Re: [FRIAM] FW: Ting Internet

[Gillian Densmore]

Hi Nick!
I would LOVE to have more options!

Right now I have DSL. It's peppy for DSL. As importantly it's reliable.
I had Comcast(also known as Cox on the West coast) for about 6Months. It
simply wasn't reliable so I swiched back to CyberMesa who are.



On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Hi, Everybody,
>
>
>
> My $50. Dollar number was way off the mark.  Please read below.
>
>
>
> Sorry,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* MOODY, SEAN [mailto:sxmo...@ci.santa-fe.nm.us]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 04, 2016 9:33 AM
> *To:* Nick Thompson 
> *Subject:* RE: Ting Internet
>
>
>
> Ting’s pricing is shown here : $89/month
> residential gigabit service and $139/month business gigabit service. Thanks
> Nick! Sean.
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net
> ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2016 4:10 PM
> *To:* friam 
> *Subject:* FW: Ting Internet
>
>
>
> Hi, everybody,
>
>
>
> Many of you will recall that a representative of Ting Internet visited
> with “the local chapter” last Friday, hosted by my friend Sean Moody, who
> works for the City.  Ting is a Canadian business whose business model
> includes bringing fiber to cities like Santa Fe.  I asked Sean to get back
> to us, and his report appears below.
>
>
>
> If I understand correctly, the crucial issue seems to be whether enough of
> our fellow citizens are sufficiently fed up with our current service to
> make a switch.  I may have mis-heard, but I thought I heard you guys
> bandying around a number like $50/mo. With   I am certainly in at that
> price.  Does any of you remember that conversation?
>
>
>
> See below,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* MOODY, SEAN [mailto:sxmo...@ci.santa-fe.nm.us
> ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2016 3:18 PM
> *To:* Nick Thompson 
> *Subject:* Ting Internet
>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Please share with FRIAM:
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone for the collegial reception. The visit was quite
> successful. I think Adam got a sufficient taste of Santa Fe to help Ting
>  make a decision. And I got enough insight
> into their business model to understand what the city would need to do to
> rank high on their list of prospective locations. The two factors driving
> an investment decision are the capital expense per service drop, which
> typically ranges between $2,000 and $8,000 depending on local conditions,
> and the expected “take rate”, or ratio of subscribers-to-drops along a
> street or fiber segment, which ranges between 8% and 40% depending on the
> community’s level of satisfaction with current providers.
>
> Our next challenge is to prove to Ting that the take rate will be
> sufficient, and to provide the regulatory environment that will keep
> utility construction costs under control.
>
> I was extremely impressed by this particular company. Fundamental to their
> thinking is the reproducibility of their model across many different urban
> environments. Hence their taking the time to understand Santa Fe. I
> honestly think they've got a page or two on Google Fiber in this regard.
>
>
>
> Lastly, you FRIAM folks may appreciate the graphic below. It illustrates
> the correlation between broadband speed and household income. The report
>  from which it is extracted
> is one of the few I have encountered approaching the issue objectively.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.jpg@01D17467.5F1A7D00]
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Subjectivity and square roots

[Steve Smith]

  
  
I like it...  seems like the precedence
  of tuppence and thruppence adds charm if not validity!


  
  
  
  
Arlo,

 
I
stand corrected.  However, there is something awfully
charming about “thrupple.”  Can I continue to use it? 
 

N
 
Nicholas
S. Thompson
Emeritus
Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark
University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
 
From:
Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Arlo
Barnes
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 3:13 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and square roots
 

  

  On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Nick
Thompson 
wrote:
  
a sign IS a thrupple .. or whatever
  that lovely word is
  

A 3-tuple? I believe "tuple" itself is
  just a generalisation of "double, triple, quadruple,
  quintuple, [...]", with "singleton" being the odd one
  (pun? intended) out. So the word you want is "triple".
  
  
-Arlo James Barnes
  

  
  
  
  
  
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] subjectivity and brain scans

[Marcus Daniels]

Motives are, however, purely mental constructs that are not directly observable.
[NST==>Another knee-slapper.  Granting to the author the notion that the word 
“drive” is equivalent to some notion of “cause”, we learn that behaviors are 
caused by purely mental constructs.  How could anything be “purely” mental if 
it has behavioral consequences.  <==nst]

Well,  I can feel bad about something but nonetheless inhibit my behavior based 
on an analysis of the selfish costs and benefits of intervening, or from fear.  
The point is that patterns of activity could be categorized by type across 
subjects, passively and quantitatively.   Whether those distinct types have any 
one-to-one relationship to words we use in casual philosophical conversation is 
unimportant.  It is interesting only to the extent that there is enough 
scientific consensus about which symbol to assign to which type and that the 
symbols get used in a consistent way.

Marcus


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

Re: [FRIAM] subjectivity and brain scans

[Marcus Daniels]

[NST==>I persist in not seeing the relevance of the physiological information 
to the question of the nature of consciousness or, if one prefers, the question 
of how it makes sense to talk about consciousness.  I assume [from my vast 
store of ignorance] that computer folks would all agree that there is no 
necessary isomorphism between the function that a computer performs and the 
organization of the machine on which the performance is accomplished.

Progressively larger and more complex programs can run on 16, 32, bit and 64 
address space machines.   Games can get by on single precision floating point 
math, but scientific calculations usually require double precision (or more).  
Scalability can be limited by the dimensionality of the network fabric, or by 
the speed of latency or bandwidth of memory.   Some kind of combinatorics 
problems can be done on serial processors, others can be done on massively 
parallel graphics processors, some on custom integrated chips, and others may 
require exploiting quantum entanglement and tunneling.

The hardware tells you about what is possible to feasibly compute given 
constraints like power, heat dissipation, available operating temperatures. and 
time.

Once the hardware is understood, then one can start to rationalize the 
low-level software.  How are errors in signaling handled?  How does the system 
adapt when operating conditions are not ideal?  How can multiple activities be 
coordinated without one risking the other?

Once those low-level software is understood, then higher level behaviors can be 
modeled.Suppose the computing platform was a robot:  How are objects in the 
vicinity converted from light signals (or radar, etc.) into geometric objects?  
 Layer on that, how are geometry objects named?   Layer on that, how do named 
objects relate to one another logically?   Keep going, you’ll eventually get to 
semantics, philosophy, and so on.  All of these things could be described by 
mathematical models, and that model _is_ the best available story of that level 
of the cognitive entity.   Extending the metaphor to biology, the design 
decisions aren’t really design of course, they are just circumstance of 
evolutionary pressures.   They may have mathematical regularities across 
species that are interesting, but it is not clear they must.

In this view, it’s not clear it is even worth talking about until the lower 
levels of processing are understood to be the same or different.I mean, 
I’ll continue to talk to my dog, because I like 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] Subjectivity and square roots

[Nick Thompson]

Arlo, 

 

I stand corrected.  However, there is something awfully charming about 
“thrupple.”  Can I continue to use it? 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 3:13 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and square roots

 

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:

a sign IS a thrupple .. or whatever that lovely word is

A 3-tuple? I believe "tuple" itself is just a generalisation of "double, 
triple, quadruple, quintuple, [...]", with "singleton" being the odd one (pun? 
intended) out. So the word you want is "triple".

-Arlo James Barnes


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] subjectivity and brain scans

[Nick Thompson]

Roger, 

 

Thanks for sending along the Science quote, which is an absolutely perfect 
target for a couple of my pet rages.   See larding:  

 

Goal-directed human behaviors are driven by motives. 

[NST==>That sentence is  all higgledy-piggledy.  Notice that we could flip the 
words “goal-directed” “drive” and “motives” around without loss of meaning.  
Which means, alas, that the sentence has very little meaning whatsoever.  
<==nst] 

Motives are, however, purely mental constructs that are not directly 
observable. 

[NST==>Another knee-slapper.  Granting to the author the notion that the word 
“drive” is equivalent to some notion of “cause”, we learn that behaviors are 
caused by purely mental constructs.  How could anything be “purely” mental if 
it has behavioral consequences.  <==nst] 

Here, we show that the brain’s functional network architecture captures 
information that predicts different motives behind the same altruistic act with 
high accuracy. In contrast, mere activity in these regions contains no 
information about motives. Empathy-based altruism is primarily characterized by 
a positive connectivity from the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) to the 
anterior insula (AI), whereas reciprocity-based altruism additionally invokes 
strong positive connectivity from the AI to the ACC and even stronger positive 
connectivity from the AI to the ventral striatum. Moreover, predominantly 
selfish individuals show distinct functional architectures compared to 
altruists, and they only increase altruistic behavior in response to empathy 
inductions, but not reciprocity inductions.

[NST==>I persist in not seeing the relevance of the physiological information 
to the question of the nature of consciousness or, if one prefers, the question 
of how it makes sense to talk about consciousness.  I assume [from my vast 
store of ignorance] that computer folks would all agree that there is no 
necessary isomorphism between the function that a computer performs and the 
organization of the machine on which the performance is accomplished.  I 
shouldn’t expect that Google Maps uses millions of teensy maps to compute my 
shortest distance to my goal.  Why does telling me that this and that part of 
the brain lights up when we do this or that kind of thing tell us anything 
except what we already know – that the brain is intimately involved in 
behavior.  What could possibly be the alternative?  The disembodied soul?  If 
these studies are to show that, “Yes, indeedy, the brain is deeply involved in 
co-ordinating relations between behavior and the environment (like 
goal-direction, for instance, then, I would have thought that that train had 
left the station long ago.  <==nst] 

 

 

 

Evidently based on subject self reporting "with high accuracy".

[NST==>I assume that if these logical errors are just an example of poor 
abstract writing, some FRIAM member will call me out for not reading the entire 
paper.  I am ready with my mea-culpa’s.  <==nst] 

 

-- rec –

[NST==>Did you know that GE is coming to Boston Harbor.  You will be ideally 
positioned, there in your boat. <==nst] 

[NST==>Nick<==nst] 


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] Subjectivity and square roots

[Arlo Barnes]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> a sign IS a thrupple .. or whatever that lovely word is

A 3-tuple? I believe "tuple" itself is just a generalisation of "double,
triple, quadruple, quintuple, [...]", with "singleton" being the odd one
(pun? intended) out. So the word you want is "triple".
-Arlo James Barnes

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] Subjectivity and square roots

[Nick Thompson]

I perhaps put us back in the pragmatist weeds by using the term "sign".  But 
Glen is right, a sign IS a thrupple .. or whatever that lovely word is, and no 
sign has been identified until all three elements have been specified.   To get 
an intuitive idea of the idea of sign, one might take the example of a monkey 
"predator call".  A predator call (the sign) is is a sign of the presence of a 
predator (the referent) to from the point of view of (the interpretant)  
another monkey.  But the concept of sign, in pragmatism, is much, much, much 
broader.  (And more confusing ... to me.)  And Glen is correct also that all 
three elements of a sign are themselves signs.  Thus every sign is embedded in 
a web of signs.  The final crucial element in pragmatist philosophy (in case 
you-re still with me) is that all experience is in signs.  So Pragmatism treats 
us as living in a stream of experience, in which each experience leads to 
expectatons of other experiences which may or may not be confirmed.  Through 
confirmation and disconfirmation of these expectations we (i.e., all of us, 
together)  erect structures of experience such as, you, me, object, reality, 
true, false, etc, which are, themselves, experiences in good standing.  The 
square root of two is one of those structures of experience, richly confirmed 
in “our” experience.  

 

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: Friday, March 04, 2016 11:19 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and square roots

 

On 03/03/2016 11:16 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

> I find myself confused about what you mean when you say they are 

> "signs that stand in a rigorous, systematic, and extensively confirmed 

> way to ... mathematical relationships". A sign is not (in your

> view) a thing (other than itself) is it? I would have thought that a 

> sign it's a reference to a thing. The thing itself is only brought to 

> mind (in the mind) when looking at and thinking about the sign.

 

A sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple. The set of 3 is the subject of this 
conversation, not any single member of the set.  Any one of the 3 things can be 
handled as itself, separate from that particular 3-tuple.  I.e. any given 
referent object (the thing the sign signifies) can have multiple signs; the 
sign can signify other objects (be part of a different 3-tuple); and the thing 
interpreting the sign can interpret other signs.  E.g.

 

multiple signs: √ versus x^.5

multiple referents:

   • any x such that x*x=2

   • ½[x_n + 2/x_n]|n→∞

multiple interpreters: ZFA versus ZFC

 

The important point is that if you remove any of the 3 objects, you no longer 
have a sign.

 

> So let's say we take a paint

> color strip and ask people to select from a list of five color words 

> (along with non-of-these as an option) the best match to the color 

> experience they have when looking at the strip. Let's say there is 

> essentially universal agreement. Is that good enough to confirm that 

> they all have the same color experience? That sounds more empirical 

> than mathematics and should satisfy your requirement for an 

> experimental experience -- although I'm not sure what you mean by 
> "experimental experience".

 

You keep isolating the machine from its I/O.  If they all get "the same" input 
and give "the same" output, then they are all "the same", up to the strength of 
whatever equivalence is considered.  Any variation that is undetectable is just 
that... undetectable.  Sure, you can _speculate_ on those undetectable 
differences... the differences that don't make a difference.  But why?  To what 
purpose?

 

We've already talked about hypothesis formulation.  So, perhaps the purpose is 
to formulate a new equivalence relation that will detect the differences 
undetectable under the old one.  But you're not talking that way.  You seem to 
want to promote speculated constructs up to a significance that's unwarranted 
... to talk about thoughts and feelings as if they exist, without any 
similarity measure with which to falsify them.

 

--

⇔ 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

[FRIAM] FW: Ting Internet

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Everybody, 

 

My $50. Dollar number was way off the mark.  Please read below.  

 

Sorry, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: MOODY, SEAN [mailto:sxmo...@ci.santa-fe.nm.us] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 9:33 AM
To: Nick Thompson 
Subject: RE: Ting Internet

 

Ting's pricing is shown here  : $89/month
residential gigabit service and $139/month business gigabit service. Thanks
Nick! Sean.

 

From: Nick Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 4:10 PM
To: friam  >
Subject: FW: Ting Internet

 

Hi, everybody, 

 

Many of you will recall that a representative of Ting Internet visited with
"the local chapter" last Friday, hosted by my friend Sean Moody, who works
for the City.  Ting is a Canadian business whose business model includes
bringing fiber to cities like Santa Fe.  I asked Sean to get back to us, and
his report appears below.  

 

If I understand correctly, the crucial issue seems to be whether enough of
our fellow citizens are sufficiently fed up with our current service to make
a switch.  I may have mis-heard, but I thought I heard you guys bandying
around a number like $50/mo. With   I am certainly in at that price.  Does
any of you remember that conversation? 

 

See below, 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: MOODY, SEAN [mailto:sxmo...@ci.santa-fe.nm.us] 
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 3:18 PM
To: Nick Thompson  >
Subject: Ting Internet

 

Hi Nick,

Please share with FRIAM:

 

Thanks to everyone for the collegial reception. The visit was quite
successful. I think Adam got a sufficient taste of Santa Fe to help
 Ting make a decision. And I got enough insight
into their business model to understand what the city would need to do to
rank high on their list of prospective locations. The two factors driving an
investment decision are the capital expense per service drop, which
typically ranges between $2,000 and $8,000 depending on local conditions,
and the expected "take rate", or ratio of subscribers-to-drops along a
street or fiber segment, which ranges between 8% and 40% depending on the
community's level of satisfaction with current providers. 

Our next challenge is to prove to Ting that the take rate will be
sufficient, and to provide the regulatory environment that will keep utility
construction costs under control.

I was extremely impressed by this particular company. Fundamental to their
thinking is the reproducibility of their model across many different urban
environments. Hence their taking the time to understand Santa Fe. I honestly
think they've got a page or two on Google Fiber in this regard.

 

Lastly, you FRIAM folks may appreciate the graphic below. It illustrates the
correlation between broadband speed and household income. The report
  from which it is extracted is
one of the few I have encountered approaching the issue objectively.

 

Sean

 



 


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] Subjectivity and square roots

[glen]

On 03/04/2016 11:17 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:

All that is much to sophisticated for me.  I don't have a theory or a model
(e.g., in terms of interpreters) for how the mind works.


Heh, you claim it's too sophisticated and that you don't have a theory or a 
model for how the mind works, yet you _write_ as if you do.  The things Eric 
and Nick have said would make complete sense if you had no theory/model.  They 
may end up being incomplete.  But they're coherent (as far as I can tell).  I 
believe I'm the same thing they're saying, just in different language.

What I think is actually happening is that you do have a theory/model and what 
Nick and Eric say simply doesn't fit your theory/model.  That's OK, of course.  
But it'll continue to be difficult to compare your model with theirs as long as 
you won't explain your model.


This all started as a discussion of subjective behavior. It has drifted
into a discussion of thinking more generally -- and in particular thinking
about mathematical "objects." I see the drift as a positive development
since we all presumably agree about what things like "the square root of 2"
means. Yet the referent of "the square root of 2" is not (I still claim) a
material thing. It is (I still claim) a mental construct, and it exists (at
least and perhaps only) in the mind.


We don't all agree, I think.  The √2 is extremely hard to conceive, I think.  
Irrational numbers are naively defined in the negative, as any number that's 
not a rational number.  This indicates to me that they are _not_ mental 
constructs at all.  They are linguistic/algebraic/definitional (whatever) 
constructs for most of us.  (I'm not ruling out that people like Leibniz or 
Penrose did/do conceive them... but most people probably don't.)

And language/algebra/definitions are concrete things referred to by symbols like √ in the 
same way actual cats are referred to by symbols like "cat" (and interpreted by 
things like humans).


 I see that as important to this
discussion since Nick and Eric claim (as I understand them) that talk of
things being in the mind is meaningless.


I don't think they've intended to say that it's completely meaningless.  I do think 
they've said that whatever happens in "the mind" can be (can only be) precisely 
described through it's I/O.  This seems like the same thing as the holographic principle: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle  And although it may not be true, 
it's certainly a pretty solid idea.

--
⇔ 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] Subjectivity and square roots

[Russ Abbott]

All that is much to sophisticated for me.  I don't have a theory or a model
(e.g., in terms of interpreters) for how the mind works.

This all started as a discussion of subjective behavior. It has drifted
into a discussion of thinking more generally -- and in particular thinking
about mathematical "objects." I see the drift as a positive development
since we all presumably agree about what things like "the square root of 2"
means. Yet the referent of "the square root of 2" is not (I still claim) a
material thing. It is (I still claim) a mental construct, and it exists (at
least and perhaps only) in the mind.I see that as important to this
discussion since Nick and Eric claim (as I understand them) that talk of
things being in the mind is meaningless. So the discussion comes down to
the question of whether mathematical constructs are meaningless or how Nick
and Eric define what such things mean without talking about thinking about
them. (Or perhaps I'm wrong and Nick and Eric think it's ok to talk about
thinking about things -- where by "thinking" I mean what most people have
in mind by that term. I guess I can use "have in mind" in this discussion
since Nick himself used it.)

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM glen  wrote:

> On 03/04/2016 10:27 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > I must have missed the message where you talked about the 3-tuple and
> don't
> > understand what you mean that a sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple and
> > why it matters. Nick talked about a sign; I was distinguishing a sign
> from
> > its referent -- which you do too. I also said the reference is often a
> > mental construct. I'm not sure how your comment relates to that
> framework.
>
> This is the 1st time I've mentioned the 3-tuple.  Sorry.  It was my guess
> at Nick's use of the word "sign".
>
> It relates to "mental constructs" at least because you have to place the
> "mental construct" in one of the 3 types: referent, sign, interpreter.  I
> gave mathematical examples because you expressed confusion over what Nick
> might have meant by "They are signs that stand in a rigorous, systematic,
> and extensively confirmed way for a vast collection of mathematical
> relationships."  I presume you intend to put "mental constructs" in the
> interpreter category, but maybe not.  They could be in any category.  For
> example, the mental construct I have of cat-like can be a sign for a
> particular image of one of my cats (yes, I have more than one,
> unfortunately).  And the interpreter is the mental construct(s) I use to
> organize the house (feeding times, expected behaviors, etc.) with respect
> to those cats.
>
> --
> ⇔ 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] Subjectivity and square roots

[glen]

On 03/04/2016 10:27 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:

I must have missed the message where you talked about the 3-tuple and don't
understand what you mean that a sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple and
why it matters. Nick talked about a sign; I was distinguishing a sign from
its referent -- which you do too. I also said the reference is often a
mental construct. I'm not sure how your comment relates to that framework.


This is the 1st time I've mentioned the 3-tuple.  Sorry.  It was my guess at Nick's use 
of the word "sign".

It relates to "mental constructs" at least because you have to place the "mental construct" in one 
of the 3 types: referent, sign, interpreter.  I gave mathematical examples because you expressed confusion over what 
Nick might have meant by "They are signs that stand in a rigorous, systematic, and extensively confirmed way for a 
vast collection of mathematical relationships."  I presume you intend to put "mental constructs" in the 
interpreter category, but maybe not.  They could be in any category.  For example, the mental construct I have of 
cat-like can be a sign for a particular image of one of my cats (yes, I have more than one, unfortunately).  And the 
interpreter is the mental construct(s) I use to organize the house (feeding times, expected behaviors, etc.) with 
respect to those cats.

--
⇔ 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] Ting Internet

[Gary Schiltz]

I don't blame folks for lamenting the sad state of internet in Santa Fe,
nor in the rest of the USA. On the other hand, down here in Ecuador, I'd be
ecstatic to get 5mbps down for under $100. I understand that given a
connection to fiber, the unshared bandwidth itself costs $120 mbps/month.
The small ISP that I get my connection through buys 17 mb/s per month via
fiber and divides it up among roughly 80 customers, capped at about 2 mb/s
each. If everyone is maxing out their connection (worst case), they get
17/80 mbps, or about 250 kbps. It's usually better than that, but it often
is that bad. The ISP pays $120*17=$2040 per month for the raw bandwidth,
and if each of his clients pays their $35 every month, he makes roughly
$800 for the month (but then, there are a lot of deadbeats). Good thing he
also has a cybercafe, keeps bees and sells honey...

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Barry MacKichan <
barry.mackic...@mackichan.com> wrote:

> What I remember is what is on their web site: $89 for home, $139 for
> business. The $50 was mentioned as the difference. It sounds like I had the
> highest download speed in the group currently, 80mb/s, but still I am
> willing to commit to switching to Ting. In fact, I’d commit to the business
> rate. It would give me 12 times the download speed and 58 times the upload
> speed, but mostly it would give us much more reliable service.
>
> --Barry
>

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] Subjectivity and square roots

[Russ Abbott]

I must have missed the message where you talked about the 3-tuple and don't
understand what you mean that a sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple and
why it matters. Nick talked about a sign; I was distinguishing a sign from
its referent -- which you do too. I also said the reference is often a
mental construct. I'm not sure how your comment relates to that framework.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:18 AM glen  wrote:

> On 03/03/2016 11:16 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > I find myself confused about what you mean when you say
> > they are "signs that stand in a rigorous, systematic, and extensively
> > confirmed way to ... mathematical relationships". A sign is not (in your
> > view) a thing (other than itself) is it? I would have thought that a sign
> > it's a reference to a thing. The thing itself is only brought to mind (in
> > the mind) when looking at and thinking about the sign.
>
> A sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple. The set of 3 is the subject of
> this conversation, not any single member of the set.  Any one of the 3
> things can be handled as itself, separate from that particular 3-tuple.
> I.e. any given referent object (the thing the sign signifies) can have
> multiple signs; the sign can signify other objects (be part of a different
> 3-tuple); and the thing interpreting the sign can interpret other signs.
> E.g.
>
> multiple signs: √ versus x^.5
> multiple referents:
>• any x such that x*x=2
>• ½[x_n + 2/x_n]|n→∞
> multiple interpreters: ZFA versus ZFC
>
> The important point is that if you remove any of the 3 objects, you no
> longer have a sign.
>
> > So let's say we take a paint
> > color strip and ask people to select from a list of five color words
> (along
> > with non-of-these as an option) the best match to the color experience
> they
> > have when looking at the strip. Let's say there is essentially universal
> > agreement. Is that good enough to confirm that they all have the same
> color
> > experience? That sounds more empirical than mathematics and should
> satisfy
> > your requirement for an experimental experience -- although I'm not sure
> > what you mean by "experimental experience".
>
> You keep isolating the machine from its I/O.  If they all get "the same"
> input and give "the same" output, then they are all "the same", up to the
> strength of whatever equivalence is considered.  Any variation that is
> undetectable is just that... undetectable.  Sure, you can _speculate_ on
> those undetectable differences... the differences that don't make a
> difference.  But why?  To what purpose?
>
> We've already talked about hypothesis formulation.  So, perhaps the
> purpose is to formulate a new equivalence relation that will detect the
> differences undetectable under the old one.  But you're not talking that
> way.  You seem to want to promote speculated constructs up to a
> significance that's unwarranted ... to talk about thoughts and feelings as
> if they exist, without any similarity measure with which to falsify them.
>
> --
> ⇔ 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] Subjectivity and square roots

[glen]

On 03/03/2016 11:16 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

I find myself confused about what you mean when you say
they are "signs that stand in a rigorous, systematic, and extensively
confirmed way to ... mathematical relationships". A sign is not (in your
view) a thing (other than itself) is it? I would have thought that a sign
it's a reference to a thing. The thing itself is only brought to mind (in
the mind) when looking at and thinking about the sign.


A sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple. The set of 3 is the subject of this 
conversation, not any single member of the set.  Any one of the 3 things can be 
handled as itself, separate from that particular 3-tuple.  I.e. any given 
referent object (the thing the sign signifies) can have multiple signs; the 
sign can signify other objects (be part of a different 3-tuple); and the thing 
interpreting the sign can interpret other signs.  E.g.

   multiple signs: √ versus x^.5
   multiple referents:
  • any x such that x*x=2
  • ½[x_n + 2/x_n]|n→∞
   multiple interpreters: ZFA versus ZFC

The important point is that if you remove any of the 3 objects, you no longer 
have a sign.


So let's say we take a paint
color strip and ask people to select from a list of five color words (along
with non-of-these as an option) the best match to the color experience they
have when looking at the strip. Let's say there is essentially universal
agreement. Is that good enough to confirm that they all have the same color
experience? That sounds more empirical than mathematics and should satisfy
your requirement for an experimental experience -- although I'm not sure
what you mean by "experimental experience".


You keep isolating the machine from its I/O.  If they all get "the same" input and give "the 
same" output, then they are all "the same", up to the strength of whatever equivalence is 
considered.  Any variation that is undetectable is just that... undetectable.  Sure, you can _speculate_ on 
those undetectable differences... the differences that don't make a difference.  But why?  To what purpose?

We've already talked about hypothesis formulation.  So, perhaps the purpose is 
to formulate a new equivalence relation that will detect the differences 
undetectable under the old one.  But you're not talking that way.  You seem to 
want to promote speculated constructs up to a significance that's unwarranted 
... to talk about thoughts and feelings as if they exist, without any 
similarity measure with which to falsify them.

--
⇔ 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] subjectivity and brain scans

[Marcus Daniels]

Here’s an older one from one of the authors that is free.  The new paper gets 
at directionality – the beginnings of starting to infer the `state machine’.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312004874

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 10:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] subjectivity and brain scans

Roger,
Do you have access to the PDF?  Can you send it to me?  Thanks.
Merle

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Roger Critchlow 
> wrote:
In today's issue of Science, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1074

Goal-directed human behaviors are driven by motives. Motives are, however, 
purely mental constructs that are not directly observable. Here, we show that 
the brain’s functional network architecture captures information that predicts 
different motives behind the same altruistic act with high accuracy. In 
contrast, mere activity in these regions contains no information about motives. 
Empathy-based altruism is primarily characterized by a positive connectivity 
from the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) to the anterior insula (AI), whereas 
reciprocity-based altruism additionally invokes strong positive connectivity 
from the AI to the ACC and even stronger positive connectivity from the AI to 
the ventral striatum. Moreover, predominantly selfish individuals show distinct 
functional architectures compared to altruists, and they only increase 
altruistic behavior in response to empathy inductions, but not reciprocity 
inductions.

Evidently based on subject self reporting "with high accuracy".

-- rec --


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



--
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

Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and cartoons

[John Kennison]

Eric,
Why would you ask about the pain IN the video? Shouldn't the person reply. "I 
don't believe in pain IN anything because, for me, pain is not internal it is 
external."

Nick,
That was a neat way of touching there square root of 2. If we changed it to the 
cube root of 2, we have a classic unsolved problem of Ancient Geek geometry 
--Duplicating the Cube: "To construct, with ruler and compasses, the length of 
the side of a cube which has twice the volume of a given cube". It has been 
proven (to the satisfaction of mathematicians)  that this is impossible.

Nick,
How can a person learn when he is hungry by observing other people? Perhaps he 
can recognize socially induced hunger (as in "at a party, we expect food") but 
do people usually detect low blood sugar in themselves  by observing the 
behavior of others? 


From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Eric Charles 
[eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 9:23 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and cartoons

I'm not sure what to make of the cartoon comment either. Let's say we all agree 
that a person in front of us is in pain. Let's say we video tape that person 
and show it to someone else.

We ask our viewer afterwards "Did you see pain in that video?"

And he say "Yes."

Then we say, "Wait, you mean to tell me that those flat, pixilated colors on 
the screen were in pain?"

"No, no," they insist, "the person you video taped was in pain, the image 
itself wasn't!"

"But we asked you about the video," we assert confidently, "we want to know if 
there is pain in the video."

"Well, look... this is getting weird," he replies, "I'm leaving."

I kind of feel like we would end up in the same place if we tried to have a 
serious discussion about cartoons.

It is not, in Nick's position, an issue of a "sufficiently convincing 
performance." Certainly one can be fooled by people through various means, so 
we don't even need robots for that discussion. When we say, of a person that 
they gave a "convincing performance" what we mean is something like "When you 
look at a wider swath of that guy's behavior, you find that the chunk of 
behavior you originally studied is part of a very different pattern than you 
had originally assumed."

For example, a person who looks terribly dejected on a street corner holding a 
sign that speaks of their woes, but if you watch when they leave their post, 
they travel back to a perfectly middle-class house, change into nice clean 
clothes, and go about a normal life. That would be a "convincing performance." 
Note that we can speculate about whether it is a performance based on much less 
than that. Ultimately, however, we become certain it was "a performance" only 
by observing a larger swath of the world.





---
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Lab Manager
Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning
American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
phone: (202) 885-3867   fax: (202) 885-1190
email: echar...@american.edu

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Nick Thompson 
> wrote:
Russ,

I am torn between judging your cartoon comment as silly or profound.

I have said that if a robot could be devised that was embedded in a social 
network of other robots, that systematically avoided injurious events and 
stimuli, that engaged in some communicative behavior when injured to which 
other robots responded by coming to its rescue, then I would have to entertain 
the notion that these robots experience pain.  To me, pain is all of that.  
Hard to imagine a cartoon doing that.  Hence my first judgment that the idea is 
frivolous.  (But probably not a lot more frivolous than my idea that motivation 
is like the first derivative of behavior.)   I think perhaps the comment 
confuses the map with the territory, as Bateson used to say.

So, now I am stuck with trying to figure out why I might possibly think it 
profound.  But let’s make the example as favorable to your case as we can.  Let 
it be the case that you experience me being horrible tortured by the CIA.  Do 
you experience pain.  If you are not a psychopath, probably yes.  Do you 
experience MY pain.  No, because my pain occurs against an entirely different 
history of experiences, including, by the way, the occlusion of my airway by 
the wet washcloth and the poured water. .

Something like that.

Nick





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

From: Friam 
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf 
Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
Subject: [FRIAM] 

Re: [FRIAM] Ting Internet

[Barry MacKichan]

What I remember is what is on their web site: $89 for home, $139 for 
business. The $50 was mentioned as the difference. It sounds like I had 
the highest download speed in the group currently, 80mb/s, but still I 
am willing to commit to switching to Ting. In fact, I’d commit to the 
business rate. It would give me 12 times the download speed and 58 times 
the upload speed, but mostly it would give us much more reliable 
service.


--Barry


On 3 Mar 2016, at 16:09, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi, everybody,



Many of you will recall that a representative of Ting Internet visited 
with
"the local chapter" last Friday, hosted by my friend Sean Moody, who 
works
for the City.  Ting is a Canadian business whose business model 
includes
bringing fiber to cities like Santa Fe.  I asked Sean to get back to 
us, and

his report appears below.



If I understand correctly, the crucial issue seems to be whether 
enough of
our fellow citizens are sufficiently fed up with our current service 
to make
a switch.  I may have mis-heard, but I thought I heard you guys 
bandying
around a number like $50/mo. With   I am certainly in at that price.  
Does

any of you remember that conversation?



See below,



Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University


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



From: MOODY, SEAN [mailto:sxmo...@ci.santa-fe.nm.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 3:18 PM
To: Nick Thompson 
Subject: Ting Internet



Hi Nick,

Please share with FRIAM:



Thanks to everyone for the collegial reception. The visit was quite
successful. I think Adam got a sufficient taste of Santa Fe to help
 Ting make a decision. And I got enough 
insight
into their business model to understand what the city would need to do 
to
rank high on their list of prospective locations. The two factors 
driving an

investment decision are the capital expense per service drop, which
typically ranges between $2,000 and $8,000 depending on local 
conditions,

and the expected "take rate", or ratio of subscribers-to-drops along a
street or fiber segment, which ranges between 8% and 40% depending on 
the

community's level of satisfaction with current providers.

Our next challenge is to prove to Ting that the take rate will be
sufficient, and to provide the regulatory environment that will keep 
utility

construction costs under control.

I was extremely impressed by this particular company. Fundamental to 
their
thinking is the reproducibility of their model across many different 
urban
environments. Hence their taking the time to understand Santa Fe. I 
honestly

think they've got a page or two on Google Fiber in this regard.



Lastly, you FRIAM folks may appreciate the graphic below. It 
illustrates the

correlation between broadband speed and household income. The report
  from which it is 
extracted is

one of the few I have encountered approaching the issue objectively.



Sean








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

[FRIAM] That Time Of Year Rant-

[Gillian Densmore]

Rant rant:
Changing the clock around because---reasons!

Can SOMEBODY pls pls PLS form everyone's sanity decide on either one OR the
other. I personally like it nice and light out march- most of octoberish

PERSONALLY the current system pisses me off!

Oh and rant rant google calenders seems to only show SOME parts of my week
to week agenda rant rant rant google did you change that? or is that a bug
with FireFox

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] subjectivity and brain scans

[Marcus Daniels]

I’d like to see a contrast between, say, bleeding heart liberals, and the more 
cunning or hawkish ones.How does Bernie compare to Hillary?Do they both 
have the same motive indicators / emotional response, and then modulate it in 
different ways as actions are taken or not?

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 7:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] subjectivity and brain scans

In today's issue of Science, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1074

Goal-directed human behaviors are driven by motives. Motives are, however, 
purely mental constructs that are not directly observable. Here, we show that 
the brain’s functional network architecture captures information that predicts 
different motives behind the same altruistic act with high accuracy. In 
contrast, mere activity in these regions contains no information about motives. 
Empathy-based altruism is primarily characterized by a positive connectivity 
from the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) to the anterior insula (AI), whereas 
reciprocity-based altruism additionally invokes strong positive connectivity 
from the AI to the ACC and even stronger positive connectivity from the AI to 
the ventral striatum. Moreover, predominantly selfish individuals show distinct 
functional architectures compared to altruists, and they only increase 
altruistic behavior in response to empathy inductions, but not reciprocity 
inductions.

Evidently based on subject self reporting "with high accuracy".

-- rec --

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

[FRIAM] subjectivity and brain scans

[Roger Critchlow]

In today's issue of Science,
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1074

Goal-directed human behaviors are driven by motives. Motives are, however,
purely mental constructs that are not directly observable. Here, we show
that the brain’s functional network architecture captures information that
predicts different motives behind the same altruistic act with high
accuracy. In contrast, mere activity in these regions contains no
information about motives. Empathy-based altruism is primarily
characterized by a positive connectivity from the anterior cingulate cortex
(ACC) to the anterior insula (AI), whereas reciprocity-based altruism
additionally invokes strong positive connectivity from the AI to the ACC
and even stronger positive connectivity from the AI to the ventral
striatum. Moreover, predominantly selfish individuals show distinct
functional architectures compared to altruists, and they only increase
altruistic behavior in response to empathy inductions, but not reciprocity
inductions.

Evidently based on subject self reporting "with high accuracy".

-- rec --

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

Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and cartoons

[Eric Charles]

I'm not sure what to make of the cartoon comment either. Let's say we all
agree that a person in front of us is in pain. Let's say we video tape that
person and show it to someone else.

We ask our viewer afterwards "Did you see pain in that video?"

And he say "Yes."

Then we say, "Wait, you mean to tell me that those flat, pixilated colors
on the screen were in pain?"

"No, no," they insist, "the person you video taped was in pain, the image
itself wasn't!"

"But we asked you about the video," we assert confidently, "we want to know
if there is pain in the video."

"Well, look... this is getting weird," he replies, "I'm leaving."

I kind of feel like we would end up in the same place if we tried to have a
serious discussion about cartoons.

It is not, in Nick's position, an issue of a "sufficiently convincing
performance." Certainly one can be fooled by people through various means,
so we don't even need robots for that discussion. When we say, of a *person
*that they gave a "convincing performance" what we mean is something like
"When you look at a wider swath of that guy's behavior, you find that the
chunk of behavior you originally studied is part of a very different
pattern than you had originally assumed."

For example, a person who looks terribly dejected on a street corner
holding a sign that speaks of their woes, but if you watch when they leave
their post, they travel back to a perfectly middle-class house, change into
nice clean clothes, and go about a normal life. That would be a "convincing
performance." Note that we can speculate about whether it is a performance
based on much less than that. Ultimately, however, we become certain it was
"a performance" only by observing a larger swath of the world.





---
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Lab Manager
Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning
American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
phone: (202) 885-3867   fax: (202) 885-1190
email: echar...@american.edu

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Russ,
>
>
>
> I am torn between judging your cartoon comment as silly or profound.
>
>
>
> I have said that if a robot could be devised that was embedded in a social
> network of other robots, that systematically avoided injurious events and
> stimuli, that engaged in some communicative behavior when injured to which
> other robots responded by coming to its rescue, then I would have to
> entertain the notion that these robots experience pain.  To me, pain is all
> of that.  Hard to imagine a cartoon doing that.  Hence my first judgment
> that the idea is frivolous.  (But probably not a lot more frivolous than my
> idea that motivation is like the first derivative of behavior.)   I think
> perhaps the comment confuses the map with the territory, as Bateson used to
> say.
>
>
>
> So, now I am stuck with trying to figure out why I might possibly think it
> profound.  But let’s make the example as favorable to your case as we can.
> Let it be the case that you experience me being horrible tortured by the
> CIA.  Do you experience pain.  If you are not a psychopath, probably yes.
> Do you experience MY pain.  No, because my pain occurs against an entirely
> different history of experiences, including, by the way, the occlusion of
> my airway by the wet washcloth and the poured water. .
>
>
>
> Something like that.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
> Abbott
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:12 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity and cartoons
>
>
>
> Nick (and I think Eric) said that a sufficiently convincing performance of
> pain behavior by a robot is pain. I asked whether a sufficiently convincing
> animated depiction of pain behavior via a cartoon is also pain? In other
> words, can a cartoonist create pain by drawing it?
>
>
>
> In asking that I don't mean the cartoonists own pain or pain in the
> viewer, but pain in the world in the same way that some third party has
> pain whether or not someone sees his pain behavior.
>
> 
> 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

[FRIAM] Psychology Is in Crisis Over Whether It’s in Crisis | WIRED

[Jochen Fromm]

Meanwhile in 
psychology...http://www.wired.com/2016/03/psychology-crisis-whether-crisis/
-Jochen

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
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