Re: [FRIAM] KRACK

[Russell Standish]

It's big alright. Linux and Android are particularly badly affected. I
tried upgrading my Linux WiFi client yesterday when the news first
broke, but the fix only landed overnight, so I've managed to update this
morning. Not too shabby - MS, Google and Apple all had about a month's
head start on the open source OSes. 

I'm going to have to do a full upgrade of my laptop, as the OS on that
looks like it is too old to be fixed.

I updated the firmware on my WiFi router yesterday, but there's no
indication of whether there is a KRACK problem, or when any fix might
be coming... :(.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:09:00AM -0600, Robert Wall wrote:
> Thanks for the heads-up, Glen!
> 
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:55 AM, ┣glen┫  wrote:
> 
> > Key Reinstallation Attacks
> > Breaking WPA2 by forcing nonce reuse
> > https://www.krackattacks.com/
> >
> > > We discovered serious weaknesses in WPA2, a protocol that secures all
> > modern protected Wi-Fi networks. An attacker within range of a victim can
> > exploit these weaknesses using key reinstallation attacks (KRACKs).
> > Concretely, attackers can use this novel attack technique to read
> > information that was previously assumed to be safely encrypted. This can be
> > abused to steal sensitive information such as credit card numbers,
> > passwords, chat messages, emails, photos, and so on. The attack works
> > against all modern protected Wi-Fi networks. Depending on the network
> > configuration, it is also possible to inject and manipulate data. For
> > example, an attacker might be able to inject ransomware or other malware
> > into websites.
> > >
> > > The weaknesses are in the Wi-Fi standard itself, and not in individual
> > products or implementations. Therefore, any correct implementation of WPA2
> > is likely affected. To prevent the attack, users must update affected
> > products as soon as security updates become available. Note that if your
> > device supports Wi-Fi, it is most likely affected. During our initial
> > research, we discovered ourselves that Android, Linux, Apple, Windows,
> > OpenBSD, MediaTek, Linksys, and others, are all affected by some variant of
> > the attacks. For more information about specific products, consult the
> > database of CERT/CC, or contact your vendor.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ␦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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Steven A Smith]

Dave sez:

It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
"infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

It sounds as if you believe that resonance, mode locking, phase locking, 
tidal locking, etc.  are somehow defective ways for systems to 
interact.   I can agree that they are modestly less interesting than 
more chaotic systems.   While *I* might find a marching (esp. if they 
are goose-stepping) army aberrant (and abhorrent), I might find a 
*marching band* or *synchronized swimmers* or a dance-troupe following a 
choreography (e.g. Cirque de Soliel perfomance) somehow beautiful.  And 
I would suggest these are examples of what you are judging as 
"defective"?   I suppose that since only a *subsystem* of the units 
(dancers/musicians/soldiers) are mode/phase-locked for the duration of 
the march/performance, that this is only a partial example and therefore 
only *partially* defective/faulty?


I believe it is in the liminal space which fills the near-locality of a 
shared "dialect" where the interesting stuff happens, not unlike in 
dynamical systems' "edge of chaos".   I agree with the technical 
expression that any "statement of Truth" is a defect, but that does not 
mean that it doesn't gesture in the direction of, or roughly 
circumscribe, or provide a proxy for a more transcendent "truth".    One 
*might* argue that each individual has a private, idiosyncratic dialect 
of "the same language", and that interaction amongst individuals whose 
dialects are similar enough to intend to agree/discuss/converge/??


I would claim that a well formed question suggests a family of "answers" 
and thereby hints at what we want to believe in as "truth".


This paper may (or may not) offer some perspective on the evolution of a 
language/dialect and teh convergence/coherence issue.


https://www.researchgate.net/project/Coherence-Convergence-and-Change-A-Sociolinguistic-Variationist-Approach-to-Dialect-and-Standard-Language-Use-in-Swabia

- Steve


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Well, to be clear, I think the idea of your sensor-web-effector individuals 
squirming in a machine is perfectly consistent with Peirce's conception of 
reality.  The disconnect lies in the extent to which that machine (in which the 
sensor-web-effector individuals squirm) is "fixed once and for all", as 
Feferman puts it.  Peirce's conception of reality seems to rely on that 
fixation, that definiteness, the one, fixed, master structure in which we all 
swim.  Feferman's observation that working mathematicians are at once Platonic, 
yet don't limit themselves to any single formalism, seems to argue from your 
perspective: that reality is not fixed, definite, and if a sensor-web-effector 
individual becomes fixated AS IF the reality in which it swims were fixed, then 
that limited delusion is what it calls "truth" (a truth, the truth, etc.).  
Rosen would agree with you as well, by claiming that our mathematics, logic, 
and "inferential entailment" methods are impoverished when compared to reality 
("causal entailment").

But it's important to look at Peirce's synoptic understanding of logic and 
math.  A good example is his existential graphs, which encompassed more than 
first order logic, including higher-order and modal logic.  My guess is Peirce 
would readily entertain ideas like Feferman's schematic axiomatic systems as a 
way to enrich our logics so as to handle the dynamism of working 
mathematicians, and perhaps that pointed out by you or Rosen.


On 10/17/2017 01:18 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nothing about language or thought, but a hint of the truth-preserving
> machine in which people squirm that Glen described.


-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Dave, 

Sounds like your definition of truth is a lot like Peirce's definition of 
"belief" -- "a believe is a conception upon which we are prepared to act".  So, 
Peirce's belief, like West's Truth, is presumably local.  Beliefs can be shared 
but they don't have to be to be beliefs.  

So, on your account, Truth is defined as local.  Can Truths be shared?  Or, for 
the purposes of your definition of truth, each truth is unique to the person 
who holds it.  Does a truth have to be unique to a person to be a truth?  

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 Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:19 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

truth is — the persistence of a particular wiring path in an immensely 
complicated, and otherwise dynamic, web of connections among billions of 
sensors capturing input and hundreds of thousands of effectors generating 
output from one state of the sensors-web-effectors to
another.truth is a 'failure', a 'defect';  a means for avoiding
constant re-establishment of the entirety of the web in response to constantly 
changing inputs / values of inputs.

Truth isn't.

To anthropomorphize the definition: truth is behavior that persists because the 
individual fails to re-evaluate the totality of inputs/outputs/connections 
that, in some previous state of that individual, first established the 
particular behavior. Like cancer, these persistences can be relatively benign, 
sometimes fatal, but they are always a defect.

Nothing about language or thought, but a hint of the truth-preserving machine 
in which people squirm that Glen described.

It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to "infect" 
another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the behavior. If that 
happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more than collective 'fault'/ 
'defectiveness'.

As to dualism/ naive-realism - I give no more truck to Descartes than Nick. 
Perhaps, ala Vedism, once in the near infinite past there was 'mind-stuff' and 
'matter-stuff' and perhaps once again in the near infinite future that dualism 
will be re-established. But in the meantime issues of dualism tend not to 
edification.

dave


On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 12:54 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote:
> Excellent!  So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can 
> ask him if his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with 
> respect to what you or I think"?  Dave?
> 
> FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion 
> that locality (scope) is set by the language.  And so, it's less about 
> what one *thinks* and more about the 
> platform/context/truth-preserving-machine
> in which the people find themselves squirming around.  If such 
> truth-scope is defined in that way, then we're a lot closer to 
> Peirce's concept of reality being whatever consequences our language 
> *deduces* to ... whatever sentences are evaluated as true in that 
> language.  And, here Dave and Peirce agree.  Change the language, and 
> you change what evaluates to true in that language.
> 
> 
> On 10/17/2017 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say 
> > that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we 
> > get it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because 
> > there are two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and 
> > the mind stuff in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, 
> > there is a truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I 
> > think, as well as a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we 
> > think is true of the world. 
> 
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
> 
> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

truth is — the persistence of a particular wiring path in an immensely
complicated, and otherwise dynamic, web of connections among billions of
sensors capturing input and hundreds of thousands of effectors
generating output from one state of the sensors-web-effectors to
another.truth is a 'failure', a 'defect';  a means for avoiding
constant re-establishment of the entirety of the web in response to
constantly changing inputs / values of inputs.

Truth isn't.

To anthropomorphize the definition: truth is behavior that persists
because the individual fails to re-evaluate the totality of
inputs/outputs/connections that, in some previous state of that
individual, first established the particular behavior. Like cancer,
these persistences can be relatively benign, sometimes fatal, but they
are always a defect.

Nothing about language or thought, but a hint of the truth-preserving
machine in which people squirm that Glen described.

It is certainly possible for one sensor-web-effector state machine to
"infect" another, i.e. stimulate a second machine to replicate the
behavior. If that happens we have 'convergence' which is nothing more
than collective 'fault'/ 'defectiveness'.

As to dualism/ naive-realism - I give no more truck to Descartes than
Nick. Perhaps, ala Vedism, once in the near infinite past there was
'mind-stuff' and 'matter-stuff' and perhaps once again in the near
infinite future that dualism will be re-established. But in the meantime
issues of dualism tend not to edification.

dave


On Tue, Oct 17, 2017, at 12:54 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote:
> Excellent!  So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can ask
> him if his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with respect
> to what you or I think"?  Dave?
> 
> FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion that
> locality (scope) is set by the language.  And so, it's less about what
> one *thinks* and more about the platform/context/truth-preserving-machine
> in which the people find themselves squirming around.  If such
> truth-scope is defined in that way, then we're a lot closer to Peirce's
> concept of reality being whatever consequences our language *deduces* to
> ... whatever sentences are evaluated as true in that language.  And, here
> Dave and Peirce agree.  Change the language, and you change what
> evaluates to true in that language.
> 
> 
> On 10/17/2017 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say 
> > that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we 
> > get it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because 
> > there are two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and 
> > the mind stuff in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, 
> > there is a truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I 
> > think, as well as a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we 
> > think is true of the world. 
> 
> -- 
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
> 
> 
> 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Excellent!  So, now, if we listen to Dave with some empathy, we can ask him if 
his "local truth" is similar to the naive realist's "with respect to what you 
or I think"?  Dave?

FWIW, I predict Dave will respond with something like the assertion that 
locality (scope) is set by the language.  And so, it's less about what one 
*thinks* and more about the platform/context/truth-preserving-machine in which 
the people find themselves squirming around.  If such truth-scope is defined in 
that way, then we're a lot closer to Peirce's concept of reality being whatever 
consequences our language *deduces* to ... whatever sentences are evaluated as 
true in that language.  And, here Dave and Peirce agree.  Change the language, 
and you change what evaluates to true in that language.


On 10/17/2017 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say 
> that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we get 
> it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because there 
> are two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and the mind 
> stuff in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, there is a 
> truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I think, as well 
> as a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we think is true of the 
> world. 

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Ach!  I don't mean to play a game.  I come by my deafness honestly, as anybody 
who has sat with me at FRIAM will attest. 

Is it really the case that people have said, "By truth I mean " and I have 
missed it.  If so, I do apologize.  

Taking up your challenge as penance:  A Naïve realist would, I suppose, say 
that there is a real world out there that we have clues to.  Sometimes we get 
it right; sometimes we get it wrong.  It's a dualist position because there are 
two kinds of stuff in the world, the world stuff out there and the mind stuff 
in here.  Truth can apply to both kinds of stuff.  I E, there is a 
truth-of-the-matter with respect to what you think or what I think, as well as 
a truth of the matter with respect to whether what we think is true of the 
world. 

As for Hoffman, I don't know.   

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 g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 12:25 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

On 10/17/2017 10:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>  by asserting another definition of Truth, but so far nobody has done 
> that.

Heh, now you're playing a new game! 8^)  Plenty of us *have* provided other 
definitions of truth.  As in active listening exercises, perhaps you could make 
an attempt to describe a naive realist's definition of truth that differs from 
Peirce's?  Or perhaps you could describe Hoffman's interface perception theory 
(which I think is an alternative to what you're saying Peirce's is)?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] definition of "gaslighting"

[Marcus Daniels]

The gas leak example rings true.   I don’t pay much attention to odors and am 
repeatedly alerted to the possibility that the furnace pilot light could be 
out.   But the pilot light is rarely out, and my task is to accept that there 
is a smell (which I cannot detect) but that it may have some other meaning.   
It is not gaslighting to question that, although I do somethings get frustrated 
responses “Why are you questioning me??!!”  On one occasion, for example, it 
has turned out there was spoiled fruit on a high shelf.

Conversely, I struggle competing models of consequential social situations.
I sometimes dig far too deep into certain hypotheses and extend the evidence 
too far.   Sometimes if I share my detailed hypotheses (a.k.a. paranoia), I get 
a gentle or less-gentle “Are you __sure__?”   (Do the probabilities in my 
decision tree have too-large of standard deviations?)  Also not gaslighting.

Gaslighting is not just questioning perceptions or reasoning, it is the 
systematic denigration of every perception and argument or malicious purposes.  
 The Fake News thing is a form of gaslighting.

Marcus

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 12:04 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: [FRIAM] definition of "gaslighting"

In case I am not the only one!  By the way, Dave will like this:  Note the 
bimodality of the word’s usage, the metaphorical use peaking more than years 
after the primary use.

Nick

[cid:image001.jpg@01D34742.0FF674E0]

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:46 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

Roger writes:

“This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is gas 
lighting each other.  Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each other 
crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually trying to 
persuade each other of truths.”

We hear complaints here periodically about how annoying it is that people are 
`pithy’.  First of all, let’s separate situations in which autonomy is desired 
and attention is scarce, from willing participation in a discussion.   In the 
first circumstance, being pithy is a way of communicating “Please leave me the 
f*** alone.”, or  I have no time (or limited time) for this.”   It is 
deliberately to flow-regulate communication bandwidth because the utility seems 
to be low.

Then there is are situations as in this article, in which it is hard to exhibit 
skepticism because it is posed as horrible -- a dystopian misogynistic insight 
into the male brain that cannot be qualified or deconstructed.   The Trump 
Access Hollywood tape was similar because it was put out as if it was 
sufficient evidence and not just evidence – to me it was more the campaign’s 
immediate absence of shame or regret that made it clear it was true this is how 
he thinks, and of course evidence from other women that came later.   He used 
it to consolidate consensus amongst his ranks by normalizing it, which is 
shocking in how well that worked.

I think women are often thought to be the usual victims of gas lighting, but I 
would say the reverse happens under the guise of  hypothetical or anecdotal 
male motivations like in the article.   (As opposed to childish nervous humor 
that can arise in awkward or overwhelming situations.)   Is it surprising that 
some men are accused “You are bad, despicable, untrustworthy and mean”, that 
they just don’t respond very well?   There’s an appropriate amount of 
accusation, and it needs to be followed by consideration of counter-argument.  
(In this case, say, the possibility that husband had real terror over the 
degree of an apparent injury.)   When that back and forth doesn’t happen, then 
people just start gas lighting one another, and divisions deepen.
This also reminds me of the objection to safe spaces at universities and the 
(supposed) danger of protecting snowflakes who should protect themselves by 
engaging in argument.  But in that situation the real question is who has the 
power and whether it is being used to intimidate.   If there are minority 
groups of people that have no way to speak without being ganged-up on and 
humiliated, yes, they do deserve protection by university policy, or at least 
some edgy bodyguards.   But if they are just white guys spouting far-right 
garbage in a conservative, white-dominated community, no they do not need 
protection by policy.  They are already safe.

I spent much time as young person hanging out in the university park blocks 
going after the Christian apologists.  

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

On 10/17/2017 10:50 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>  by asserting another definition of Truth, but so far nobody has done that. 

Heh, now you're playing a new game! 8^)  Plenty of us *have* provided other 
definitions of truth.  As in active listening exercises, perhaps you could make 
an attempt to describe a naive realist's definition of truth that differs from 
Peirce's?  Or perhaps you could describe Hoffman's interface perception theory 
(which I think is an alternative to what you're saying Peirce's is)?

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Perfectly stated, Marcus!

It might also be useful to note that drugs like LSD, whether Dave meant them 
this way or not, are VERY good belief demolishers.  This is, I think, the heart 
of why psilocybin helps some terminally ill finish their lives in a happier 
state.  I also think it's why cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is more 
successful than most other talk therapies, because a crucial component is to 
challenge one's absolutist and/or apocalyptic language.  (I.e. they encourage 
you to replace "I can't stand it when" with "I have trouble when" ... etc.)

The benefit of (at least methodological) pluralism is, precisely, to help 
"crack the cosmic egg" we often find ourselves trapped in ... one that we've 
often built for ourselves, even.

On 10/17/2017 10:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I spent much time as young person hanging out in the university park blocks 
> going after the Christian apologists.  But they were the ones gas lighting 
> the passers-by.   Being an anti- gas lighter – a demolisher of belief -- is 
> not being a gas lighter.   The complement of the gas-lighted message and it 
> is a bigger, freer space, not a manipulation of innocents.


-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] definition of "gaslighting"

[Nick Thompson]

In case I am not the only one!  By the way, Dave will like this:  Note the 
bimodality of the word’s usage, the metaphorical use peaking more than years 
after the primary use. 

 

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:46 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Roger writes:

 

“This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is gas 
lighting each other.  Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each other 
crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually trying to 
persuade each other of truths.”

 

We hear complaints here periodically about how annoying it is that people are 
`pithy’.  First of all, let’s separate situations in which autonomy is desired 
and attention is scarce, from willing participation in a discussion.   In the 
first circumstance, being pithy is a way of communicating “Please leave me the 
f*** alone.”, or  I have no time (or limited time) for this.”   It is 
deliberately to flow-regulate communication bandwidth because the utility seems 
to be low.

 

Then there is are situations as in this article, in which it is hard to exhibit 
skepticism because it is posed as horrible -- a dystopian misogynistic insight 
into the male brain that cannot be qualified or deconstructed.   The Trump 
Access Hollywood tape was similar because it was put out as if it was 
sufficient evidence and not just evidence – to me it was more the campaign’s 
immediate absence of shame or regret that made it clear it was true this is how 
he thinks, and of course evidence from other women that came later.   He used 
it to consolidate consensus amongst his ranks by normalizing it, which is 
shocking in how well that worked. 

 

I think women are often thought to be the usual victims of gas lighting, but I 
would say the reverse happens under the guise of  hypothetical or anecdotal 
male motivations like in the article.   (As opposed to childish nervous humor 
that can arise in awkward or overwhelming situations.)   Is it surprising that 
some men are accused “You are bad, despicable, untrustworthy and mean”, that 
they just don’t respond very well?   There’s an appropriate amount of 
accusation, and it needs to be followed by consideration of counter-argument.  
(In this case, say, the possibility that husband had real terror over the 
degree of an apparent injury.)   When that back and forth doesn’t happen, then 
people just start gas lighting one another, and divisions deepen.

This also reminds me of the objection to safe spaces at universities and the 
(supposed) danger of protecting snowflakes who should protect themselves by 
engaging in argument.  But in that situation the real question is who has the 
power and whether it is being used to intimidate.   If there are minority 
groups of people that have no way to speak without being ganged-up on and 
humiliated, yes, they do deserve protection by university policy, or at least 
some edgy bodyguards.   But if they are just white guys spouting far-right 
garbage in a conservative, white-dominated community, no they do not need 
protection by policy.  They are already safe.  

 

I spent much time as young person hanging out in the university park blocks 
going after the Christian apologists.  But they were the ones gas lighting the 
passers-by.   Being an anti- gas lighter – a demolisher of belief -- is not 
being a gas lighter.   The complement of the gas-lighted message and it is a 
bigger, freer space, not a manipulation of innocents.

 

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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Glen, for your generous and thoughtful post, but please be careful. 

 

...And Nick's idea that convergence within the universe's formal system, S, 
implies truth 

 

 

You actually misstate my position, as I understand it.  Nick's assertion so far 
implies no truth, anymore than his discussion of Unicorns implies the existence 
of Unicorns.  In some ways, Nick’s assertion is MORE ARROGANT than you suppose. 
 It is an assertion concerning what “WE” mean by truth.  It asserts only that 
If any Truth exists, that is what it would look like.  You (or anybody else, 
for that matter) can prove me wrong by asserting another definition of Truth, 
but so far nobody has done that.  

 

Or am I completely off the rails, here. 

 

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 g??? ?
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:21 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Whew!  Fantastic thread!  I'm grateful to be able to witness it.

 

I'd like to point out that Peirce (and as Dave points out, many of us) are what 
I'd call "Grand Unified Modelers" (GUMmers): those who think there is, in R. 
Rosen's terms a "largest model" ... a penultimate language that if we could 
only learn and speak *that* language, what Nick's describing as Peirce's defn 
of "truth" would be accurate.

 

Solomon Feferman has worked on this problem and his (now old) initial 
submission is described here:

 

  Gödel, Nagel, minds and machines

    
https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf

 

It's probably important to read the whole thing.  But you could just jump to 
section "5. One way to straddle the mechanist and anti-mechanist positions."

 

It's also useful to note that Lee Rudolph submitted a relevant piece awhile 
back: "Logic in Modeling", wherein he cites Soare's definition of a 
"computation", which requires it be *definite* ... i.e. that all variables be 
bound, which would outlaw Feferman's "schematic axioms".  (... if I understand 
correctly ... I am not a logician, mathematician, or meta-mathematician... so 
your results may vary.)

 

Peirce's (and Nick's) insistence on the definiteness/fixedness of the 
universe's "formal system S", is what lies at the heart of the disagreement 
between Nick and Dave.  I think it's also important to point out that BOTH Nick 
and Dave COULD BE wrong.  Dave's idea that "mathematical logic" is impoverished 
may not be right if something like Feferman's solution could work.  And Nick's 
idea that convergence within the universe's formal system, S, implies truth may 
be wrong if something like the problem Feferman (and Dave) are trying to solve 
actually is the case.

 

--

☣ gⅼеɳ

 



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-COMIC   
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Roger writes:

“This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is gas 
lighting each other.  Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each other 
crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually trying to 
persuade each other of truths.”

We hear complaints here periodically about how annoying it is that people are 
`pithy’.  First of all, let’s separate situations in which autonomy is desired 
and attention is scarce, from willing participation in a discussion.   In the 
first circumstance, being pithy is a way of communicating “Please leave me the 
f*** alone.”, or  I have no time (or limited time) for this.”   It is 
deliberately to flow-regulate communication bandwidth because the utility seems 
to be low.

Then there is are situations as in this article, in which it is hard to exhibit 
skepticism because it is posed as horrible -- a dystopian misogynistic insight 
into the male brain that cannot be qualified or deconstructed.   The Trump 
Access Hollywood tape was similar because it was put out as if it was 
sufficient evidence and not just evidence – to me it was more the campaign’s 
immediate absence of shame or regret that made it clear it was true this is how 
he thinks, and of course evidence from other women that came later.   He used 
it to consolidate consensus amongst his ranks by normalizing it, which is 
shocking in how well that worked.

I think women are often thought to be the usual victims of gas lighting, but I 
would say the reverse happens under the guise of  hypothetical or anecdotal 
male motivations like in the article.   (As opposed to childish nervous humor 
that can arise in awkward or overwhelming situations.)   Is it surprising that 
some men are accused “You are bad, despicable, untrustworthy and mean”, that 
they just don’t respond very well?   There’s an appropriate amount of 
accusation, and it needs to be followed by consideration of counter-argument.  
(In this case, say, the possibility that husband had real terror over the 
degree of an apparent injury.)   When that back and forth doesn’t happen, then 
people just start gas lighting one another, and divisions deepen.

This also reminds me of the objection to safe spaces at universities and the 
(supposed) danger of protecting snowflakes who should protect themselves by 
engaging in argument.  But in that situation the real question is who has the 
power and whether it is being used to intimidate.   If there are minority 
groups of people that have no way to speak without being ganged-up on and 
humiliated, yes, they do deserve protection by university policy, or at least 
some edgy bodyguards.   But if they are just white guys spouting far-right 
garbage in a conservative, white-dominated community, no they do not need 
protection by policy.  They are already safe.

I spent much time as young person hanging out in the university park blocks 
going after the Christian apologists.  But they were the ones gas lighting the 
passers-by.   Being an anti- gas lighter – a demolisher of belief -- is not 
being a gas lighter.   The complement of the gas-lighted message and it is a 
bigger, freer space, not a manipulation of innocents.

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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Nick Thompson]

Thanks, Roger,

 

Your post revealed a stupid typo in my message to Robert which I now want to 
correct.

 

“IT will cause us to mull” 

 

I have found the conversation about “Truth”  baffling because  it seems that 
others want to have a conversation about whether any T exists without coming to 
any preliminary understanding of what “T” means.   Now, in insisting that we 
seek that preliminary conversation, I perhaps am validating Dave’s accusation 
that I am demanding that the conversation take a particular form that 
presupposes that it will reach my favored conclusion.  But here is where you 
might help:  Let it be the case that instead of first defining terms we just 
launch into a discussion of whether there is any T in the world, how would we 
know when we had an answer if we had NOT previously come to an agreement about 
the meaning of “T”?  So, OK.  Let’s say our discussion method is to drop acid.  
So after 12 hours of sweats and keenings we all agree that we have found T.  
What happens when we come off the drug?  And even knowing how often engineers 
screw up, would you rather cross a bridge designed by engineers or one designed 
by FRIAMMERS on LSD?  

 

>From my point of view, the conversation keeps misfiring.  I keep offering a 
>definition of T, a statement of what we have in mind when we say, “T”.  And 
>people keep disagreeing with me WITHOUT giving an alternative definition of 
>“T.”I get that they think that there is no such thing as “T”; what I don’t 
>get I what they mean when they say that.  

 

How is the boat?  It must be something, there in the harbor.  October light.  
When do the shrink-wrappers come?  I hope not too soon. 

 

Has Glen’s warning caused you to disconnect from the web?  If I don’t hear from 
you, I will assume that the answer is, “Yes!”

 

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 Roger Critchlow
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

I looked at Dave's listicle of truths about truths and the semi-disclaimer 
that, despite their imperative statement, that they weren't to be taken as 
truth.  Then I ran into this essay, 
https://electricliterature.com/what-i-dont-tell-my-students-about-the-husband-stitch-690899157394,
 which is the second time one of Machado's stories has crossed my trail in the 
past weeks.

 

This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is gas 
lighting each other.  Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each other 
crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually trying to 
persuade each other of truths.   And we do this persuading by calling attention 
to or away from different aspects of our shared existence. Pay no attention to 
the man behind the curtain.

 

-- rec --

 

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:

Great contribution, Robert.  I will cause us all to mull.  

 

Thank you, 

 

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 Robert Wall
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

 

Steven writes:

 

What of examples of convergent evolution where similar structures (with similar 
form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not claim that they 
all arise *from the same theory* (or that anything "arises" from theory) but 
rather that the same theoretical abstractions around form/function and utility 
can be "reverse engineered" or "discovered" or "recognized".   

 

A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in 
cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example is 
Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes from my 
research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble in the 
domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has apparently been 
"discovered" or "invented" tens of times...   

 

Nick responds to Steven with:

 

Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic chemistry and 
molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So, an alternative 
theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is that mode of 

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Whew!  Fantastic thread!  I'm grateful to be able to witness it.

I'd like to point out that Peirce (and as Dave points out, many of us) are what 
I'd call "Grand Unified Modelers" (GUMmers): those who think there is, in R. 
Rosen's terms a "largest model" ... a penultimate language that if we could 
only learn and speak *that* language, what Nick's describing as Peirce's defn 
of "truth" would be accurate.

Solomon Feferman has worked on this problem and his (now old) initial 
submission is described here:

  Gödel, Nagel, minds and machines
  https://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/godelnagel.pdf

It's probably important to read the whole thing.  But you could just jump to 
section "5. One way to straddle the mechanist and anti-mechanist positions."

It's also useful to note that Lee Rudolph submitted a relevant piece awhile 
back: "Logic in Modeling", wherein he cites Soare's definition of a 
"computation", which requires it be *definite* ... i.e. that all variables be 
bound, which would outlaw Feferman's "schematic axioms".  (... if I understand 
correctly ... I am not a logician, mathematician, or meta-mathematician... so 
your results may vary.)

Peirce's (and Nick's) insistence on the definiteness/fixedness of the 
universe's "formal system S", is what lies at the heart of the disagreement 
between Nick and Dave.  I think it's also important to point out that BOTH Nick 
and Dave COULD BE wrong.  Dave's idea that "mathematical logic" is impoverished 
may not be right if something like Feferman's solution could work.  And Nick's 
idea that convergence within the universe's formal system, S, implies truth may 
be wrong if something like the problem Feferman (and Dave) are trying to solve 
actually is the case.

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] KRACK

[Robert Wall]

Thanks for the heads-up, Glen!

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:55 AM, ┣glen┫  wrote:

> Key Reinstallation Attacks
> Breaking WPA2 by forcing nonce reuse
> https://www.krackattacks.com/
>
> > We discovered serious weaknesses in WPA2, a protocol that secures all
> modern protected Wi-Fi networks. An attacker within range of a victim can
> exploit these weaknesses using key reinstallation attacks (KRACKs).
> Concretely, attackers can use this novel attack technique to read
> information that was previously assumed to be safely encrypted. This can be
> abused to steal sensitive information such as credit card numbers,
> passwords, chat messages, emails, photos, and so on. The attack works
> against all modern protected Wi-Fi networks. Depending on the network
> configuration, it is also possible to inject and manipulate data. For
> example, an attacker might be able to inject ransomware or other malware
> into websites.
> >
> > The weaknesses are in the Wi-Fi standard itself, and not in individual
> products or implementations. Therefore, any correct implementation of WPA2
> is likely affected. To prevent the attack, users must update affected
> products as soon as security updates become available. Note that if your
> device supports Wi-Fi, it is most likely affected. During our initial
> research, we discovered ourselves that Android, Linux, Apple, Windows,
> OpenBSD, MediaTek, Linksys, and others, are all affected by some variant of
> the attacks. For more information about specific products, consult the
> database of CERT/CC, or contact your vendor.
>
>
>
> --
> ␦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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Marcus Daniels]

Dave writes:

“3- It is not a pose. My antipathy for rule, convention, certitude in almost 
any form is very real and very essential to my sense of self. You have no 
comprehension of the sense of alienation this conviction engenders.”

And yet the From line says “Prof David West”.  Back to anarchist school for you.

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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Roger Critchlow]

I looked at Dave's listicle of truths about truths and the semi-disclaimer
that, despite their imperative statement, that they weren't to be taken as
truth.  Then I ran into this essay, https://electricliterature.com/what-i-
dont-tell-my-students-about-the-husband-stitch-690899157394, which is the
second time one of Machado's stories has crossed my trail in the past weeks.

This brought me to the idea that our primary form of social interaction is
gas lighting each other.  Not in the sense that we are trying to drive each
other crazy by hiding evidence of the truth, but because we are continually
trying to persuade each other of truths.   And we do this persuading by
calling attention to or away from different aspects of our shared
existence. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

-- rec --

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Great contribution, Robert.  I will cause us all to mull.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> 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 *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 1:20 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
>
>
>
> Steven writes:
>
>
>
> What of examples of *convergent evolution* where similar structures (with
> similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not
> claim that they all arise **from the same theory** (or that anything
> "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theoretical abstractions
> around form/function and utility can be "reverse engineered" or
> "discovered" or "recognized".
>
>
>
> A common example is the multiple emergence of "camera-like" eyes in
> cephalapods, vertebrates, and jellyfish.  An even more ubiquitous example
> is Carbon Fixation via the C4 Photosynthetic Process (this example comes
> from my research to try to keep up with Guerin's dual-field/gradient babble
> in the domain of mitochondria/chloroplast metabolic duality) which has
> apparently been "discovered" or "invented" tens of times...
>
>
>
> Nick responds to Steven with:
>
>
>
> Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic
> chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So,
> an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is
> that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and
> precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.
>
>
>
> I was highly intrigued by this assertion and, so, did more digging and
> found this version of that "truth"--
>
>
>
> *National Geographic*: Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar
> genetic building blocks
> 
> (2008).
>
>
>
> The eyes of the box jellyfish tell us yet again that important
> innovations, such as eyes, evolve by changing how existing groups of genes
> are used, rather than adding new ones to the mix.
>
>
>
> This is not inconsistent with Nick's assertion but it is not inconsistent
> with Steven's either if I understand both.  In the biological context, and
> in addition to the ideas of randomness, natural selection, and a whole lot
> of time, there are the biological hardware and the software here to
> consider along with the idea of a teleonomic programmer ... kind of like
> Marcus' programmer with a discernable personality:
>
>
>
> According to this analysis (*Nautilus *2016) concerning the Hox gene
> circuit
> ,
> there doesn't seem to be enough time for randomness (i.e., blindly groping)
> to be explanatory. The numbers tend to say this *would *be absurd.
>
>
>
> Take, for example, the discovery within the field of evolutionary
> developmental biology that the different body plans of many complex
> organisms, including us, arise not from different genes but from different
> networks of gene interaction and expression in the same basic circuit,
> called the Hox gene circuit. To get from a snake to a human, you don’t
> need a bunch of completely different genes, but just a different pattern of
> wiring in essentially the same kind of Hox gene circuit. For these two
> vertebrates there are around 40 genes in the circuit. If you take account
> of the different ways that these genes might regulate one another (for
> example, by activation or suppression), you find that the number of
> possible circuits is more than 10*700*. That’s a lot, lot more than the
> number of fundamental particles in the observable universe. What, then, are
> the chances of evolution finding its way blindly to the viable “snake” or
> “human” traits 

Re: [FRIAM] KRACK

[Nick Thompson]

YIKES!

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: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:56 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: [FRIAM] KRACK

Key Reinstallation Attacks
Breaking WPA2 by forcing nonce reuse
https://www.krackattacks.com/

> We discovered serious weaknesses in WPA2, a protocol that secures all modern 
> protected Wi-Fi networks. An attacker within range of a victim can exploit 
> these weaknesses using key reinstallation attacks (KRACKs). Concretely, 
> attackers can use this novel attack technique to read information that was 
> previously assumed to be safely encrypted. This can be abused to steal 
> sensitive information such as credit card numbers, passwords, chat messages, 
> emails, photos, and so on. The attack works against all modern protected 
> Wi-Fi networks. Depending on the network configuration, it is also possible 
> to inject and manipulate data. For example, an attacker might be able to 
> inject ransomware or other malware into websites.
> 
> The weaknesses are in the Wi-Fi standard itself, and not in individual 
> products or implementations. Therefore, any correct implementation of WPA2 is 
> likely affected. To prevent the attack, users must update affected products 
> as soon as security updates become available. Note that if your device 
> supports Wi-Fi, it is most likely affected. During our initial research, we 
> discovered ourselves that Android, Linux, Apple, Windows, OpenBSD, MediaTek, 
> Linksys, and others, are all affected by some variant of the attacks. For 
> more information about specific products, consult the database of CERT/CC, or 
> contact your vendor.



--
␦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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] KRACK

[┣glen┫]

Key Reinstallation Attacks
Breaking WPA2 by forcing nonce reuse
https://www.krackattacks.com/

> We discovered serious weaknesses in WPA2, a protocol that secures all modern 
> protected Wi-Fi networks. An attacker within range of a victim can exploit 
> these weaknesses using key reinstallation attacks (KRACKs). Concretely, 
> attackers can use this novel attack technique to read information that was 
> previously assumed to be safely encrypted. This can be abused to steal 
> sensitive information such as credit card numbers, passwords, chat messages, 
> emails, photos, and so on. The attack works against all modern protected 
> Wi-Fi networks. Depending on the network configuration, it is also possible 
> to inject and manipulate data. For example, an attacker might be able to 
> inject ransomware or other malware into websites.
> 
> The weaknesses are in the Wi-Fi standard itself, and not in individual 
> products or implementations. Therefore, any correct implementation of WPA2 is 
> likely affected. To prevent the attack, users must update affected products 
> as soon as security updates become available. Note that if your device 
> supports Wi-Fi, it is most likely affected. During our initial research, we 
> discovered ourselves that Android, Linux, Apple, Windows, OpenBSD, MediaTek, 
> Linksys, and others, are all affected by some variant of the attacks. For 
> more information about specific products, consult the database of CERT/CC, or 
> contact your vendor.



-- 
␦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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Nick, at the risk of a mere dialogue that would be better served face to
face in a month or so, I will respond.  All the time with a friendly
smile on my face and a desire for common understanding in my heart.
I won't re-lard, but respond in order:

1-  I was going to use 'in vino veritas,"but as an example of a language
(drunken babble is a language of sorts) that you would not accept as a
vehicle for communication intended to result in convergence. But the
point of what I said is simply to impute intent on your part when
selecting which words you use to convey your thoughts. [See comment 2-.]
I did not "presume the truth of some matter." I made an assertion and,
as noted in my initial post the only truth in such a thing is purely
local to me, not shared. But all assertions / declarative statements —
including yours — share this same 'local truthiness' and are not to be
taken as assertions of shared, or possible shared, notions that, if they
converged, would take on the property of "truthy."
2- I made no mention of "belief" and so I am mystified as to why the
first sentence of your response makes a point of " beyond what you I /
any group might believe." I did use the term opinion, which in
colloquial and common use is often a synonym for belief — however, I
used the term only because you used it first in describing Pierce's
approach. When I read your use of the term, I took it as a stand-in for
one or more of the following: experience, observation, measurement,
calculation, even analysis. I intended to use the word in the same exact
way. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent when you used the word.
True, the core thesis you present is an operational defintion of "truth"
but that intent to define is embedded in, and the rest of the thread is
engaged in, the use of that operational definition to determine if some
proposition or the other is truthy.
3- It is not a pose. My antipathy for rule, convention, certitude in
almost any form is very real and very essential to my sense of self.
You have no comprehension of the sense of alienation this conviction
engenders.
It is not that everyone agrees with you, but that you all share at least
one thing in common and that is your acceptance of the "rational" world
view that has dominated, not only science, but Western culture in
general since the inception of the "Age of Reason." There remains lots
of divertissement within the realm of the rational to assure pleasant
passage of time for all.
4- Clever self deprecation simply obfuscates the fact that you see no
utility in pursuing conversation / sharing experience / seeking
convergence unless those efforts are undertaken within and are
consistent with your particular world-view. I am being quite
uncharitable here as I know my assertion is not always true at least in
degree. You might take up meditation (altered state of consciousness
ahead) or you might go to church (at least as long as the church in
question was not fundamentalist requiring reptilephilia and
glossallalia.)
5- Re: convergence on things like public policy, a simple example.  Say
we both study biological organisms and we not things like a change in
environment, creating a new, exploitable niche, will prompt bio-
organisms to adapt (even evolve) to exploit that niche. We further
observe human beings - as biological organisms and converge on the
"truth" that they are biological organisms.  We have 'converged' in our
understanding and have established truth. (?) At this point our
observations / experiences diverge. Your study leads you to believe that
humans are biotes PLUS something else. I, being a sociopath, cannot
share those experiences, observations, analyses, or conclusions.  We sit
down to discuss public policy  - the need for welfare perhaps - and we
are immediately stuck because we have no common ground, common
"language" with which to proceed and hence no convergence is possible
and no truth as to the matter.
I would see welfare as a case of "feeding the bears," certain to lead to
nothing except the proliferation of dependent bears as they, being
biological organisms, adapt to exploit the "welfare niche." You would
see it quite differently. But, how do we proceed? What process would you
(or Pierce) suggest be used? Or do we simply acknowledge that we have no
basis for convergence and therefore, no 'truth' is possible? I would be
OK with that, but no one else will. Instead each faction will insist on
the certitude/truth of their respective opinion and insist that public
policy be grounded in their idiosyncratic truth.
The preceding is an extreme example, especially as to the reason we
cannot find a common language and proceed, somehow, to convergence. But,
at least, it has the virtue of a concrete embedded difference that
prevents convergence. Too often, in almost all public policy debate the
inhibiting difference is simply a refusal to listen to the other and
insisting that the only means for finding convergence is everyone
adopting one side's