[FRIAM] Phone voice quality

[thompnickson2]

Phellow Phriammers, 

 

Has anybody got a recommendation on a phone, wireless or other wise, that
has really good voice quality.  I find I am struggling to understand people
when they talk to me over the phone, even though I am on a land line,
usually.  Land line to land line, within the city, seems much better, even
when I am on a wireless receiver within the house.  That would rule out line
quality.  A friend has told me that most cell phones have sacrificed
intelligibility for other virtues, and the problem is almost surely with
OTHER PEOPLE'S PHONES.  In some cases it seems to have to do with the fact
that cell phones are too short to allow a person to both hear well and be
heard well.  People instinctively maximize hearing well, and so the person
on the other end is out of luck.  

 

Any thoughts on any of this?  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

thompnicks...@gmail.com  

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box

[thompnickson2]

Hi Jon, 

 

I predict that Eric is going to insist that behavior is necessarily at an 
instant.  But carrying this principle out to its logical conclusion, I am not 
sure that being dead is not a behavior, or the limit of a behavior.  Think for 
a moment about the baby rabbit that plays dead to escape the attentions of your 
cat.  Playing dead is a behavior that spans time and includes becoming 
dead-like and seeming to come to life again.  Let’s see what Eric actually 
says. 

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

thompnicks...@gmail.com  

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:21 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box

 

Eric,

 

I love that you brought Weekend at Bernie's into the discussion,

wow, the 80's. I am not sure we must all agree that Bernie or

the dead duck or the marionette are just moving because we may

want to allow for transitions between domains of definition.

Of course, we can all agree if you wish to fix some domain.

Still, the live duck may be in a coma and opening the marionette

may be necessary to rule out a mechanism. Even as Bernie is

manipulated or as Tina fails to recognize Bernie as dead, his

body continues to behave. Perhaps even just his gut fauna.

Is it that we define behavior so that we can distinguish it from

just moving? I could be ok with that as a starting point.

 

Jonathan Zingale

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box

[thompnickson2]

I like this Eric.  Thank you. 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 7:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box

 

Glen said:  

In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, the inner world of a 
black box device will be *completely* represented on its surface. Any 
information not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random. 

 

David said: 

Machine "behavior" is either a metaphor or an error of anthropomorphism.  This 
is true, I believe, whether one speaks of a computer's UI (the computer is but 
a lump and sans any behavior) or a robot.

 

Both questions point out that as a field, psychology has never properly settled 
upon a definition of "behavior". 

 

We can all agree that behavior refers to something more than mere movement, 
right? The dead body in Weekend at Bernie's is not behaving, despite tons of 
movement. A dead duck thrown out of a window isn't behaving as it falls to the 
ground, a live duck thrown out a window and flying away is behaving. A 
marionette under the control of a skillful artist might look like it is 
behaving, but as we widen the lens we see that the marionette is just moving, 
while the artist is behaving. Etc. 

 

We can also agree that the difference between behavior and mere movement not a 
mere matter of constituent parts, right? The dead duck and the live duck are 
basically the same physically (so sayeth Dr. Manhattan). We can also all 
imagine that there might be other planets in which life looks very different, 
perhaps having silicon as its core atomic characteristic instead of carbon, for 
example, or using a physiological system without neurons. 

 

So, we have a box. For some questions we might care what is inside the box. For 
other questions we don't. For the questions where we don't, we can treat it as 
a philosophical "black box" if we want. For those questions, we aren't 
asserting that the surface of the black box tells us what's inside it, we are 
merely asserting that for the purposes of those questions everything we want to 
know can be known from the surface. 

 

Opening such a box can help you get a certain type of explanation for what was 
on the surface, but that is a different matter altogether. Any "inner-world of 
the black box" that creates the same surface has created the same surface. 
Dynamic systems are messy things, even when producing stable outcomes. 

 

The characteristics that distinguish movement from behavior are visible without 
opening the box. We readily distinguish the dead duck from the live one without 
looking inside them; we distinguish the marionette from the artist by looking 
at more of the situation, not by cutting the marionette open. We certainly 
could come up with questions that lead us to look inside the marionette, but 
they wouldn't be questions about its behavior.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


---

Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist

American University - Adjunct Instructor

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box

[Jon Zingale]

Eric,

I love that you brought *Weekend at Bernie's* into the discussion,
wow, the 80's. I am not sure we *must* all agree that Bernie or
the dead duck or the marionette are *just* moving because we may
want to allow for transitions between domains of definition.
Of course, we *can* all agree if you wish to fix some domain.
Still, the live duck may be in a coma and opening the marionette
may be necessary to rule out a mechanism. Even as Bernie is
manipulated or as Tina fails to recognize Bernie as dead, his
body continues to behave. Perhaps even *just* his gut fauna.
Is it that we define behavior so that we can distinguish it from
*just* moving? I could be ok with that as a starting point.

Jonathan Zingale
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[David Eric Smith]

I think the phenomenologists would claim that until you have realized that all 
worlds are only “inner worlds”, you haven’t properly interpreted the informal 
use of the word “world” into a philosophically serious frame.

Of course they are Continental Philosophers.  So one has the option to simply 
refuse to use any of the patterns or forms that they try to use consistently, 
and replace anything they say _in the way they say it_ with something else that 
oneself says _in some different way_, and then claim that when said in the 
different way, the point they were trying to make cannot be sensible, by 
construction.

I have on many occasions wondered what is the balance between rephrasing to get 
more angles on a question, versus rephrasing to insist on a scheme in which the 
question is unexpressible.  The former is an essential act of reason and 
discourse; the latter is a refusal to cooperate and a gambit to win a contest.  
For any given statement, are we sure that it can be assigned to one and not the 
other?

Eric



> On May 6, 2020, at 4:35 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,Glen,
> 
> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?  
> 
> N
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
> 
> However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis 
> based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken 
> seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* 
> represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information 
> not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random. 
> 
> This implies something about the compressibility and information content of 
> the black box's behavior, right? 
> 
> On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer 
>> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon 
>> which to argue that they do.
> 
> 
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
> 
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> 
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] green swans

[Steven A Smith]

Dave -

Thanks for the reference (and promise of a book report?).

I take the meaning of "black swan" to be something more easily
recognized in hindsight, but once recognized, seeming to be obvious, but
also having a profound effect on the course of events.

I think this is identical to a bifurcation in the phase space of a
dynamical system?   Dynamical systems, whilst (usually?) entirely
deterministic, are also unprestateable.    The most efficient way to
predict the system's behaviour is to execute it.

The point of the Dave's book, as described in various reviews (e.g.
Goodreads) suggests that the topic is primarily a growing awareness from
hard-line capitalists that there are features of the reward space that
are outside of their usual criteria, and many of them are those USUALLY
reserved for bleeding-heart tree-huggers (aka Greens).  

There seems (in reviews) to be *some* cynicism suggesting that "green
swan" technologies or strategies are maybe only
relevant/important/necessary because of public sentiment (being *forced*
by public sentiment/popular support/political correctness) rather than
because (western/American?) capitalism's seemingly necessary exponential
growth is hitting the true limits to growth that make that seeming
exponential a logistic.

A lot of the criticism of the likes of Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg
has been that they "came late to the Green Party" (and many would
rightly say that Bloomberg really isn't even half there).  Both have
defended "better late than never"...

FWIW...  I did watch the "Planet of the Humans" which makes similar
accusations against the likes of Al Gore and Bill McKibben.   Not so
much that they came *late* to the party, but that they came *lite* to
it.  I suspect the film-maker (Moore just bankrolled it and put his name
on it, he didn't seem to contribute much to it's making) would be really
hard on "green swan Capitalists".    Off topic slightly, the movie did
have a lot of half-truths and out-of-context cheap shots, but the bottom
line (IMO) wasn't that far off.   Letting the same economic-industrial
stakeholders that maybe drove our ecology/climate right up to the edge
of a cliff, now take over and drive "Green Technologies"  might be the
definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results).   It was *more* than just judging
industrial sustainability movement as greenwashing... 

I'm curious what your (Dave's) stake in this is?  Do you feel that our
current capitalistic-industrial arc is patently unsustainable (and on
what time scale)?  And do you believe that in spite of the differences
you (and many others) might have with
bleeding-heart-liberal-tree-huggers, that maybe there is more common
ground than you recognized?  Something to work across the aisle (gulf)
on?   Or are the fundamental sensibilities of "the opposition" too
distorted?  

- Steve

> Just ordered, hardcover (two weeks before it gets here probably) and kindle 
> (will read later today.) Looks very interesting but will send review later.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Green-Swans-Coming-Regenerative-Capitalism/dp/1732439125/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1588678839&sr=8-1-spons
>
> "If Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swans" are problems that take us 
> exponentially toward breakdown, then "Green Swans" are solutions that take us 
> exponentially toward breakthrough. The success--and survival--of humanity now 
> depends on how we rein in the first and accelerate the second."
>
> davew
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box

[Eric Charles]

Glen said:

In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, the inner world of a
black box device will be *completely* represented on its surface. Any
information not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random.


David said:

Machine "behavior" is either a metaphor or an error of anthropomorphism.
This is true, I believe, whether one speaks of a computer's UI (the
computer is but a lump and sans any behavior) or a robot.


Both questions point out that as a field, psychology has never properly
settled upon a definition of "behavior".

We can all agree that behavior refers to something *more *than mere
movement, right? The dead body in Weekend at Bernie's is not behaving,
despite tons of movement. A dead duck thrown out of a window isn't behaving
as it falls to the ground, a live duck thrown out a window and flying away
is behaving. A marionette under the control of a skillful artist might look
like it is behaving, but as we widen the lens we see that the
marionette is *just
*moving, while the artist is behaving. Etc.

We can also agree that the difference between behavior and mere movement *not
*a mere matter of constituent parts, right? The dead duck and the live duck
are basically the same physically (so sayeth Dr. Manhattan). We can also
all imagine that there might be other planets in which life looks very
different, perhaps having silicon as its core atomic characteristic instead
of carbon, for example, or using a physiological system without neurons.

So, we have a box. For some questions we might care what is inside the box.
For other questions we don't. For the questions where we don't, we can
treat it as a philosophical "black box" if we want. For *those *questions,
we aren't asserting that the surface of the black box tells us what's
inside it, we are merely asserting that for the purposes of those questions
everything we want to know can be known from the surface.

Opening such a box can help you get a certain type of explanation for what
was on the surface, but that is a different matter altogether. Any
"inner-world of the black box" that creates the same surface has created
the same surface. Dynamic systems are messy things, even when producing
stable outcomes.

The characteristics that distinguish movement from behavior are visible
without opening the box. We readily distinguish the dead duck from the live
one without looking inside them; we distinguish the marionette from the
artist by looking at more of the situation, not by cutting the marionette
open. We certainly could come up with questions that lead us to look inside
the marionette, but they wouldn't be questions about its behavior.








---
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
American University - Adjunct Instructor

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Hi, Eric (Smith), 

I think you have made your decision.  Forced to make a choice between 
"...engaging in an essential act of reason and discourse engaging in "a gambit 
to win a contest", I know where I would come down, and I assume you would come 
down in the same place.   But I think that's a wrong way to characterize the 
choice situation we are in.  I would characterize it as the difference between 
holding many ideas lightly and exploratorily or pursuing an idea in a 
relentless manner to see where it leads (and where it fails).   I value both in 
the pursuit of knowledge, although, in the FRIAM context I probably do more of 
the latter than the former.  

I do question the heuristic value of  the idea of the impenetrable interior, 
but if somebody wants explore it as a scientific approach, even a pragmatist 
should be willing to explore its empirical implications.   What are the 
scientific implications of believing that you have an inner life that is, in 
principle, impenetrable to observation by others?  Let's explore those.  By all 
means.   I think at least Frank and Bruce are temped by that possibility.  

Or is the objection of another form:  Do we have to be doing science all the 
time?  Can't we just have fun SOME of the time?  

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 4:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

I think the phenomenologists would claim that until you have realized that all 
worlds are only “inner worlds”, you haven’t properly interpreted the informal 
use of the word “world” into a philosophically serious frame.

Of course they are Continental Philosophers.  So one has the option to simply 
refuse to use any of the patterns or forms that they try to use consistently, 
and replace anything they say _in the way they say it_ with something else that 
oneself says _in some different way_, and then claim that when said in the 
different way, the point they were trying to make cannot be sensible, by 
construction.

I have on many occasions wondered what is the balance between rephrasing to get 
more angles on a question, versus rephrasing to insist on a scheme in which the 
question is unexpressible.  The former is an essential act of reason and 
discourse; the latter is a refusal to cooperate and a gambit to win a contest.  
For any given statement, are we sure that it can be assigned to one and not the 
other?

Eric



> On May 6, 2020, at 4:35 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,Glen,
> 
> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?  
> 
> N
> 
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University 
> thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
> 
> However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis 
> based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken 
> seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* 
> represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information 
> not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random. 
> 
> This implies something about the compressibility and information content of 
> the black box's behavior, right? 
> 
> On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer 
>> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon 
>> which to argue that they do.
> 
> 
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
> 
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> 
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

So, in state space reconstruction, it seems, we're attempting to infer a 
structure that is *as* expressive as the data we feed it, similar I guess to 
deep learning or genetic programming. All the sci-fi movies focus on the brain 
(or maybe even the CNS). But what I'd like to see is something like FPGA where 
the dynamically programmable "sleeve" (as in Altered Carbon) is hooked to one 
end of a harness and the "original" is hooked to the other end ... like a 
motion capture suit but with way more pathways. Then the "sleeve" is 
re-configured/programmed over some relatively short period. Like the original 
has to wear the suit for a 24 hour period ... paying bills, making coffee, 
having sex, etc. Then, at the end of the process, the sleeve is configured to 
be as expressive as the original ... at  least in so far as the data taken 
during that period.

We couldn't use such things for long-term duplication. But it would be great 
for, say, giving speeches. We could take a Donald Trump sleeve, *program* it 
with Barack Obama, and abracadabra we have a real president who can get through 
a 30 minute speech without screwing it up.


On 5/5/20 4:26 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Meanwhile, I agree strongly with you that a great deal of your internal state 
> (second by second) is operationally opaque to me and everyone else who might 
> try to observe, including Marcus when he wires you up with Neuralink hardware 
> or locks you into an fMRI while you fantasize about your next car or 
> reminisce about a favorite meal/libation you enjoyed 37 years ago while 
> apprehending the Aurora Borealis at winter solstice in a northern Finland 
> resort that overlooks the Russian Landscape across the border.  I also know 
> from my own musings and reminiscings that *my* memories can vary from time to 
> time (and from an objective observation like a microphone or camera capturing 
> those aspects of a situation).

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Frank Wimberly]

...or reminisce about a favorite meal/libation you enjoyed 37 years ago
while apprehending the Aurora Borealis at winter solstice in a northern
Finland resort that overlooks the Russian Landscape across the border...


How did you know?!!!   Joke.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 5:27 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:

>
> On 5/5/20 4:38 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>
> "We record/observe *all* your behavior down to the minutest level... " is
> impossible.
>
> Some of my work (not so much these days) has been in light-field capture
> as well as holography... so my metaphorical target domain comes from a
> fairly specific technical perspective.
>
> Of course "recording/observing *all* of your behaviour" is as impossible
> as it is impossible to "record all impinging interfering light waves as
> silver halide crystals on a photographic plate", so even a high-quality
> hologram is just  a "fuzzy facsimile"... the point isn't fidelity as much
> as it is that a lot more *qualities* of information are available to BE
> recorded than we normally record (e.g. focusing nominally parallel light
> rays reflected off an object through a lens onto a similar photographic
> plate).   The hologram doesn't necessarily contain more data (limited by
> the grain size of the silver-halide film and the quality of the optical
> elements moving the light around as well as the wavelength of the light)
> than a conventional photograph, it is just *qualitatively* more
> interesting/complex than the impingement of a planar wave onto a plane (or
> the integrated fusing of hundreds of such captures from hundreds of lenses
> or pinholes) (think phased array radar in the optical spectra).
>
> I defer to your broader/deeper experience and awareness of conventional
> psychology, but I suppose what I was alluding to is the difference between
> a "gestalt" and a "diagnosis"?   A good intuitive therapist, NLP
> practitioner, car-salesman, "psychic", etc.   (I contend) can "read" a LOT
> more than a bureaucrat screening for a particular purpose.   I'm simply
> borrowing Glen's reference to "holographically" to elaborate the nature of
> that.
>
> Meanwhile, I agree strongly with you that a great deal of your internal
> state (second by second) is operationally opaque to me and everyone else
> who might try to observe, including Marcus when he wires you up with
> Neuralink hardware or locks you into an fMRI while you fantasize about your
> next car or reminisce about a favorite meal/libation you enjoyed 37 years
> ago while apprehending the Aurora Borealis at winter solstice in a northern
> Finland resort that overlooks the Russian Landscape across the border.  I
> also know from my own musings and reminiscings that *my* memories can vary
> from time to time (and from an objective observation like a microphone or
> camera capturing those aspects of a situation).
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 4:13 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/5/20 3:04 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>>
>> Dammit, Nick.  I can and frequently do spend hours planning, remembering,
>> composing emails, fantasizing about my next car, etc  without exhibiting
>> any remarkable behavior beyond eyeblinking, touching my face (don't!),
>> crossing and uncrossing my legs.  We've been through this before but  what
>> is my latest plan about what to do when my auto lease is up?  No one knows
>> but me despite your claim that I don't have private access to these kinds
>> of things.
>>
>> And following (weakly I am sure) Glen's reference to "holographically", I
>> believe that if we record/observe *all* of your behaviour down to the
>> minutest detail, we can learn a LOT about that inner state.If we had
>> that data from the *last* time you approached buying a new car (maybe years
>> out) we might recognize the specific patterns of leg-crossing and
>> eye-blinking and chair-leaning that go with fantasizing about that
>> muscle-car inspired anti-proton powered 6 wheel-drive hub-motor flying car
>> you have been jonesing on!
>>
>> I'm somewhat with Glen (as I understand him in this conversation) on the
>> ideation that inner and outer is somewhat mutable.Sometimes the 6-rotor
>> flying drone-car I fantasize (and blame on Frank) flitting around in is
>> *part of* *me* and other times it is what I interface *to* and *it*
>> interfaces (mostly) to the air (and sometimes to the water, the ground, and
>> unfortunately a tall tree here and there).When I am composing a message
>> *to* this august body named FriAM, I often think of youse alls as
>> "external" to me, but if I'm talking to one of the philistines in my life
>> who do NOT spend all their time talking/thinking about these kinds of
>> things (whatever these kinds are), I sometimes think of myself as being
>> *of* "the FriAM" rather than "in the FriAM" (or is

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Steven A Smith]

On 5/5/20 4:38 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> "We record/observe *all* your behavior down to the minutest level... "
> is impossible.

Some of my work (not so much these days) has been in light-field capture
as well as holography... so my metaphorical target domain comes from a
fairly specific technical perspective.

Of course "recording/observing *all* of your behaviour" is as impossible
as it is impossible to "record all impinging interfering light waves as
silver halide crystals on a photographic plate", so even a high-quality
hologram is just  a "fuzzy facsimile"... the point isn't fidelity as
much as it is that a lot more *qualities* of information are available
to BE recorded than we normally record (e.g. focusing nominally parallel
light rays reflected off an object through a lens onto a similar
photographic plate).   The hologram doesn't necessarily contain more
data (limited by the grain size of the silver-halide film and the
quality of the optical elements moving the light around as well as the
wavelength of the light) than a conventional photograph, it is just
*qualitatively* more interesting/complex than the impingement of a
planar wave onto a plane (or the integrated fusing of hundreds of such
captures from hundreds of lenses or pinholes) (think phased array radar
in the optical spectra). 

I defer to your broader/deeper experience and awareness of conventional
psychology, but I suppose what I was alluding to is the difference
between a "gestalt" and a "diagnosis"?   A good intuitive therapist, NLP
practitioner, car-salesman, "psychic", etc.   (I contend) can "read" a
LOT more than a bureaucrat screening for a particular purpose.   I'm
simply borrowing Glen's reference to "holographically" to elaborate the
nature of that.

Meanwhile, I agree strongly with you that a great deal of your internal
state (second by second) is operationally opaque to me and everyone else
who might try to observe, including Marcus when he wires you up with
Neuralink hardware or locks you into an fMRI while you fantasize about
your next car or reminisce about a favorite meal/libation you enjoyed 37
years ago while apprehending the Aurora Borealis at winter solstice in a
northern Finland resort that overlooks the Russian Landscape across the
border.  I also know from my own musings and reminiscings that *my*
memories can vary from time to time (and from an objective observation
like a microphone or camera capturing those aspects of a situation).



>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 4:13 PM Steven A Smith  > wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/20 3:04 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Dammit, Nick.  I can and frequently do spend hours planning,
>> remembering, composing emails, fantasizing about my next car,
>> etc  without exhibiting any remarkable behavior beyond
>> eyeblinking, touching my face (don't!), crossing and uncrossing
>> my legs.  We've been through this before but  what is my latest
>> plan about what to do when my auto lease is up?  No one knows but
>> me despite your claim that I don't have private access to these
>> kinds of things.
>
> And following (weakly I am sure) Glen's reference to
> "holographically", I believe that if we record/observe *all* of
> your behaviour down to the minutest detail, we can learn a LOT
> about that inner state.    If we had that data from the *last*
> time you approached buying a new car (maybe years out) we might
> recognize the specific patterns of leg-crossing and eye-blinking
> and chair-leaning that go with fantasizing about that muscle-car
> inspired anti-proton powered 6 wheel-drive hub-motor flying car
> you have been jonesing on!
>
> I'm somewhat with Glen (as I understand him in this conversation)
> on the ideation that inner and outer is somewhat mutable.   
> Sometimes the 6-rotor flying drone-car I fantasize (and blame on
> Frank) flitting around in is *part of* *me* and other times it is
> what I interface *to* and *it* interfaces (mostly) to the air (and
> sometimes to the water, the ground, and unfortunately a tall tree
> here and there).    When I am composing a message *to* this august
> body named FriAM, I often think of youse alls as "external" to me,
> but if I'm talking to one of the philistines in my life who do NOT
> spend all their time talking/thinking about these kinds of things
> (whatever these kinds are), I sometimes think of myself as being
> *of* "the FriAM" rather than "in the FriAM" (or is that FriAM pan?).
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi,Glen,
>>
>> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely
>> contradictory? 
>>
>> N
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psycholog

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Frank Wimberly]

"We record/observe *all* your behavior down to the minutest level... " is
impossible.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 4:13 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:

>
> On 5/5/20 3:04 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>
> Dammit, Nick.  I can and frequently do spend hours planning, remembering,
> composing emails, fantasizing about my next car, etc  without exhibiting
> any remarkable behavior beyond eyeblinking, touching my face (don't!),
> crossing and uncrossing my legs.  We've been through this before but  what
> is my latest plan about what to do when my auto lease is up?  No one knows
> but me despite your claim that I don't have private access to these kinds
> of things.
>
> And following (weakly I am sure) Glen's reference to "holographically", I
> believe that if we record/observe *all* of your behaviour down to the
> minutest detail, we can learn a LOT about that inner state.If we had
> that data from the *last* time you approached buying a new car (maybe years
> out) we might recognize the specific patterns of leg-crossing and
> eye-blinking and chair-leaning that go with fantasizing about that
> muscle-car inspired anti-proton powered 6 wheel-drive hub-motor flying car
> you have been jonesing on!
>
> I'm somewhat with Glen (as I understand him in this conversation) on the
> ideation that inner and outer is somewhat mutable.Sometimes the 6-rotor
> flying drone-car I fantasize (and blame on Frank) flitting around in is
> *part of* *me* and other times it is what I interface *to* and *it*
> interfaces (mostly) to the air (and sometimes to the water, the ground, and
> unfortunately a tall tree here and there).When I am composing a message
> *to* this august body named FriAM, I often think of youse alls as
> "external" to me, but if I'm talking to one of the philistines in my life
> who do NOT spend all their time talking/thinking about these kinds of
> things (whatever these kinds are), I sometimes think of myself as being
> *of* "the FriAM" rather than "in the FriAM" (or is that FriAM pan?).
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM  wrote:
>
>> Hi,Glen,
>>
>> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?
>>
>> N
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>> Clark University
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
>> To: FriAM 
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>>
>> However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable
>> hypothesis based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is
>> taken seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely*
>> represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information
>> not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random.
>>
>> This implies something about the compressibility and information content
>> of the black box's behavior, right?
>>
>> On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> > This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer
>> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon
>> which to argue that they do.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ☣ uǝlƃ
>>
>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>>  . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC 
>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>>  . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC 
>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
> --
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Steven A Smith]

On 5/5/20 3:04 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Dammit, Nick.  I can and frequently do spend hours planning,
> remembering, composing emails, fantasizing about my next car, etc 
> without exhibiting any remarkable behavior beyond eyeblinking,
> touching my face (don't!), crossing and uncrossing my legs.  We've
> been through this before but  what is my latest plan about what to do
> when my auto lease is up?  No one knows but me despite your claim that
> I don't have private access to these kinds of things.

And following (weakly I am sure) Glen's reference to "holographically",
I believe that if we record/observe *all* of your behaviour down to the
minutest detail, we can learn a LOT about that inner state.    If we had
that data from the *last* time you approached buying a new car (maybe
years out) we might recognize the specific patterns of leg-crossing and
eye-blinking and chair-leaning that go with fantasizing about that
muscle-car inspired anti-proton powered 6 wheel-drive hub-motor flying
car you have been jonesing on!

I'm somewhat with Glen (as I understand him in this conversation) on the
ideation that inner and outer is somewhat mutable.    Sometimes the
6-rotor flying drone-car I fantasize (and blame on Frank) flitting
around in is *part of* *me* and other times it is what I interface *to*
and *it* interfaces (mostly) to the air (and sometimes to the water, the
ground, and unfortunately a tall tree here and there).    When I am
composing a message *to* this august body named FriAM, I often think of
youse alls as "external" to me, but if I'm talking to one of the
philistines in my life who do NOT spend all their time talking/thinking
about these kinds of things (whatever these kinds are), I sometimes
think of myself as being *of* "the FriAM" rather than "in the FriAM" (or
is that FriAM pan?).


>
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM  > wrote:
>
> Hi,Glen,
>
> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely
> contradictory? 
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com 
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  > On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
> To: FriAM mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
> However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable
> hypothesis based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's
> principle is taken seriously, the inner world of a black box
> device will be *completely* represented on its surface (ala the
> holographic principle). Any information not exhibited by a black
> box's *behavior* will be lost/random.
>
> This implies something about the compressibility and information
> content of the black box's behavior, right?
>
> On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a
> computer thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a
> valid basis upon which to argue that they do.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -..
> .- ...  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>  unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -..
> .- ...  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> 
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> -- 
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.c

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Thanks. I've read the Chemero one. And I've read something by Hutto, but I 
don't think it was that. Regardless, my (maybe testable) hypothesis is what I'm 
interested in:

If a black box demonstrates behavior that can't be captured by any (known) 
algorithm, then that would be an indication that something (unmodelable) was 
happening inside the black box. And that unmodelable thing might be called 
"thinking".

We can extend that, I think, to "surprising behavior", which I think gets at 
what we usually mean by "thinking". If a black box demonstrates a long memory 
with not-quite-but-almost predictable behavior, then we might accuse it of 
thinking.

Both would be counter-examples to Dave's assertion.

On 5/5/20 2:55 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> So, there are a few varieties of that right now, that are trying to get along 
> well together. Emobidied Cognition, Enactivism, Ecological Psychlogy, 
> Extended Cognition, etc. As a starting point for that work, especially for 
> the more mathematically inclined, I recommend "Radical Embodied Cognitive 
> Science" by Tony Chemero 
> ,
>  for the more philosophically inclined, I recommend "Radicalizing Enactivism" 
> by Dan Hutto , and 
> for the more general thinker interested in an overview of cool ideas I 
> recommend "Beyond the Brain" by Louise Barrett 
> . 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Marcus Daniels]

That’s hilarious.

From: Friam  on behalf of Roger Critchlow 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 2:55 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

http://www.humansnotinvited.com/

-- rec --

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:08 PM Marcus Daniels 
mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
Oh, you SAY you do.   Someday we’ll get Neuralink hardware on you and then WE 
WILL SEE.

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
behalf of Frank Wimberly mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 2:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Dammit, Nick.  I can and frequently do spend hours planning, remembering, 
composing emails, fantasizing about my next car, etc  without exhibiting any 
remarkable behavior beyond eyeblinking, touching my face (don't!), crossing and 
uncrossing my legs.  We've been through this before but  what is my latest plan 
about what to do when my auto lease is up?  No one knows but me despite your 
claim that I don't have private access to these kinds of things.



On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,Glen,

Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
To: FriAM mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis 
based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, 
the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* represented on its 
surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information not exhibited by a 
black box's *behavior* will be lost/random.

This implies something about the compressibility and information content of the 
black box's behavior, right?

On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer 
> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon 
> which to argue that they do.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Roger Critchlow]

http://www.humansnotinvited.com/

-- rec --

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:08 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> Oh, you SAY you do.   Someday we’ll get Neuralink hardware on you and then
> WE WILL SEE.
>
>
>
> *From: *Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly <
> wimber...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 2:04 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
>
>
> Dammit, Nick.  I can and frequently do spend hours planning, remembering,
> composing emails, fantasizing about my next car, etc  without exhibiting
> any remarkable behavior beyond eyeblinking, touching my face (don't!),
> crossing and uncrossing my legs.  We've been through this before but  what
> is my latest plan about what to do when my auto lease is up?  No one knows
> but me despite your claim that I don't have private access to these kinds
> of things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM  wrote:
>
> Hi,Glen,
>
> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
> However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis
> based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken
> seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely*
> represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information
> not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random.
>
> This implies something about the compressibility and information content
> of the black box's behavior, right?
>
> On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer
> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon
> which to argue that they do.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Eric Charles]

Glen said: "Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it would be that
we are a dynamic system and the locus that we call "mind" moves around,
sometimes more or less in one place/time, sometimes spread very thin. And
that dynamism would be critical."

So, there are a few varieties of that right now, that are trying to get
along well together. Emobidied Cognition, Enactivism, Ecological Psychlogy,
Extended Cognition, etc. As a starting point for that work, especially for
the more mathematically inclined, I recommend "Radical Embodied Cognitive
Science" by Tony Chemero
,
for the more philosophically inclined, I recommend "Radicalizing
Enactivism" by Dan Hutto
, and for the more
general thinker interested in an overview of cool ideas I recommend "Beyond
the Brain" by Louise Barrett

.


---
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
American University - Adjunct Instructor



On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:46 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> I'm not sure what school I'm in. But neither of those positions seems
> right to me. I tend to believe in (quasi)cycles and flows. E.g. when I'm
> dreaming, my mind is inside me. When I'm engrossed in some activity, my
> mind is spread over both inside and outside ... as if the skin between me
> and the world is gone. Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it
> would be that we are a dynamic system and the locus that we call "mind"
> moves around, sometimes more or less in one place/time, sometimes spread
> very thin. And that dynamism would be critical.
>
> To boot, I would suggest that anyone *without* such dynamism would look
> like a Philosophical Zombie to me.
>
> On 5/5/20 1:40 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, if epigenesis,  emergence, etc., has taught us anything it is that
> what goes on inside the organism is not reliably modeled by what the
> organism does.  What I expect FRIAM is trying to digest here is which
> "mind" is a model of.  Some hold that mind is "in" the organism; others
> that mind is "of" the organism.  Eric and I are in that latter school, and
> I think you are, too, but I shouldn't presume.   If you are, then I expect
> you will join me in believing that the outards and the innards of an
> organism ate mostly different realms of discourse with some contingent but
> few necessary connections between them.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Marcus Daniels]

Oh, you SAY you do.   Someday we’ll get Neuralink hardware on you and then WE 
WILL SEE.

From: Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 2:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Dammit, Nick.  I can and frequently do spend hours planning, remembering, 
composing emails, fantasizing about my next car, etc  without exhibiting any 
remarkable behavior beyond eyeblinking, touching my face (don't!), crossing and 
uncrossing my legs.  We've been through this before but  what is my latest plan 
about what to do when my auto lease is up?  No one knows but me despite your 
claim that I don't have private access to these kinds of things.



On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,Glen,

Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
To: FriAM mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis 
based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, 
the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* represented on its 
surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information not exhibited by a 
black box's *behavior* will be lost/random.

This implies something about the compressibility and information content of the 
black box's behavior, right?

On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer 
> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon 
> which to argue that they do.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Frank Wimberly]

Dammit, Nick.  I can and frequently do spend hours planning, remembering,
composing emails, fantasizing about my next car, etc  without exhibiting
any remarkable behavior beyond eyeblinking, touching my face (don't!),
crossing and uncrossing my legs.  We've been through this before but  what
is my latest plan about what to do when my auto lease is up?  No one knows
but me despite your claim that I don't have private access to these kinds
of things.



On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM  wrote:

> Hi,Glen,
>
> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
> However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis
> based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken
> seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely*
> represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information
> not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random.
>
> This implies something about the compressibility and information content
> of the black box's behavior, right?
>
> On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer
> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon
> which to argue that they do.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Positively selected mutations

[Marcus Daniels]

From another source (GenBank SRA data) I see several other mutations, A930T, 
which is in the HR1.   This region in part determines how the virus fuses with 
a cell.They found one nearby at S943P.Here’s some context:

   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0305-x

I see some other mutations in the RBD (receptor binding domain), but they may 
not be proliferating.I don’t have the breadth of the GISAID data; they are 
“selective” (cough) about giving it to non-academics.   The V483A mutation I 
also observed.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of Roger Critchlow 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 1:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Positively selected mutations

Actually, I should wait and read the whole paper before posting on my phone.

It's not a new new strain, it's the strain of Covid-19 that we've been dealing 
with on the east coast, a mutant first noticed in Italy in February, but it's 
been spreading quite successfully through Europe and North America.

-- rec --

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:49 PM Roger Critchlow 
mailto:r...@elf.org>> wrote:
I think the implication is that there is a wave of more infectious covid 
building right now, just when everyone was looking for a chance to catch their 
breathand regroup.

-- rec --


On Tue, May 5, 2020, 11:47 AM uǝlƃ ☣ 
mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks! So, is the implication that even after we get some one vaccine, it may 
not be very effective? Like the flu. The flu shot Renee' gets at the hospital 
include 4 strains, whereas the ones I get at my clinic have only 3. So, does 
this talk of a mutating spike imply something similar will be the case 10 years 
from now with this one?

On 5/5/20 3:47 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> Have you guys seen this one:
>
> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1
>
> From Tanmoy Bhattacharya et al.  Does not look like good news.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I'm not sure what school I'm in. But neither of those positions seems right to 
me. I tend to believe in (quasi)cycles and flows. E.g. when I'm dreaming, my 
mind is inside me. When I'm engrossed in some activity, my mind is spread over 
both inside and outside ... as if the skin between me and the world is gone. 
Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it would be that we are a dynamic 
system and the locus that we call "mind" moves around, sometimes more or less 
in one place/time, sometimes spread very thin. And that dynamism would be 
critical.

To boot, I would suggest that anyone *without* such dynamism would look like a 
Philosophical Zombie to me.

On 5/5/20 1:40 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, if epigenesis,  emergence, etc., has taught us anything it is that what 
> goes on inside the organism is not reliably modeled by what the organism 
> does.  What I expect FRIAM is trying to digest here is which "mind" is a 
> model of.  Some hold that mind is "in" the organism; others that mind is "of" 
> the organism.  Eric and I are in that latter school, and I think you are, 
> too, but I shouldn't presume.   If you are, then I expect you will join me in 
> believing that the outards and the innards of an organism ate mostly 
> different realms of discourse with some contingent but few necessary 
> connections between them. 


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Well, if epigenesis,  emergence, etc., has taught us anything it is that what 
goes on inside the organism is not reliably modeled by what the organism does.  
What I expect FRIAM is trying to digest here is which "mind" is a model of.  
Some hold that mind is "in" the organism; others that mind is "of" the 
organism.  Eric and I are in that latter school, and I think you are, too, but 
I shouldn't presume.   If you are, then I expect you will join me in believing 
that the outards and the innards of an organism ate mostly different realms of 
discourse with some contingent but few necessary connections between them. 



Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:20 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Your interpretation is not quite what I would have said, but close enough. 

You're also right about what I meant by "black box". But the point I was making 
is that if we take EricC's principle seriously, then anything that goes on 
inside the box can be accurately and precisely "surmised" from outside the box. 
Anything else would be lost or random.

Also, my comment was in response to Dave's claim that behavior is not a basis 
for determining whether the box is thinking or not. I'm suggesting that if 
there's a large "random" component to the box's behavior, then perhaps it is 
thinking -- i.e. there's stuff going on inside the box that *cannot* be 
"surmised" from outside it.

On 5/5/20 1:09 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eric believes that everything that is going on in a black box is evident from 
> outside the box.
> [...]
> That, you rightly perceive, I disagree with.  In fact, the whole idea 
> of a black box is that you don’t know and can only surmise what is going on 
> within it.  If you could “see” within the box, it wouldn’t be black.  If I 
> owned a “golden goose”, I might surmise all sorts of internal arrangements by 
> which the goose took in food and produced gold, but I would never kill the 
> goose for the gold “inside”.  That’s to confuse a behavior of an entity with 
> the internal processes that mediate that behavior.  And I really DO mean 
> “internal” here.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Your interpretation is not quite what I would have said, but close enough. 

You're also right about what I meant by "black box". But the point I was making 
is that if we take EricC's principle seriously, then anything that goes on 
inside the box can be accurately and precisely "surmised" from outside the box. 
Anything else would be lost or random.

Also, my comment was in response to Dave's claim that behavior is not a basis 
for determining whether the box is thinking or not. I'm suggesting that if 
there's a large "random" component to the box's behavior, then perhaps it is 
thinking -- i.e. there's stuff going on inside the box that *cannot* be 
"surmised" from outside it.

On 5/5/20 1:09 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eric believes that everything that is going on in a black box is evident from 
> outside the box.
> [...]
> That, you rightly perceive, I disagree with.  In fact, the whole idea of a 
> black box is that you don’t know and can only surmise what is going on within 
> it.  If you could “see” within the box, it wouldn’t be black.  If I owned a 
> “golden goose”, I might surmise all sorts of internal arrangements by which 
> the goose took in food and produced gold, but I would never kill the goose 
> for the gold “inside”.  That’s to confuse a behavior of an entity with the 
> internal processes that mediate that behavior.  And I really DO mean 
> “internal” here.  


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Glen, 

 

Whether you like it or not, you are yourself a master of world play, so I 
assume you don't mean word "games" pejoratively.  But that is a different 
conversation.  You wrote:

 

. ..If EricC's principle is taken seriously, the inner world of a black box 
device will be *completely* represented on its surface

 

Given your second comment, I now interpret this as follows: 

 

Eric believes that everything that is going on in a black box is evident from 
outside the box. 

 

That, you rightly perceive, I disagree with.  In fact, the whole idea of a 
black box is that you don’t know and can only surmise what is going on within 
it.  If you could “see” within the box, it wouldn’t be black.  If I owned a 
“golden goose”, I might surmise all sorts of internal arrangements by which the 
goose took in food and produced gold, but I would never kill the goose for the 
gold “inside”.  That’s to confuse a behavior of an entity with the internal 
processes that mediate that behavior.  And I really DO mean “internal” here.  

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

thompnicks...@gmail.com

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:46 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

More word games. OK. s/world/context/g. Is that better?

 

On 5/5/20 12:43 PM,   thompnicks...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Oh.  Isn't my 'world' that which surrounds me?  Your world, that which 
> surrounds you?  Etc.  So for me to have an "inner world" I not only have to 
> climb inside me I have to climb inside that world inside me.  This is either 
> an EXTREMELY complicated elaboration of the metaphor OR contradictory. No?

 

--

☣ uǝlƃ

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe  
 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives:   
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC   
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Positively selected mutations

[Roger Critchlow]

Actually, I should wait and read the whole paper before posting on my
phone.

It's not a new new strain, it's the strain of Covid-19 that we've been
dealing with on the east coast, a mutant first noticed in Italy in
February, but it's been spreading quite successfully through Europe and
North America.

-- rec --

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:49 PM Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> I think the implication is that there is a wave of more infectious covid
> building right now, just when everyone was looking for a chance to catch
> their breathand regroup.
>
> -- rec --
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 11:47 AM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
>
>> Thanks! So, is the implication that even after we get some one vaccine,
>> it may not be very effective? Like the flu. The flu shot Renee' gets at the
>> hospital include 4 strains, whereas the ones I get at my clinic have only
>> 3. So, does this talk of a mutating spike imply something similar will be
>> the case 10 years from now with this one?
>>
>> On 5/5/20 3:47 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>> > Have you guys seen this one:
>> >
>> > https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1
>> >
>> > From Tanmoy Bhattacharya et al.  Does not look like good news.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ☣ uǝlƃ
>>
>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>>  . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC 
>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Positively selected mutations

[Marcus Daniels]

It’s co-evolving with humans on a massive scale.This is just a tiny window 
into the possible diversity.   There’s no telling.   Hey, but sure, no task 
force.   Who needs it?

From: Friam  on behalf of Roger Critchlow 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 11:49 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Positively selected mutations

I think the implication is that there is a wave of more infectious covid 
building right now, just when everyone was looking for a chance to catch their 
breathand regroup.

-- rec --


On Tue, May 5, 2020, 11:47 AM uǝlƃ ☣ 
mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks! So, is the implication that even after we get some one vaccine, it may 
not be very effective? Like the flu. The flu shot Renee' gets at the hospital 
include 4 strains, whereas the ones I get at my clinic have only 3. So, does 
this talk of a mutating spike imply something similar will be the case 10 years 
from now with this one?

On 5/5/20 3:47 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> Have you guys seen this one:
>
> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1
>
> From Tanmoy Bhattacharya et al.  Does not look like good news.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

More word games. OK. s/world/context/g. Is that better?

On 5/5/20 12:43 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh.  Isn't my 'world' that which surrounds me?  Your world, that which 
> surrounds you?  Etc.  So for me to have an "inner world" I not only have to 
> climb inside me I have to climb inside that world inside me.  This is either 
> an EXTREMELY complicated elaboration of the metaphor OR contradictory. No?

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Oh.  Isn't my 'world' that which surrounds me?  Your world, that which 
surrounds you?  Etc.  So for me to have an "inner world" I not only have to 
climb inside me I have to climb inside that world inside me.  This is either an 
EXTREMELY complicated elaboration of the metaphor OR contradictory. No?

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:38 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Not at all. Why?

On 5/5/20 12:35 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?  

--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Not at all. Why?

On 5/5/20 12:35 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?  

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Hi,Glen,

Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?  

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis 
based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, 
the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* represented on its 
surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information not exhibited by a 
black box's *behavior* will be lost/random. 

This implies something about the compressibility and information content of the 
black box's behavior, right? 

On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer 
> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon 
> which to argue that they do.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Ranked Choice Voting app

[Marcus Daniels]

Westworld reflects on this this season, although it is disguised as an 
examination of free will.

From: Friam  on behalf of Gillian Densmore 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 11:56 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ranked Choice Voting app

Huh, thanks!  Kat Williams (a comedian). Has a riff about that. Basically he 
felt at one time if you didn't have 'haters' (trolls) because of some issue 
they have. You might be doing it wrong. Basically if you don't have people 
challenging you (even as jackasses/trolls/haters)  you need to step up your 
game. At least that's his thinking. I got to thinking about that after 
mentioned that read..

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:47 AM uǝlƃ ☣ 
mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Trolling gets a bad rap. I just finished this book:

Hater, by John Semley
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/586135/hater-by-john-semley/

He does a very good job in a small book placing our modern (stigmatized) troll 
within the larger space of contrarians. And he talks about a lot of pop 
culture, too (from Nu-metal to Guy Fieri to Jesse Pinkman. His pithy _wit_ gets 
a little annoying at times. But I definitely recommend it.

On 5/4/20 12:38 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> We have a lot small "parties" that are their to basically troll. In my 
> opinion.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Ranked Choice Voting app

[Gillian Densmore]

Huh, thanks!  Kat Williams (a comedian). Has a riff about that. Basically
he felt at one time if you didn't have 'haters' (trolls) because of some
issue they have. You might be doing it wrong. Basically if you don't have
people challenging you (even as jackasses/trolls/haters)  you need to step
up your game. At least that's his thinking. I got to thinking about that
after mentioned that read..

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:47 AM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> Trolling gets a bad rap. I just finished this book:
>
> Hater, by John Semley
> https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/586135/hater-by-john-semley/
>
> He does a very good job in a small book placing our modern (stigmatized)
> troll within the larger space of contrarians. And he talks about a lot of
> pop culture, too (from Nu-metal to Guy Fieri to Jesse Pinkman. His pithy
> _wit_ gets a little annoying at times. But I definitely recommend it.
>
> On 5/4/20 12:38 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> > We have a lot small "parties" that are their to basically troll. In my
> opinion.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis 
based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, 
the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* represented on its 
surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information not exhibited by a 
black box's *behavior* will be lost/random. 

This implies something about the compressibility and information content of the 
black box's behavior, right? 

On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer 
> thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon 
> which to argue that they do.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Positively selected mutations

[Roger Critchlow]

I think the implication is that there is a wave of more infectious covid
building right now, just when everyone was looking for a chance to catch
their breathand regroup.

-- rec --


On Tue, May 5, 2020, 11:47 AM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> Thanks! So, is the implication that even after we get some one vaccine, it
> may not be very effective? Like the flu. The flu shot Renee' gets at the
> hospital include 4 strains, whereas the ones I get at my clinic have only
> 3. So, does this talk of a mutating spike imply something similar will be
> the case 10 years from now with this one?
>
> On 5/5/20 3:47 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> > Have you guys seen this one:
> >
> > https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1
> >
> > From Tanmoy Bhattacharya et al.  Does not look like good news.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Prof David West]

behavior:

1) the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others
2) the way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular 
situation or stimulus.
3) the way in which a natural phenomenon or a machine works or functions

Ignoring the first definition, is there a qualitative difference between the 
behavior attributed to a human being or animal and that attributed to the 
machine or natural phenomena? I believe there is.

Machine "behavior" is either a metaphor or an error of anthropomorphism. This 
is true, I believe, whether one speaks of a computer's UI (the computer is but 
a lump and sans any behavior) or a robot.

Alan Kay and Seymour Papert speak of the "user illusion" — the illusion that 
the computer is thinking or behaving or acting as if it were intelligent, a 
turtle dragging its tail to draw a line, etc. The key word is "illusion." 
Papert, incidentally was a student and protege of Jean Piaget, a psychologist.

This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer 
thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon which 
to argue that they do.

davew




On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 9:45 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, Dave,

> 

> So the same may be said of brains, right? Brain’s don’t behave. 

> 

> Where are you going with this? 

> 

> N

> 

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

> Clark University

> thompnicks...@gmail.com

> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> 

> 

> 


> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

> 

> Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is 
> thinking."

> 

> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking 
> at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) 
> and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to 
> the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

> 

> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the 
> only one that cannot see it?

> 

> davew

> 

> 

> On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Yup. That’s what he would say. What **persuades** you that a super competent 
>> computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that 
>> it (he, she) can think? 

>> 

>> Nick

>> 

>> Nicholas Thompson

>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

>> Clark University

>> thompnicks...@gmail.com

>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly

>> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM

>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 

>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

>> 

>> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool 
>> student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say: There appears to be 
>> no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just 
>> about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that 
>> they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and 
>> hypercompetent computers? 

>> 

>> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

>> 

>> Frank

>> 

>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:

>>> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just

>>> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like

>>> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of

>>> an allegorist?

>>> 

>>> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want 
>>> > to get some help for that.

>>> > 

>>> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

>>> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and 
>>> >> blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!

>>> 

>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>>>  . ...

>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

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

>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

>> 

>> 

>> --

>> Frank Wimberly

>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz

>> Santa Fe, NM 87505

>> 505 670-9918

>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>>  . ...

>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

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

>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

>> 

> 

> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Hi, all, 

 

I agree with Eric’s first two points.  Yay Pragmatic Maxim!

 

On Eric’s third point: 

 

Ok, I think this conversation is starting to  relate to others we have had on 
the list.  What do we say when we discover that the next words out of our 
mouths are almost certainly to be nonsense?  For Wittgenstein, this is not the 
end of speech, but the end of Philosophy.  I think he is happy that we go on 
speaking, but only if we recognize that we are no longer doing philosophy.   
But we can go on eating, drinking, singing, making war, making love, doing 
meditation etc just fine without philosophy. This is the sort of thinking that 
led to Harvard’s finest joining the marines or the psychedelic movement in the 
sixties.  And you are correct, it makes me uncomfortable.  

 

Let’s take that first stanza of the Jabberwok as an example.  It is classified 
as nonsense.  But is it really?  

 

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves 

  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: 

All mimsy were the borogoves, 

  And the mome raths outgrabe

 

No, because we can read it.  And I also think it is philosophy because it asks 
us to engage in the grammaratization of experience.  This suggests that 
philosophy is just the project of putting experience into speech.Hard to 
imagine not doing that while writing to FRIAM.  I suppose we could communicate 
in smiley’s. ☹

 

As usual,  you are forcing me to THINK here, and I have to be grateful for 
that, much though it annoys me. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 10:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

Quite a few things suddenly going on here

 

1) The "can computers act?" thing is a bit of a red herring, I think. We would 
be more obviously where we want to be by talking about robots, instead of 
computers. We could then separately discuss the issue of overt vs covert 
behavior (which has been phrased many different ways, none of which are ideal). 
After that, we could muse over which side of that distinction sending packets 
over the internet or altering pixels on a screen fall upon. 

 

2) The question of metaphors at the heart of thinking might have more legs. 
There are two separate issues there: One is about the role of metaphors in 
communication between two people, which might connect to "the hard problem"... 
maybe... The other is about whether much, or even all, individual "thinking" is 
in metaphors, which I don't think relates to "the hard problem", but I could be 
convinced otherwise. Also, in those discussions, Nick would take a formal model 
as a highly-abstracted metaphor. He wrote extensively about "The Prisoner's 
Dilemma" as a metaphor, for example, even its formally specified form. 

 

3) We have an explanation of "the hard problem" that places it remarkably close 
to "the Turing Test". I think there are pros and cons to that way of looking at 
it. The pro is that it focuses us on that "how would you know?" part of "the 
hard problem", i.e., "How would you know if someone else experienced blue as 
you experience blue?" The con is that it focuses us on a "subjective" attempt 
to answer that, rather than a pragmatist / broad-scientific attempt to answer 
it. In Turing Test comparison leads us to ask what a computer would have to do 
for us, as individuals, not to be able to tell if we were dealing with man or 
machine. the pragmatist approach is to ask, as comprehensively as possible, 
what the organism is doing when doing mental things, and then to determine if 
the machine is doing those same things. A pragmatist approach to "How would you 
know if someone else experienced blue as you experience blue?" should be to 
place ourselves and the other person in every possible situation in which 
"blue" is a relevant concept, and see if the resulting behavior matches. If it 
does match, then we have the same concept, and there is nothing else to talk 
about. If it doesn't match, then we are different in only and exactly those 
non-matches, and there is nothing else to talk about. The responses to the 
various probes are individual, but the individual is not relevant for 
determining the array of relevant situations. I am worried that the Turing Test 
comparison might lead us to think that our individual ideas about how to prob 
the machine matter, when they don't. 

 

4) Also, separately, Nick has accused my of intellectual slander. To clarify my 
prior statement: I have seen Nick become convinced, more than once, that some 
particular set of assumptions is so incredibly wrong that he loses the ability 
to do anything with the ideas those assumptions lead to. At least that's my 
i

[FRIAM] Fwd: Join Us for an Online Salon Tomorrow: Viral Pandemics Past and Present

[Tom Johnson]

Perhaps of interest.


Tom Johnson - t...@jtjohnson.com
Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
*NM Foundation for Open Government* 
*Check out It's The People's Data
*




-- Forwarded message -
From: Dorothy Bracey 
Date: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:56 PM
Subject: Fwd: Join Us for an Online Salon Tomorrow: Viral Pandemics Past
and Present
To: Tom Johnson 


I registered us both for this. You should get a confirming email, asking
you to register with the GoToWebinar
==
Dorothy H. Bracey -- Santa Fe, NM US
doro...@dorothybracey.com
==

-- Original Message --
From: School for Advanced Research 
To: "Dorothy Bracey H. Bracey" 
Date: May 4, 2020 at 8:01 AM
Subject: Join Us for an Online Salon Tomorrow: Viral Pandemics Past and
Present

[image: The School For Advanced Research]



*Online Salon: "From Smallpox to 1918 Flu to Coronavirus: Viral Pandemics
Past and Present" with Dr. Alan Swedlund*

*Tuesday, May 5 // 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. (MDT) *

Please join us tomorrow, May 5, in an Online Salon with Dr. Alan Swedlund,
1995–96 SAR Weatherhead resident scholar and professor emeritus of
anthropology at the University of Massachusetts, who will be examining
viral pandemics past and present. From historic smallpox outbreaks to
1918’s Spanish influenza to the modern-day coronavirus, Swedlund – whose
primary areas of expertise include the history of health and disease,
epidemiology, demography, and the interrelation of culture and human health
– will discuss the origins of these three pandemics, and the profound
effects they had (or are having) on America. He will also examine what the
1918 Avian Flu can tell us about COVID-19 today. The author or co-editor of
eight books, Swedlund most recently co-edited *Beyond Germs: Exploration of
Indigenous Depopulation in North America*.

This online event is free and open to the public. Please consider making a
suggested donation to help us continue to offer remote programs like this
one.

*Register*


*Photo: Book cover Plagues and Epidemics: Infected Spaces Past and Present
edited by D. Ann Herring and Alan C. Swedlund, published by Berg
Publishers. *

[image: SAR]

[image: Connect with us on Facebook]

[image: Follow us on Twitter]

[image: Watch us on YouTube]

[image: Follow us on Instagram]


*SAR advances creative thought and innovative work in the social sciences,
humanities, and Native American arts.*
Privacy Policy

|
Unsubscribe

Re: [FRIAM] Ranked Choice Voting app

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Trolling gets a bad rap. I just finished this book:

Hater, by John Semley
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/586135/hater-by-john-semley/

He does a very good job in a small book placing our modern (stigmatized) troll 
within the larger space of contrarians. And he talks about a lot of pop 
culture, too (from Nu-metal to Guy Fieri to Jesse Pinkman. His pithy _wit_ gets 
a little annoying at times. But I definitely recommend it.

On 5/4/20 12:38 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> We have a lot small "parties" that are their to basically troll. In my 
> opinion.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Marcus Daniels]

It’s finally come full circle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/science/xenobots-robots-frogs-xenopus.html

From: Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 9:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

When I was on the faculty of the Robotics Institute at CMU our leader 
(fearless?),Raj Reddy, said that robots are artifacts that sense, think, and 
act.  Robots are just computers with sensors, including cameras, and actuators. 
 The "thinking" is the hard part.

See


Raibert, Marc H. and Francis C. Wimberly.

  Tabular Control of Balance in a Dynamic Legged System.

  IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 14, 1984.



Frank

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:31 AM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think you have just identified the problem with dualism.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/


From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:56 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve


Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student 
asked me what the hard problem is I would say:  There appears to be no limit to 
how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to do just about anything 
that people think requires thought.  But I am persuaded that they can't think.  
What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.

I think I think, therefore I think I am?A real-world exercise in 
terminating tail recursion?  Waddya think?



Frank

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith 
mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:
I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to 
> get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and blow 
>> away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


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


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Frank Wimberly]

When I was on the faculty of the Robotics Institute at CMU our leader
(fearless?),Raj Reddy, said that robots are artifacts that sense, think,
and act.  Robots are just computers with sensors, including cameras, and
actuators.  The "thinking" is the hard part.

See

Raibert, Marc H. and Francis C. Wimberly.
  Tabular Control of Balance in a Dynamic Legged System.
  IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 14, 1984.


Frank


On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:31 AM  wrote:

> I think you have just identified the problem with dualism.
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Steven A Smith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:56 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool
> student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say:  There appears
> to be no limit to how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to
> do just about anything that people think requires thought.  But I am
> persuaded that they can't think.  What makes the difference between
> thinking people and hypercompetent computers?
>
>
>
> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.
>
> I think I think, therefore I think I am?A real-world exercise in
> terminating tail recursion?  Waddya think?
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:
>
> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like
> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
> an allegorist?
>
> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want
> to get some help for that.
> >
> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and
> blow away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
>
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)

On 5/5/20 9:29 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can one do an EEG of a computer? 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Marcus Daniels]

Put an AM radio next to a computer’s processor.

From: Friam  on behalf of "thompnicks...@gmail.com" 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 9:30 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Can one do an EEG of a computer?

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/


From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

You've never seen an EEG?

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:45 AM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi, Dave,

So the same may be said of brains, right?  Brain’s don’t behave.

Where are you going with this?

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/


From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is 
thinking."

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at 
my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and 
the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the 
behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the 
only one that cannot see it?

davew


On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, 
thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:

Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What persuades you that a super competent 
computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How would a Martian convince you that 
it (he, she) can think?



Nick



Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

thompnicks...@gmail.com

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/






From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve



Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student 
asked me what the hard problem is I would say:  There appears to be no limit to 
how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to do just about anything 
that people think requires thought.  But I am persuaded that they can't think.  
What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers?



Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.



Frank



On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith 
mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:
I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to 
> get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and blow 
>> away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/





--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/


--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

I think you have just identified the problem with dualism. 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:56 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 





Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student 
asked me what the hard problem is I would say:  There appears to be no limit to 
how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to do just about anything 
that people think requires thought.  But I am persuaded that they can't think.  
What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers? 
 

 

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.

I think I think, therefore I think I am?A real-world exercise in 
terminating tail recursion?  Waddya think?

 

 

Frank

 

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like
I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
an allegorist?

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to 
> get some help for that.
>
> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and blow 
>> away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
 
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ 
 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 




 

-- 

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





.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Can one do an EEG of a computer?  

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

You've never seen an EEG?

 

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:45 AM mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi, Dave, 

 

So the same may be said of brains, right?  Brain’s don’t behave.  

 

Where are you going with this?  

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com  
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is 
thinking."

 

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at 
my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and 
the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the 
behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

 

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the 
only one that cannot see it?

 

davew

 

 

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
  wrote:

Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What persuades you that a super competent 
computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How would a Martian convince you that 
it (he, she) can think? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM

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

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student 
asked me what the hard problem is I would say:  There appears to be no limit to 
how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to do just about anything 
that people think requires thought.  But I am persuaded that they can't think.  
What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers? 

 

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.

 

Frank

 

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just

self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like

I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of

an allegorist?

 

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to 
> get some help for that.

> 

> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and blow 
>> away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
 

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ 
 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

 

 

--

Frank Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
 

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

 

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
 
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 




 

-- 

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

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group li

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Eric Charles]

Quite a few things suddenly going on here

1) The "can computers act?" thing is a bit of a red herring, I think. We
would be more obviously where we want to be by talking about robots,
instead of computers. We could then separately discuss the issue of overt
vs covert behavior (which has been phrased many different ways, none of
which are ideal). After that, we could muse over which side of that
distinction sending packets over the internet or altering pixels on a
screen fall upon.

2) The question of metaphors at the heart of thinking might have more legs.
There are two separate issues there: One is about the role of metaphors in
communication between two people, which might connect to "the hard
problem"... maybe... The other is about whether much, or even all,
individual "thinking" is in metaphors, which I don't think relates to "the
hard problem", but I could be convinced otherwise. Also, in those
discussions, Nick would take a formal model as a highly-abstracted
metaphor. He wrote extensively about "The Prisoner's Dilemma" as a
metaphor, for example, even its formally specified form.

3) We have an explanation of "the hard problem" that places it remarkably
close to "the Turing Test". I think there are pros and cons to that way of
looking at it. The pro is that it focuses us on that "how would you know?"
part of "the hard problem", i.e., "How would you know if someone else
experienced blue as you experience blue?" The con is that it focuses us on
a "subjective" attempt to answer that, rather than a pragmatist /
broad-scientific attempt to answer it. In Turing Test comparison leads us
to ask what a computer would have to do for us, as individuals, not to be
able to tell if we were dealing with man or machine. the pragmatist
approach is to ask, as comprehensively as possible, what the organism is
doing when doing mental things, and then to determine if the machine is
doing those same things. A pragmatist approach to "How would you know if
someone else experienced blue as you experience blue?" *should *be to place
ourselves and the other person in every possible situation in which "blue"
is a relevant concept, and see if the resulting behavior matches. If it
does match, then we have the same concept, and there is nothing else to
talk about. If it doesn't match, then we are different in only and exactly
those non-matches, and there is nothing else to talk about. The responses
to the various probes are individual, but the individual is not relevant
for determining the array of relevant situations. I am worried that the
Turing Test comparison might lead us to think that our individual ideas
about how to prob the machine matter, when they don't.

4) Also, separately, Nick has accused my of intellectual slander. To
clarify my prior statement: I have seen Nick become convinced, more than
once, that some particular set of assumptions is so incredibly wrong that
he loses the ability to do anything with the ideas those assumptions lead
to. At least that's my impression of what happens. I take "the hard
problem" to be an example of such. I think Nick's "problem" is related to
Wittgenstein's saying about being silent. Once the conversation becomes
centered completely around something about-which-we-cannot-speak, Nick
can't get himself to keep speaking, beyond trying to point out to everyone
that something has gone horribly wrong. (I'm not sure if Nick will be any
happier with that diagnosis, but it's as close to a* mia culpa* as he is
likely to get out of me.) If you *a priori* declare that "How would you
know if someone else experienced blue as you experience blue?" as an
inherently unanswerable question, and then you ask the question... well...
then there is nothing more to do; there is nowhere to go, other than to
point out that something has gone wrong.

---
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
American University - Adjunct Instructor



On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:56 AM Steven A Smith  wrote:

>
> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool
> student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say:  There appears
> to be no limit to how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to
> do just about anything that people think requires thought.  But I am
> persuaded that they can't think.  What makes the difference between
> thinking people and hypercompetent computers?
>
> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.
>
> I think I think, therefore I think I am?A real-world exercise in
> terminating tail recursion?  Waddya think?
>
>
>
> Frank
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:
>
>> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
>> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like
>> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
>> an allegorist?
>>
>> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might
>> want

Re: [FRIAM] NYT shows King going negative

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick writes:

"And now they are moving back.  It looks like the current strategy is to make 
the social security system solvent."  

If they were even that competent, which they are not.

Marcus


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] NYT shows King going negative

[thompnickson2]

Marcus, Glen, 'n all,

Of course there are plenty of seeds out there.  Until the White Vans are 
deployed, EVERY relaxation will the accompanied by an uptick.  How could it be 
otherwise?  Do you remember back in the early days of March when the strategy 
was to "flatten the curve" and "slow the spread"?  That was a strategy to 
prevent the overwhelming of the health system, NOT a strategy to protect 
vulnerable people in the long run.  We DID move the goal posts.  And now they 
are moving back.  It looks like the current strategy is to make the social 
security system solvent.  

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:30 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NYT shows King going negative

Is some question that there is still a seed to restart everything?It seems 
to me these trends are all subject to change as soon as distancing is relaxed.  

On 5/5/20, 8:16 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣"  wrote:

It's interesting that the NYT data shows King going negative (-36 cases) 
yesterday, but JHU doesn't. The slight uptick in DeKalb I mentioned on Friday 
seems to have washed out a bit.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Frank, 

 

Now THAT’s an example of a break through.  If the next generation just married 
Alexa (“Yes, Matthew.  I thought you would never ask. When you like to tie the 
knot?”), that would settle the environmental problem pretty quick.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 6:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

My grandson uses his Echo Dot extensively.  A soft female voice answers his 
questions about spelling, arithmetic, geography, etc.  The other day he asked, 
understandably, "Alexa, will you marry me?"  She said, "I've decided to wait 
until Mars is colonized before making that commitment."  Good thinking.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 5:39 AM Prof David West mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote:

Came across this yesterday afternoon:

 

"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The scientific mind 
is  usually orderly, with a natural love for order. It resents and tends to 
ignore fields in which order is not readily apparent. It gravitates to fields 
in which order is easily found such as the physical sciences, and leaves more 
complex fields to those who play by ear, as it were. Thus we have a rigourous 
science of thermodynamics but are not like to have a science of psychodynamics 
for many years to come."

 

>From a Robert A. Heinlein book, Sixth Column, I read when I was an 
>impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where my antipathy to 
>some science comes from. 

 

davew

 

 

On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is 
thinking."

 

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at 
my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and 
the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the 
behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

 

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the 
only one that cannot see it?

 

davew

 

 

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
  wrote:

Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What persuades you that a super competent 
computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How would a Martian convince you that 
it (he, she) can think? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM

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

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

 

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student 
asked me what the hard problem is I would say:  There appears to be no limit to 
how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to do just about anything 
that people think requires thought.  But I am persuaded that they can't think.  
What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers? 

 

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.

 

Frank

 

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

 

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just

self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like

I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of

an allegorist?

 

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to 
> get some help for that.

> 

> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and blow 
>> away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
 

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ 
 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

--

 

Frank Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group list

Re: [FRIAM] green swans

[Frank Wimberly]

One child?  I thought you got SS payments.

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:57 AM  wrote:

> Hi, [again] David
>
> The idea of breakthrough suggests that "we" know where "we" are going.   In
> my life time, we have had a zillion breakthrough's only to screw things up
> again through overpopulation and greed.  There is no breakthrough that does
> not include our some how agreeing that, say, one car, or one house, or,
> even, one child, one wife,  is ... enough.  Somehow aspiration has to be
> decoupled from the environment.  This is where you Buddhists come in, no?
>
> I am afraid Taleb is just going to be a feeder of dinosaurs.
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:45 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] green swans
>
> Just ordered, hardcover (two weeks before it gets here probably) and kindle
> (will read later today.) Looks very interesting but will send review later.
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Green-Swans-Coming-Regenerative-Capitalism/dp/1732439
> 125/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1588678839&sr=8-1-spons
> 
>
> "If Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swans" are problems that take us
> exponentially toward breakdown, then "Green Swans" are solutions that take
> us exponentially toward breakthrough. The success--and survival--of
> humanity
> now depends on how we rein in the first and accelerate the second."
>
> davew
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Steven A Smith]

On 5/5/20 9:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> You've never seen an EEG?

Or probed around (carefully) with an oscilliscope/logic-analyzer probe
in your phone while it is operating? 

        (no wonder my phones keep fritzing!)

>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:45 AM  > wrote:
>
> Hi, Dave,
>
>  
>
> So the same may be said of brains, right?  Brain’s don’t behave. 
>
>  
>
> Where are you going with this? 
>
>  
>
> N
>
>  
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com 
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Friam  > *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
>  
>
> Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking,
> therefore it is thinking."
>
>  
>
> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I
> am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet,
> laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them
> exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the glass
> paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.
>
>  
>
> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the
> computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?
>
>  
>
> davew
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com
>  wrote:
>
> Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What */persuades/* you that a
> super competent computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How
> would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think? 
>
>  
>
> Nick
>
>  
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com 
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Friam  > *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
>  
>
> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a
> highschool student asked me what the /hard problem/ is I would
> say:  There appears to be no limit to how competent computers
> can be.  They seem to be able to do just about anything that
> people think requires thought.  But I am persuaded that they
> can't think.  What makes the difference between thinking
> people and hypercompetent computers? 
>
>  
>
> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. 
> I think.
>
>  
>
> Frank
>
>  
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith
> mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:
>
> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
>
> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why
> do I feel like
>
> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would
> make me more of
>
> an allegorist?
>
>  
>
> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's
> compulsive. You might want to get some help for that.
>
> > 
>
> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>
> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want
> to run out and blow away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!
>
>  
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -..
> -..-. -.. .- ...  . ...
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> 
>
> unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC
> 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>  
>
>  
>
> --
>
> Frank Wimberly
>
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-.
> -.. .- ...  . ...
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>   

Re: [FRIAM] green swans

[thompnickson2]

Hi, [again] David

The idea of breakthrough suggests that "we" know where "we" are going.   In
my life time, we have had a zillion breakthrough's only to screw things up
again through overpopulation and greed.  There is no breakthrough that does
not include our some how agreeing that, say, one car, or one house, or,
even, one child, one wife,  is ... enough.  Somehow aspiration has to be
decoupled from the environment.  This is where you Buddhists come in, no?  

I am afraid Taleb is just going to be a feeder of dinosaurs.  

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:45 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] green swans

Just ordered, hardcover (two weeks before it gets here probably) and kindle
(will read later today.) Looks very interesting but will send review later.

https://www.amazon.com/Green-Swans-Coming-Regenerative-Capitalism/dp/1732439
125/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1588678839&sr=8-1-spons

"If Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swans" are problems that take us
exponentially toward breakdown, then "Green Swans" are solutions that take
us exponentially toward breakthrough. The success--and survival--of humanity
now depends on how we rein in the first and accelerate the second."

davew

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
 . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Steven A Smith]

> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool
> student asked me what the /hard problem/ is I would say:  There
> appears to be no limit to how competent computers can be.  They seem
> to be able to do just about anything that people think requires
> thought.  But I am persuaded that they can't think.  What makes the
> difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers? 
>
> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.

I think I think, therefore I think I am?    A real-world exercise in
terminating tail recursion?  Waddya think?


>
> Frank
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  > wrote:
>
> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel
> like
> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
> an allegorist?
>
> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You
> might want to get some help for that.
> >
> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run
> out and blow away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -..
> .- ...  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> 
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC 
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> -- 
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Frank Wimberly]

You've never seen an EEG?

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:45 AM  wrote:

> Hi, Dave,
>
>
>
> So the same may be said of brains, right?  Brain’s don’t behave.
>
>
>
> Where are you going with this?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
>
>
> Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it
> is thinking."
>
>
>
> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am
> looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and
> desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely
> identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space
> on my desk.
>
>
>
> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I
> the only one that cannot see it?
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What *persuades* you that a super
> competent computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How would a Martian
> convince you that it (he, she) can think?
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
>
>
> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool
> student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say:  There appears
> to be no limit to how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to
> do just about anything that people think requires thought.  But I am
> persuaded that they can't think.  What makes the difference between
> thinking people and hypercompetent computers?
>
>
>
> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:
>
> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
>
> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like
>
> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
>
> an allegorist?
>
>
>
> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want
> to get some help for that.
>
> >
>
> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>
> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and
> blow away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!
>
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frank Wimberly
>
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Positively selected mutations

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Thanks! So, is the implication that even after we get some one vaccine, it may 
not be very effective? Like the flu. The flu shot Renee' gets at the hospital 
include 4 strains, whereas the ones I get at my clinic have only 3. So, does 
this talk of a mutating spike imply something similar will be the case 10 years 
from now with this one?

On 5/5/20 3:47 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> Have you guys seen this one:
> 
> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1
> 
> From Tanmoy Bhattacharya et al.  Does not look like good news.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2]

Hi, Dave, 

 

So the same may be said of brains, right?  Brain’s don’t behave.  

 

Where are you going with this?  

 

N

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is 
thinking."

 

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at 
my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and 
the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the 
behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

 

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the 
only one that cannot see it?

 

davew

 

 

On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
  wrote:

Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What persuades you that a super competent 
computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How would a Martian convince you that 
it (he, she) can think? 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM

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

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

 

Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool student 
asked me what the hard problem is I would say:  There appears to be no limit to 
how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to do just about anything 
that people think requires thought.  But I am persuaded that they can't think.  
What makes the difference between thinking people and hypercompetent computers? 

 

Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.

 

Frank

 

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just

self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like

I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of

an allegorist?

 

> Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want to 
> get some help for that.

> 

> On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

>> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and blow 
>> away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
 

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ 
 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

 

 

--

Frank Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

 

 

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] NYT shows King going negative

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I have no such doubt. I'm just making a lazy attempt to track the effects of 
reopening on the number of cases. I only posted this one to caution anyone who 
might tend to rely on any single data source.

DeKalb (hosting Atlanta) and King (hosting Seattle) are a good contrast due to 
their density and being governed by very different reopening rule sets. And 
Denver's interesting mostly for personal reasons, but because Colorado is part 
of the Western states alliance and has yet to flatten their curve.

On 5/5/20 8:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Is some question that there is still a seed to restart everything?It 
> seems to me these trends are all subject to change as soon as distancing is 
> relaxed.  

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] NYT shows King going negative

[Marcus Daniels]

Is some question that there is still a seed to restart everything?It seems 
to me these trends are all subject to change as soon as distancing is relaxed.  

On 5/5/20, 8:16 AM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣"  wrote:

It's interesting that the NYT data shows King going negative (-36 cases) 
yesterday, but JHU doesn't. The slight uptick in DeKalb I mentioned on Friday 
seems to have washed out a bit.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[FRIAM] Positively selected mutations

[David Eric Smith]

Have you guys seen this one:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1 


From Tanmoy Bhattacharya et al.  Does not look like good news.

Eric


.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[uǝlƃ ☣]

This is analogous to starving one's dog, then pointing at the corpse and 
asking: What is this behavior y'all are ascribing to dogs?

On 5/5/20 4:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking 
> at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) 
> and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to 
> the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.
> 
> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the 
> only one that cannot see it?

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Frank Wimberly]

Thanks, Steve.  I saw that and enjoyed it very much.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 8:08 AM Steven A Smith  wrote:

> Frank-
>
> Given your anecdote, I strongly recommend watching the Spike Jonze's movie
> HER which has all the earmarks of a dystopian near-future but not to be a
> spoiler, it actually resolves very sweetly.   I believe the voice of "Her"
> is Scarlett Johannson.   Alan Watts makes an interesting Cameo.
>
> - Steve
>
> My grandson uses his Echo Dot extensively.  A soft female voice answers
> his questions about spelling, arithmetic, geography, etc.  The other day he
> asked, understandably, "Alexa, will you marry me?"  She said, "I've decided
> to wait until Mars is colonized before making that commitment."  Good
> thinking.
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 5:39 AM Prof David West  wrote:
>
>> Came across this yesterday afternoon:
>>
>> *"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The scientific
>> mind is  usually orderly, with a natural love for order. It resents and
>> tends to ignore fields in which order is not readily apparent. It
>> gravitates to fields in which order is easily found such as the physical
>> sciences, and leaves more complex fields to those who play by ear, as it
>> were. Thus we have a rigourous science of thermodynamics but are not like
>> to have a science of psychodynamics for many years to come."*
>>
>> From a Robert A. Heinlein book, *Sixth Column*, I read when I was an
>> impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where my antipathy
>> to some science comes from.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>>
>> Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it
>> is thinking."
>>
>> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am
>> looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and
>> desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely
>> identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space
>> on my desk.
>>
>> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I
>> the only one that cannot see it?
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What *persuades* you that a super
>> competent computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How would a Martian
>> convince you that it (he, she) can think?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool
>> student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say:  There appears
>> to be no limit to how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to
>> do just about anything that people think requires thought.  But I am
>> persuaded that they can't think.  What makes the difference between
>> thinking people and hypercompetent computers?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.
>>
>>
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
>> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like
>> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
>> an allegorist?
>>
>> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might
>> want to get some help for that.
>> >
>> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and
>> blow away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!
>>
>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>>  . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC 
>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Frank Wimberly
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>> 505 670-9918
>>
>>
>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>>  . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Steven A Smith]

Frank-

Given your anecdote, I strongly recommend watching the Spike Jonze's
movie HER which has all the earmarks of a dystopian near-future but not
to be a spoiler, it actually resolves very sweetly.   I believe the
voice of "Her" is Scarlett Johannson.   Alan Watts makes an interesting
Cameo.

- Steve

> My grandson uses his Echo Dot extensively.  A soft female voice
> answers his questions about spelling, arithmetic, geography, etc.  The
> other day he asked, understandably, "Alexa, will you marry me?"  She
> said, "I've decided to wait until Mars is colonized before making that
> commitment."  Good thinking.
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020, 5:39 AM Prof David West  > wrote:
>
> Came across this yesterday afternoon:
>
> /"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The
> scientific mind is  usually orderly, with a natural love for
> order. It resents and tends to ignore fields in which order is not
> readily apparent. It gravitates to fields in which order is easily
> found such as the physical sciences, and leaves more complex
> fields to those who play by ear, as it were. Thus we have a
> rigourous science of thermodynamics but are not like to have a
> science of psychodynamics for many years to come."/
>
> From a Robert A. Heinlein book, /Sixth Column/, I read when I was
> an impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where
> my antipathy to some science comes from.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking,
>> therefore it is thinking."
>>
>> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I
>> am looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone,
>> tablet, laptop, and desktop) and the only behavior I see any of
>> them exhibiting is precisely identical to the behavior of the
>> glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.
>>
>> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the
>> computer? Am I the only one that cannot see it?
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What */persuades/* you that a
>>> super competent computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How
>>> would a Martian convince you that it (he, she) can think? 
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Nicholas Thompson
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>>
>>> Clark University
>>>
>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com 
>>>
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam >> > *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a
>>> highschool student asked me what the /hard problem/ is I would
>>> say:  There appears to be no limit to how competent computers
>>> can be.  They seem to be able to do just about anything that
>>> people think requires thought.  But I am persuaded that they
>>> can't think.  What makes the difference between thinking people
>>> and hypercompetent computers? 
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I
>>> think.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
>>> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do
>>> I feel like
>>> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make
>>> me more of
>>> an allegorist?
>>>
>>> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive.
>>> You might want to get some help for that.
>>> >
>>> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>>> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to
>>> run out and blow away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!
>>>
>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -..
>>> -..-. -.. .- ...  . ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> 
>>> unsubscribe
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Frank Wimberly]

My grandson uses his Echo Dot extensively.  A soft female voice answers his
questions about spelling, arithmetic, geography, etc.  The other day he
asked, understandably, "Alexa, will you marry me?"  She said, "I've decided
to wait until Mars is colonized before making that commitment."  Good
thinking.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 5:39 AM Prof David West  wrote:

> Came across this yesterday afternoon:
>
> *"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The scientific
> mind is  usually orderly, with a natural love for order. It resents and
> tends to ignore fields in which order is not readily apparent. It
> gravitates to fields in which order is easily found such as the physical
> sciences, and leaves more complex fields to those who play by ear, as it
> were. Thus we have a rigourous science of thermodynamics but are not like
> to have a science of psychodynamics for many years to come."*
>
> From a Robert A. Heinlein book, *Sixth Column*, I read when I was an
> impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where my antipathy
> to some science comes from.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>
> Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it
> is thinking."
>
> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am
> looking at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and
> desktop) and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely
> identical to the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space
> on my desk.
>
> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I
> the only one that cannot see it?
>
> davew
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Yup.  That’s what he would say.  What *persuades* you that a super
> competent computer can’t think?  Can a dog think?  How would a Martian
> convince you that it (he, she) can think?
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>
>
>
>
> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool
> student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say:  There appears
> to be no limit to how competent computers can be.  They seem to be able to
> do just about anything that people think requires thought.  But I am
> persuaded that they can't think.  What makes the difference between
> thinking people and hypercompetent computers?
>
>
>
> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks.  I think.
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:
>
>
> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not?   Why do I feel like
> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"?   I guess that would make me more of
> an allegorist?
>
> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want
> to get some help for that.
> >
> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete.  It makes me want to run out and
> blow away a few cacti.  Oh, it's a metaphor!
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Frank Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 505 670-9918
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabbl

[FRIAM] green swans

[Prof David West]

Just ordered, hardcover (two weeks before it gets here probably) and kindle 
(will read later today.) Looks very interesting but will send review later.

https://www.amazon.com/Green-Swans-Coming-Regenerative-Capitalism/dp/1732439125/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1588678839&sr=8-1-spons

"If Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Black Swans" are problems that take us 
exponentially toward breakdown, then "Green Swans" are solutions that take us 
exponentially toward breakthrough. The success--and survival--of humanity now 
depends on how we rein in the first and accelerate the second."

davew

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Prof David West]

Came across this yesterday afternoon:

*"Psychology is not a science because it is too difficult. The scientific mind 
is usually orderly, with a natural love for order. It resents and tends to 
ignore fields in which order is not readily apparent. It gravitates to fields 
in which order is easily found such as the physical sciences, and leaves more 
complex fields to those who play by ear, as it were. Thus we have a rigourous 
science of thermodynamics but are not like to have a science of psychodynamics 
for many years to come."*

>From a Robert A. Heinlein book, *Sixth Column*, I read when I was an 
>impressionable child. Not that he is correct, but I see where my antipathy to 
>some science comes from. 

davew


On Tue, May 5, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is 
> thinking."
> 
> How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking 
> at my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) 
> and the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to 
> the behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.
> 
> What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the 
> only one that cannot see it?
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Yup. That’s what he would say. What **persuades** you that a super competent 
>> computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that 
>> it (he, she) can think? 

>> 

>> Nick

>> 

>> Nicholas Thompson

>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

>> Clark University

>> thompnicks...@gmail.com

>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve
>> 

>> 

>> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool 
>> student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say: There appears to be 
>> no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just 
>> about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that 
>> they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and 
>> hypercompetent computers? 

>> 

>> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

>> 

>> Frank

>> 

>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:

>>> 

>>> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
>>> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
>>> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
>>> an allegorist?
>>> 
>>> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want 
>>> > to get some help for that.
>>> >
>>> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>>> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and 
>>> >> blow away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!
>>> 
>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>>>  . ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> 

>> 

>> 

>> --

>> 

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

>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>>  . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>> 
> 
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Prof David West]

Allow Nick to say "a computer behaves as if it is thinking, therefore it is 
thinking."

How does a computer behave? Or, what is a computer's behavior? I am looking at 
my computer - actually four of them (iPhone, tablet, laptop, and desktop) and 
the only behavior I see any of them exhibiting is precisely identical to the 
behavior of the glass paperweight that also occupies space on my desk.

What is this thinking behavior y'all are ascribing to the computer? Am I the 
only one that cannot see it?

davew


On Mon, May 4, 2020, at 9:34 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yup. That’s what he would say. What **persuades** you that a super competent 
> computer can’t think? Can a dog think? How would a Martian convince you that 
> it (he, she) can think? 

> 

> Nick

> 

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

> Clark University

> thompnicks...@gmail.com

> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> 

> 

> 


> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly
> *Sent:* Monday, May 4, 2020 9:08 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

> 

> Maybe I missed something that makes this redundant but if a highschool 
> student asked me what the *hard problem* is I would say: There appears to be 
> no limit to how competent computers can be. They seem to be able to do just 
> about anything that people think requires thought. But I am persuaded that 
> they can't think. What makes the difference between thinking people and 
> hypercompetent computers? 

> 

> Nick would say if it behaves as if it thinks then it thinks. I think.

> 

> Frank

> 

> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Steven A Smith  wrote:


>> I thought this was a support group for recovering (or just
>> self-indulgent) metaphorists... you mean it's not? Why do I feel like
>> I'm in a scene from "Fight Club"? I guess that would make me more of
>> an allegorist?
>> 
>> > Is it? You people can't help yourselves. It's compulsive. You might want 
>> > to get some help for that.
>> >
>> > On 5/4/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> >> Choosing one's rifle is so concrete. It makes me want to run out and blow 
>> >> away a few cacti. Oh, it's a metaphor!
>> 
>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>>  . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

> 

> 

> --


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

> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... 
>  . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...  
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/