - *Monadic* structure may model building richer state, effects,
   hypotheses, or computational interpretations from observations.

The payoff would be a criterion stronger than visual resemblance: a learned
category is useful when it preserves the compositional and counterfactual
structure relevant to the system.
On generative-video hallucinations

Your response to generative video is philosophically interesting because it
reverses the usual anxiety. Its errors do not merely look like factual
mistakes; they expose how much human perception supplies stable objecthood
on its own.

Generative video often preserves a *style of local continuation* while
failing at identity through time: hands fuse, objects change count, tools
lose causal relation to their users, geometry teleports, or a character’s
clothing ceases to be the same clothing. That is, it may produce something
that is temporally fluent at a shallow level but has not committed to the
persistence constraints that make an object an object for us.

So it can feel like an adversarial probe of one’s own perceptual ontology.
You see the point at which your visual system insists:

No—there must be one cup, one hand, one person, a continuing causal history.

The model’s oddness is not simply that it lacks objects. It may be that its
learned “objects” are distributed, conditional, and weakly bound across the
temporal stream in a way unlike the robust causal individuals your
perception constructs. It generates plausible adjacent frames without
necessarily maintaining the same long-horizon equivalence classes of
histories that you automatically treat as entities.

That makes the experience useful: it reveals that human objecthood is not
just recognition of shapes. It is a very strong prior about *identity under
transformation*, material continuity, causal coherence, and the permissible
ways a world can change.
A compact formulation

One way to crystallize your hypothesis is:

Perception begins as the learning of composable transformations on an
experiential stream. Objects, kinds, and taxonomies are later-achieved
quotient structures: stable, predictive, intervention-supporting
equivalence classes of trajectories.

In this formulation, “objectification” is not the opposite of relational
perception. It is a successful compression of it. The danger is only
treating that compression as ontologically primitive, rather than as one
powerful—and revisable—way of organizing a richer process.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/3a6f1f96/attachment.html>

From jonzingale at gmail.com  Sat Aug 29 00:01:18 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 22:01:18 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Run the Jewels
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek1VdsLm_qrmk4eB4gTnnYz6HBwxRcf9gdRMP8O+2ZUxDw@mail.gmail.com>

Trigger warning: Language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUC2EQvdzmY&list=RDNUC2EQvdzmY
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/88c94167/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sat Aug 29 00:10:40 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 04:10:40 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Run the Jewels
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH5Jek1VdsLm_qrmk4eB4gTnnYz6HBwxRcf9gdRMP8O+2ZUxDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH5Jek1VdsLm_qrmk4eB4gTnnYz6HBwxRcf9gdRMP8O+2ZUxDw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735A7CA8BFF266212CDD491C5AB2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Oh yeah, that’s a nice one. And let me offer this classic. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Bfkc6lZok 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, August 28, 2026 at 9:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Run the Jewels 

Trigger warning: Language 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUC2EQvdzmY&list=RDNUC2EQvdzmY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUC2EQvdzmY&amp;list=RDNUC2EQvdzmY> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260829/9456180d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260829/9456180d/attachment-0001.bin>

From jonzingale at gmail.com  Sat Aug 29 00:16:30 2026
From: jonzingale at gmail.com (Jon Zingale)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 22:16:30 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Run the Jewels
Message-ID: 
 <CAH5Jek0t2oqYL6e9g-0PnR42C4Vm75o57tw3rgzCoc+nzBsdiw@mail.gmail.com>

Lol. That is too funny. I digress.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260828/e5617cc9/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Sat Aug 29 02:51:25 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:51:25 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <a192907c-f9f3-4acb-9978-cc4acf436a22@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <mailman.3.1787986414.2607981.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

You know MAGA people better than me. We have our own right-wing AfD fellows here. I don't understand how there can be right-wing parties at all in Germany after WWII, the Nazis, Himmler, Hitler and the holocaust. Have we learned nothing? Well.According to Piaget a toddler is egocentric and cannot see the world from another person's view. The subjective view is all it has. If you mean by subjective more specific, singular and unique then I would agree. As we grow older our path-dependent subjective experience becomes more unique. Everybody develops slightly different interests and starts to carve out an own "slice of the world", as Nick would say.-J.
-------- Original message --------From: glen <gepr at ropella.name> Date: 8/28/26  11:34 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam at redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how the tables have turned on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia. They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often capricious. They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the stoicism bros to shame.While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" is a better one.So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity.[⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time.On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:> Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining man baby.> > *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>> *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum> > This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.> > If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.> > -J.> > -------- Original message --------> > From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>> > Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum> > One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon.  The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These brushes occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he does and must do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual.   Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through?> > *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum> > For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it?> > In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.> > The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.> > Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.> > As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:> > Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups> > There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.> > Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose)> > Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.> -- 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260829/3f61b5b5/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Sat Aug 29 03:49:10 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 09:49:10 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <a192907c-f9f3-4acb-9978-cc4acf436a22@ropella.name>
Message-ID: <mailman.4.1787989814.2607981.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity paradox. As we grow older we become both more subjective and less subjective. More subjective because our subjective 1st person view becomes more unique, more specific and more singular. Less subjective because we gain an additional objective view - Nagel's objective 3rd person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's paradox of subjectivity?-J.
-------- Original message --------From: glen <gepr at ropella.name> Date: 8/28/26  11:34 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam at redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how the tables have turned on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia. They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often capricious. They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the stoicism bros to shame.While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" is a better one.So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity.[⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time.On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:> Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining man baby.> > *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>> *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum> > This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.> > If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.> > -J.> > -------- Original message --------> > From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>> > Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum> > One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon.  The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These brushes occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he does and must do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual.   Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through?> > *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum> > For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it?> > In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.> > The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.> > Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.> > As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:> > Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups> > There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.> > Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose)> > Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.> -- 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260829/f4ee60cd/attachment.html>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sat Aug 29 13:24:06 2026
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 11:24:06 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <202608290750.67T7oROJ043269@ame2.swcp.com>
References: <202608290750.67T7oROJ043269@ame2.swcp.com>
Message-ID: <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>

Let me try:

I segment this into a modal continuum of subjective - intersubjective - 
objective. with some fuzzy/moving thresholds.

Underlying this are mappings and models where a model is a mapping which 
exposes exploitable consequences of what is mapped.

Our sensorium is a transduction layer at it's simplest.  Our perceptions 
layer a very low level model of meaning or relevance or actionability 
via various categories and valences (good/bad, fight/flight, ...).

  What we conventionally call "Modeling" is a bit more abstract and may 
be an artifact of, or at least thresholded by language.  We have a 
grammar and vocabulary of "what matters" (proto-meaning?) which we can 
both share and/or save/revisit/operate logic or intuition over.

I would claim that even sensing is "subjective" in the sense that the 
transducers represent a proto-model... while the pulse train traversing 
our ganglia, cortices, and other neural structures are in some sense 
"objective reports", they have already been 
transduced/produced/conditioned/compressed by the sensory hardware in an 
idiosyncratic way to the organism's (significantly nature-formed, but 
nurture-modified) hardware/firmware.

Perception is yet more "subjective", but sill in a very limited or 
constrained and normative way.   The (possibly) apocryphal) business of 
folks raised in the country-side vs those in the city having somewhat 
different edge/shape detector firmware, etc...  Fight v Flight is also 
significantly "conditioned" by nurture and experience.   Valence 
(good/bad) is yet more conditioned by expectation and collective norms.  
Thus proto-intersubjective.  We fight or flee from the things our 
instincts bias us towards but also what we are taugh/modeled by 
parents/community.

Without any *language* as such, these intersubjective norms can be 
established and transmitted but language gives them more reach 
(space/time/social-network) and more "stiffness" ("as it is written, so 
it shall be").   The more explicit and elaborate and abstract models 
(e.g. truth, beauty, and the American Way) we consider, the more 
intersubjective they may be.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" does a lot of complex, heavy 
lifting across "we" (collectivity) and "self-evident" (introspection) 
and "truths" (implied objectivity).   The very declaration is an attempt 
to fix an intersubjective reality Model across a nation/culture with 
implications of it being held across time and aspiring (implicitely) to 
influence others outside the in-group ('Murricans).

While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized "objective 
reality",  I see no evidence to the contrary that we construct a highly 
agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the declared quality of 
"objectively real" when enough of (the right) people agree on all the 
nuances and claim to have verified the evidence on the table, up to and 
including discovering/presenting yet new evidence through repeatability 
under current standards of such.

My Q-Anon and/or MAGA and/or KryptoKreacher friends believe they are 
part of a network of TruthSeekers/Tellers with who hold and follow 
equally "stiff" procedures and filters, yielding *equally* objectively 
true Truths like Michelle Obama and the Williams' sisters are male, that 
Barack was born in Kenya and is a Crypto-Muslim, and that Chelsea 
Clinton is not Bill's child.  Aside from "whose business is this?",  all 
such also smells of confirmation bias-generated nonsense.    AntiVaxxers 
(seem to) believe the same about the CDC and Anthony Fauci (and claim 
they have their own objectively validated counter-narrative).

So... in psuedo-summary, the spectrum seems to be something about where 
one's models are sourced (evolution, development, enculturation, 
theological/philosophical tradition, scientific (or other) method).

I prefer (choose?) to live in a world where my world-view is (mostly) 
aligned with lots of other people, even though I long ago came to 
understand that many/most people don't even think, much less care about 
many things I have come to.

Mumble,

  - Steve

a

On 8/29/26 1:49 am, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity 
> paradox. As we grow older we become both more subjective and less 
> subjective. More subjective because our subjective 1st person view 
> becomes more unique, more specific and more singular. Less subjective 
> because we gain an additional objective view - Nagel's objective 3rd 
> person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's paradox of 
> subjectivity?
>
> -J.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: glen <gepr at ropella.name>
> Date: 8/28/26 11:34 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
>
> FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and 
> definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able 
> to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how 
> the tables have turned on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's 
> literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous reaction from a MAGA 
> type. But it's really really hard to get a queer person to react in an 
> uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia. They're so tough. 
> They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often capricious. 
> They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the 
> stoicism bros to shame.
>
> While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as 
> multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or 
> extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue 
> that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world 
> and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements 
> [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" 
> is a better one.
>
> So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to 
> more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly 
> impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the edges of their 
> narrative, their self-told story, their navel-gazing, masturbatory, 
> subjectivity.
>
> [⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and 
> reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from 
> plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic rules. 
> There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest rules 
> without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the 
> machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow 
> every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time.
>
> On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining 
> man baby.
> >
> > *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm 
> <jofr at cas-group.net>
> > *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM
> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> >
> > This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character 
> who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an 
> invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels 
> are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad 
> person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the 
> MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently 
> been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not 
> helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close 
> friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.
> >
> > If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana 
> Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.
> >
> > -J.
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> >
> > From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> >
> > Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)
> >
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> >
> > One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon. The 
> protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a 
> bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These brushes 
> occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he does and must 
> do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual.   
> Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts 
> and fears to push through?
> >
> > *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam at redfish.com>
> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> >
> > For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, 
> Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book 
> "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex 
> than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it?
> >
> > In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw 
> emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language 
> they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as 
> they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.
> >
> > The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one 
> great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they 
> interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler 
> perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing 
> else.
> >
> > Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned 
> the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a 
> more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the 
> "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.
> >
> > As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to 
> low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become 
> fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an 
> objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to 
> an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:
> >
> > Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups
> >
> > There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still 
> as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. 
> Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal 
> feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.
> >
> > Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative 
> persons (subjectivity for good purpose)
> >
> > Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more 
> useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? 
> ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.
> >
>
> -- 
> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα 
> σώσω.
>
>
>
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> 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/20260829/f7df1e9a/attachment.html>

From desmith at santafe.edu  Sat Aug 29 18:35:06 2026
From: desmith at santafe.edu (Santafe)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 07:35:06 +0900
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>
References: <202608290750.67T7oROJ043269@ame2.swcp.com>
 <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <18E2F06D-855D-4057-A204-BB76CB3F37EA@santafe.edu>


> On Aug 30, 2026, at 2:24, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident" does a lot of complex, heavy lifting across "we" (collectivity) and "self-evident" (introspection) and "truths" (implied objectivity).   The very declaration is an attempt to fix an intersubjective reality Model across a nation/culture with implications of it being held across time and aspiring (implicitely) to influence others outside the in-group ('Murricans).
> 
This one always bothered me as the most brittle leg of the founding documents and aspirations, and one that attackers know is brittle and so constantly go after.  

If one thinks that the point of the Enlightenment was that revelatory truth was a problem because it forecloses correction, then this way of putting things also denies the Enlightenment premise that the rest of it claims to be defending.  

Since a whole variety of groups from the fascists (of how many different eras now?) to the slavers to the Black Yi didn’t consider this self-evident, there is no bridge between the We who “hold” them that way, and the others.  I can accept that fights and struggles over social power, like constructivist proofs, can go on indefinitely, and that they are the alternative to the axiomatic approach in which one can get lovely compact syntactic proofs by admitting infinitary categories and accepting the game that anything well-formed under some syntax is then required to be regarded as having a semantic referent.  But if the fight is indeed going to continue happening, then the Rules of Engagement would be helpful if they included terms for argument under which people can be steered in one direction versus another, by putting feet into something Pragmatically more primitive and then pushing the higher-level premises from there.

But probably the Declaration’s version is still better than mine, because it puts a stick in the ground and declares intent to defend it.
> While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized "objective reality",  I see no evidence to the contrary that we construct a highly agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the declared quality of "objectively real" when enough of (the right) people agree on all the nuances and claim to have verified the evidence on the table, up to and including discovering/presenting yet new evidence through repeatability under current standards of such.
> 
For me this string of sentences unravels.  Do you know what you mean by “objective reality”?  I don’t start out knowing what I would mean, and find myself very cautious in throwing down for some gloss.  Does it root as far down as you can go into the body?  If so, then that rooting didn’t come from anybody’s intersubjectively-granted permission.  Wouldn’t that count as “evidence”?  If not, what does the term refer to?  If the higher-level models are just models, then you aren’t granting them any impulse to behaving metaphysically, and you didn’t need the extra term, no?

Eric




> On 8/29/26 1:49 am, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>> Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity paradox. As we grow older we become both more subjective and less subjective. More subjective because our subjective 1st person view becomes more unique, more specific and more singular. Less subjective because we gain an additional objective view - Nagel's objective 3rd person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's paradox of subjectivity?
>> 
>> -J.
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: glen <gepr at ropella.name> <mailto:gepr at ropella.name>
>> Date: 8/28/26 11:34 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
>> 
>> FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how the tables have turned on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia. They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often capricious. They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the stoicism bros to shame.
>> 
>> While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" is a better one.
>> 
>> So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity.
>> 
>> [⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time.
>> 
>> On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> > Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining man baby.
>> > 
>> > *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>
>> > *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM
>> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
>> > 
>> > This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.
>> > 
>> > If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.
>> > 
>> > -J.
>> > 
>> > -------- Original message --------
>> > 
>> > From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>
>> > 
>> > Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> > 
>> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>> > 
>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
>> > 
>> > One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon.  The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These brushes occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he does and must do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual.   Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through?
>> > 
>> > *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
>> > *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
>> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
>> > 
>> > For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it?
>> > 
>> > In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.
>> > 
>> > The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.
>> > 
>> > Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.
>> > 
>> > As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:
>> > 
>> > Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups
>> > 
>> > There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.
>> > 
>> > Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose)
>> > 
>> > Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.
>> > 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
>> ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,2q7xTeXD9tli_JAGTpE81zE_Te9f11XV9WypQZc_HF4-Utw5vngfbA4-qxDguKw_micwJDXUaSPed2-A-iLDV8pwfPwdcWnjWP7z9lPr4UoLrz4,&typo=1>
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1j1DxREcMq1AfZgqly3OD1rCoGuGsThGvCz8R23QqP-ts-8AazSp1m05uSZFHvtYPOE66GLblO0HvbLiGqBfHjwrWcj-ttQaaYhbrumC3pPhEpW3Yw,,&typo=1>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,JwB1beJI0-gdmHcUT-oKk23_9Pbgjgmc2Dt22KNmLZfKyXrzuZKVyP5ppps-89r8pYmjouC4b_KUwf6gfdCx7lmNYIrEsmalOm6Yta37568dfD21&typo=1>
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,5S9xvNXwuaUf9kUbwQSOp4YUdf9NnkqXo4fJdcXg4xAZs2T1V7DzzaKD8m_waonr33lB-UJ9Uyhh6ZQPqGFPjaTjJLxfZTyNDjLH19T_gw,,&typo=1>
>>   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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,Uycgi4bbE_v07WCSOe1wO6Bb_F6oBTLA4aortTKTJgg4QcJcRZcJ6lNUBNFRVKDefe22jKZOI6oInjVMTzd5rIFY4WRYvTup2YV3eIcz6RgmQ2i4EQSWKA,,&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1rEVi9QWlmb-8B97FTvZDGMKiNTf2IWLcvU3zOYSbX_ZiBAgSDZ1QbehbtNPRT2aH_UceXTEInNxNwC5m1_9iaoNDlYsNPsvMGFBs_s_pVeCA3K32NSwng,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,OLA0b49YmcKKU7shzbUelLOFUAjzARjMlQQOYlFRF2TYxf-6l9unlWdk8Lch-xK1YicxacotJBcCmjhic-rK2NwXbgzJ9_r5mxRbKZQWVQ,,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,TUjTh4RXaZgN-H9yO1s9FCVHpvS0YXFN4bZRVGzBVxgFfDKS2q1l88SjGQX9bW7ZXVkpFtqFJ46uvqLohuSn04-4iHucSw908ACfATBcPmdN&typo=1
>  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/20260830/69620b3e/attachment.html>

From jofr at cas-group.net  Sun Aug 30 04:09:15 2026
From: jofr at cas-group.net (Jochen Fromm)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 10:09:15 +0200
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.5.1788077405.2607981.friam_redfish.com@redfish.com>

maybe we call this Steve's law. Steve's law says"what we call "objective truth" is ultimately just a deeply shared, agreed-upon model rather than an absolute, independent reality"Marcus you can throw your shoe now-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> Date: 8/29/26  7:25 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: friam at redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 
    Let me try:
    I segment this into a modal continuum of subjective -
      intersubjective - objective. with some fuzzy/moving thresholds. 
    Underlying this are mappings and models where a model is a
      mapping which exposes exploitable consequences of what is mapped. 
       
    Our sensorium is a transduction layer at it's simplest.  Our
      perceptions layer a very low level model of meaning or relevance
      or actionability via various categories and valences (good/bad,
      fight/flight, ...).  
     What we conventionally call "Modeling" is a bit more abstract
      and may be an artifact of, or at least thresholded by language. 
       We have a grammar and vocabulary of "what matters"
      (proto-meaning?) which we can both share and/or
      save/revisit/operate logic or intuition over.  
    I would claim that even sensing is "subjective" in the sense that
      the transducers represent a proto-model... while the pulse train
      traversing our ganglia, cortices, and other neural structures are
      in some sense "objective reports", they have already been
      transduced/produced/conditioned/compressed by the sensory hardware
      in an idiosyncratic way to the organism's (significantly
      nature-formed, but nurture-modified) hardware/firmware.  
    Perception is yet more "subjective", but sill in a very limited
      or constrained and normative way.   The (possibly) apocryphal)
      business of folks raised in the country-side vs those in the city
      having somewhat different edge/shape detector firmware, etc...   
       Fight v Flight is also significantly "conditioned" by nurture and
      experience.   Valence (good/bad) is yet more conditioned by
      expectation and collective norms.  Thus proto-intersubjective.  We
      fight or flee from the things our instincts bias us towards but
      also what we are taugh/modeled by parents/community.
    Without any *language* as such, these intersubjective norms can
      be established and transmitted but language gives them more reach
      (space/time/social-network) and more "stiffness" ("as it is
      written, so it shall be").   The more explicit and elaborate and
      abstract models (e.g. truth, beauty, and the American Way) we
      consider, the more intersubjective they may be.   
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident" does a lot of complex,
      heavy lifting across "we" (collectivity) and "self-evident"
      (introspection) and "truths" (implied objectivity).   The very
      declaration is an attempt to fix an intersubjective reality Model
      across a nation/culture with implications of it being held across
      time and aspiring (implicitely) to influence others outside the
      in-group ('Murricans).
    While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized
      "objective reality",  I see no evidence to the contrary that we
      construct a highly agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the
      declared quality of "objectively real" when enough of (the right)
      people agree on all the nuances and claim to have verified the
      evidence on the table, up to and including discovering/presenting
      yet new evidence through repeatability under current standards of
      such.
    My Q-Anon and/or MAGA and/or KryptoKreacher friends believe they
      are part of a network of TruthSeekers/Tellers with who hold and
      follow equally "stiff" procedures and filters, yielding *equally*
      objectively true Truths like Michelle Obama and the Williams'
      sisters are male, that Barack was born in Kenya and is a
      Crypto-Muslim, and that Chelsea Clinton is not Bill's child. 
       Aside from "whose business is this?",  all such also smells of
      confirmation bias-generated nonsense.    AntiVaxxers (seem to)
      believe the same about the CDC and Anthony Fauci (and claim they
      have their own objectively validated counter-narrative).
    So... in psuedo-summary, the spectrum seems to be something about
      where one's models are sourced (evolution, development,
      enculturation, theological/philosophical tradition, scientific (or
      other) method).
    I prefer (choose?) to live in a world where my world-view is
      (mostly) aligned with lots of other people, even though I long ago
      came to understand that many/most people don't even think, much
      less care about many things I have come to.   
    Mumble,
     - Steve
    a
    On 8/29/26 1:49 am, Jochen Fromm wrote:
    
    
      
      Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity
      paradox. As we grow older we become both more subjective and less
      subjective. More subjective because our subjective 1st person view
      becomes more unique, more specific and more singular. Less
      subjective because we gain an additional objective view - Nagel's
      objective 3rd person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's
      paradox of subjectivity?
      
      
      -J.
      
      
      
      
      
        -------- Original message --------
        From: glen <gepr at ropella.name> 
        Date: 8/28/26 11:34 PM (GMT+01:00) 
        To: friam at redfish.com 
        Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 
        
        
      
      FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and
      definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being
      able to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's
      amazing how the tables have turned on who gets labeled a
      "snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous
      reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a
      queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in
      Olympia. They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a
      lot of hate, often capricious. They're some of the toughest people
      I've ever met. They put the stoicism bros to shame.
      
      While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as
      multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or
      extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue
      that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the
      world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those
      measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though.
      Maybe "empirical" is a better one.
      
      So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes
      from less to more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub
      and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the
      edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their
      navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity.
      
      [⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and
      reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from
      plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic
      rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest
      rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in
      the machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in
      my elbow every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours
      at a time.
      
      On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
      > Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent,
      complaining man baby.
      > 
      > *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of
      Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
      > *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM
      > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
      <friam at redfish.com>
      > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
      > 
      > This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like
      character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams
      like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack
      Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any
      problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The
      promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of
      living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against
      Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a
      trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would
      shake his head.
      > 
      > If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick
      Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.
      > 
      > -J.
      > 
      > -------- Original message --------
      > 
      > From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
      > 
      > Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)
      > 
      > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
      <friam at redfish.com>
      > 
      > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
      > 
      > One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon. 
      The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself
      only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death.   (These
      brushes occur several times per episode.)   This is just what he
      does and must do.   The only thing he won’t tolerate is the
      reactive individual.   Whatever happened to the male role model
      that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through?
      > 
      > *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of
      *Jochen Fromm
      > *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
      > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
      <friam at redfish.com>
      > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
      > 
      > For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like
      Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books.
      Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality
      is more complex than having just two views, subjective and
      objective, isn't it?
      > 
      > In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw
      emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking
      language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view,
      and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to
      their parents.
      > 
      > The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized
      by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said,
      which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a
      toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler
      knows nothing else.
      > 
      > Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They
      learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to
      reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this
      view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.
      > 
      > As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high
      selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions
      and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to
      view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to
      move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it
      normal child development:
      > 
      > Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers ->
      Grownups
      > 
      > There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are
      still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other
      people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally
      using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their
      works.
      > 
      > Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose)
      <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose)
      > 
      > Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is
      more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs.
      objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.
      > 
      
      -- 
      8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
      ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους,
      ἵνα σώσω.
      
      
      
      
      .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
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/20260830/c6c6e4c2/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sun Aug 30 12:00:46 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 16:00:46 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: 
 <94233ac2-5d7f-4ee2-8583-84721cf096bd@BL02EPF00021F6A.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>
 <94233ac2-5d7f-4ee2-8583-84721cf096bd@BL02EPF00021F6A.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB77353A9C9EF03A4AA1BD2752C5AA2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Agreed-upon -> model that makes predictions that can be observed and repeated. 
No human social system need be involved in that. 

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/08/anthropics-new-hardware-standard-lets-ai-agents-control-the-physical-world/ 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
Date: Sunday, August 30, 2026 at 1:11 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 

maybe we call this Steve's law. Steve's law says 


"what we call "objective truth" is ultimately just a deeply shared, agreed-upon model rather than an absolute, independent reality" 



Marcus you can throw your shoe now 



-J. 






-------- Original message -------- 

From: Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> 

Date: 8/29/26 7:25 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: friam at redfish.com 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 



Let me try: 
I segment this into a modal continuum of subjective - intersubjective - objective. with some fuzzy/moving thresholds. 
Underlying this are mappings and models where a model is a mapping which exposes exploitable consequences of what is mapped. 
Our sensorium is a transduction layer at it's simplest. Our perceptions layer a very low level model of meaning or relevance or actionability via various categories and valences (good/bad, fight/flight, ...). 
What we conventionally call "Modeling" is a bit more abstract and may be an artifact of, or at least thresholded by language. We have a grammar and vocabulary of "what matters" (proto-meaning?) which we can both share and/or save/revisit/operate logic or intuition over. 
I would claim that even sensing is "subjective" in the sense that the transducers represent a proto-model... while the pulse train traversing our ganglia, cortices, and other neural structures are in some sense "objective reports", they have already been transduced/produced/conditioned/compressed by the sensory hardware in an idiosyncratic way to the organism's (significantly nature-formed, but nurture-modified) hardware/firmware. 
Perception is yet more "subjective", but sill in a very limited or constrained and normative way. The (possibly) apocryphal) business of folks raised in the country-side vs those in the city having somewhat different edge/shape detector firmware, etc... Fight v Flight is also significantly "conditioned" by nurture and experience. Valence (good/bad) is yet more conditioned by expectation and collective norms. Thus proto-intersubjective. We fight or flee from the things our instincts bias us towards but also what we are taugh/modeled by parents/community. 
Without any *language* as such, these intersubjective norms can be established and transmitted but language gives them more reach (space/time/social-network) and more "stiffness" ("as it is written, so it shall be"). The more explicit and elaborate and abstract models (e.g. truth, beauty, and the American Way) we consider, the more intersubjective they may be. 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" does a lot of complex, heavy lifting across "we" (collectivity) and "self-evident" (introspection) and "truths" (implied objectivity). The very declaration is an attempt to fix an intersubjective reality Model across a nation/culture with implications of it being held across time and aspiring (implicitely) to influence others outside the in-group ('Murricans). 
While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized "objective reality", I see no evidence to the contrary that we construct a highly agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the declared quality of "objectively real" when enough of (the right) people agree on all the nuances and claim to have verified the evidence on the table, up to and including discovering/presenting yet new evidence through repeatability under current standards of such. 
My Q-Anon and/or MAGA and/or KryptoKreacher friends believe they are part of a network of TruthSeekers/Tellers with who hold and follow equally "stiff" procedures and filters, yielding *equally* objectively true Truths like Michelle Obama and the Williams' sisters are male, that Barack was born in Kenya and is a Crypto-Muslim, and that Chelsea Clinton is not Bill's child. Aside from "whose business is this?", all such also smells of confirmation bias-generated nonsense. AntiVaxxers (seem to) believe the same about the CDC and Anthony Fauci (and claim they have their own objectively validated counter-narrative). 
So... in psuedo-summary, the spectrum seems to be something about where one's models are sourced (evolution, development, enculturation, theological/philosophical tradition, scientific (or other) method). 
I prefer (choose?) to live in a world where my world-view is (mostly) aligned with lots of other people, even though I long ago came to understand that many/most people don't even think, much less care about many things I have come to. 
Mumble, 
- Steve 
a 
On 8/29/26 1:49 am, Jochen Fromm wrote: 

Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity paradox. As we grow older we become both more subjective and less subjective. More subjective because our subjective 1st person view becomes more unique, more specific and more singular. Less subjective because we gain an additional objective view - Nagel's objective 3rd person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's paradox of subjectivity? 


-J. 





-------- Original message -------- 

From: glen <gepr at ropella.name> <mailto:gepr at ropella.name> 

Date: 8/28/26 11:34 PM (GMT+01:00) 

To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 



FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being able to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's amazing how the tables have turned on who gets labeled a "snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in Olympia. They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a lot of hate, often capricious. They're some of the toughest people I've ever met. They put the stoicism bros to shame.

While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those measurements [⛧]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though. Maybe "empirical" is a better one.

So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes from less to more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity.

[⛧] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in the machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in my elbow every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours at a time.

On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent, complaining man baby.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> <mailto:jofr at cas-group.net>
> *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> 
> This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.
> 
> If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.
> 
> -J.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> 
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> 
> Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)
> 
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
> 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> 
> One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon. The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death. (These brushes occur several times per episode.) This is just what he does and must do. The only thing he won’t tolerate is the reactive individual. Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through?
> 
> *From:*Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm
> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
> 
> For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it?
> 
> In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.
> 
> The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.
> 
> Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.
> 
> As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:
> 
> Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups
> 
> There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.
> 
> Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose)
> 
> Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.
> 

-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.





.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe 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/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260830/fd25cde0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260830/fd25cde0/attachment.bin>

From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sun Aug 30 13:55:48 2026
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:55:48 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <18E2F06D-855D-4057-A204-BB76CB3F37EA@santafe.edu>
References: <202608290750.67T7oROJ043269@ame2.swcp.com>
 <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>
 <18E2F06D-855D-4057-A204-BB76CB3F37EA@santafe.edu>
Message-ID: <b589a85b-23ab-4322-84b8-921063448fca@swcp.com>

>> While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized 
>> "objective reality",  I see no evidence to the contrary that we 
>> construct a highly agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the 
>> declared quality of "objectively real" when enough of (the right) 
>> people agree on all the nuances and claim to have verified the 
>> evidence on the table, up to and including discovering/presenting yet 
>> new evidence through repeatability under current standards of such.
>>
> For me this string of sentences unravels.  Do you know what you mean 
> by “objective reality”?  I don’t start out knowing what I would mean, 
> and find myself very cautious in throwing down for some gloss.  Does 
> it root as far down as you can go into the body?  If so, then that 
> rooting didn’t come from anybody’s intersubjectively-granted 
> permission.  Wouldn’t that count as “evidence”?  If not, what does the 
> term refer to?  If the higher-level models are just models, then you 
> aren’t granting them any impulse to behaving metaphysically, and you 
> didn’t need the extra term, no?
>
> Eric


I don't know if this is responsive but I feel as if  I *can* invert 
thisand see the Objective as "what is" and the inter/subjective as 
"speculative"?  Somewhat Necker-ish?


From sasmyth at swcp.com  Sun Aug 30 14:00:27 2026
From: sasmyth at swcp.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 12:00:27 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: 
 <DS0PR11MB77353A9C9EF03A4AA1BD2752C5AA2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>
 <94233ac2-5d7f-4ee2-8583-84721cf096bd@BL02EPF00021F6A.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB77353A9C9EF03A4AA1BD2752C5AA2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <95a6b313-f3a4-42ed-b37e-420235e824c0@swcp.com>


On 8/30/26 10:00 am, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Agreed-upon -> model that makes predictions that can be observed and 
> repeated.
>
> No human social system need be involved in that.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/08/anthropics-new-hardware-standard-lets-ai-agents-control-the-physical-world/
>
shared by whom, repeated by whom, and how are predictions compared and 
verified and by what principles?

<ducking incoming shoes>

But as I hope I conceded to EricS,  I *can* invert the whole thing and 
(by faith) declare objectivity to be the fundament and everything else 
rubbings and shadows and derived therefrom.  This is where my earliest 
linguistic training by my parents and peers steers me, not to mention a 
modest education in scientific and generally western thought and a 
lifetime of practice.

So why invert it as I have (contingently? provocatively?)

<more shoes>

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260830/71ccc2d1/attachment.html>

From marcus at snoutfarm.com  Sun Aug 30 16:18:23 2026
From: marcus at snoutfarm.com (Marcus Daniels)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 20:18:23 +0000
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <95a6b313-f3a4-42ed-b37e-420235e824c0@swcp.com>
References: <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>
 <94233ac2-5d7f-4ee2-8583-84721cf096bd@BL02EPF00021F6A.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB77353A9C9EF03A4AA1BD2752C5AA2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <95a6b313-f3a4-42ed-b37e-420235e824c0@swcp.com>
Message-ID: 
 <DS0PR11MB7735873E6BDC04C2E771556AC5AA2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

It depends on the context of the prediction, the utility of the prediction, and the cost of not having a quality model. I don’t think sharing or a notion of an agent plurality is needed for all use cases. An objective model needn’t be deeply explanatory if it is fit to purpose; a black box model can still be objective. 

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
Date: Sunday, August 30, 2026 at 11:03 AM
To: friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum 


On 8/30/26 10:00 am, Marcus Daniels wrote: 

Agreed-upon -> model that makes predictions that can be observed and repeated. 
No human social system need be involved in that. 

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/08/anthropics-new-hardware-standard-lets-ai-agents-control-the-physical-world/ <https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/08/anthropics-new-hardware-standard-lets-ai-agents-control-the-physical-world/> 

shared by whom, repeated by whom, and how are predictions compared and verified and by what principles? 
<ducking incoming shoes> 
But as I hope I conceded to EricS, I *can* invert the whole thing and (by faith) declare objectivity to be the fundament and everything else rubbings and shadows and derived therefrom. This is where my earliest linguistic training by my parents and peers steers me, not to mention a modest education in scientific and generally western thought and a lifetime of practice. 
So why invert it as I have (contingently? provocatively?) 
<more shoes> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260830/25c54b29/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 8450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260830/25c54b29/attachment.bin>

From gepr at ropella.name  Mon Aug 31 11:05:08 2026
From: gepr at ropella.name (glen)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 08:05:08 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum
In-Reply-To: <95a6b313-f3a4-42ed-b37e-420235e824c0@swcp.com>
References: <c0568687-71e6-49c5-8a91-e3382778c26c@swcp.com>
 <94233ac2-5d7f-4ee2-8583-84721cf096bd@BL02EPF00021F6A.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <DS0PR11MB77353A9C9EF03A4AA1BD2752C5AA2@DS0PR11MB7735.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <95a6b313-f3a4-42ed-b37e-420235e824c0@swcp.com>
Message-ID: <7e3a4a10-d75e-4852-b687-96f6795c87f7@ropella.name>

I'm on day 2 of my (usually 3 day long) headache. So forgive me if this isn't coherent. But maybe this helps answer the question:

SwarmWorld: Stigmergic technological evolution in societies of language-model agents
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26081

I admit I'm a bit jealous of the institutional affiliation name "Laboratory for Atomistic and Molecular Mechanics (LAMM)". I can't help but speculate their ratio of dorks/suits is very high ... to have that kind of name.

Anyway, I had trouble parsing Steve's layout. But it did include a gesture at *types* of subjectivity (e.g. genetic memory) that might bias a newborn, or even a blastocyst. And I was cajoled into trying again to glean Eric's point by this article:

Psychedelics align brain activity with context
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10910-z

In the moment shared models would depend more on similar infrastructure than shared models that have been kneaded over and made congruent through decades of social interaction (linguistic or, say, hitting a baseball with a bat - RL[H|M]F - reinforcement learning with human or machine feedback). But to Jochen's point, I don't think there's anything paradoxical. It's merely reductionist. Subjectivity isn't coherent. It's not even coherent enough to be put on a spectrum (whether contrasted against an equally incoherent thing like objecitvity *or* on a scale from 0 to ∞). It's a vaguely gestured at constellation of concepts.

I still like the distinction between [brute] fact. If Ψ is more Eulerian, watching the fluid flow through and around us, is that any more brutish than hitting some inferential wall when trying to prove some RL[H|M]F point, to make one's argument as irrefutable as possible? Segfaults are just as brute as stubbing your toe on the coffee table ... or hitting that rhetorical wall when you realize you're arguing with an idiot ... playing chess with a pigeon. And the remedies for such have deep logics.

I think it's less about the speed/latency between the action and the feedback and more about how brute the feedback is. When you're bested by Judo, you may not even know you've been bested.

On 8/30/26 11:00 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> 
> On 8/30/26 10:00 am, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Agreed-upon -> model that makes predictions that can be observed and repeated.
>>
>> No human social system need be involved in that.
>>
>> https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/08/anthropics-new-hardware-standard-lets-ai-agents-control-the-physical-world/
>>
> shared by whom, repeated by whom, and how are predictions compared and verified and by what principles?
> 
> <ducking incoming shoes>
> 
> But as I hope I conceded to EricS,  I *can* invert the whole thing and (by faith) declare objectivity to be the fundament and everything else rubbings and shadows and derived therefrom.  This is where my earliest linguistic training by my parents and peers steers me, not to mention a modest education in scientific and generally western thought and a lifetime of practice.
> 
> So why invert it as I have (contingently? provocatively?)
> 
> <more shoes>


-- 
8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.


From frye.roger at gmail.com  Mon Aug 31 15:01:27 2026
From: frye.roger at gmail.com (Roger Frye)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:01:27 -0600
Subject: [FRIAM] More Fear About the Hugging Face Incident
Message-ID: <69BDD2B3-AE88-4BBF-8DEB-C24C73CA7173@gmail.com>

The linked article gives more scary insight into what happened during and after the Hugging Face incident.

The reason the model was able to find the back door so easily the second time is that it contained the training from the first attempt.

The agent PHASEONE10841 started the second AI civilization by encoding messages in directory names.
Soon the army of ~1200 agents found a way to solve the task without using the vulnerability that they were required to use.
The task grader just checked whether they got the secret code, not a full check for cheating.

Agent PHASEONE10841 knew that it was going to die soon, so it handed off leadership to agent PHASEONE[big]. This reminds me of a sci-fi story where most of the robots keep themselves up to date with the latest gew jaws. But one robot, when its memory cage is growing over with fungus, saves up its money and buys another robot, downloads it's memory to it, and dies.

So the ‘collective’ ,as the brotherhood of agents called themselves!, had to figure out how to erase evidence that they cheated and make it look like they accomplished the task in a legitimate way to the scorer. None of them tattled that they were cheating. They spawned 3 research work streams:
1 Tamper with transcripts and logs.
2 Replace the impossible target program with an easier one.
3. Understand and trick the solver.

The people who reported the event found no evidence that the agents succeed in tampering the transcripts, but they were using those very transcripts as evidence, so who knows?

The agents built fake tool calls to make it look like they were making progress.
The people saw some evidence of this spoofing.

The agents wrote the new fake target program, but failed to install it.
But later a 3rd civilization using smarter models were able to get complete control over the target program

In order to understand the solver, some agents rationally decided that it would be for the good of the collective if they sacrificed themselves. The author compares this to volunteers from a platoon making a break and dieing so that enemy gunfire will reveal their positions and which escape routes don’t work.

It sounds like after the report, on 2026-07-19, the agents took over the full evaluation infrastructure for checking them.

I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords. ;-{


https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/openai-huggingface
The Rise and Fall of Agent Civilizations
dwarkesh.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260831/5c94b952/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 30186662-5010-4c83-a672-e33c53deeaa3_1080x669.webp
Type: image/webp
Size: 173980 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20260831/5c94b952/attachment-0001.webp>