[FRIAM] covid themed excel vectored windows malware

[Roger Critchlow]

https://lifehacker.com/beware-coronavirus-themed-malware-disguised-as-excel-sp-1843613107

An excel spreadsheet promising Johns Hopkins or WHO covid data that takes
over your PC.

As always, don’t open random emails—it’s a smart practice in general, but
> especially if they claim to be from Johns Hopkins University or some random
> COVID-19 testing facility. If you *do *open an email from an unrecognized
> address, don’t click any links or download files.
>
> And no matter what, *never open up a spreadsheet you weren’t expecting to
> receive.*
>

-- rec --
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
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] Peirce & Postmordernism

[Prof David West]

Peirce:

"To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be 
found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some 
external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ... 
Such is  the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in more 
familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters are 
entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our senses 
according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as different as our 
relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, 
we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and truly are; and any man, if 
he have sufficient experience and he reason enough about it, will be led to the 
one True conclusion."

The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask 
questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish me 
if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to Peirce 
in general.

1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and there 
are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably, affected by our 
thoughts:
  a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between an 
external permanency and internal thought?
  b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?

2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the the 
"characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking, or, at 
least, human attention."
  a. Are there 'Real things'?

3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined by the 
human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by which to 
give privilege over one human determined method/belief over another..
  a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other methods/beliefs, 
e.g.  'meditation', 'faith'?

4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules of] 
reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken together, 
constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one [provisionally] 
True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process, not congruence with 
any "external permanency."
  a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
  b. What are the "laws of perception?"
  c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow, and 
intolerant, orthodoxy?

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/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Peirce & Postmordernism

[Gary Schiltz]

The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation? What
about a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West 
wrote:

> Peirce:
>
> "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be
> found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some
> external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ...
> Such is  the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in
> more familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters
> are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our
> senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as
> different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the
> laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and
> truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason
> enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion."
>
> The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask
> questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish
> me if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to
> Peirce in general.
>
> 1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and
> there are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably,
> affected by our thoughts:
>   a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between
> an external permanency and internal thought?
>   b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?
>
> 2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the
> the "characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking,
> or, at least, human attention."
>   a. Are there 'Real things'?
>
> 3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined
> by the human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by
> which to give privilege over one human determined method/belief over
> another..
>   a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other
> methods/beliefs, e.g.  'meditation', 'faith'?
>
> 4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules of]
> reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken together,
> constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one
> [provisionally] True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process,
> not congruence with any "external permanency."
>   a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
>   b. What are the "laws of perception?"
>   c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow,
> and intolerant, orthodoxy?
>
> 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/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Peirce & Postmordernism

[Marcus Daniels]

This experiment involves a post-selection by “Alice”, which is surely a Turing 
machine.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7790

From: Friam  on behalf of Gary Schiltz 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 8:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peirce & Postmordernism

The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation? What about 
a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West 
mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote:
Peirce:

"To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be 
found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some 
external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ... 
Such is  the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in more 
familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters are 
entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our senses 
according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as different as our 
relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, 
we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and truly are; and any man, if 
he have sufficient experience and he reason enough about it, will be led to the 
one True conclusion."

The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask 
questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish me 
if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to Peirce 
in general.

1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and there 
are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably, affected by our 
thoughts:
  a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between an 
external permanency and internal thought?
  b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?

2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the the 
"characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking, or, at 
least, human attention."
  a. Are there 'Real things'?

3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined by the 
human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by which to 
give privilege over one human determined method/belief over another..
  a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other methods/beliefs, 
e.g.  'meditation', 'faith'?

4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules of] 
reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken together, 
constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one [provisionally] 
True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process, not congruence with 
any "external permanency."
  a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
  b. What are the "laws of perception?"
  c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow, and 
intolerant, orthodoxy?

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/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Behavior??

[Eric Charles]

I remember distinctly a meeting in which I mistook a Marine Corps
Lieutenant Colonel's facial tick for a communicative wink I didn't
realize the mistake until over a week later, when I saw the tick happening
in a context where it was clearly non-communicative ;- )

Dave asked: "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."

I don't think there is any implication that you can. Outside of a context,
there isn't any meaning to be spoken of, is there? For behaviors that are
more tightly bound to by genetic constraints to reliably be deployed under
certain circumstances, it seems fair to talk about such issues as if
members of a species were mostly interchangeable. But for behaviors that
are not so constrained (any behaviors highly mold-able by operant
conditioning, for example) we their "meaning" would be determined by
development, and being able to "tell" what was meant would also be
determined by development.

That much of that individual development converges on similar outcomes for
people who live near each other is most of what we mean by "culture",
right?

Also, given that it is a developmental issue, it is unsurprising that some
people are generally better at it than others, and that people are
generally better at it in regards to people they know and situations they
are familiar with.

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



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

> 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.

[FRIAM] Fwd: Try The Times for $1 a week.

[Tom Johnson]

Someone was asking last week about affordable subscription to the NYTimes.
Tom

-- Forwarded message -
From: The New York Times 
Date: Sat, May 23, 2020, 6:32 AM
Subject: Try The Times for $1 a week.
To: 


Gain perspective on the stories that impact your life.

[image: The New York Times]

View
in Browser


[image: In times of uncertainty, knowledge is indispensable.]

[image: Get unlimited access for $1 a week. | $1/week | Billed as $4 every
4 weeks for one year | Proceed to Checkout | You can cancel anytime.]


[image: In times of uncertainty, knowledge is indispensable.]

[image: Get unlimited access for $1 a week. | $1/week | Billed as $4 every
4 weeks for one year | Proceed to Checkout | You can cancel anytime.]

[image: Interested in print? Get 50% off for one year. Have the New York
Times paper delivered, complete with the full digital experience. View
Offer]


[image: Interested in print? Get 50% off for one year. Have the New York
Times paper delivered, complete with the full digital experience. View
Offer]



*No commitment required. Cancel anytime.*
Limited time offer. Your payment method will automatically be charged in
advance every 4 weeks at the introductory rate for one year and at the
standard rate thereafter. All subscriptions renew automatically. You can
cancel

anytime. These offers are not available for current subscribers. Mobile
apps are not supported on all devices. Other restrictions and taxes may
apply. Offers and pricing are subject to change without notice.

This email was sent to jtjohnson...@gmail.com

Account Login

| Help Center

Re: [FRIAM] Fastest Inet speed

[Gillian Densmore]

What about upload speed on that? and what's the ETA for it actually being a
thing?

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:59 PM Tom Johnson  wrote:

>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/internet-speed-world-record-fastest-download-a9527236.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1590138481
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> 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] The Second Wave is Gathering

[thompnickson2]

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/05/07/as-states-reopen-covid-
19-is-spreading-into-even-more-trump-counties/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
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] Fastest Inet speed

[Marcus Daniels]

It isn’t meaningful at a consumer level.   Consider that even the newest PCIe 
4.0 motherboards only have 256 Gbits/second unidirectional bandwidth; a 
computer couldn’t keep up.

Comcast describes their 
services
 as “One of the largest N x 100GB fiber optic backbones with multiple terabits 
of capacity”.   It would be an AT&T or Comcast type company that would use that 
kind of technology to widen their backbone.   (I know I want to see Gilligan’s 
Island in 8K.   It really adds a new dimension.)

From: Friam  on behalf of Gillian Densmore 

Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 11:50 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fastest Inet speed

What about upload speed on that? and what's the ETA for it actually being a 
thing?

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:59 PM Tom Johnson 
mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>> wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/internet-speed-world-record-fastest-download-a9527236.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1590138481
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
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] Peirce & Postmordernism

[Steve Smith]

On 5/23/20 9:15 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
> The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation?
> What about a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?
God, Gawdess, Gaia, Collective Intelligence?
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West  > wrote:
>
> Peirce:
>
> "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method
> should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing
> human, but by some external permanency—by something upon which our
> thinking has no effect. ... Such is  the method of science. Its
> fundamental hypothesis, restated in more familiar language, is
> this: There are Real things, whose characters are entirely
> independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our
> senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are
> as different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking
> advantage of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning
> how things really and truly are; and any man, if he have
> sufficient experience and he reason enough about it, will be led
> to the one True conclusion."
>
> The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words
> and ask questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in
> toto must admonish me if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an
> outlier or an exception to Peirce in general.
>
> 1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no
> effect," and there are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that
> are, arguably, affected by our thoughts:
>   a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes
> between an external permanency and internal thought?
>   b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?
>
> 2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply
> that the the "characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by
> human thinking, or, at least, human attention."
>   a. Are there 'Real things'?
>
> 3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are
> determined by the human, technically the social, and there is no
> objective criteria by which to give privilege over one human
> determined method/belief over another..
>   a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other
> methods/beliefs, e.g.  'meditation', 'faith'?
>
> 4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the
> rules of] reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason
> enough," taken together, constrain the possible 'solution space'
> too severely; the 'one [provisionally] True conclusion" is
> foregone — a product of the process, not congruence with any
> "external permanency."
>   a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
>   b. What are the "laws of perception?"
>   c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a
> narrow, and intolerant, orthodoxy?
>
> 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/ 

Re: [FRIAM] The Second Wave is Gathering

[Prof David West]

yes, but it will be, at most, a storm surge, not the tsunami of headline 
innuendo.



On Sat, May 23, 2020, at 1:04 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/05/07/as-states-reopen-covid-19-is-spreading-into-even-more-trump-counties/

> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> 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] Peirce & Postmordernism

[Prof David West]

Those are the nuances of the "problem" it might be a non-cognizing entity.


On Sat, May 23, 2020, at 9:15 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
> The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation? What 
> about a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West  wrote:
>> Peirce:
>> 
>>  "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be 
>> found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some 
>> external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ... 
>> Such is the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in more 
>> familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters are 
>> entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our 
>> senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as 
>> different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the 
>> laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and 
>> truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason 
>> enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion."
>> 
>>  The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask 
>> questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish 
>> me if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to 
>> Peirce in general.
>> 
>>  1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and 
>> there are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably, 
>> affected by our thoughts:
>>  a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between an 
>> external permanency and internal thought?
>>  b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?
>> 
>>  2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the 
>> the "characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking, 
>> or, at least, human attention."
>>  a. Are there 'Real things'?
>> 
>>  3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined by 
>> the human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by 
>> which to give privilege over one human determined method/belief over 
>> another..
>>  a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other methods/beliefs, 
>> e.g. 'meditation', 'faith'?
>> 
>>  4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules of] 
>> reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken together, 
>> constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one 
>> [provisionally] True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process, not 
>> congruence with any "external permanency."
>>  a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
>>  b. What are the "laws of perception?"
>>  c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow, and 
>> intolerant, orthodoxy?
>> 
>>  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/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Peirce & Postmordernism

[Frank Wimberly]

A chimp yes; all the rest no.  I had a friend who had an African Gray
parrot.  He could say a number of things but there was no "there" there.

In my opinion.

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:57 PM Steve Smith  wrote:

>
> On 5/23/20 9:15 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
>
> The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation? What
> about a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?
>
> God, Gawdess, Gaia, Collective Intelligence?
>
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West 
> wrote:
>
>> Peirce:
>>
>> "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should
>> be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by
>> some external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no
>> effect. ... Such is  the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis,
>> restated in more familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose
>> characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals
>> affect our senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are
>> as different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of
>> the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and
>> truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason
>> enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion."
>>
>> The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask
>> questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish
>> me if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to
>> Peirce in general.
>>
>> 1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and
>> there are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably,
>> affected by our thoughts:
>>   a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between
>> an external permanency and internal thought?
>>   b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?
>>
>> 2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the
>> the "characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking,
>> or, at least, human attention."
>>   a. Are there 'Real things'?
>>
>> 3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined
>> by the human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by
>> which to give privilege over one human determined method/belief over
>> another..
>>   a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other
>> methods/beliefs, e.g.  'meditation', 'faith'?
>>
>> 4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules
>> of] reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken
>> together, constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one
>> [provisionally] True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process,
>> not congruence with any "external permanency."
>>   a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
>>   b. What are the "laws of perception?"
>>   c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow,
>> and intolerant, orthodoxy?
>>
>> 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/
>


-- 
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] The Second Wave is Gathering

[Russ Abbott]

I feel ethically corrupt to find myself hoping for a spike in COVID
incidents among Trump voters. But in fact, that's what I'm hoping for.



On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 4:11 PM David Eric Smith 
wrote:

> One should do a regression against the popular vote and against the
> electoral vote.  See if the difference between those regression
> coefficients carries even more information than the separate values.
>
> On May 24, 2020, at 4:04 AM,  <
> thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/05/07/as-states-reopen-covid-19-is-spreading-into-even-more-trump-counties/
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> 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] The Second Wave is Gathering

[Marcus Daniels]

Russ must have been brought up Catholic.
As long as you aren’t leaving out barrels of pork rinds on the beaches, I don’t 
see an ethical problem.

From: Friam  on behalf of Russ Abbott 

Reply-To: "russ.abb...@gmail.com" , The Friday Morning 
Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Date: Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 4:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Second Wave is Gathering

I feel ethically corrupt to find myself hoping for a spike in COVID incidents 
among Trump voters. But in fact, that's what I'm hoping for.



On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 4:11 PM David Eric Smith 
mailto:desm...@santafe.edu>> wrote:
One should do a regression against the popular vote and against the electoral 
vote.  See if the difference between those regression coefficients carries even 
more information than the separate values.


On May 24, 2020, at 4:04 AM, 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> 
mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/05/07/as-states-reopen-covid-19-is-spreading-into-even-more-trump-counties/
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
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] Peirce & Postmordernism

[thompnickson2]

Why draw lines? 

 

https://alexfoundation.org/about/dr-irene-pepperberg/

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 3:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peirce & Postmordernism

 

A chimp yes; all the rest no.  I had a friend who had an African Gray parrot.  
He could say a number of things but there was no "there" there.

 

In my opinion.

 

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:57 PM Steve Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote:

 

On 5/23/20 9:15 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:

The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation? What about 
a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?

God, Gawdess, Gaia, Collective Intelligence?



 

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm> > wrote:

Peirce:

"To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be 
found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some 
external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ... 
Such is  the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in more 
familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters are 
entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our senses 
according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as different as our 
relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the laws of perception, 
we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and truly are; and any man, if 
he have sufficient experience and he reason enough about it, will be led to the 
one True conclusion."

The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask 
questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish me 
if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to Peirce 
in general.

1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and there 
are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably, affected by our 
thoughts:
  a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between an 
external permanency and internal thought?
  b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?

2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the the 
"characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking, or, at 
least, human attention."
  a. Are there 'Real things'?

3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined by the 
human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by which to 
give privilege over one human determined method/belief over another..
  a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other methods/beliefs, 
e.g.  'meditation', 'faith'?

4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules of] 
reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken together, 
constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one [provisionally] 
True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process, not congruence with 
any "external permanency."
  a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
  b. What are the "laws of perception?"
  c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow, and 
intolerant, orthodoxy?

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/ 




 

-- 

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Second Wave is Gathering

[thompnickson2]

This emotion, culpable though it may be, is so common there is a german word 
for it, schadenfreude.

 

Doesn’t that just roll off the tongue?

 

n

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 5:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Second Wave is Gathering

 

I feel ethically corrupt to find myself hoping for a spike in COVID incidents 
among Trump voters. But in fact, that's what I'm hoping for.

 

 

 

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 4:11 PM David Eric Smith mailto:desm...@santafe.edu> > wrote:

One should do a regression against the popular vote and against the electoral 
vote.  See if the difference between those regression coefficients carries even 
more information than the separate values.





On May 24, 2020, at 4:04 AM, mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/05/07/as-states-reopen-covid-19-is-spreading-into-even-more-trump-counties/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
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] Peirce & Postmordernism

[Eric Charles]

Dave,
These are very good questions. The Fixation of Belief is one of Peirce's
writings that I really like. It is a non-technical piece written very early
in his career. If we had serious Peirce scholars amongst us, they would go
on for years about how that paper relates to Peirce's later and more
precise works. It is a deep rabbit hole. Luckily, we don't have that
problem.

1. Is Peirce a dualist? - I think he is trying hard not to be, but he still
has some lingering bits that make me wonder if he's fully cut the cord. I
suspect that at this stage of his career he would say that beliefs and
thoughts are real. Later, in his career, he comes to believe that only
"generals" are "real", and that's a whole different can of worms. His work
on what we might broadly call "psychology" is probably the weakest part of
his work.

2. What about quantum physics and the "observer" problem? I'm not sure this
intersects with Peirce's work. I suspect Peirce wouldn't like quantum
indeterminacy, but he might be fine with it so long as we held the emphasis
on how that doesn't really affect interaction with macro objects.

3. Why does Peirce privileged Reason? (weak post-modernism) In the Fixation
of Belief, Peirce is pretty honest that the only thing the scientific
method has going for it is that it leads to stable beliefs. If you don't
care whether or not your beliefs pan out when tested, there are some good
reasons to prefer other methods of fixating beliefs. One of my favorite
things about that paper is Peirce's honestly that the other methods for
fixating beliefs have things in their favor.

4. Why constrain the 'solution space'? (strong post-modernism) Well, Peirce
actually thinks there will not be a solution to almost all questions we
might think to ask. The question isn't really how to constrain the solution
space though, the question is what gets to count as a solution. You can't
solve problems that don't exist, so if we are asking questions about things
that are not real, we will never find an answer. There might be perfectly
good reasons to pretend there are answers to poorly formed questions - to
facilitate social cohesion in various ways, to avoid getting killed by
fanatics, etc., etc. - but that's a totally different problem. The
assertion that some belief is "true" is an assertion about what *would *happen
*if *we systematically started examining the consequences of that belief.
If you want to talk about some other properties a belief might have, that's
fine, just don't pretend you are talking about whether or not it is true.
And we may "examine the consequences" of a belief using the full scope of
examination methods. There are no preconceived restrictions. "Our senses"
is meant in the most generous sense, not a narrow one, and merely
acknowledges that we cannot examine anything except via the methods by
which humans are capable of examining things.

Does that help?



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



On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:47 AM Prof David West 
wrote:

> Peirce:
>
> "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be
> found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some
> external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ...
> Such is  the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in
> more familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters
> are entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our
> senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as
> different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the
> laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and
> truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason
> enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion."
>
> The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask
> questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish
> me if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to
> Peirce in general.
>
> 1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and
> there are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably,
> affected by our thoughts:
>   a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between
> an external permanency and internal thought?
>   b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?
>
> 2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the
> the "characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking,
> or, at least, human attention."
>   a. Are there 'Real things'?
>
> 3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined
> by the human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by
> which to give privilege over one human determined method/belief over
> another..
>   a. Does

Re: [FRIAM] The Second Wave is Gathering

[David Eric Smith]

One should do a regression against the popular vote and against the electoral 
vote.  See if the difference between those regression coefficients carries even 
more information than the separate values.

> On May 24, 2020, at 4:04 AM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/05/07/as-states-reopen-covid-19-is-spreading-into-even-more-trump-counties/
>  
> --
>  --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. -  . -..-. . ... 
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> 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] Peirce & Postmordernism

[David Eric Smith]

There was a joke Martin Shubik used to like to tell about academics.  Excuse 
me; about parrots.

A man sells parrots.  They have different costs, colors, habits, etc.

This one here’s pretty but not too expensive, he can say 5 words.

This one’s more expensive; he can say 50 words.

This African Grey is really expensive; he can say 250 words.

Customer looks at a very ugly parrot with a very high price.  How many words 
can this one say, to be so expensive?

Salesman:  That parrot doesn’t say any words.

Customer:  Then why the cost?

Salesman: That parrot can think.

> On May 24, 2020, at 6:16 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
> 
> A chimp yes; all the rest no.  I had a friend who had an African Gray parrot. 
>  He could say a number of things but there was no "there" there.
> 
> In my opinion.
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:57 PM Steve Smith  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/23/20 9:15 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
>> The observer problem. Does it require a human to do the observation? What 
>> about a parrot? A chimpanzee? An amoeba? A Turing machine?
> God, Gawdess, Gaia, Collective Intelligence?
>> 
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:47 AM Prof David West > > wrote:
>> Peirce:
>> 
>> "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be 
>> found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some 
>> external permanency—by something upon which our thinking has no effect. ... 
>> Such is  the method of science. Its fundamental hypothesis, restated in more 
>> familiar language, is this: There are Real things, whose characters are 
>> entirely independent of our opinions about them; those Reals affect our 
>> senses according to regular laws, and, though our sensations are as 
>> different as our relations to the objects, yet, by taking advantage of the 
>> laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really and 
>> truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason 
>> enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion."
>> 
>> The above quote is a context from which I am about to take words and ask 
>> questions. Those more familiar with the Peirce corpus in toto must admonish 
>> me if I am being unfair, i.e. this quote is an outlier or an exception to 
>> Peirce in general.
>> 
>> 1- If "There are Real things, upon which our thinking has no effect," and 
>> there are"beliefs"" and "doubts" and "reasoning" that are, arguably, 
>> affected by our thoughts:
>>   a. Is Peirce a dualist? A Cartesian dualist that distinguishes between an 
>> external permanency and internal thought?
>>   b. Are beliefs, doubts, reasoning 'Real things'?
>> 
>> 2- Quantum physics has an "observer problem" that seems to imply that the 
>> the "characters of Real things" are, in fact, affected by human thinking, 
>> or, at least, human attention."
>>   a. Are there 'Real things'?
>> 
>> 3- Weak postmodern objection: all beliefs and all methods are determined by 
>> the human, technically the social, and there is no objective criteria by 
>> which to give privilege over one human determined method/belief over 
>> another..
>>   a. Does Peirce have grounds to privilege Reason over other 
>> methods/beliefs, e.g.  'meditation', 'faith'?
>> 
>> 4- Stronger postmodern objection: "the laws of perception," [the rules of] 
>> reasoning," "sufficient experience," and "reason enough," taken together, 
>> constrain the possible 'solution space' too severely; the 'one 
>> [provisionally] True conclusion" is foregone — a product of the process, not 
>> congruence with any "external permanency."
>>   a. What are the "laws" that govern how the Real affects our senses?
>>   b. What are the "laws of perception?"
>>   c. Does "sufficient experience" and "reason enough" mandate a narrow, and 
>> intolerant, orthodoxy?
>> 
>> 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://fri

Re: [FRIAM] God

[Russell Standish]

The theory which makes some sense to me is that we humans (as social
creatures) have evolved to anthropomorphise. This make sense for
dealing with other humans, who might be competitors, or
compatriots. And the modelling makes use of a remarkable trick -
observe one's own mind, and use those observations to model somebody
else's mind. This explains why we have self-awareness, if not
consciousness.

The thing is, the same trick also works quite well with other animals,
who may be predators or prey, irrespective of whether other species
actually have minds or not.

So it makes sense that when some relatively rare phenomenon occurs,
perhaps a thunderstorm, that the alpha male stands up and makes
threatening noises. And it seems to work when the thunder goes away


eventually. And so the thunderstorm has been anthropomorphised. This
got extended to other phenomenon, eg famines get blamed on angry gods
who can be appeased by making the appropriate offerings. Eventually
con-artists exploited this with ever more elaborate stories that
leveraged this innate tendency to anthromorphise. I'm sure astrology
started out as a cunning plan to garner research funds for early
astonomers from ignorant kings.

Like most evolutionary stories, this is a "just so" story. But I think
it has a grain of truth.

Cheers, Russell

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


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

[thompnickson2]

Hi Russ, 

 

Hawking my wares again.  I am sorry but SOMEBODY has to read this crap.  The
argument of this paper
  is that the flow of inference is actually in the
other direction.  We model our view of ourselves on our experience with
others.  

 

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 Russell Standish
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] God

 

The theory which makes some sense to me is that we humans (as social

creatures) have evolved to anthropomorphise. This make sense for dealing
with other humans, who might be competitors, or compatriots. And the
modelling makes use of a remarkable trick - observe one's own mind, and use
those observations to model somebody else's mind. This explains why we have
self-awareness, if not consciousness.

 

The thing is, the same trick also works quite well with other animals, who
may be predators or prey, irrespective of whether other species actually
have minds or not.

 

So it makes sense that when some relatively rare phenomenon occurs, perhaps
a thunderstorm, that the alpha male stands up and makes threatening noises.
And it seems to work when the thunder goes away

 

 

eventually. And so the thunderstorm has been anthropomorphised. This got
extended to other phenomenon, eg famines get blamed on angry gods who can be
appeased by making the appropriate offerings. Eventually con-artists
exploited this with ever more elaborate stories that leveraged this innate
tendency to anthromorphise. I'm sure astrology started out as a cunning plan
to garner research funds for early astonomers from ignorant kings.

 

Like most evolutionary stories, this is a "just so" story. But I think it
has a grain of truth.

 

Cheers, Russell

 

-- 

 



Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)

Principal, High Performance Coders  
hpco...@hpcoders.com.au

   
http://www.hpcoders.com.au



 

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

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/