Re: [FRIAM] The site of origin of the 1918 influenza pandemic and its public health implications

[Tom Johnson]

Always good to have the original, sorta, source.  Thanks.


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
*





Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:17 PM  wrote:

> The 1918 flu pandemic really DID start in Sublette, KS, a town through
> which I would guess every one of you has driven at one time or other.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340389/
>
> nick
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[David Eric Smith]

Yes, doesn’t matter.  Email is a clunky chanel.

Best,

E


> On May 22, 2020, at 8:52 AM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Thank you, ERIC!
>  
> I KNEW I was going to make that mistake some day. 
>  
> Nick 
>  
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> thompnicks...@gmail.com 
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ 
> 
>  
>  
> From: thompnicks...@gmail.com  
> mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:50 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'  >
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity
>  
> Thank you, David, 
>  
> I need to think about all of this.  
>  
> A brief early response:  There are two things that words do: they stroke and 
> they convey information.  AT the core, I think, my authoritarian impatience 
> (to use a word that has recently blossomed in the correspondence on the list) 
>  arise when people confuse one use of words for another.   When we speak of 
> that of which we cannot speak we are like primates who groom but do not 
> remove any lice.  Grooming and being groomed is very nice; but I am really 
> interested in louse removal. 
>  
> 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 David Eric Smith
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:15 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity
>  
> Signal to Nick:
>  
> You commented on wanting to understand the conversation about formalists and 
> intuitionists which I have been using in various conversations with Glen and 
> Jon.  Now is the chance to do it at low cost.
>  
> Frank has provided two proofs of irrationality of the square root of 2, one 
> formalist (using proof by contradiction requiring acceptance of the law of 
> the excluded middle) a few days ago, this most recent one being constructive, 
> meaning that it constructs a degree of difference that you can point to 
> concretely, rather than concluding from the syntax that there must be such.  
> One gets at the core of anything I was trying to say by looking at these two 
> proofs, and deciding whether one can see what is different in their sense.
>  
> For me, these concrete, super-simple minimal pairs are the mental tools to 
> get at the difference between one style of thought and another.  I can then 
> try to decide whether, in some much more difficult context, where it is very 
> hard to be concrete, I think I see the same kind of contrast in style.  Since 
> I am too slow to almost ever work out the watertight version of anything, and 
> some of these would be too hard for me to do at all, I don’t even seriously 
> intend to check whether my imagistic impression is reliable.  I am willing to 
> use the simple cases I do understand as perceptive filters to try to make 
> some kind of approximate sense of the hard cases, as the alternative to just 
> letting it all go by.
>  
> You commented in one of these emails that you could accept “irreducible” as 
> long as it didn’t mean “can’t be described”, and I have been thinking over 
> the past days whether I can come down on one side of that or the other.  You 
> might also have said, “as long as it didn’t mean `can’t be observed’ “.
>  
> I decided I don’t know.  To know what can or can’t be observed, can or can’t 
> be described, is or isn’t behavior, one has to operationalize any of those 
> and decide how reliable the operationalization is.  The exchange mostly of 
> Glen, EricC, and Jon about what is or isn’t behavior, often quite tedious, 
> seemed like it took seriously the right caution.  One could build comparable 
> tedious harangues around “observe” and “describe”, and perhaps must to 
> resolve this.
>  
> You might think you can say, as a matter of syntax, that “of course it must 
> be observable” or else one is denying science.  Physicists though for almost 
> 200 years that that “of course” was unproblematic, that they had an 
> operationalization that was both flexible enough to extend to more and more 
> subjects, restrictive enough to have content, and expressible in equivalence 
> to mathematical objects.  Then they learned that the way they had assumed “of 
> course” it could be done wasn’t the correct formalization to be extended to 
> quantum mechanics.  That didn’t mean that there wasn’t a correct 
> formalization, only that a different one was required, to subsume all that 
> had worked before, and also extend where the former one couldn’t go.  The 
> proof of inadequacy of the former was only demonstrated by putti

[FRIAM] The site of origin of the 1918 influenza pandemic and its public health implications

[thompnickson2]

The 1918 flu pandemic really DID start in Sublette, KS, a town through which
I would guess every one of you has driven at one time or other.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340389/ 

nick

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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[David Eric Smith]

Signal to Nick:

You commented on wanting to understand the conversation about formalists and 
intuitionists which I have been using in various conversations with Glen and 
Jon.  Now is the chance to do it at low cost.

Frank has provided two proofs of irrationality of the square root of 2, one 
formalist (using proof by contradiction requiring acceptance of the law of the 
excluded middle) a few days ago, this most recent one being constructive, 
meaning that it constructs a degree of difference that you can point to 
concretely, rather than concluding from the syntax that there must be such.  
One gets at the core of anything I was trying to say by looking at these two 
proofs, and deciding whether one can see what is different in their sense.

For me, these concrete, super-simple minimal pairs are the mental tools to get 
at the difference between one style of thought and another.  I can then try to 
decide whether, in some much more difficult context, where it is very hard to 
be concrete, I think I see the same kind of contrast in style.  Since I am too 
slow to almost ever work out the watertight version of anything, and some of 
these would be too hard for me to do at all, I don’t even seriously intend to 
check whether my imagistic impression is reliable.  I am willing to use the 
simple cases I do understand as perceptive filters to try to make some kind of 
approximate sense of the hard cases, as the alternative to just letting it all 
go by.

You commented in one of these emails that you could accept “irreducible” as 
long as it didn’t mean “can’t be described”, and I have been thinking over the 
past days whether I can come down on one side of that or the other.  You might 
also have said, “as long as it didn’t mean `can’t be observed’ “.

I decided I don’t know.  To know what can or can’t be observed, can or can’t be 
described, is or isn’t behavior, one has to operationalize any of those and 
decide how reliable the operationalization is.  The exchange mostly of Glen, 
EricC, and Jon about what is or isn’t behavior, often quite tedious, seemed 
like it took seriously the right caution.  One could build comparable tedious 
harangues around “observe” and “describe”, and perhaps must to resolve this.

You might think you can say, as a matter of syntax, that “of course it must be 
observable” or else one is denying science.  Physicists though for almost 200 
years that that “of course” was unproblematic, that they had an 
operationalization that was both flexible enough to extend to more and more 
subjects, restrictive enough to have content, and expressible in equivalence to 
mathematical objects.  Then they learned that the way they had assumed “of 
course” it could be done wasn’t the correct formalization to be extended to 
quantum mechanics.  That didn’t mean that there wasn’t a correct formalization, 
only that a different one was required, to subsume all that had worked before, 
and also extend where the former one couldn’t go.  The proof of inadequacy of 
the former was only demonstrated by putting one that was more correct in its 
place and exhibiting the difference (constructive); it seems like it would have 
been hopeless to anticipate, in the pre-quantum days, that the notion of 
observability was inadequate in the way it actually was, and even more hopeless 
to try to use a syntactic argument (formalist) either to assert its sufficiency 
or identify the specific defect that quantum mechanics would ultimately reveal. 
 So when I ask “what is the value of a formalist-style declaration that 
inner-ness can’t be a real property, if one is not constructing something to 
show that to be the case”, this is the style difference I am using as a 
reference to put that question.

I don’t imagine that what we learned about definitions of observability in 
physics will have any direct relevance to whatever challenges the term may pose 
in psychology.  The physics example is just a nice reminder of ways in which it 
can be very hard to decide when one is really saying something, and likewise an 
example that constructing the alternative sometimes seems to give the only 
perspective from which to see that there had formerly been a problem.  

Because Pierce et seq. have done so much to try to be precise, practical, and 
useful in defining what science is, it allows me to be lazy, say “yes I accept 
and defend all that”, and then ask for an ultra-stripped-down abstraction of 
what science is then.

I may already have written this (senility), but my imagistic definition would 
be that science is the premise that mistakes aren’t all sui generis, but that 
they have family resemblances, and that there are methods of practice that give 
one a better-than-random chance of recognizing that something may be a mistake 
even short of knowing what ‘the' (or ‘a better’) answer is.  I choose that 
framing in part because it is also the framing that formalizes the notion of 
error correction in computer science (

Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

[Steve Smith]

> I think one should get what they pay for, but that’s just me. 
>
And a good Republican would want people to pay for what they get!
(except not really)
>
>  
>
> *From: *Friam  on behalf of Gillian
> Densmore 
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> 
> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:54 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> 
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast
>
>  
>
> No no still want preference of grades. I prefer to get better than
> average for example.
>
>  
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:52 PM Marcus Daniels  > wrote:
>
> Voting we want to be ranked choice, but grades are
> unidimensional?   Hmm.
>
>  
>
> *From: *Friam  > on behalf of George Duncan
> mailto:gtdun...@gmail.com>>
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast
>
>  
>
> D+. Don't they understand grade inflation? An A- is really bad.
>
>  
>
> George Duncan
>
> Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
> georgeduncanart.com 
>
> See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
>
> Land: (505) 983-6895  
>
> Mobile: (505) 469-4671
>
>  
> My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix
> order and luminous chaos.
>
>  
>
>
>   "Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come
>   later. It may then be a valuable delusion."
>
> From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn. 
>
> "It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our
> truest power." Joanna Macy.
>
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Tom Johnson  > wrote:
>
> Santa Fe not so good. 
>
>  
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:34 PM  > wrote:
>
> 
> https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=county&fips=01047
>
>
> Counties graded on an A to F scale on social distancing.  
> Interesting. 
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -
>  . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-.
> -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> 
> un/subscribe
> 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
> 
> un/subscribe 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
> 
> un/subscribe 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
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

[Steve Smith]

as with Garrison Kiellor's famous line about Lake Woebegon

"where the women are all beautiful and the children are all above
average"


On 5/21/20 1:53 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> No no still want preference of grades. I prefer to get better than
> average for example.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:52 PM Marcus Daniels  > wrote:
>
> Voting we want to be ranked choice, but grades are
> unidimensional?   Hmm.
>
>  
>
> *From: *Friam  > on behalf of George Duncan
> mailto:gtdun...@gmail.com>>
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast
>
>  
>
> D+. Don't they understand grade inflation? An A- is really bad.
>
>  
>
> George Duncan
>
> Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
> georgeduncanart.com 
>
> See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
>
> Land: (505) 983-6895  
>
> Mobile: (505) 469-4671
>
>  
> My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix
> order and luminous chaos.
>
>  
>
>
>   "Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come
>   later. It may then be a valuable delusion."
>
> From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn. 
>
> "It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our
> truest power." Joanna Macy.
>
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Tom Johnson  > wrote:
>
> Santa Fe not so good. 
>
>  
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:34 PM  > wrote:
>
> 
> https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=county&fips=01047
>
>
> Counties graded on an A to F scale on social distancing.  
> Interesting. 
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -
>  . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-.
> -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> 
> un/subscribe
> 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
> 
> un/subscribe 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
> 
> un/subscribe 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
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[thompnickson2]

Thank you, ERIC!

 

I KNEW I was going to make that mistake some day. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: thompnicks...@gmail.com  
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:50 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

 

Thank you, David, 

 

I need to think about all of this.  

 

A brief early response:  There are two things that words do: they stroke and 
they convey information.  AT the core, I think, my authoritarian impatience (to 
use a word that has recently blossomed in the correspondence on the list)  
arise when people confuse one use of words for another.   When we speak of that 
of which we cannot speak we are like primates who groom but do not remove any 
lice.  Grooming and being groomed is very nice; but I am really interested in 
louse removal. 

 

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 David Eric Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

 

Signal to Nick:

 

You commented on wanting to understand the conversation about formalists and 
intuitionists which I have been using in various conversations with Glen and 
Jon.  Now is the chance to do it at low cost.

 

Frank has provided two proofs of irrationality of the square root of 2, one 
formalist (using proof by contradiction requiring acceptance of the law of the 
excluded middle) a few days ago, this most recent one being constructive, 
meaning that it constructs a degree of difference that you can point to 
concretely, rather than concluding from the syntax that there must be such.  
One gets at the core of anything I was trying to say by looking at these two 
proofs, and deciding whether one can see what is different in their sense.

 

For me, these concrete, super-simple minimal pairs are the mental tools to get 
at the difference between one style of thought and another.  I can then try to 
decide whether, in some much more difficult context, where it is very hard to 
be concrete, I think I see the same kind of contrast in style.  Since I am too 
slow to almost ever work out the watertight version of anything, and some of 
these would be too hard for me to do at all, I don’t even seriously intend to 
check whether my imagistic impression is reliable.  I am willing to use the 
simple cases I do understand as perceptive filters to try to make some kind of 
approximate sense of the hard cases, as the alternative to just letting it all 
go by.

 

You commented in one of these emails that you could accept “irreducible” as 
long as it didn’t mean “can’t be described”, and I have been thinking over the 
past days whether I can come down on one side of that or the other.  You might 
also have said, “as long as it didn’t mean `can’t be observed’ “.

 

I decided I don’t know.  To know what can or can’t be observed, can or can’t be 
described, is or isn’t behavior, one has to operationalize any of those and 
decide how reliable the operationalization is.  The exchange mostly of Glen, 
EricC, and Jon about what is or isn’t behavior, often quite tedious, seemed 
like it took seriously the right caution.  One could build comparable tedious 
harangues around “observe” and “describe”, and perhaps must to resolve this.

 

You might think you can say, as a matter of syntax, that “of course it must be 
observable” or else one is denying science.  Physicists though for almost 200 
years that that “of course” was unproblematic, that they had an 
operationalization that was both flexible enough to extend to more and more 
subjects, restrictive enough to have content, and expressible in equivalence to 
mathematical objects.  Then they learned that the way they had assumed “of 
course” it could be done wasn’t the correct formalization to be extended to 
quantum mechanics.  That didn’t mean that there wasn’t a correct formalization, 
only that a different one was required, to subsume all that had worked before, 
and also extend where the former one couldn’t go.  The proof of inadequacy of 
the former was only demonstrated by putting one that was more correct in its 
place and exhibiting the difference (constructive); it seems like it would have 
been hopeless to anticipate, in the pre-quantum days, that the notion of 
observability was inadequate in the way it actually was, and even more hopeless 
to try to use a syntactic argument (formalist) either to assert its suffici

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[thompnickson2]

Thank you, David, 

 

I need to think about all of this.  

 

A brief early response:  There are two things that words do: they stroke and 
they convey information.  AT the core, I think, my authoritarian impatience (to 
use a word that has recently blossomed in the correspondence on the list)  
arise when people confuse one use of words for another.   When we speak of that 
of which we cannot speak we are like primates who groom but do not remove any 
lice.  Grooming and being groomed is very nice; but I am really interested in 
louse removal. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

 

Signal to Nick:

 

You commented on wanting to understand the conversation about formalists and 
intuitionists which I have been using in various conversations with Glen and 
Jon.  Now is the chance to do it at low cost.

 

Frank has provided two proofs of irrationality of the square root of 2, one 
formalist (using proof by contradiction requiring acceptance of the law of the 
excluded middle) a few days ago, this most recent one being constructive, 
meaning that it constructs a degree of difference that you can point to 
concretely, rather than concluding from the syntax that there must be such.  
One gets at the core of anything I was trying to say by looking at these two 
proofs, and deciding whether one can see what is different in their sense.

 

For me, these concrete, super-simple minimal pairs are the mental tools to get 
at the difference between one style of thought and another.  I can then try to 
decide whether, in some much more difficult context, where it is very hard to 
be concrete, I think I see the same kind of contrast in style.  Since I am too 
slow to almost ever work out the watertight version of anything, and some of 
these would be too hard for me to do at all, I don’t even seriously intend to 
check whether my imagistic impression is reliable.  I am willing to use the 
simple cases I do understand as perceptive filters to try to make some kind of 
approximate sense of the hard cases, as the alternative to just letting it all 
go by.

 

You commented in one of these emails that you could accept “irreducible” as 
long as it didn’t mean “can’t be described”, and I have been thinking over the 
past days whether I can come down on one side of that or the other.  You might 
also have said, “as long as it didn’t mean `can’t be observed’ “.

 

I decided I don’t know.  To know what can or can’t be observed, can or can’t be 
described, is or isn’t behavior, one has to operationalize any of those and 
decide how reliable the operationalization is.  The exchange mostly of Glen, 
EricC, and Jon about what is or isn’t behavior, often quite tedious, seemed 
like it took seriously the right caution.  One could build comparable tedious 
harangues around “observe” and “describe”, and perhaps must to resolve this.

 

You might think you can say, as a matter of syntax, that “of course it must be 
observable” or else one is denying science.  Physicists though for almost 200 
years that that “of course” was unproblematic, that they had an 
operationalization that was both flexible enough to extend to more and more 
subjects, restrictive enough to have content, and expressible in equivalence to 
mathematical objects.  Then they learned that the way they had assumed “of 
course” it could be done wasn’t the correct formalization to be extended to 
quantum mechanics.  That didn’t mean that there wasn’t a correct formalization, 
only that a different one was required, to subsume all that had worked before, 
and also extend where the former one couldn’t go.  The proof of inadequacy of 
the former was only demonstrated by putting one that was more correct in its 
place and exhibiting the difference (constructive); it seems like it would have 
been hopeless to anticipate, in the pre-quantum days, that the notion of 
observability was inadequate in the way it actually was, and even more hopeless 
to try to use a syntactic argument (formalist) either to assert its sufficiency 
or identify the specific defect that quantum mechanics would ultimately reveal. 
 So when I ask “what is the value of a formalist-style declaration that 
inner-ness can’t be a real property, if one is not constructing something to 
show that to be the case”, this is the style difference I am using as a 
reference to put that question.

 

I don’t imagine that what we learned about definitions of observability in 
physics will have any direct relevance to whatever challenges the term may pose 
in psychology.  The physics example is just a nice reminder of way

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Jon Zingale]

EricS,

goddamn.

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

Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

[Marcus Daniels]

I think one should get what they pay for, but that’s just me.

From: Friam  on behalf of Gillian Densmore 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

No no still want preference of grades. I prefer to get better than average for 
example.

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:52 PM Marcus Daniels 
mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
Voting we want to be ranked choice, but grades are unidimensional?   Hmm.

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on 
behalf of George Duncan mailto:gtdun...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

D+. Don't they understand grade inflation? An A- is really bad.

George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895
Mobile: (505) 469-4671

My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and 
luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then 
be a valuable delusion."
From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." 
Joanna Macy.


On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Tom Johnson 
mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>> wrote:
Santa Fe not so good.

On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:34 PM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=county&fips=01047

Counties graded on an A to F scale on social distancing.   Interesting.
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

[Gillian Densmore]

No no still want preference of grades. I prefer to get better than average
for example.

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:52 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> Voting we want to be ranked choice, but grades are unidimensional?   Hmm.
>
>
>
> *From: *Friam  on behalf of George Duncan <
> gtdun...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast
>
>
>
> D+. Don't they understand grade inflation? An A- is really bad.
>
>
>
> George Duncan
>
> Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
> georgeduncanart.com
>
> See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
>
> Land: (505) 983-6895
>
> Mobile: (505) 469-4671
>
>
> My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and
> luminous chaos.
>
>
> "Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may
> then be a valuable delusion."
>
> From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.
>
> "It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest
> power." Joanna Macy.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Tom Johnson  wrote:
>
> Santa Fe not so good.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:34 PM  wrote:
>
>
> https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=county&fips=01047
>
> Counties graded on an A to F scale on social distancing.   Interesting.
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe 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
> un/subscribe 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
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

[Marcus Daniels]

Voting we want to be ranked choice, but grades are unidimensional?   Hmm.

From: Friam  on behalf of George Duncan 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

D+. Don't they understand grade inflation? An A- is really bad.

George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895
Mobile: (505) 469-4671

My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and 
luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then 
be a valuable delusion."
From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." 
Joanna Macy.


On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Tom Johnson 
mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>> wrote:
Santa Fe not so good.

On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:34 PM 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=county&fips=01047

Counties graded on an A to F scale on social distancing.   Interesting.
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

[Gillian Densmore]

None of the states have much above the D ranking.. Oh I know it's D: for
Definitely Amazing?

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:47 PM George Duncan  wrote:

> D+. Don't they understand grade inflation? An A- is really bad.
>
> George Duncan
> Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
> georgeduncanart.com
> See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
> Land: (505) 983-6895
> Mobile: (505) 469-4671
>
> My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and
> luminous chaos.
>
> "Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may
> then be a valuable delusion."
> From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.
>
> "It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest
> power." Joanna Macy.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Tom Johnson  wrote:
>
>> Santa Fe not so good.
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:34 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=county&fips=01047
>>>
>>> Counties graded on an A to F scale on social distancing.   Interesting.
>>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
>>> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> un/subscribe 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
>> un/subscribe 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
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Covid-19 Social Distancing Scoreboard - Unacast

[George Duncan]

D+. Don't they understand grade inflation? An A- is really bad.

George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895
Mobile: (505) 469-4671

My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and
luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may
then be a valuable delusion."
>From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest
power." Joanna Macy.




On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Tom Johnson  wrote:

> Santa Fe not so good.
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:34 PM  wrote:
>
>>
>> https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard?view=county&fips=01047
>>
>> Counties graded on an A to F scale on social distancing.   Interesting.
>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
>> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe 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
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Steve Smith]

F-
> The last thing Doug said to me on Facebook was, "Growing old
> gracefully is an oxymoron."
Which is why we like to say "Youth is wasted on the young"...   part of
the ungraceful part I think...
>
> By the way, who was evicted for non-payment of rent?  I lost the context.

Lovecraft I think?   His landlord apparently had his own decoder (ring)...


-S

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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Frank Wimberly]

The last thing Doug said to me on Facebook was, "Growing old gracefully is
an oxymoron."

Sorry about the munged part of the constructivist proof.  It looked fine in
my mail client when I sent it.

By the way, who was evicted for non-payment of rent?  I lost the context.

Frank


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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 21, 2020, 12:17 PM Steve Smith  wrote:

> Frank -
>
> Clinicians often call that "being oppositional".
>
> I think "oppositional" is one *motive* for contrarianism, and maybe
> contrarianism is one *mode* of being oppositional?  I'm far from up on the
> clinical definitions, and my own *contrarianism* tends toward nitpicking
> and hairsplitting (this is an example of that?), for what *I perceive* to
> be removing minor occlusions incurred by the specific point of view that a
> specific word (especially drawn from a highly specialized lexicon like
> DSM2?) creates.
>
> I don't remember if you were actively tracking/participating "back in the
> day" when Doug was (hyper?) active here and his last words were (probably
> paraphrasing mildly but I hope capturing the essence) "Glen, you can be
> SUCH an a** sometimes!" which shocked but did not surprise me.   (these
> were, I'm pretty sure literally his last words on the list, but not his
> last words in life, which I hope I can get out of Ingrun someday, though it
> will probably involve sharing a full bottle of scotch...  a taste all three
> of us shared, but with differing levels of quality/price amongst us...
> anecdotes abound).
>
> Back to the anecdote at hand...   *I* didn't find whatever Glen had said
> (it is all in the record but I have a sort of anti-nostalgia that keeps me
> from digging it out) as him "being an a***" but rather simply being
> *contrarian*   Doug (IMO) was generally pretty *oppositional* himself
> (if my read on the term is at all appropriate) so Glen's contrarian style
> (which is only one of his modes) was received by Doug *as* oppositional (in
> the extreme?).   *I* thought Glen was just sparring with Doug in the mode I
> think he spars with everyone here from time to time.  I didn't get the word
> for some weeks after that incident, but it was Ingrun who shut down his
> FriAM access (not literally).  She put her German foot down that  Doug had
> "done his time" with his LANL Blogs which were probably more of an outlet
> than an irritation.  I don't know what she threatened him with, but I'm
> sure it was the same tone of voice I'd heard more than a few times, and it
> started with a slightly elevated in volume, but pitched slightly lower in
> tone "Douglas!  "He went back to gaming the stock market, talking
> to his birds and cats, gathering peacock feathers from their property in
> Nambe, having his knees replaced, riding his motorcycle, playing Sax with
> one or two bands in town, and rigging up media servers from Raspberry Pis.
>
> FriAM was definitely a source of morbid (irritation) fascination for Doug,
> from our private conversations...  It is definitely a morbid fascination
> for me as well, but not particularly irritating nor frustrating (with a few
> very minor/fleeting exceptions).   I never learned to play well with others
> as a child (or a teen)...  I learned to move semi-fluidly between cliques
> and "pass" in most of them if needed, but I almost always had to either
> minimize my engagement or eventually "fire myself" from the clique because
> I could feel the cognitive dissonance/mismatch.   My cohorts through 12th
> grade probably remember me as a mildly "odd duck" but not to the extreme
> some of you here probably find me.   Here, I trust that most can (and do)
> simply click  or  and that a few choose to skim, while others
> find a germ of interest if not truth in my ramblings.  For the more
> sophisticated, there are mailtools that would automatically route me to a
> spam (or similar) folder.
>
> You say that I've known authorities.  I was just talking to John Baez
> about my advisor Errett Bishop, often called the inventor of constructive
> mathematics
>
> One of the great boons of this list for me is to flesh out (in my mind)
> the intellectual/social networks of influence that impinge here.  You and I
> have shared our "Erdos" numbers which I understand to be nearly irrelevant
> by many measures, but nevertheless "of interest" in *this* regard.   Your
> Erdos number of 1 (as his habitual bouncer from the UCB library in grad
> school?) is similar to a friend of mine whose Bacon number is 1 because his
> old pickup truck was enlisted on-set for the bad SciFi movie "Worms", and
> Bacon's stunt double wasn't on set (and Kevin couldn't drive stick) when
> the director was  ready to film the scene, so my friend *played* Bacons
> character for a few seconds as his old pickup careened through a scene.   I
> in turn "stood in" in a play my friend's wife wrote and directed in which
> he *also* stood in while trying to de

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Steve Smith]

Frank -

> Clinicians often call that "being oppositional". 

I think "oppositional" is one *motive* for contrarianism, and maybe
contrarianism is one *mode* of being oppositional?  I'm far from up on
the clinical definitions, and my own *contrarianism* tends toward
nitpicking and hairsplitting (this is an example of that?), for what *I
perceive* to be removing minor occlusions incurred by the specific point
of view that a specific word (especially drawn from a highly specialized
lexicon like DSM2?) creates.  

I don't remember if you were actively tracking/participating "back in
the day" when Doug was (hyper?) active here and his last words were
(probably paraphrasing mildly but I hope capturing the essence) "Glen,
you can be SUCH an a** sometimes!" which shocked but did not
surprise me.   (these were, I'm pretty sure literally his last words on
the list, but not his last words in life, which I hope I can get out of
Ingrun someday, though it will probably involve sharing a full bottle of
scotch...  a taste all three of us shared, but with differing levels of
quality/price amongst us... anecdotes abound). 

Back to the anecdote at hand...   *I* didn't find whatever Glen had said
(it is all in the record but I have a sort of anti-nostalgia that keeps
me from digging it out) as him "being an a***" but rather simply
being *contrarian*   Doug (IMO) was generally pretty *oppositional*
himself (if my read on the term is at all appropriate) so Glen's
contrarian style (which is only one of his modes) was received by Doug
*as* oppositional (in the extreme?).   *I* thought Glen was just
sparring with Doug in the mode I think he spars with everyone here from
time to time.  I didn't get the word for some weeks after that incident,
but it was Ingrun who shut down his FriAM access (not literally).  She
put her German foot down that  Doug had "done his time" with his LANL
Blogs which were probably more of an outlet than an irritation.  I don't
know what she threatened him with, but I'm sure it was the same tone of
voice I'd heard more than a few times, and it started with a slightly
elevated in volume, but pitched slightly lower in tone "Douglas!  "
   He went back to gaming the stock market, talking to his birds and
cats, gathering peacock feathers from their property in Nambe, having
his knees replaced, riding his motorcycle, playing Sax with one or two
bands in town, and rigging up media servers from Raspberry Pis.

FriAM was definitely a source of morbid (irritation) fascination for
Doug, from our private conversations...  It is definitely a morbid
fascination for me as well, but not particularly irritating nor
frustrating (with a few very minor/fleeting exceptions).   I never
learned to play well with others as a child (or a teen)...  I learned to
move semi-fluidly between cliques and "pass" in most of them if needed,
but I almost always had to either minimize my engagement or eventually
"fire myself" from the clique because I could feel the cognitive
dissonance/mismatch.   My cohorts through 12th grade probably remember
me as a mildly "odd duck" but not to the extreme some of you here
probably find me.   Here, I trust that most can (and do) simply click
 or  and that a few choose to skim, while others find a
germ of interest if not truth in my ramblings.  For the more
sophisticated, there are mailtools that would automatically route me to
a spam (or similar) folder.

> You say that I've known authorities.  I was just talking to John Baez
> about my advisor Errett Bishop, often called the inventor of
> constructive mathematics
One of the great boons of this list for me is to flesh out (in my mind)
the intellectual/social networks of influence that impinge here.  You
and I have shared our "Erdos" numbers which I understand to be nearly
irrelevant by many measures, but nevertheless "of interest" in *this*
regard.   Your Erdos number of 1 (as his habitual bouncer from the UCB
library in grad school?) is similar to a friend of mine whose Bacon
number is 1 because his old pickup truck was enlisted on-set for the bad
SciFi movie "Worms", and Bacon's stunt double wasn't on set (and Kevin
couldn't drive stick) when the director was  ready to film the scene, so
my friend *played* Bacons character for a few seconds as his old pickup
careened through a scene.   I in turn "stood in" in a play my friend's
wife wrote and directed in which he *also* stood in while trying to
develop it as a film.   I believe the film *was* finally made (not a
major release or even screened at any indie festivals except maybe here
in SF) so when pressed I like to claim a Bacon number of 2 (thin as it is).
> .  Here is a constructive proof, with no use of the excluded middle,
> of the irrationality of sqrt(2) that I found in Wikipedia.  Apologies
> to those who don't care:
>
> In a constructive approach, one distinguishes between on the one hand
> not being rational, and on the other hand being irrational (i.e.,
> being quantifiably a

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Ha! Not in the end. He refused to be rational right up until they evicted him 
and his family for not paying rent. And I agree completely with you. By hook or 
crook, we CNS governed animals are fast and fantastic at choosing the right 
decoder instantaneously. Everything else is post-hoc and often a complete waste 
of time. But if you're gonna waste time *anyway*, may as well waste it in a fun 
way ... as long as your dog won't die or your neighbor doesn't brandish his 9mm.

On 5/21/20 10:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> < There is no good decoder. There is only a good choice of decoders, fit to 
> purpose. >
> 
> Did you decode something other than Batshit Crazy?  
> 
> I took my dog to the vet, suspecting congestive heart failure.   The vet took 
> some x-rays, and directed me to a cardiologist.  Meanwhile he agreed to the 
> usual treatment which worked.   After waiting for an opportunity to see the 
> cardiologist (now with a functioning dog) he said it was a standard case 
> after taking more x-rays and an echocardiogram.
> 
> My point is sometimes things are just as they seem to be.    No fancy 
> decoders needed and only time wasted sorting it out.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[thompnickson2]

"You choose your own decoder."

Right there, is the distinction between Jamesian and Peircean Pragmatism.  

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: Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:08 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

Marcus' post hides my own response to your question. There is no good decoder. 
There is only a good choice of decoders, fit to purpose. Going back to 
Lovecraft, I used to live next door to someone who believed in the Illuminati, 
the bad formulation, and the "12 men who rule the world". I'm confident he 
actually believed it because we had many many conversations over badly made 
margaritas watching the rafters go by on the river. His goal was to make just 
enough money to go off grid before they recognized him as a threat.

When I'd talk to him, I decoded Lovecraft as a Freemason for the purpose of a) 
confirming his ideas just enough to get him to listen to me (e.g. there *is* 
something very much like the Illuminati) and b) show him that *some* of those 
guys aren't as Machiavellian or as Evil as he may think they are.

But when I talk to my fantasy/sci-fi friends, Lovecraft is just a super-dork in 
the EA Poe, D&D, gamer, category.

You choose your decoder.

On 5/21/20 9:51 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are there circumstances in which Frank might have a better decoder of Glen's 
> behavior than Glen have?   Come to think of it, what is it to have a 'good' 
> decoder?  


--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Frank Wimberly]

The badly rendered part:

{\displaystyle \left|{\sqrt {2}}-{\frac {a}{b}}\right|={\frac
{|2b^{2}-a^{2}|}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{3b^{2}}},}[image:
{\displaystyle \left|{\sqrt {2}}-{\frac {a}{b}}\right|={\frac
{|2b^{2}-a^{2}|}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{3b^{2}}},}]



On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:30 AM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> Clinicians often call that "being oppositional".
>
> You say that I've known authorities.  I was just talking to John Baez
> about my advisor Errett Bishop, often called the inventor of constructive
> mathematics.  Here is a constructive proof, with no use of the excluded
> middle, of the irrationality of sqrt(2) that I found in Wikipedia.
> Apologies to those who don't care:
>
> In a constructive approach, one distinguishes between on the one hand not
> being rational, and on the other hand being irrational (i.e., being
> quantifiably apart from every rational), the latter being a stronger
> property. Given positive integers *a* and *b*, because the valuation
>  (i.e.,
> highest power of 2 dividing a number) of 2*b*2 is odd, while the
> valuation of *a*2 is even, they must be distinct integers; thus |2*b*2 −
> *a*2| ≥ 1. Then[17]
> 
> {\displaystyle \left|{\sqrt {2}}-{\frac {a}{b}}\right|={\frac
> {|2b^{2}-a^{2}|}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
> {1}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac 
> {1}{3b^{2}}},}[image:
> {\displaystyle \left|{\sqrt {2}}-{\frac {a}{b}}\right|={\frac
> {|2b^{2}-a^{2}|}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
> {1}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
> {1}{3b^{2}}},}]
>
> the latter inequality being true because it is assumed that *a*/*b* ≤ 3 −
> √2 (otherwise the quantitative apartness can be trivially established).
> This gives a lower bound of 1/3*b*2 for the difference |√2 − *a*/*b*|,
> yielding a direct proof of irrationality not relying on the law of
> excluded middle ;
> see Errett Bishop  (1985,
> p. 18). This proof constructively exhibits a discrepancy between √2 and
> any rational.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:50 AM Steve Smith  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/21/20 10:32 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
>> > Don't be fooled. "The problem with communication is the illusion that
>> it exists." Or ie I believe in a stronger form of privacy than you believe
>> in.
>> I KNOW! I know just what you mean!
>>
>> > Contrarian", but you probably already guessed that>
>>
>>
>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
>> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe 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
>


-- 
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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Frank Wimberly]

Clinicians often call that "being oppositional".

You say that I've known authorities.  I was just talking to John Baez about
my advisor Errett Bishop, often called the inventor of constructive
mathematics.  Here is a constructive proof, with no use of the excluded
middle, of the irrationality of sqrt(2) that I found in Wikipedia.
Apologies to those who don't care:

In a constructive approach, one distinguishes between on the one hand not
being rational, and on the other hand being irrational (i.e., being
quantifiably apart from every rational), the latter being a stronger
property. Given positive integers *a* and *b*, because the valuation
 (i.e.,
highest power of 2 dividing a number) of 2*b*2 is odd, while the valuation
of *a*2 is even, they must be distinct integers; thus |2*b*2 − *a*2| ≥ 1.
Then[17] 
{\displaystyle \left|{\sqrt {2}}-{\frac {a}{b}}\right|={\frac
{|2b^{2}-a^{2}|}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{3b^{2}}},}[image:
{\displaystyle \left|{\sqrt {2}}-{\frac {a}{b}}\right|={\frac
{|2b^{2}-a^{2}|}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{3b^{2}}},}]

the latter inequality being true because it is assumed that *a*/*b* ≤
3 − √2 (otherwise
the quantitative apartness can be trivially established). This gives a
lower bound of 1/3*b*2 for the difference |√2 − *a*/*b*|, yielding a direct
proof of irrationality not relying on the law of excluded middle
; see Errett Bishop
 (1985, p. 18). This proof
constructively exhibits a discrepancy between √2 and any rational.

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:50 AM Steve Smith  wrote:

>
> On 5/21/20 10:32 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> > Don't be fooled. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it
> exists." Or ie I believe in a stronger form of privacy than you believe in.
> I KNOW! I know just what you mean!
>
>  Contrarian", but you probably already guessed that>
>
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Marcus Daniels]

< There is no good decoder. There is only a good choice of decoders, fit to 
purpose. >

Did you decode something other than Batshit Crazy?

I took my dog to the vet, suspecting congestive heart failure.   The vet took 
some x-rays, and directed me to a cardiologist.  Meanwhile he agreed to the 
usual treatment which worked.   After waiting for an opportunity to see the 
cardiologist (now with a functioning dog) he said it was a standard case after 
taking more x-rays and an echocardiogram.

My point is sometimes things are just as they seem to be.No fancy decoders 
needed and only time wasted sorting it out.

Marcus

From: Friam  on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ 

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:07 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

Marcus' post hides my own response to your question. There is no good decoder. 
There is only a good choice of decoders, fit to purpose. Going back to 
Lovecraft, I used to live next door to someone who believed in the Illuminati, 
the bad formulation, and the "12 men who rule the world". I'm confident he 
actually believed it because we had many many conversations over badly made 
margaritas watching the rafters go by on the river. His goal was to make just 
enough money to go off grid before they recognized him as a threat.

When I'd talk to him, I decoded Lovecraft as a Freemason for the purpose of a) 
confirming his ideas just enough to get him to listen to me (e.g. there *is* 
something very much like the Illuminati) and b) show him that *some* of those 
guys aren't as Machiavellian or as Evil as he may think they are.

But when I talk to my fantasy/sci-fi friends, Lovecraft is just a super-dork in 
the EA Poe, D&D, gamer, category.

You choose your decoder.

On 5/21/20 9:51 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are there circumstances in which Frank might have a better decoder of Glen's 
> behavior than Glen have?   Come to think of it, what is it to have a 'good' 
> decoder?


--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Marcus' post hides my own response to your question. There is no good decoder. 
There is only a good choice of decoders, fit to purpose. Going back to 
Lovecraft, I used to live next door to someone who believed in the Illuminati, 
the bad formulation, and the "12 men who rule the world". I'm confident he 
actually believed it because we had many many conversations over badly made 
margaritas watching the rafters go by on the river. His goal was to make just 
enough money to go off grid before they recognized him as a threat.

When I'd talk to him, I decoded Lovecraft as a Freemason for the purpose of a) 
confirming his ideas just enough to get him to listen to me (e.g. there *is* 
something very much like the Illuminati) and b) show him that *some* of those 
guys aren't as Machiavellian or as Evil as he may think they are.

But when I talk to my fantasy/sci-fi friends, Lovecraft is just a super-dork in 
the EA Poe, D&D, gamer, category.

You choose your decoder.

On 5/21/20 9:51 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are there circumstances in which Frank might have a better decoder of Glen's 
> behavior than Glen have?   Come to think of it, what is it to have a 'good' 
> decoder?  


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Marcus Daniels]

I notice now that when I make e-mails Glen-ready, that some mechanized editors 
advise that the text should be more direct, and strongly-worded.  (

On 5/21/20, 9:48 AM, "Friam on behalf of Steve Smith" 
 wrote:

I like this "turn of events" where the subject of the discussion is
somewhat self-referential and is peeling away it's own veneers as it were.

Regarding "false humility",  I find myself *avoiding* those qualifiers
sometimes *out of respect* to my audience.   I feel like, in a group
like this, that those qualifiers are painfully implicit, especially
among regular contributors.

For example, I don't read Frank as "aggressively authoritative" (or was
it authoritarian) at all, but perhaps because I've spent a little time
with him in person and recognize that in a long and interesting life, he
has lots of direct or second order encounters with various "authorities"
in different fields, who he can quote with ... ahem... "authority of
personal experience".  (and I may be mischaracterizing this for Frank,
so he may need to correct what I impute/impugne here).

I believe we are generally agreed here that we don't trust "proof by
authority" but most of us still defer to authority for a shared sense of
what has gone before, what is generally accepted, from whence the
language of a topic is rooted.  

I think this extra level of "signalling" you refer to is deeply
instinctual and helps to reinforce (for better AND worse)
ingroup/outgroup structures...  which we tend to think of as *bad
things* but in fact,  I believe that the self-other boundary is key to
complex organization.   CHON molecules form lipid and protein and
carbohydrate chains which then combine and/or fold into macromolecules
which then self-organize into larger structures like cytoskeletal
membrane, cell walls, etc. which continue to "stack" via self-other
differentiation/aggregation on up in complexity.   I'm not sure how many
identifiable layers deep of such stacking humans are (with the conscious
mind as an emergent property of the hominid or mammalian or vertebrate
neurology), but the self-other differentiation is right in the middle of
it all.

mumble,

 - Steve


> Ha! Nice one. We have only the "apparently" qualifier to guide our 
decoder choice.
>
> I forget the phrase Jon used, but I thought "humility signalling" when he 
mentioned it and I described being accused of false humility (in a friendly 
way). By peppering one's assertions with "I think" and "in my opinion" and/or 
regularly denigrating oneself (all of which I do a lot), yet continuing to 
*act* arrogant and defending one's assertions to the grave, have we descended 
to playing some game of false humility? ... are we expected to pepper 
everything we say this way and purposefully hide our arrogance and 
self-centeredness?
>
> I honestly have no idea. I could easily be a raging narcissist who's 
*learned* to manipulate people by peppering my language with self-denigration 
and IMO qualifiers. Or (as it feels internally), I am actually scared to death 
that I'm a moron surrounded by super-intelligent beings and I'm just desparate 
to stay in the game. I seriously have no idea which is the case ... probably a 
little bit of both. 8^D
>
>
> On 5/21/20 8:46 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Bendito Espinoza (Spanish version) apparently did not believe in the 
transcendent God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Nor did he believe that men are 
constrained by the Ten Commandments*.  He was declared "herem", a very severe 
action.
>> [...]
>> Said without authoritatian motive.
>


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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[thompnickson2]

Trolling alert: 

Are there circumstances in which Frank might have a better decoder of Glen's 
behavior than Glen have?   Come to think of it, what is it to have a 'good' 
decoder?  

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 Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:50 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity


On 5/21/20 10:32 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Don't be fooled. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it 
> exists." Or ie I believe in a stronger form of privacy than you believe in.
I KNOW! I know just what you mean!




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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Steve Smith]

On 5/21/20 10:32 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Don't be fooled. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it 
> exists." Or ie I believe in a stronger form of privacy than you believe in.
I KNOW! I know just what you mean!




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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Steve Smith]

I like this "turn of events" where the subject of the discussion is
somewhat self-referential and is peeling away it's own veneers as it were.

Regarding "false humility",  I find myself *avoiding* those qualifiers
sometimes *out of respect* to my audience.   I feel like, in a group
like this, that those qualifiers are painfully implicit, especially
among regular contributors.

For example, I don't read Frank as "aggressively authoritative" (or was
it authoritarian) at all, but perhaps because I've spent a little time
with him in person and recognize that in a long and interesting life, he
has lots of direct or second order encounters with various "authorities"
in different fields, who he can quote with ... ahem... "authority of
personal experience".  (and I may be mischaracterizing this for Frank,
so he may need to correct what I impute/impugne here).

I believe we are generally agreed here that we don't trust "proof by
authority" but most of us still defer to authority for a shared sense of
what has gone before, what is generally accepted, from whence the
language of a topic is rooted.  

I think this extra level of "signalling" you refer to is deeply
instinctual and helps to reinforce (for better AND worse)
ingroup/outgroup structures...  which we tend to think of as *bad
things* but in fact,  I believe that the self-other boundary is key to
complex organization.   CHON molecules form lipid and protein and
carbohydrate chains which then combine and/or fold into macromolecules
which then self-organize into larger structures like cytoskeletal
membrane, cell walls, etc. which continue to "stack" via self-other
differentiation/aggregation on up in complexity.   I'm not sure how many
identifiable layers deep of such stacking humans are (with the conscious
mind as an emergent property of the hominid or mammalian or vertebrate
neurology), but the self-other differentiation is right in the middle of
it all.

mumble,

 - Steve


> Ha! Nice one. We have only the "apparently" qualifier to guide our decoder 
> choice.
>
> I forget the phrase Jon used, but I thought "humility signalling" when he 
> mentioned it and I described being accused of false humility (in a friendly 
> way). By peppering one's assertions with "I think" and "in my opinion" and/or 
> regularly denigrating oneself (all of which I do a lot), yet continuing to 
> *act* arrogant and defending one's assertions to the grave, have we descended 
> to playing some game of false humility? ... are we expected to pepper 
> everything we say this way and purposefully hide our arrogance and 
> self-centeredness?
>
> I honestly have no idea. I could easily be a raging narcissist who's 
> *learned* to manipulate people by peppering my language with self-denigration 
> and IMO qualifiers. Or (as it feels internally), I am actually scared to 
> death that I'm a moron surrounded by super-intelligent beings and I'm just 
> desparate to stay in the game. I seriously have no idea which is the case ... 
> probably a little bit of both. 8^D
>
>
> On 5/21/20 8:46 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Bendito Espinoza (Spanish version) apparently did not believe in the 
>> transcendent God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Nor did he believe that men 
>> are constrained by the Ten Commandments*.  He was declared "herem", a very 
>> severe action.
>> [...]
>> Said without authoritatian motive.
>


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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Don't be fooled. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it 
exists." Or ie I believe in a stronger form of privacy than you believe in.

On 5/21/20 9:29 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> We're beginning to really communicate, Glen.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

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

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Frank Wimberly]

Reminds me of when I was an undergraduate at Berkeley.  I had a TA in
History of Philosophy who was a Harvard graduate.  Sport coat, bow tie,
horn-rimmed glasses, etc.  In the food court the walked up to one of the
workers and said, "I think this milk is spoiled."  The guy said "You THINK
it's spoiled?"  "Well, I know it's spoiled.  I was just being more or less
polite."

Decoder cues:  Berkeley, history of philosophy.

We're beginning to really communicate, Glen.

Frank


On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:19 AM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> Ha! Nice one. We have only the "apparently" qualifier to guide our decoder
> choice.
>
> I forget the phrase Jon used, but I thought "humility signalling" when he
> mentioned it and I described being accused of false humility (in a friendly
> way). By peppering one's assertions with "I think" and "in my opinion"
> and/or regularly denigrating oneself (all of which I do a lot), yet
> continuing to *act* arrogant and defending one's assertions to the grave,
> have we descended to playing some game of false humility? ... are we
> expected to pepper everything we say this way and purposefully hide our
> arrogance and self-centeredness?
>
> I honestly have no idea. I could easily be a raging narcissist who's
> *learned* to manipulate people by peppering my language with
> self-denigration and IMO qualifiers. Or (as it feels internally), I am
> actually scared to death that I'm a moron surrounded by super-intelligent
> beings and I'm just desparate to stay in the game. I seriously have no idea
> which is the case ... probably a little bit of both. 8^D
>
>
> On 5/21/20 8:46 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > Bendito Espinoza (Spanish version) apparently did not believe in the
> transcendent God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Nor did he believe that men
> are constrained by the Ten Commandments*.  He was declared "herem", a very
> severe action.
> > [...]
> > Said without authoritatian motive.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Behavior??

[Steve Smith]

and

"Sometimes a w/blink is just a w/blink?"

> Nick,
>
> You said — "I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements
> would ever take a wink for a blink."
>
> I can quickly think of hundreds of examples of this not being true.
> One, I watched a man lose a lot of money in a poker game because he
> misinterpreted a blink (sans signal content) as if it were a wink
> (with signal content), thinking that the spasm of the eyelid was a
> "tell" a kind of "winking to one's inner self."
>
> But the interesting problem is with winks that are winks. How can you
> tell, absent context and cultural experience, if the wink were
> 'sincere', 'conspiritorial', 'seductive', 'parody', 'meta-parody',
> 'meta-anti-wink', etc.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020, at 11:29 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi, David,
>>
>>  
>>
>> While I have great admiration for Ryle, and use his notion of levels
>> of action gratefully, I think he and Geertz are just dead wrong here
>> in their premise.  I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye
>> movements would ever take a wink for a blink.  But the basic point is
>> still right:  a wink implies higher level of organization that a wink
>> and a fake wink implies a higher level of organization still.  Or, I
>> think, Geertz would call it "deeper".  "A deeper description". 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Now on to ethology.  As usual, I am going to punish your interest
>> with an article.  Here you get the entire history of ethology
>> ,
>> is capsulated in three laws -- about 10 pages or so.  Not a bad a
>> bargain, eh?  In fact, if you just read from section 4.0 on, you will
>> get the examples, which contain most of the impact.  They are very
>> like the turkey/polcat example that you provide, one I had never
>> heard before!  Perfect! 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Please see larding below.
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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 Prof David West
>> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:38 AM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: [FRIAM] Behavior??
>>
>>  
>>
>> Glen made a comment,  "humans don't have intention when they wink
>> sarcastically." This triggered a memory of Clifford Geertz channeling
>> Gilbert Ryle. Just before seeing Glen's comment I was reading a book
>> on Influence and encountered some ethology and together they prompted
>> a whole series of questions about behavior.
>>
>>  
>>
>> First a quote from Geertz/Ryle
>>
>>  
>>
>> "Consider two boys rapidly contracting the eyelids of their right
>> eyes. In one, this is an involuntary twitch; in the other, a
>> conspiritorial signal to a friend. The two movements are, as
>> movements, identical; from an I-am-a-camera, "phenomenalistic"
>> observation of them alone, one could not tell which was twitch and
>> which was wink ... Yet the difference, however unphotographical, is
>> vast. ... the winker is communicating ... 1) deliberately, 2) to
>> someone in particular, 3) to impart a particular message, 4)
>> according to a socially established code, and 5) without the
>> cognizance of the rest of the company. That however is just the
>> beginning. Suppose a third boy winks in an amateurish, clumsy, and
>> obvious manner — he is parodying the wink ... not conspiracy, but
>> ridicule is in the air. Complexities are possible, if not practically
>> without end, at least logically so."
>>
>>  
>>
>> Then the ethology material
>>
>>  
>>
>> "Turkey mothers are good mothers—loving, watchful and protective.
>> Virtually all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the
>> "cheep-cheep" sound of young turkey chicks.  For a mother turkey the
>> polecat is a natural enemy whose approach is to be greeted with
>> squawking, pecking, clawing rage. If a stuffed model of a polecat  is
>> drawn by string to a mother turkey it evokes the appropriate
>> offensive behavior, but if the same model has a hidden tape recorder
>> that emits the "cheep-cheep" sound the mother not only accepts the
>> oncoming polecat, but gathers it beneath her.
>>
>>  
>>
>> This kind of "fixed action pattern" can involve intricate sequences
>> of behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals. (see
>> attachement). The interesting aspect of this is how the sequences are
>> activated — with a "trigger feature;" e.g. a particular shade of red
>> or blue chest feathers, but not a perfect replica of a rival bird
>> absent colored chest feathers.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Then my questions.
>>
>>  
>>
>> 1- Is a "behavior" always a movement plus an X-factor?
>>
>>    1A. is the X-factor other nuances of movement, e.g. rippling
>> eyelashes on the contracted eyelid?
>>
>>    1B. is the X-factor an

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Ha! Nice one. We have only the "apparently" qualifier to guide our decoder 
choice.

I forget the phrase Jon used, but I thought "humility signalling" when he 
mentioned it and I described being accused of false humility (in a friendly 
way). By peppering one's assertions with "I think" and "in my opinion" and/or 
regularly denigrating oneself (all of which I do a lot), yet continuing to 
*act* arrogant and defending one's assertions to the grave, have we descended 
to playing some game of false humility? ... are we expected to pepper 
everything we say this way and purposefully hide our arrogance and 
self-centeredness?

I honestly have no idea. I could easily be a raging narcissist who's *learned* 
to manipulate people by peppering my language with self-denigration and IMO 
qualifiers. Or (as it feels internally), I am actually scared to death that I'm 
a moron surrounded by super-intelligent beings and I'm just desparate to stay 
in the game. I seriously have no idea which is the case ... probably a little 
bit of both. 8^D


On 5/21/20 8:46 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Bendito Espinoza (Spanish version) apparently did not believe in the 
> transcendent God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Nor did he believe that men 
> are constrained by the Ten Commandments*.  He was declared "herem", a very 
> severe action.
> [...]
> Said without authoritatian motive.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

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

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Jochen Fromm]

Daniel Dennett writes in "Breaking the spell" that philosophy asks questions 
that may not have answers while religion proposes answers that may not be 
questioned. -J.
 Original message From: Prof David West  
Date: 5/21/20  16:46  (GMT+01:00) To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 
God Certainly. I apologize if I implied otherwise."What is the function of 
that?" seems to be a strange question — a disguise for a different type of 
question like, "what is the evolutionary advantage?My reaction to the article 
was along the lines: Does DMT, at the micro-dose level in the human brain, 
contribute a biological evolutionary advantage along the lines of nuanced 
sensitivity — helping make more precise distinctions to sensory input and 
therefore increase survival odds in some subtle way. The belief in "Other" or 
"God" is just a side effect?Fast forward a few millennia and the side-effect 
that had little or no consequence vis-a-vis biological evolution suddenly 
becomes a vulnerability —a contra-survival trait—  in terms of socio-cultural 
evolution? [Yes, I am being a bit sloppy and or metaphorical as I toss about 
the the term evolution.]davewOn Wed, May 20, 2020, at 3:36 PM, 
thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:> Ok.  But I can ask "why", right? > > 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: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM> To: 
friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God> > Who said anything about a 
function?> > A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express 
some > sort of belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency > 
among expressions of that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs > / 
staged body positioning / etc. are interpreted as expressions of > supernatural 
belief in prehistoric cultures. Again just an observation, > no interpretation, 
no assignment of meaning, no explantation.> > davew> > > On Wed, May 20, 2020, 
at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:> > Wait a minute?> > > > What is 
the function of believing in higher spirits? > > > > Or is it a spandrel?> > > 
> 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: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM> > To: friam@redfish.com> > 
Subject: [FRIAM] God> > > > Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in 
"higher spirits" e.g. "God."> > > > 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143> > > > Since 
human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this > > assertion); 
that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — > > incorporate 
beliefs in the supernatural.> > > > davew> > > > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- 
... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. > > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. 
.-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv> > Zoom 
Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > > 
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> > un/subscribe 
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> un/subscribe 
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> un/subscribe 
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 listservZoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comarchives: 
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot

Re: [FRIAM] Behavior??

[Prof David West]

Nick,

You said — "I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would 
ever take a wink for a blink." 

I can quickly think of hundreds of examples of this not being true. One, I 
watched a man lose a lot of money in a poker game because he misinterpreted a 
blink (sans signal content) as if it were a wink (with signal content), 
thinking that the spasm of the eyelid was a "tell" a kind of "winking to one's 
inner self."

But the interesting problem is with winks that are winks. How can you tell, 
absent context and cultural experience, if the wink were 'sincere', 
'conspiritorial', 'seductive', 'parody', 'meta-parody', 'meta-anti-wink', etc.

davew


On Sat, May 16, 2020, at 11:29 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, David,

> 

> While I have great admiration for Ryle, and use his notion of levels of 
> action gratefully, I think he and Geertz are just dead wrong here in their 
> premise. I don't think anybody who was familiar with eye movements would ever 
> take a wink for a blink. But the basic point is still right: a wink implies 
> higher level of organization that a wink and a fake wink implies a higher 
> level of organization still. Or, I think, Geertz would call it "deeper". "A 
> deeper description". 

> 

> Now on to ethology. As usual, I am going to punish your interest with an 
> article. Here you get the entire history of ethology 
> ,
>  is capsulated in three laws -- about 10 pages or so. Not a bad a bargain, 
> eh? In fact, if you just read from section 4.0 on, you will get the examples, 
> which contain most of the impact. They are very like the turkey/polcat 
> example that you provide, one I had never heard before! Perfect! 

> 

> Please see larding below.

> 

> 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 Prof David West
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 10:38 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] Behavior??

> 

> Glen made a comment, "humans don't have intention when they wink 
> sarcastically." This triggered a memory of Clifford Geertz channeling Gilbert 
> Ryle. Just before seeing Glen's comment I was reading a book on Influence and 
> encountered some ethology and together they prompted a whole series of 
> questions about behavior.

> 

> First a quote from Geertz/Ryle

> 

> "Consider two boys rapidly contracting the eyelids of their right eyes. In 
> one, this is an involuntary twitch; in the other, a conspiritorial signal to 
> a friend. The two movements are, as movements, identical; from an 
> I-am-a-camera, "phenomenalistic" observation of them alone, one could not 
> tell which was twitch and which was wink ... Yet the difference, however 
> unphotographical, is vast. ... the winker is communicating ... 1) 
> deliberately, 2) to someone in particular, 3) to impart a particular message, 
> 4) according to a socially established code, and 5) without the cognizance of 
> the rest of the company. That however is just the beginning. Suppose a third 
> boy winks in an amateurish, clumsy, and obvious manner — he is parodying the 
> wink ... not conspiracy, but ridicule is in the air. Complexities are 
> possible, if not practically without end, at least logically so."

> 

> Then the ethology material

> 

> "Turkey mothers are good mothers—loving, watchful and protective. Virtually 
> all of this mothering is triggered by one thing: the "cheep-cheep" sound of 
> young turkey chicks. For a mother turkey the polecat is a natural enemy whose 
> approach is to be greeted with squawking, pecking, clawing rage. If a stuffed 
> model of a polecat is drawn by string to a mother turkey it evokes the 
> appropriate offensive behavior, but if the same model has a hidden tape 
> recorder that emits the "cheep-cheep" sound the mother not only accepts the 
> oncoming polecat, but gathers it beneath her.

> 

> This kind of "fixed action pattern" can involve intricate sequences of 
> behavior, such as entire courtship or mating rituals. (see attachement). The 
> interesting aspect of this is how the sequences are activated — with a 
> "trigger feature;" e.g. a particular shade of red or blue chest feathers, but 
> not a perfect replica of a rival bird absent colored chest feathers.

> 

> Then my questions.

> 

> 1- Is a "behavior" always a movement plus an X-factor?

>  1A. is the X-factor other nuances of movement, e.g. rippling eyelashes on 
> the contracted eyelid?

>  1B. is the X-factor an intentional signal? or is it "meaning." is intention 
> required?

> 

> 2- Is behavior compositional? e.g. squawking, pecking, clawing behavioral 
> "atoms" compose to an anti-polecat behavioral composition? (thinking of some 
> kind of analog with atom --> molecule --> cell -

Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Frank Wimberly]

Bendito Espinoza (Spanish version) apparently did not believe in the
transcendent God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Nor did he believe that men
are constrained by the Ten Commandments*.  He was declared "herem", a very
severe action.

My daughter's former Muslim mother-in-law would say "Haram, Haram" about
the alcoholic beverages sold at her husband's convenience store.

Said without authoritatian motive.

*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, May 21, 2020, 9:34 AM Jon Zingale  wrote:

> Glen,
>
> I really like where you are going with this.
> I hope to find some time today to sit with these
> ideas and produce some notes for tomorrow.
>
> Jon
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[Jon Zingale]

Glen,

I really like where you are going with this.
I hope to find some time today to sit with these
ideas and produce some notes for tomorrow.

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

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Steve Smith]

My own "just so" story about belief in the supernatural is that it
provides ballast to an emerging/evolving mind (on top of an evolving
neural system including the development of language and planning
functions) which becomes somewhat obsessive about "posing questions and
finding answers".   I tend to think of the pervasive belief in the
supernatural as a way to resolve those questions which are simply too
subtle or complex or to whose resolution is too subtle or obscured to
yield to "rational" answers.   I suspect it is also a useful place to
build ill-formed hypotheses... theories that just don't hold water (yet)
and need to be scaffolded by actions of "the gods" or equivalent.  
While I find *other's* various superstitious beliefs inconvenient to
deal with sometime, I think they hold a significant utility for both
individual and group, but it is their nature, just like *scientific*
beliefs (although not JUST like) to be overturned as understanding expands.

On 5/21/20 8:44 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Certainly. I apologize if I implied otherwise.
>
> "What is the function of that?" seems to be a strange question — a disguise 
> for a different type of question like, "what is the evolutionary advantage?
>
> My reaction to the article was along the lines: Does DMT, at the micro-dose 
> level in the human brain, contribute a biological evolutionary advantage 
> along the lines of nuanced sensitivity — helping make more precise 
> distinctions to sensory input and therefore increase survival odds in some 
> subtle way. The belief in "Other" or "God" is just a side effect?
>
> Fast forward a few millennia and the side-effect that had little or no 
> consequence vis-a-vis biological evolution suddenly becomes a vulnerability 
> —a contra-survival trait—  in terms of socio-cultural evolution?
>  
> [Yes, I am being a bit sloppy and or metaphorical as I toss about the the 
> term evolution.]
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 3:36 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ok.  But I can ask "why", right? 
>>
>> 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: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
>>
>> Who said anything about a function?
>>
>> A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express some 
>> sort of belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency 
>> among expressions of that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs 
>> / staged body positioning / etc. are interpreted as expressions of 
>> supernatural belief in prehistoric cultures. Again just an observation, 
>> no interpretation, no assignment of meaning, no explantation.
>>
>> davew
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Wait a minute?
>>>
>>> What is the function of believing in higher spirits? 
>>>
>>> Or is it a spandrel?
>>>
>>> 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: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM
>>> To: friam@redfish.com
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] God
>>>
>>> Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g. 
>>> "God."
>>>
>>> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143
>>>
>>> Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this 
>>> assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — 
>>> incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
>>> . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
>>> 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
>>> un/subscribe 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
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-CO

[FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity

[uǝlƃ ☣]

It's debatable which type of privacy is a minimal next layer out from 
obscurity. In the responses to the combinatorial "privacy by obscurity", we 
talked about targeting, classification of decoders, invertibility of the 
encoder, etc. My guess is most of us dorks would want to leap to cryptography. 
But I *think* [†] the most natural (understandable in layman's terms) 2nd order 
privacy would be a category that spans anonymity, deniability, and ambiguity.

My 1st example would be authors who felt they had to shroud their messages to 
avoid being killed by the church or state. And I'd also include futurists, 
mystics, and cultists who want to hedge their predictions. (Note that a 
scientist hedges their predictions for entirely different reasons than a 
cultist hedges theirs. But they're still hedging.) Poets and novelists 
purposefully broaden their target audience using encoding schemes that produce 
ambiguous expressions. Subcultures and underground revolutionaries use 
ambiguity and deniability to send messages to their in-group ("dog whistles"). 
If we buy into Lakoff's idea, Trump stumbles into this with his use of 
language. Etc.

The technique involves anonymizing the *encoder* so that given any particular 
expression, it's difficult to pin down which encoder was actually used to 
generate that expression. (This is nothing more than the inverse problem for 
gen-phen maps.)

So, the 1st order privacy (by obscurity) focuses on the combinatorial 
explosion, given an expression how many ways can it be decoded. (The map is 1 
to many, one encoder, many possible decoders.) The 2nd order privacy 
(anonymizing) simply adds uncertainty to the classification of decoders. (The 
map is many to many, implying some kind of [quasi]independence between the 
paths from domain to range. [‡])

In order to pull this off, the collection of encoders (2 encoders is as high as 
I can work with myself) has to be chosen such that the generated expression can 
be *plausibly* decoded in only 1 way. So, e.g. I think Spinoza fails to meet 
the criterion because it's just too debatable whether or not he really meant 
God when he used the string "God". Should we throw him in the dungeon or not? 
But someone like HP Lovecraft can be plausibly read *either* as a member of the 
Freemasons *or* just a cool fantasy author. Or, Rachel Maddow can be read as a 
lefty conspiracy theorist *or* a diligent detail-pointer-outer. The disjunction 
has to carry through the encoders <-> decoders map to at least a plausible 
extent. This partially defeats targeting and forces the hacker to use more 
sophisticated decoding attacks.



[†] Extra emphasis for the word "think" this time. I'm still unclear on how to 
compose these types of privacy to make this "holographic" principle strongest. 
It should be clear how advocates of the principle (EricC and Nick) can defeat 
the 1st order (by obscurity). As SteveS points out, targeting comes to mind. 
Surveil the target, Frank, long enough (all the way back to 1st grade!) and 
completely enough and you will be able to reconstruct his memory of anyone he 
met in 6th grade.

[‡] I don't think 2nd order privacy is a many to 1 encoder to decoder map, 
which is the way we think of anonymous trolls on the internet. It's possible 
that 1st order privacy (1-many) has a many-1 map as some sort of dual ... maybe 
that's a way to think about epistemology (how the person understands the world 
where the world is the encoder and the person is the decoder).

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

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

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Prof David West]

Certainly. I apologize if I implied otherwise.

"What is the function of that?" seems to be a strange question — a disguise for 
a different type of question like, "what is the evolutionary advantage?

My reaction to the article was along the lines: Does DMT, at the micro-dose 
level in the human brain, contribute a biological evolutionary advantage along 
the lines of nuanced sensitivity — helping make more precise distinctions to 
sensory input and therefore increase survival odds in some subtle way. The 
belief in "Other" or "God" is just a side effect?

Fast forward a few millennia and the side-effect that had little or no 
consequence vis-a-vis biological evolution suddenly becomes a vulnerability —a 
contra-survival trait—  in terms of socio-cultural evolution?
 
[Yes, I am being a bit sloppy and or metaphorical as I toss about the the term 
evolution.]

davew


On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 3:36 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok.  But I can ask "why", right? 
> 
> 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: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God
> 
> Who said anything about a function?
> 
> A simple observation: every culture of which we are aware express some 
> sort of belief in the supernatural - there is marginal consistency 
> among expressions of that belief. Burials with artifacts / food stuffs 
> / staged body positioning / etc. are interpreted as expressions of 
> supernatural belief in prehistoric cultures. Again just an observation, 
> no interpretation, no assignment of meaning, no explantation.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wait a minute?
> > 
> > What is the function of believing in higher spirits? 
> > 
> > Or is it a spandrel?
> > 
> > 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: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:23 AM
> > To: friam@redfish.com
> > Subject: [FRIAM] God
> > 
> > Taking (inhaling) DMT seems to induce a belief in "higher spirits" e.g. 
> > "God."
> > 
> > https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143
> > 
> > Since human brains naturally produce DMT (some controversy about this 
> > assertion); that is why all human cultures — historic and prehistoric — 
> > incorporate beliefs in the supernatural.
> > 
> > davew
> > 
> > -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. 
> > . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
> > 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
> > un/subscribe 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
> un/subscribe 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
> un/subscribe 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
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] hidden

[Dean Gerber]

 Glen--
Thank you for the link to the video.  Harrowing to watch, but a greatly needed 
dose of unvarnished reality.  Tables of numbers, then graphs of the tables, 
then statistical analysis of the data are poor a story.  Closer to home are 
those poor souls  in the video, recovered but damaged. Even closer to home, the 
Covid-19 explosion on our reservations and among our tribes.
--Dean
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 02:28:05 PM MDT, uǝlƃ ☣  
wrote:  
 
 
A Waking Nightmare for COVID-19 Patients
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_AKe07J7tE

Awhile back my mom passed out and fell because of a "heart block", which is an 
electrical problem. During her stay in critical care, me and my sister watched 
her playing cards with her dreamt friends, including my dad (who'd been dead 
for awhile by then). Her eyes were open, hands up as if holding a dealt hand, 
etc. She'd pull cards out and lay them down on the "table". Her eyes would dart 
back and forth. She'd even complain under her breath about how long "someone" 
was taking to play their turn. This went on for hours ... literally I think 
about 2.5 hours in one stint. I interrupted her during one "game" after which 
she started talking about there being a man in the bathroom. She wasn't afraid. 
She just wanted to know who that man was in the bathroom. There was no bathroom 
and, obviously, no man. There was a mirror where she kept looking, though.


On 5/20/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Last night I woke up at 4:00 am and had to take a medication.  I was very 
> much asleep but also awake enough to think, "If I remember my current dream 
> it will help me go back to sleep" or some similar thought without words.  I 
> thought,  "Ah, I am dreaming about X".  I got up, walked into the bathroom.  
> By the time I raised the cup of water to my lips I had forgotten what "X" was.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ

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