[FRIAM] surprised no one mentioned this

[Marcus Daniels]

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151027/ncomms9661/full/ncomms9661.html

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Glen,

Another great bit of "idiographic" science.  

Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the 
decision-making patterns you describe here.  

Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here.  Is it REASONABLE.  
Is it REASONING.  Is it EVER reasonable to change your individual behavior on 
the basis of a population average?  

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 9:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat


Speaking to the larger issues, I only change my behavior under parallax, when I 
see multiple, seemingly disparate lines of reasoning converging.  For the 
climate, it's my natural dislike of crowds combined with myopic thinking and 
the "leave only footprints" ethic.  For meat, it was a convergence of its cost 
(in resources) to raise, animal abuse/exploitation, the practices/consequences 
of industrial meat, and the prevalence of fast food (including the way I feel 
after eating it and an irrational association of fast food with obesity).  The 
cancer and heart disease studies have no impact on my behavior, at least so far.

Supplements are an interesting case for me.  I experiment with all sorts of 
them, usually for very short periods of time.  I'm not very methodical about 
it.  But I've played around with tryptophan, melatonin, probiotics, milk 
thistle, amino acids, trace minerals, [in]soluble fiber, etc., including, of 
course various broad vitamins.  They all have interesting effects ... well, 
except the milk thistle... I've never observed any effects of that.  But I get 
the same restful sleep with tryptophan as I do after "smoking" a cigar. (I 
haven't smoked a cigar in a looong time, though.)  Melatonin does seem to 
reduce the recovery time from jet lag.  Etc.  Now, what it would take to get me 
to, say, take a daily vitamin for more than a week or two?  I have no idea.  
Nothing, probably.  The vitamins helped during chemo.  But otherwise, they're 
mostly useless to me.



On 10/28/2015 06:15 AM, John Kennison wrote:
> I think my real reasons are that I like meat, and I think that being a 
> vegetarian would be inconvenient. I do respond to cancer studies, so I try to 
> eat salads and broccoli  and fruits and other vegetables. Also, I have 
> largely (but not at all completely) given up red meat. The latest studies 
> will make me less likely to go to a Subway for a processed Turkey sandwich. 
> But I have already entertained the thought that the studies are probably 
> flawed because people who lots of processed meats will include a 
> disproportionately high number who do not eat very well--I haven’t, of 
> course, checked to see whether the studies control for this possibility.

On 10/27/2015 10:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Dear Friam members,
>
> I am more
> interested in the process by which each of you will decide whether or 
> not to change your habits on the basis of this new evidence, or try to 
> change the habits of your children or grandchildren.  In what sense 
> will that process be "reasonable?"

--
⇔ glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Rich Murray]

I choose to evolve forever without limits, asking for and accepting help
from within and without -- information, evidence, role models, guidance,
feedback, support, direction, intuition, inspiration, revelation,
transformation, miracles, union -- allowing healing forgiveness and release
of all confusions in my own mind -- serving the highest benefit of each and
all...

We are each uniquely evolving facets of all of entire single evolving
creative spontaneous open fractal hyperinfinity...

I accept all of your spontaneous power -- I let you all the way in...

John A. McDougall MD  drmcdougall.com  fresh organic low-fat, low-protein,
high complex starches and colored vegetables, low-sugar -- I have no
caffeine or cocoa or alcohol -- no medicines at all, 500 mg V-C daily...

also, ForksOverKnives.com


Woodrow C. Monte, PhD  WhileScienceSleeps.com  avoid all methanol, which in
humans only is made by ADH1 enzyme into uncontrolled formaldehyde inside
cells of 20 tissues -- wood peat and cigarette smoke, aspartame, dark wines
and liquors, fresh tomatoes, unfresh fruits juices vegetables, cut up,
heated, preserved wet at room temperature in sealed cans jars plastics...


142 mg methanol weekly is provided by 6.5 cans aspartame diet drink, about
1 can daily, the amount used by 161 moms, whose kids became autistic, over
twice the methanol taken by 550 moms who had no autistic kids.

dietary methanol and autism, Ralph G. Walton, Woodrow  C. Monte, in press,
Medical Hypotheses (now peer reviewed), free full rich text, 38 references:
Rich Murray 2015.07.06
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/07/dietary-methanol-and-autism-ralph-g.html


neurobehavioral effects of aspartame, GN Lindseth et al 2014, funded by
Army, free full plain text -- 25% of 28 healthy young university students
had obvious harm from a dose same as 9 cans daily for just 8 days: Rich
Murray 2015.07.05
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/07/neurobehavioral-effects-of-aspartame-gn.html


Table 5.2 is the key chart -- ADH1 enzyme at high levels in 20 tissues in
body and fetus makes methanol into formaldehyde right inside cells,
initiating over 20 human diseases, with full text references, WC Monte
paradigm: Rich Murray 2013.03.21
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/03/table-52-is-key-chart-adh1-enzyme-at.html



"As a matter of course, every soul citizen of Earth has a priority to
quickly find and positively share evidence for healthy and safe food,
drink, environment, and society."

within the fellowship of service,

Rich Murray,
MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology,
BS MIT 1964 history and physics,
1039 Emory Street, Imperial Beach, CA 91932
rmfor...@gmail.com
505-819-7388 cell
619-623-3468 home
http://rmforall.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/rmforall
https://www.facebook.com/rmforallmethanol
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rich-murray/30/835/652
https://about.me/richmurray
rich.murray11 free Skype audio, video chat


On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, glen  wrote:

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>>
>> [NST==>Well, remember Glen.  I am a rank Deweyan.  I think that people can
>> and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly.  One thing
>> that
>> stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about
>> climate change.”  I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual
>> opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst]
>>
>
> Yes, but while we have some control over how we are integrated, as an
> individual, we have little/no control over how the whole aggregates ...
> more importantly, we have little/no knowledge of the implications of the
> aggregate.  Blind action is no better than nefarious nor worse than
> virtuous action.
>
> [NST==>Ok, you are
>> forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do people who disagree
>> with
>> one another bother to talk?  What is the good in that?  I assume it’s
>> because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action.
>> Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one
>> person
>> in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst]
>>
>
> Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk
> _mostly_ as a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should
> phrase it as: most of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that
> replaces grooming.  But perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some
> sort of reprogramming, at least sporadically and rarely.
>
> The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr
> e-mails).  It is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed.  Every word I
> read, every noise I hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from,
> _might_ reprogram me.  There are other ways to be programmed (working in
> the garden, driving, hiking, etc.).  But there is a kind of nuance to
> talk-talk-based reprogramming that is difficult to get at any other way.
>
> --
> ⇔ glen
>
>
> 

Re: [FRIAM] if you use google

[Sarbajit Roy]

Try this

http://www.google.com/custom

Sarbajit

On 10/29/15, Gillian Densmore  wrote:
> Some of you that use google might find this handy
>
> http://www.ghacks.net/2015/10/27/google-http-search-yes-it-is-still-possible/
>
>
> recently google.com started to redirect to https causing breakage
>
> Amusingly both opera and firefox (sort of) work better for googles own
> search engine sometimes to
>


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Merle Lefkoff]

Nick,

Yes, you individually can't do anything about climate change, but since
animal agriculture--NOT energy use--causes more than 50% of climate change,
if there is a mass global movement away from meat--that can make a big
difference.  If you haven't seen "Cowspiracy", I think you'd like it and by
now it may be on YouTube.  It's also about both decision making and
behavior.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:18 PM, glen ep ropella 
wrote:

> On 10/28/2015 12:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>> Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the
>> decision-making patterns you describe here.
>>
>
> I don't understand the question.  How similar is my behavior is to my
> decision-making?  That's so over-loaded with implications I can't think
> straight. 8^)  First, what I tried to describe was my behavior, not my
> decision-making.  Your question not only implies that I failed in that, but
> that there's a difference between decision-making and behavior.
> Decision-making and behavior are the same thing.
>
> Second, it's not clear that anything I do can affect climate change at
> all.  Or, let me put it another way.  There are things I can control (like
> voting, calling a representative, arguing in bars, drinking out of reusable
> containers, etc.).  But the connection of any of those things with climate
> change is tenuous.  So, when making my decisions (i.e.  behaving) I rely on
> _lots_ of broad spectrum inputs, parallax, not merely climate change ...
> not a single input.  My decisions (voting, getting to-go beer in a growler,
> etc) are all multiply and heterogeneously justified.  Hence it's misleading
> to impute a single cause for any given behavior/decision.
>
> Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here.  Is it
>> REASONABLE.  Is it REASONING.  Is it EVER reasonable to change your
>> individual behavior on the basis of a population average?
>>
>
> Well, like a broken record, there is no "reason" independent of my
> biological milieu.  I think that implies the answer to your question is "of
> course".  If my biology is driven by, say, the trace minerals in my tap
> water, and most people in my city drink the same tap water, then of course,
> it's reasonable to assume we'll change our behavior _toward_ a population
> average ... probably the same reason we all react to "house music" or
> fruit.  You may _say_ you don't like fructose ... but that highlights the
> ambiguity in "like", not the biology that processs it.
>
> But if your question is intended to invoke the deus ex machina, where
> _thought_ (esp. a single thought) is the causa prima for action, then
> absolutely NO.  That never happens in me and I deny that it happens in you
> or anyone else.
>
> --
> glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
me...@emergentdiplomacy.org
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merlelefkoff

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[FRIAM] if you use google

[Gillian Densmore]

Some of you that use google might find this handy

http://www.ghacks.net/2015/10/27/google-http-search-yes-it-is-still-possible/


recently google.com started to redirect to https causing breakage

Amusingly both opera and firefox (sort of) work better for googles own
search engine sometimes to

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[Nick Thompson]

Larding below!

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

On 10/28/2015 12:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Now, how similar is your behavior in regard to climate change to the
decision-making patterns you describe here.

 

I don't understand the question.  How similar is my behavior is to my
decision-making?  That's so over-loaded with implications I can't think
straight. 8^)  First, what I tried to describe was my behavior, not my
decision-making.  Your question not only implies that I failed in that, but
that there's a difference between decision-making and behavior.
Decision-making and behavior are the same thing.

[NST==>Gak!  Words fail!  Sorry!  I agree there is no difference between
decision making and behavior.  No failure implied.  <==nst] 

 

 

Second, it's not clear that anything I do can affect climate change at all.
Or, let me put it another way.  There are things I can control (like voting,
calling a representative, arguing in bars, drinking out of reusable
containers, etc.).  But the connection of any of those things with climate
change is tenuous.  So, when making my decisions (i.e.  behaving) I rely on
_lots_ of broad spectrum inputs, parallax, not merely climate change ... not
a single input.  My decisions (voting, getting to-go beer in a growler, etc)
are all multiply and heterogeneously justified.  Hence it's misleading to
impute a single cause for any given behavior/decision.

[NST==>Well, remember Glen.  I am a rank Deweyan.  I think that people can
and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly.  One thing that
stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about
climate change.”  I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual
opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst] [NST==>Ok, you are
forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do people who disagree with
one another bother to talk?  What is the good in that?  I assume it’s
because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action.
Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person
in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst] 

 

 

 

> Also: turn your analytic skills on what you are doing here.  Is it
REASONABLE.  Is it REASONING.  Is it EVER reasonable to change your
individual behavior on the basis of a population average?

 

Well, like a broken record, there is no "reason" independent of my
biological milieu.  I think that implies the answer to your question is "of
course".  If my biology is driven by, say, the trace minerals in my tap
water, and most people in my city drink the same tap water, then of course,
it's reasonable to assume we'll change our behavior _toward_ a population
average ... probably the same reason we all react to "house music" or fruit.
You may _say_ you don't like fructose ... but that highlights the ambiguity
in "like", not the biology that processs it.

[NST==>Oh, gosh!  I am beginning to see how naïve (and perhaps
unbehavioristic) my question is.  Does it boil down to, “Are reasons ever
causes.  Crap!  Back to freshman philosophy.”  <==nst] 

 

 

But if your question is intended to invoke the deus ex machina, where
_thought_ (esp. a single thought) is the causa prima for action, then
absolutely NO.  That never happens in me and I deny that it happens in you
or anyone else.

[NST==>WE absolutely agree on that, and I should be pistol-whipped for
straying from that fundamental notion. <==nst] 

 

--

glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

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


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

On 10/28/2015 02:31 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

If you haven't seen "Cowspiracy", I think you'd like it and by
now it may be on YouTube.


Cool!  I hadn't heard of this one.  I didn't find it on youtube.  But I did find 
it on netflix.  I'm sad to see that it's executive producre is Leonardo DiCaprio, 
though.  That guy irritates me. >8^)

--
⇔ glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

[glen]

On 10/28/2015 02:24 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


[NST==>Well, remember Glen.  I am a rank Deweyan.  I think that people can
and ought to discuss and argue, decide, and act concertedly.  One thing that
stands in the way of that is the notion that I can’t “do anything about
climate change.”  I mean isn’t politics just the aggregation of individual
opinion in the service of concerted group action? <==nst]


Yes, but while we have some control over how we are integrated, as an 
individual, we have little/no control over how the whole aggregates ... more 
importantly, we have little/no knowledge of the implications of the aggregate.  
Blind action is no better than nefarious nor worse than virtuous action.


[NST==>Ok, you are
forcing me to own up to my basic question.  Why do people who disagree with
one another bother to talk?  What is the good in that?  I assume it’s
because we are striving for the non-zero-sum gains of concerted action.
Also, there is some evidence, I gather, that involving more than one person
in a decision actually improves the quality of the decision.  <==nst]


Well, my opinion isn't very useful, here.  I tend to think we talk _mostly_ as 
a replacement for grooming each other.  Or perhaps I should phrase it as: most 
of the talk we engage in is meaningless jabber that replaces grooming.  But 
perhaps each of us, all of us, does engage in some sort of reprogramming, at 
least sporadically and rarely.

The best I can do is tell you why _I_ talk (including these tl;dr e-mails).  It 
is in the hopes that I will be reprogrammed.  Every word I read, every noise I 
hear, wherever it comes from, whomever it comes from, _might_ reprogram me.  
There are other ways to be programmed (working in the garden, driving, hiking, 
etc.).  But there is a kind of nuance to talk-talk-based reprogramming that is 
difficult to get at any other way.

--
⇔ glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com