date:20211012

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Roger Critchlow

As long as you stick to basic CNO type chemistry, you can probably figure
out a valid SMILES generator pretty quickly.  But it might be easier to
work in the explicit molecule graph instead and just use SMILES as a
content name string.  The things that might go wrong after the SMILES input
parses correctly are 1) a ring that's strained because it's too tight a
turn, 2) steric hindrance between bulky sidechains occupying the same
space, and 3) something that no one has any idea how to make.  You could
probably notice 1) and 2) if you track the average energy per bond.

The benzodiazepines are a classic example of structuring the search around
a core framework and substituting side chains onto the core.  That's the
way the chemists do it in the wetlab.

OpenEyes (https://www.eyesopen.com/) is running some online events this
month that might be interesting.

-- rec --

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:44 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> A search algorithm that, say, proposes a prefix or a suffix to a SMILES
> string would need to have a way to autocomplete candidates before it could
> use these descriptors to guide an optimization because the parsing step is
> non-trivial, never mind the sanitization step (mentioned on that web
> page).
>
>
>
> I will deflect blame on Jon for changing the topic from music to
> chemicals, but presumably with enough debate their aesthetic preferences in
> music could be formalized in theory or some rule-based way, as is manifest
> here.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:10 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?
>
>
>
> Hmm, when I was in the drug discovery canal, the "descriptors" that you
> could calculate from a SMILES string were legion.
>
>
>
> Here's the list for RDKIT,
> https://www.rdkit.org/docs/GettingStartedInPython.html#list-of-available-descriptors.
> There are one bunch that depend entirely on the formula and molecular
> structure.  Then there's a whole other bunch you can compute if you
> generate 3d structures for the molecules, possibly multiplied by the number
> of low energy structures the molecule can adopt.
>
>
>
> What kind of plausibility were you looking for?  Does the SMILES string
> specify a real molecule?  That's hard.  There are syntax errors in SMILES,
> failures to close rings, valency errors, charge errors.  But there are lots
> of syntactically valid SMILES that won't match any known molecule, either
> because they're impossible or as yet to be determined.  The pharmas all
> have their own lists of molecules of interest, but those are proprietary.
> Looks like there are various online databases, none that I'm familiar
> with.  If the SMILES parses, you can try generating a 2d depiction and a 3d
> structure.  Those will throw exceptions if things get too weird.
>
>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:22 PM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
> I was playing with RDKIT the other day, and it wasn’t obvious how to get a
> scalar quantity of plausibility of a molecule.   It seems a SMILES string
> is right or wrong, and then maybe there are some warnings that can be
> trapped.   However, the benefits for search or fair sampling are different
> than the needs of correctness checks, which is deeper property.   That
> isn’t quite a fit to the music example where aesthetic considerations are
> subjective.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Jon Zingale
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:11 PM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?
>
>
>
> "I mean from the perspective of aesthetics. Understanding why Pandora is
> messing it up means sampling the deep wells."
>
>
>
> Yes, but not more than one has to. This is why I am advocating for methods
> like a weighted ensemble. The working analogy for me comes from drug
> discovery. It doesn't make a lot of sense to probe the same old sites and
> the same old conformations.
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

A search algorithm that, say, proposes a prefix or a suffix to a SMILES string 
would need to have a way to autocomplete candidates before it could use these 
descriptors to guide an optimization because the parsing step is non-trivial, 
never mind the sanitization step (mentioned on that web page).

I will deflect blame on Jon for changing the topic from music to chemicals, but 
presumably with enough debate their aesthetic preferences in music could be 
formalized in theory or some rule-based way, as is manifest here.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

Hmm, when I was in the drug discovery canal, the "descriptors" that you could 
calculate from a SMILES string were legion.

Here's the list for RDKIT, 
https://www.rdkit.org/docs/GettingStartedInPython.html#list-of-available-descriptors.
  There are one bunch that depend entirely on the formula and molecular 
structure.  Then there's a whole other bunch you can compute if you generate 3d 
structures for the molecules, possibly multiplied by the number of low energy 
structures the molecule can adopt.

What kind of plausibility were you looking for?  Does the SMILES string specify 
a real molecule?  That's hard.  There are syntax errors in SMILES, failures to 
close rings, valency errors, charge errors.  But there are lots of 
syntactically valid SMILES that won't match any known molecule, either because 
they're impossible or as yet to be determined.  The pharmas all have their own 
lists of molecules of interest, but those are proprietary.  Looks like there 
are various online databases, none that I'm familiar with.  If the SMILES 
parses, you can try generating a 2d depiction and a 3d structure.  Those will 
throw exceptions if things get too weird.

-- rec --

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:22 PM Marcus Daniels 
mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
I was playing with RDKIT the other day, and it wasn’t obvious how to get a 
scalar quantity of plausibility of a molecule.   It seems a SMILES string is 
right or wrong, and then maybe there are some warnings that can be trapped.   
However, the benefits for search or fair sampling are different than the needs 
of correctness checks, which is deeper property.   That isn’t quite a fit to 
the music example where aesthetic considerations are subjective.

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:11 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

"I mean from the perspective of aesthetics. Understanding why Pandora is 
messing it up means sampling the deep wells."

Yes, but not more than one has to. This is why I am advocating for methods like 
a weighted ensemble. The working analogy for me comes from drug discovery. It 
doesn't make a lot of sense to probe the same old sites and the same old 
conformations.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Roger Critchlow

Hmm, when I was in the drug discovery canal, the "descriptors" that you
could calculate from a SMILES string were legion.

Here's the list for RDKIT,
https://www.rdkit.org/docs/GettingStartedInPython.html#list-of-available-descriptors.
There are one bunch that depend entirely on the formula and molecular
structure.  Then there's a whole other bunch you can compute if you
generate 3d structures for the molecules, possibly multiplied by the number
of low energy structures the molecule can adopt.

What kind of plausibility were you looking for?  Does the SMILES string
specify a real molecule?  That's hard.  There are syntax errors in SMILES,
failures to close rings, valency errors, charge errors.  But there are lots
of syntactically valid SMILES that won't match any known molecule, either
because they're impossible or as yet to be determined.  The pharmas all
have their own lists of molecules of interest, but those are proprietary.
Looks like there are various online databases, none that I'm familiar
with.  If the SMILES parses, you can try generating a 2d depiction and a 3d
structure.  Those will throw exceptions if things get too weird.

-- rec --

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:22 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> I was playing with RDKIT the other day, and it wasn’t obvious how to get a
> scalar quantity of plausibility of a molecule.   It seems a SMILES string
> is right or wrong, and then maybe there are some warnings that can be
> trapped.   However, the benefits for search or fair sampling are different
> than the needs of correctness checks, which is deeper property.   That
> isn’t quite a fit to the music example where aesthetic considerations are
> subjective.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Jon Zingale
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:11 PM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?
>
>
>
> "I mean from the perspective of aesthetics. Understanding why Pandora is
> messing it up means sampling the deep wells."
>
>
>
> Yes, but not more than one has to. This is why I am advocating for methods
> like a weighted ensemble. The working analogy for me comes from drug
> discovery. It doesn't make a lot of sense to probe the same old sites and
> the same old conformations.
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

< An employee of mine once claimed "you don't understand my process". >

I am really amazed how many interviews presume to try to understand how their 
candidates think.   
If it can be understood, it can be programmed.   If it can be programmed, you 
don't need the candidate.

If your poor employee is forced to commit stuff to a repository, they should 
write from the bottom-up so that the damned boss can see some widgets that do 
something.Just keep that guy entertained.

Marcus

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

Here's what I posted, for clarity. Your taking 1 sentence out of context is ... 
[ahem] ... slop.

On 10/12/21 11:13 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> "General Semantics" reminds me of this guy: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Raniere
> 
> or perhaps this guy:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard
> 
> (Funny story: We met a customer at the pub the other day who calls himself 
> "Captain". When I asked him "What are you the Captain of?", the bartender 
> answered "The Royal Scotman".)
> 
> More seriously, though, the essentialist program that seems buried in (or 
> perhaps mistakenly accused of) General Semantics seems problematic. It 
> reminds me a bit of the intuitively attractive, but ultimately false, MBPT:
> 
> Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless
> https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless
> 
> which, since we seem to care about AI is unfortunately used: 
> https://v6.typefocus.com/
> 
> As always, the misunderstood geniuses (e.g. Robert Rosen) tend toward the 
> rhetoric that any flaws others find with the system is due to their own lack 
> of effort ... or lack of persistence. But, as Jochen points out, it literally 
> does not matter whether a Country song is good or not. What matters is 
> whether a silly dance on TikTok goes viral.


On 10/12/21 1:57 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> "I post here because I like contextually laden posts."
> 
> Ha. If only. Most of my posts (as well as just about everyone else that
> attempts to write meaningfully) are met with banality with probability near
> one, so don't give me that slop. You made a claim about something
> mattering:
> 
> *"What matters is whether a silly dance on TikTok goes viral."*
> 
> I sincerely asked what it means to matter and I followed my question with
> content that you may or may not value, but hey. As far as my pithy remark
> from weeks ago, I thought I was doing you a favor. You strike me as having
> a religious devotion to balance, and I was pointing out where you were off.
> I thought you would appreciate the spot.

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"I post here because I like contextually laden posts."

Ha. If only. Most of my posts (as well as just about everyone else that
attempts to write meaningfully) are met with banality with probability near
one, so don't give me that slop. You made a claim about something
mattering:

*"What matters is whether a silly dance on TikTok goes viral."*

I sincerely asked what it means to matter and I followed my question with
content that you may or may not value, but hey. As far as my pithy remark
from weeks ago, I thought I was doing you a favor. You strike me as having
a religious devotion to balance, and I was pointing out where you were off.
I thought you would appreciate the spot.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

In the Usenet days I had the sense that it was possible to argue down people.  
It might take a lot of work, but it was possible.  The opposition might take 
you out of context or play rhetorical tricks, but there wasn’t fundamentally 
bad faith.   There was some sense that there were winners and losers of various 
fights.   Now the people I don’t like have their own television networks and 
vast automated advertising systems.   It is funny how people get upset about a 
few extra messages on announce board but meanwhile they opt to bathe in feeds 
of nonsense.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

Why should any particular forum adhere to a set of rules or some arbitrary 
definition?  In the CS Department at Carnegie Mellon there was the Opinion 
Bboard.  The rule was that anything goes.  A discussion of erotic fantasies 
(euphemism) emerged.  A woman who was a high level administrator became 
offended.  She posted, "who cares about what turns you kaboom dickheads on?" 
(euphemism)  Unfortunately she posted that pithy question to the General 
Bboard, which was for announcing seminars, visiting speakers, etc.  Anyway, 
Opinion was the most followed Bboard, among dozens, in that community, I 
believe.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 1:58 PM uǝlƃ ☤>$ 
mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Well, similar to your "why must I mean all that" reaction to my past attempt at 
some kind of state space reconstruction of a pithy post from you, I can 
construct *many* generative models for your "Matters to what/whom?" post. But 
if it'll simply end with another pithy rejection of whatever I reconstruct, it 
feels like a waste of time. It's safe to assume I'm never on the same 
wavelength. The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists.

I could make yet another post to the mailing list asking "what does that mean?" 
... but that's not optimal because: a) you don't retain message threading and 
don't quote much of the prior content and b) email fora are not chat, as I've 
argued a lot before and don't need to argue again. So, chatty posts to fora 
like FriAM exhibit a misunderstanding of what email fora (or usenet etc) are 
and what they're fit-to-purpose usage patterns facilitate.

I feel like it might be appropriate to have a Discord or IRC channel for pithy 
chat. It might be appealing to those who also like the Zoom meetings or maybe 
even the in person meetings at the coffee shop. But those are less interesting 
to me. I post here because I like contextually laden posts. I give SteveS a lot 
of guff for his bloviating posts. 8^D But I like them. Both he and EricS make 
full posts and tend toward less chatty, witty repartee.

On 10/12/21 12:12 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> "Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least
> an attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond."
>
> Sorry, I thought we were one something like the same wavelength there. Care
> to expand? Feel free to call me if you imagine that I am in anything but
> good faith chatting with you now.

--
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  
bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

Ha! Don't make the mistake of thinking because I act one way, my actions are an 
attempt to control your actions. You do whatever floats your listing boat. I 
was explaining my is→ought inference, not yours.

However, to whatever extent another finds my laid out rhetoric plausible, they 
are free to refer to it or steal it or ridicule it at their leisure. A 
difference between a pithy witty chat-oriented post and a long-winded 
rhetorically and contextually rich post is that it is *easier* to steal or 
refer to the latter. Those who tend to assume a shared, implicit 
inter-subjectivity produce less referencable, less copyable, less criticizable 
artifacts.

An employee of mine once claimed "you don't understand my process". My response 
was simply, "well, if I don't see at least sporadic interim artifacts, I'll 
never understand your process. Similarly, many of the students and postdocs I 
interact with simply refuse to commit broken (not finished) code to a 
repository. They post semi-reports of "results", if we're generous, but what in 
hell am I supposed to do with that garbage? At the very least, post an entire 
narrative. Those of us who know narrativity is a hallmark of self delusion 
won't *believe* your narrative. But at least we can parse the damned thing.

On 10/12/21 1:36 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Why should any particular forum adhere to a set of rules or some arbitrary
> definition?  In the CS Department at Carnegie Mellon there was the Opinion
> Bboard.  The rule was that anything goes.  A discussion of erotic fantasies
> (euphemism) emerged.  A woman who was a high level administrator became
> offended.  She posted, "who cares about what turns you kaboom dickheads
> on?" (euphemism)  Unfortunately she posted that pithy question to the
> General Bboard, which was for announcing seminars, visiting speakers, etc.
> Anyway, Opinion was the most followed Bboard, among dozens, in that
> community, I believe.
> 
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 1:58 PM uǝlƃ ☤>$  wrote:
> 
>> Well, similar to your "why must I mean all that" reaction to my past
>> attempt at some kind of state space reconstruction of a pithy post from
>> you, I can construct *many* generative models for your "Matters to
>> what/whom?" post. But if it'll simply end with another pithy rejection of
>> whatever I reconstruct, it feels like a waste of time. It's safe to assume
>> I'm never on the same wavelength. The problem with communication is the
>> illusion that it exists.
>>
>> I could make yet another post to the mailing list asking "what does that
>> mean?" ... but that's not optimal because: a) you don't retain message
>> threading and don't quote much of the prior content and b) email fora are
>> not chat, as I've argued a lot before and don't need to argue again. So,
>> chatty posts to fora like FriAM exhibit a misunderstanding of what email
>> fora (or usenet etc) are and what they're fit-to-purpose usage patterns
>> facilitate.
>>
>> I feel like it might be appropriate to have a Discord or IRC channel for
>> pithy chat. It might be appealing to those who also like the Zoom meetings
>> or maybe even the in person meetings at the coffee shop. But those are less
>> interesting to me. I post here because I like contextually laden posts. I
>> give SteveS a lot of guff for his bloviating posts. 8^D But I like them.
>> Both he and EricS make full posts and tend toward less chatty, witty
>> repartee.
>>
>> On 10/12/21 12:12 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
>>> "Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least
>>> an attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond."
>>>
>>> Sorry, I thought we were one something like the same wavelength there.
>> Care
>>> to expand? Feel free to call me if you imagine that I am in anything but
>>> good faith chatting with you now.


-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Frank Wimberly

Why should any particular forum adhere to a set of rules or some arbitrary
definition?  In the CS Department at Carnegie Mellon there was the Opinion
Bboard.  The rule was that anything goes.  A discussion of erotic fantasies
(euphemism) emerged.  A woman who was a high level administrator became
offended.  She posted, "who cares about what turns you kaboom dickheads
on?" (euphemism)  Unfortunately she posted that pithy question to the
General Bboard, which was for announcing seminars, visiting speakers, etc.
Anyway, Opinion was the most followed Bboard, among dozens, in that
community, I believe.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 1:58 PM uǝlƃ ☤>$  wrote:

> Well, similar to your "why must I mean all that" reaction to my past
> attempt at some kind of state space reconstruction of a pithy post from
> you, I can construct *many* generative models for your "Matters to
> what/whom?" post. But if it'll simply end with another pithy rejection of
> whatever I reconstruct, it feels like a waste of time. It's safe to assume
> I'm never on the same wavelength. The problem with communication is the
> illusion that it exists.
>
> I could make yet another post to the mailing list asking "what does that
> mean?" ... but that's not optimal because: a) you don't retain message
> threading and don't quote much of the prior content and b) email fora are
> not chat, as I've argued a lot before and don't need to argue again. So,
> chatty posts to fora like FriAM exhibit a misunderstanding of what email
> fora (or usenet etc) are and what they're fit-to-purpose usage patterns
> facilitate.
>
> I feel like it might be appropriate to have a Discord or IRC channel for
> pithy chat. It might be appealing to those who also like the Zoom meetings
> or maybe even the in person meetings at the coffee shop. But those are less
> interesting to me. I post here because I like contextually laden posts. I
> give SteveS a lot of guff for his bloviating posts. 8^D But I like them.
> Both he and EricS make full posts and tend toward less chatty, witty
> repartee.
>
> On 10/12/21 12:12 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> > "Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least
> > an attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond."
> >
> > Sorry, I thought we were one something like the same wavelength there.
> Care
> > to expand? Feel free to call me if you imagine that I am in anything but
> > good faith chatting with you now.
>
>
> --
> "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

Well, similar to your "why must I mean all that" reaction to my past attempt at 
some kind of state space reconstruction of a pithy post from you, I can 
construct *many* generative models for your "Matters to what/whom?" post. But 
if it'll simply end with another pithy rejection of whatever I reconstruct, it 
feels like a waste of time. It's safe to assume I'm never on the same 
wavelength. The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists.

I could make yet another post to the mailing list asking "what does that mean?" 
... but that's not optimal because: a) you don't retain message threading and 
don't quote much of the prior content and b) email fora are not chat, as I've 
argued a lot before and don't need to argue again. So, chatty posts to fora 
like FriAM exhibit a misunderstanding of what email fora (or usenet etc) are 
and what they're fit-to-purpose usage patterns facilitate.

I feel like it might be appropriate to have a Discord or IRC channel for pithy 
chat. It might be appealing to those who also like the Zoom meetings or maybe 
even the in person meetings at the coffee shop. But those are less interesting 
to me. I post here because I like contextually laden posts. I give SteveS a lot 
of guff for his bloviating posts. 8^D But I like them. Both he and EricS make 
full posts and tend toward less chatty, witty repartee.

On 10/12/21 12:12 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> "Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least
> an attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond."
> 
> Sorry, I thought we were one something like the same wavelength there. Care
> to expand? Feel free to call me if you imagine that I am in anything but
> good faith chatting with you now.

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] Wei Qi

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkuNWDG3yNM=70s_channel=DWNews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obsHRjulO8A_channel=DWNews

...

So I can imagine a double-digit kyu witnessing Taiwan's "reintegration"
into China and thinking, sure, you can capture those guys, do it! And then,
I can almost hear the single-digit kyu disclaim, "but wait, isn't the first
rule of Go strategy to keep all evaluations lazy"? So I leave it to the
dans in the room, why now? What benefit is there to remove those pieces
from the board? What comes next?

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

I was playing with RDKIT the other day, and it wasn’t obvious how to get a 
scalar quantity of plausibility of a molecule.   It seems a SMILES string is 
right or wrong, and then maybe there are some warnings that can be trapped.   
However, the benefits for search or fair sampling are different than the needs 
of correctness checks, which is deeper property.   That isn’t quite a fit to 
the music example where aesthetic considerations are subjective.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:11 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

"I mean from the perspective of aesthetics. Understanding why Pandora is 
messing it up means sampling the deep wells."

Yes, but not more than one has to. This is why I am advocating for methods like 
a weighted ensemble. The working analogy for me comes from drug discovery. It 
doesn't make a lot of sense to probe the same old sites and the same old 
conformations.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"I call it heart rate research."

Ah yes, the banality of evil. Where's Hannah.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least
an attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond."

Sorry, I thought we were one something like the same wavelength there. Care
to expand? Feel free to call me if you imagine that I am in anything but
good faith chatting with you now.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"I mean from the perspective of aesthetics. Understanding why Pandora is
messing it up means sampling the deep wells."

Yes, but not more than one has to. This is why I am advocating for methods
like a weighted ensemble. The working analogy for me comes from drug
discovery. It doesn't make a lot of sense to probe the same old sites and
the same old conformations.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

I mean from the perspective of aesthetics.  Understanding why Pandora is 
messing it up means sampling the deep wells.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:16 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

"Computing distributional overlap out in the tails of high dimensional 
distributions…   Seems like it couldn’t possibly be sampled well enough to be 
informative."

But isn't that where the money is? It is this kind of sampling game with 
limited resources over ridiculously large spaces that some of the worlds 
largest investments get funneled into. The idea often is to get better sketches 
of distributions, spending as little time resampling the deepest wells.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Frank Wimberly

I call it heart rate research.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 12:29 PM Jon Zingale  wrote:

> "if you're purposeful enough to actually target something ... instead of
> staring at all the fingers."
>
> Ah, I knew it would come back around to Frank's phoney 1970's race
> research.
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

Bah. I understand it can be fun to troll. But if you can't make at least an 
attempt to avoid blankface pithiness, I can't respond.

On 10/12/21 11:25 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> "What matters is whether a silly dance on TikTok goes viral."
> 
> Matters to what/whom? I understand that it is a joke to imagine
> stewardship, but virality and its effects are the consequences of
> structural design.

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"if you're purposeful enough to actually target something ... instead of
staring at all the fingers."

Ah, I knew it would come back around to Frank's phoney 1970's race research.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"What matters is whether a silly dance on TikTok goes viral."

Matters to what/whom? I understand that it is a joke to imagine
stewardship, but virality and its effects are the consequences of
structural design.

Wrt TypeFocus, seems like FaceBook should have (or maybe did) used that
before hiring Haugen? Hey, I think I saw that Keith Raniere guy on a
Netflix documentary.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

Ha! Well, I wouldn't fault Pandora for playing that tune on my Swill station. 
But I'd thumbs down it. So, perhaps I'm a hypocrite.

My point about pointing was that there are scopes of similarity, some tightly 
focused on the sign, some tightly focused on the referent, some (Korzybski?) 
tightly focused on the interpreter. My guess is that there are algorithms used 
in Pandora (and FAcebook) that target all 3 and their compositions. That stack 
of algorithms can, then, list , 
either within that basis or within derived structures.

And from that compositional perspective, no science is absurd (or not absurd) 
in light of aesthetics, nor vice versa. It all depends on what you target with 
your algorithm stack ... if you're purposeful enough to actually target 
something ... instead of staring at all the fingers.

On 10/12/21 10:35 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> Wow, Tijuana Cartel, now that's what my morning has been missing. So
> are the similarity algorithms actually different or simply different
> datasets? I get why similarity seems like a good idea at first, but
> clearly, now that the boat is moving... or maybe said a different way,
> "You have your whole life to write the first album and 6 months to
> write the second".
> 
> I guess my assertion is that what looked fine for all kinds of science
> doing is clearly absurd in the cold light of aesthetics.
> 
> ps. Is Andrew WK scwilly?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WccfbPQNMbg_channel=AndrewWKVEVO
> 
> [턢] 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4jbZ6bRf6A=PLamWgSlEr7V9d1DjCDtsT_vnptJ9DGqw4_channel=VBViBeZ
> 

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"Computing distributional overlap out in the tails of high dimensional
distributions…   Seems like it couldn’t possibly be sampled well
enough to be informative."

But isn't that where the money is? It is this kind of sampling game
with limited resources over ridiculously large spaces that some of the
worlds largest investments get funneled into. The idea often is to get
better sketches of distributions, spending as little time resampling
the deepest wells.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

"General Semantics" reminds me of this guy: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Raniere

or perhaps this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

(Funny story: We met a customer at the pub the other day who calls himself 
"Captain". When I asked him "What are you the Captain of?", the bartender 
answered "The Royal Scotman".)

More seriously, though, the essentialist program that seems buried in (or 
perhaps mistakenly accused of) General Semantics seems problematic. It reminds 
me a bit of the intuitively attractive, but ultimately false, MBPT:

Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless

which, since we seem to care about AI is unfortunately used: 
https://v6.typefocus.com/

As always, the misunderstood geniuses (e.g. Robert Rosen) tend toward the 
rhetoric that any flaws others find with the system is due to their own lack of 
effort ... or lack of persistence. But, as Jochen points out, it literally does 
not matter whether a Country song is good or not. What matters is whether a 
silly dance on TikTok goes viral.

On 10/12/21 8:50 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> The source of all evil is *'is'*.
> 
> This notion is implicit and semi-explicit in most mystical philosophies and 
> is explicitly applied to thinking in the works of Korzibski and the General 
> Semantics literature that was briefly popular and widespread a few decades 
> back.
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, at 9:29 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
>> Exactly, which is why Hume's Law is a criticism of axiomatic thinking. 
>> We clearly do derive ought from is. Is is the only is that is. Is this 
>> a type of moral realism? Emergentist morality?

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Frank Wimberly

I just listen to "Shuffle" which suits my purposes but it may be the least
satisfactory for you.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 10:58 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$  wrote:

> Well, to be a little clearer, the Dwarves qualify as Swill. Danzig and
> Tool do not. Rage Against the Machine comes close enough. It's obvious
> their technical skill prevents them from being Swill. But their target
> emotional response is the same. So I gave Pandora some slack there.
>
> What I find irritating is the conflict between Pandora's musical
> similarity versus its aesthetic similarity algorithms. It's like the
> popularity algorithm (or perhaps cf Facebook "engagement algorithm")
> overshadows the musical similarity algorithm. It consistently tries to play
> music it knows I've liked (explicit thumbs up or failed to skip) regardless
> of what "station" is playing. That irritates me to no end. Yes, I like
> Black Sabbath. But for Yog's sake do NOT play Black Sabbath on the Tijuana
> Cartel station ... you stupid, stupid machine.
>
> It, yet again, raises the basic semantic foundation highlighted by Luc
> Steels: pointing. Teaching Pandora is like trying to teach my cat to look
> at the referent, not the sign. Some cats get it. Most don't.
>
> --
> "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

Computing distributional overlap out in the tails of high dimensional 
distributions…   Seems like it couldn’t possibly be sampled well enough to be 
informative.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:52 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

PPS. Wrt the distinction between popularity and similarity, there is a sense to 
me that they both still aim to "point" at means, and this IMO, is part of the 
problem:
With deep wells come deep silos.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

PPS. Wrt the distinction between popularity and similarity, there is a
sense to me that they both still aim to "point" at means, and this IMO, is
part of the problem:
With deep wells come deep silos.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

Wow, Tijuana Cartel, now that's what my morning has been missing. So
are the similarity algorithms actually different or simply different
datasets? I get why similarity seems like a good idea at first, but
clearly, now that the boat is moving... or maybe said a different way,
"You have your whole life to write the first album and 6 months to
write the second".

I guess my assertion is that what looked fine for all kinds of science
doing is clearly absurd in the cold light of aesthetics.

ps. Is Andrew WK scwilly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WccfbPQNMbg_channel=AndrewWKVEVO

[턢] 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4jbZ6bRf6A=PLamWgSlEr7V9d1DjCDtsT_vnptJ9DGqw4_channel=VBViBeZ

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

Well, to be a little clearer, the Dwarves qualify as Swill. Danzig and Tool do 
not. Rage Against the Machine comes close enough. It's obvious their technical 
skill prevents them from being Swill. But their target emotional response is 
the same. So I gave Pandora some slack there.

What I find irritating is the conflict between Pandora's musical similarity 
versus its aesthetic similarity algorithms. It's like the popularity algorithm 
(or perhaps cf Facebook "engagement algorithm") overshadows the musical 
similarity algorithm. It consistently tries to play music it knows I've liked 
(explicit thumbs up or failed to skip) regardless of what "station" is playing. 
That irritates me to no end. Yes, I like Black Sabbath. But for Yog's sake do 
NOT play Black Sabbath on the Tijuana Cartel station ... you stupid, stupid 
machine.

It, yet again, raises the basic semantic foundation highlighted by Luc Steels: 
pointing. Teaching Pandora is like trying to teach my cat to look at the 
referent, not the sign. Some cats get it. Most don't.

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

I was thinking D.E. Shaw, Musk, Gates Foundation, that sort of thing.   I don’t 
see academics as particularly privileged.  In some ways it seems rather 
miserable.  I can see why the billionaires invest in age research.   The first 
life has to be spent getting the pile of money to spend in the second life.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:39 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

"Canal hopping is distinct from turning up the heat?"

In the Brownian limit, no, but otherwise yes.

"To *really* keep foraging it seems to me vast privilege is needed."

I hear you as advocating for academia-like institutions, here? I understand the 
classic arguments, that it is difficult to research one's interests in quantum 
computers without IBM's sponsorship, but as you put it here:

"I slowly plod through a paper only to learn the idea is basically simple",

and so in theory, not that much harder.

Still, that is the case if one's needs stay fixed on some particular prize. 
Further still, my daily experience persists in that much of what I learn about 
linear algebra (or really just about anything) comes from holding such ideas in 
contexts away from academic papers. In the meantime, a vast many are sacrificed 
so that our institutions can bestow such privileges on a few. I personally 
don't believe it is worth it to me or to the goals of our culture. I understand 
the behavior of these institutions to be a short sighted kind of gradient 
ascent, leaving an every more brittle Pareto distribution in its wake.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"Canal hopping is distinct from turning up the heat?"

In the Brownian limit, no, but otherwise yes.

"To *really* keep foraging it seems to me vast privilege is needed."

I hear you as advocating for academia-like institutions, here? I
understand the classic arguments, that it is difficult to research
one's interests in quantum computers without IBM's sponsorship, but as
you put it here:

"I slowly plod through a paper only to learn the idea is basically simple",

and so in theory, not that much harder.

Still, that is the case if one's needs stay fixed on some particular
prize. Further still, my daily experience persists in that much of
what I learn about linear algebra (or really just about anything)
comes from holding such ideas in contexts away from academic papers.
In the meantime, a vast many are sacrificed so that our institutions
can bestow such privileges on a few. I personally don't believe it is
worth it to me or to the goals of our culture. I understand the
behavior of these institutions to be a short sighted kind of gradient
ascent, leaving an every more brittle Pareto distribution in its wake.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

Canal hopping is distinct from turning up the heat?   Some bruising can be 
expected when one bounces off the side of a canal 20 feet up in the air, and 
lands on a bike stand.   Is there really any more to hustle?   By dumb luck one 
can find some other interesting place this way.   A problem with extrinsic 
motivation is that the many are energy reducers, and the many determine what 
can sponsored.   To really keep foraging it seems to me vast privilege is 
needed.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 8:55 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

"""
I want to get this into some ethics of AI/ML course materials, but I guess it 
would be the aesthetics of AI/ML and the ethics of inflicting bad aesthetics on 
a captive audience.
"""

Perhaps, it could be part of a wider collection of courses called "The 
Aesthetics of Domination"? Tongues-in-cheeks aside, frenemy RogerC, I am 
concerned by the dynamics of our social engines. While I tend to sympathize 
with Marcus's perspective [here], I also feel that it isn't particularly useful 
to me to behave along "least energy" lines. My personal path (unlike Frank, 
Nick, or possibly you) has not so rigidly canalized, instead of something more 
like canal-hopping, nearly constant foraging which *has* required effort. 
Sometimes this has been rewarding, while other times debilitating. As Glen 
states in an adjacent post:

"My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward fascination, a 
desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time."

Pressures like these have gotten me out of many situations where others around 
me continue to run into walls (like a bot in an fps), are stymied by the rug 
(like a Roomba), or endlessly publish irrelevant drivel (like an aging 
academic). There are probably many valid characterizations along Glen's line, 
but I think I prefer to call it *hustle* or maybe *hunger*, and it seems to be 
inversely related to privilege, to comfort.

Perhaps I am spending too much time watching world news or too much time 
watching friends in the service industry get treated like shit by wealthy 
silver foxes (in town for the century bike race), or maybe it's just too much 
coffee, but I do believe I am witnessing the end-of-empire[围棋] and do believe 
that yesterday's least effort strategies are not tomorrows.

So why focus on aesthetics? As many who have been fascinated by dynamical 
systems can attest, or as academics perhaps can from chatting with Strogatz for 
an hour, there is a surprising amount to learn about a dynamical system from 
listening to one. Spotify and its suggestion engine are no different. 
Aesthetics aren't random, just arbitrary, and to the degree that they are 
arbitrary you can bet that they are telling us something true about our world 
and about the nature of statistical inference. All this said I will take your 
comment in good faith and assume we can speak productively together about the 
role of aesthetics in scientific inquiry.

And to keep with the spirit of the thread, is this Schwill Rock?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO6nRXPzX1A_channel=Danzig-VerotikEntertainment

[here]: https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2021-October/090308.html

[围棋]: Though there is still hope for China, for me, such a discussion requires 
a working knowledge of Wei qi.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

I haven't read it, yet, but intend to:

Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs for alcohol use disorder
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32159228/

If we believe the results, my guess is the mechanism of action is *not* belief, 
but behavior. Emotion is a poignant behavior and shouldn't really be swept 
under the rug of "belief". Of course, belief is also a behavior, but perhaps so 
far derived from banal behavior as to be separate in kind.

On 10/12/21 8:51 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Running takes a lot of time.  Runners say it is good, and often try to 
> recruit more runners, but the activity is probably a net productivity drain.  
>  The elevated alertness after running doesn't last that long.   It creates a 
> focus around something that is pretty fleeting.   Perhaps runners live 
> longer, but maybe it is just better if we die off soon after retirement 
> anyway?   Reflecting on it, I guess the main benefit is that it illustrates 
> one path to transformation.   A runner can see that their perceptions -- how 
> they feel in the moment -- can change dramatically after they become active. 
> 
> One could argue there is a transformation that occurs for people in 12 step 
> programs and that is "real".   A difference is that there is more than a 
> belief at work with fitness.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:53 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated
> 
> I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. We're 
> consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that ... or 
> this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call such 
> nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey of 
> atheists. But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted so many 
> "foodies", it literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No matter how 
> much the True Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome New 
> Breakfast Place or whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't have to 
> hear you talk anymore.
> 
> We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the Singularians. We 
> see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners are especially bad, 
> coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But weightlifters are no better. 
> Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Pretty much anywhere 
> anyone can "get carried away" with something, you'll find the True Believers 
> waiting in the wings to swoop in and brainwash you.
> 
> At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most True 
> Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be fascinated. 
> My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward fascination, 
> a desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The trick is to ask, 
> given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need to focus on it? 
> Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of concentrating 
> individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to focus on it for a 
> year or so.
> 
> In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of True 
> Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive *because* 
> they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that gives the 
> pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of their hole. 
> But like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp littered with 
> human feces and used needles, educating the True Believers can be dangerous. 
> The abyss stares back into you.
> 
> On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>> Yeah I don’t know.  
>>
>> For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a feel for 
>> seawater.  For all the devices you design, it is all-surrounding and 
>> omnipresent.  It relentlessly intrudes through any crack, seam, or pore, and 
>> it corrodes whatever it touches.  For whatever reason, this describes the 
>> affect of my response to people’s religiosity.  The more genuine and sincere 
>> they are, the stronger my aversion to that in them.  It’s not even the same 
>> as being averse to the whole person.  There are people of whom I think the 
>> world, and to whom I am very attached, in whom I just have to work around 
>> this one radioactive thing.  n.b., however, that all such people are related 
>> to me by birth.  There don’t seem to be any ones I have sought out as 
>> friends of whom that happens to be the case.  Maybe, borderline, one or two 
>> Jews, who seem to have a decorum and sense of proper privacy (those 
>> particular people, I mean) for themselves and for others.
>>
>> There is another metaphor that also serves.  I have a friend with fairly bad 
>> arachnophobia.  I was commenting that I didn’t know what that would feel 
>> like, as spiders don’t particularly bother me, was for example ticks do.  
>> She

[FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Jon Zingale

"""
I want to get this into some ethics of AI/ML course materials, but I guess
it would be the aesthetics of AI/ML and the ethics of inflicting bad
aesthetics on a captive audience.
"""

Perhaps, it could be part of a wider collection of courses called "The
Aesthetics of Domination"? Tongues-in-cheeks aside, frenemy RogerC, I am
concerned by the dynamics of our social engines. While I tend to sympathize
with Marcus's perspective [here], I also feel that it isn't particularly
useful to me to behave along "least energy" lines. My personal path (unlike
Frank, Nick, or possibly you) has not so rigidly canalized, instead of
something more like canal-hopping, nearly constant foraging which *has*
required effort. Sometimes this has been rewarding, while other times
debilitating. As Glen states in an adjacent post:

"My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward
fascination, a desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time."

Pressures like these have gotten me out of many situations where others
around me continue to run into walls (like a bot in an fps), are stymied by
the rug (like a Roomba), or endlessly publish irrelevant drivel (like an
aging academic). There are probably many valid characterizations along
Glen's line, but I think I prefer to call it *hustle* or maybe *hunger*,
and it seems to be inversely related to privilege, to comfort.

Perhaps I am spending too much time watching world news or too much time
watching friends in the service industry get treated like shit by wealthy
silver foxes (in town for the century bike race), or maybe it's just too
much coffee, but I do believe I am witnessing the end-of-empire[围棋] and do
believe that yesterday's least effort strategies are not tomorrows.

So why focus on aesthetics? As many who have been fascinated by dynamical
systems can attest, or as academics perhaps can from chatting with Strogatz
for an hour, there is a surprising amount to learn about a dynamical system
from listening to one. Spotify and its suggestion engine are no different.
Aesthetics aren't random, just arbitrary, and to the degree that they are
arbitrary you can bet that they are telling us something true about our
world and about the nature of statistical inference. All this said I will
take your comment in good faith and assume we can speak productively
together about the role of aesthetics in scientific inquiry.

And to keep with the spirit of the thread, is this Schwill Rock?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO6nRXPzX1A_channel=Danzig-VerotikEntertainment

[here]:
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2021-October/090308.html

[围棋]: Though there is still hope for China, for me, such a discussion
requires a working knowledge of Wei qi.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

Running takes a lot of time.  Runners say it is good, and often try to recruit 
more runners, but the activity is probably a net productivity drain.   The 
elevated alertness after running doesn't last that long.   It creates a focus 
around something that is pretty fleeting.   Perhaps runners live longer, but 
maybe it is just better if we die off soon after retirement anyway?   
Reflecting on it, I guess the main benefit is that it illustrates one path to 
transformation.   A runner can see that their perceptions -- how they feel in 
the moment -- can change dramatically after they become active. 

One could argue there is a transformation that occurs for people in 12 step 
programs and that is "real".   A difference is that there is more than a belief 
at work with fitness.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 1:53 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. We're 
consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that ... or 
this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call such 
nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey of atheists. 
But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted so many "foodies", it 
literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No matter how much the True 
Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome New Breakfast Place or 
whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't have to hear you talk anymore.

We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the Singularians. We 
see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners are especially bad, 
coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But weightlifters are no better. 
Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Pretty much anywhere 
anyone can "get carried away" with something, you'll find the True Believers 
waiting in the wings to swoop in and brainwash you.

At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most True 
Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be fascinated. 
My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward fascination, a 
desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The trick is to ask, 
given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need to focus on it? 
Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of concentrating 
individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to focus on it for a 
year or so.

In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of True 
Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive *because* 
they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that gives the 
pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of their hole. But 
like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp littered with human 
feces and used needles, educating the True Believers can be dangerous. The 
abyss stares back into you.

On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> Yeah I don’t know.  
> 
> For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a feel for 
> seawater.  For all the devices you design, it is all-surrounding and 
> omnipresent.  It relentlessly intrudes through any crack, seam, or pore, and 
> it corrodes whatever it touches.  For whatever reason, this describes the 
> affect of my response to people’s religiosity.  The more genuine and sincere 
> they are, the stronger my aversion to that in them.  It’s not even the same 
> as being averse to the whole person.  There are people of whom I think the 
> world, and to whom I am very attached, in whom I just have to work around 
> this one radioactive thing.  n.b., however, that all such people are related 
> to me by birth.  There don’t seem to be any ones I have sought out as friends 
> of whom that happens to be the case.  Maybe, borderline, one or two Jews, who 
> seem to have a decorum and sense of proper privacy (those particular people, 
> I mean) for themselves and for others.
> 
> There is another metaphor that also serves.  I have a friend with fairly bad 
> arachnophobia.  I was commenting that I didn’t know what that would feel 
> like, as spiders don’t particularly bother me, was for example ticks do.  She 
> commented that it was funny, because her brother had said the same thing, 
> using the same examples.  The reason, of course, is that most spiders prefer 
> to mind their own business.  (Some Australian mouse spiders, perhaps less 
> so.)  For ticks, their business is _you_.  Likewise, there is no box within 
> which religiosity is content to stay.  It’s business is always _you_, so you 
> can never turn your back on it in rest.
> 
> In trying to form a clear view, for my own purposes, of why I respond this 
> way, in a quite different context earlier this week, I was thinking of trying 
> to explain to someone that I

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Prof David West

The source of all evil is *'is'*.

This notion is implicit and semi-explicit in most mystical philosophies and is 
explicitly applied to thinking in the works of Korzibski and the General 
Semantics literature that was briefly popular and widespread a few decades back.

davew



On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, at 9:29 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Exactly, which is why Hume's Law is a criticism of axiomatic thinking. 
> We clearly do derive ought from is. Is is the only is that is. Is this 
> a type of moral realism? Emergentist morality?
>
> On 10/12/21 6:03 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>> As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffable, je ne sais 
>> quoi.
>> 
>> The way that can be spoken is not the way, because the speaking itself 
>> spoils the effect.  Chuang Tzu's butcher can carve a beast in one fluid 
>> stroke of the knife, but he can't explain how he's doing it; and if he did 
>> explain how he was doing it, it wouldn't be the same it anymore.
>> 
>> https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory 
>> 
>> 
>> IN MY OWN WORK, I have often described the social learning techniques of 
>> chimpanzees as education by master-apprenticeship.11 
>>  Mothers and 
>> other adults take on the role of the master. The young chimpanzees in the 
>> community learn by carefully observing the behavior of the masters. 
>> Observational learning has three important aspects: the master models 
>> behavior but does not actively teach it; the apprentice has a strong and 
>> intrinsic motivation to copy the behavior; and, importantly, the masters are 
>> tolerant toward their apprentices while they learn.
>> 
>> 
>> Note that the chimpanzees also learn to be teachers by the same method, they 
>> model the "moral obligation" to teach along with the practical lesson.  One 
>> could almost say that the chimpanzees "believe" in teaching their young.  Or 
>> that the chimps are practicing a kind of "ancestor worship" by preserving 
>> these activities in their "culture".  Then again one could write it all off 
>> to natural selection of traits that accidentally map to moral categories.
>> 
>> And we taller primates also learn a lot this way, language, moral judgment, 
>> bragging about our language skills and moral judgment, and bullying others 
>> to acknowledge our skills and accept our judgments.
>> 
>> -- rec --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:53 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ > > wrote:
>> 
>> I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. 
>> We're consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that 
>> ... or this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call 
>> such nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey of 
>> atheists. But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted so many 
>> "foodies", it literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No matter 
>> how much the True Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome New 
>> Breakfast Place or whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't have to 
>> hear you talk anymore.
>> 
>> We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the 
>> Singularians. We see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners 
>> are especially bad, coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But 
>> weightlifters are no better. Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the 
>> Kool-Aid. Pretty much anywhere anyone can "get carried away" with something, 
>> you'll find the True Believers waiting in the wings to swoop in and 
>> brainwash you.
>> 
>> At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most 
>> True Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be 
>> fascinated. My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward 
>> fascination, a desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The 
>> trick is to ask, given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need 
>> to focus on it? Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of 
>> concentrating individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to 
>> focus on it for a year or so.
>> 
>> In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of 
>> True Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive 
>> *because* they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that 
>> gives the pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of 
>> their hole. But like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp 
>> littered with human feces and used needles, educating the True Believers can 
>> be dangerous. The abyss stares back into you.
>> 
>> On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>> > Yeah I don’t know. 
>> >
>> > For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a 
>> feel for seawater.

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Prof David West

Chuang Tzu's butcher did explain how he did it — "I just cut where the meat 
isn't."

davew


On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, at 7:03 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffable, je ne sais 
> quoi.
> 
> The way that can be spoken is not the way, because the speaking itself spoils 
> the effect.  Chuang Tzu's butcher can carve a beast in one fluid stroke of 
> the knife, but he can't explain how he's doing it; and if he did explain how 
> he was doing it, it wouldn't be the same it anymore.
> 
> https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory
> 
>> IN MY OWN WORK, I have often described the social learning techniques of 
>> chimpanzees as education by master-apprenticeship.11 
>>  Mothers and 
>> other adults take on the role of the master. The young chimpanzees in the 
>> community learn by carefully observing the behavior of the masters. 
>> Observational learning has three important aspects: the master models 
>> behavior but does not actively teach it; the apprentice has a strong and 
>> intrinsic motivation to copy the behavior; and, importantly, the masters are 
>> tolerant toward their apprentices while they learn.
> 
> Note that the chimpanzees also learn to be teachers by the same method, they 
> model the "moral obligation" to teach along with the practical lesson.  One 
> could almost say that the chimpanzees "believe" in teaching their young.  Or 
> that the chimps are practicing a kind of "ancestor worship" by preserving 
> these activities in their "culture".  Then again one could write it all off 
> to natural selection of traits that accidentally map to moral categories.
> 
> And we taller primates also learn a lot this way, language, moral judgment, 
> bragging about our language skills and moral judgment, and bullying others to 
> acknowledge our skills and accept our judgments.
> 
> -- rec --
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:53 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$  wrote:
>> I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. 
>> We're consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that 
>> ... or this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call 
>> such nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey of 
>> atheists. But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted so many 
>> "foodies", it literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No matter 
>> how much the True Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome New 
>> Breakfast Place or whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't have to 
>> hear you talk anymore.
>> 
>> We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the Singularians. We 
>> see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners are especially 
>> bad, coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But weightlifters are no 
>> better. Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Pretty much 
>> anywhere anyone can "get carried away" with something, you'll find the True 
>> Believers waiting in the wings to swoop in and brainwash you.
>> 
>> At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most True 
>> Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be 
>> fascinated. My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward 
>> fascination, a desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The 
>> trick is to ask, given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need 
>> to focus on it? Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of 
>> concentrating individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to 
>> focus on it for a year or so.
>> 
>> In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of True 
>> Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive 
>> *because* they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that 
>> gives the pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of 
>> their hole. But like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp 
>> littered with human feces and used needles, educating the True Believers can 
>> be dangerous. The abyss stares back into you.
>> 
>> On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>> > Yeah I don’t know.  
>> > 
>> > For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a feel 
>> > for seawater.  For all the devices you design, it is all-surrounding and 
>> > omnipresent.  It relentlessly intrudes through any crack, seam, or pore, 
>> > and it corrodes whatever it touches.  For whatever reason, this describes 
>> > the affect of my response to people’s religiosity.  The more genuine and 
>> > sincere they are, the stronger my aversion to that in them.  It’s not even 
>> > the same as being averse to the whole person.  There are people of whom I 
>> > think the world, and to whom I am very attached, in whom I just have to 
>> > work around this one radioactive thing.

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

Exactly, which is why Hume's Law is a criticism of axiomatic thinking. We 
clearly do derive ought from is. Is is the only is that is. Is this a type of 
moral realism? Emergentist morality?

On 10/12/21 6:03 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffable, je ne sais 
> quoi.
> 
> The way that can be spoken is not the way, because the speaking itself spoils 
> the effect.  Chuang Tzu's butcher can carve a beast in one fluid stroke of 
> the knife, but he can't explain how he's doing it; and if he did explain how 
> he was doing it, it wouldn't be the same it anymore.
> 
> https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory 
> 
> 
> IN MY OWN WORK, I have often described the social learning techniques of 
> chimpanzees as education by master-apprenticeship.11 
>  Mothers and 
> other adults take on the role of the master. The young chimpanzees in the 
> community learn by carefully observing the behavior of the masters. 
> Observational learning has three important aspects: the master models 
> behavior but does not actively teach it; the apprentice has a strong and 
> intrinsic motivation to copy the behavior; and, importantly, the masters are 
> tolerant toward their apprentices while they learn.
> 
> 
> Note that the chimpanzees also learn to be teachers by the same method, they 
> model the "moral obligation" to teach along with the practical lesson.  One 
> could almost say that the chimpanzees "believe" in teaching their young.  Or 
> that the chimps are practicing a kind of "ancestor worship" by preserving 
> these activities in their "culture".  Then again one could write it all off 
> to natural selection of traits that accidentally map to moral categories.
> 
> And we taller primates also learn a lot this way, language, moral judgment, 
> bragging about our language skills and moral judgment, and bullying others to 
> acknowledge our skills and accept our judgments.
> 
> -- rec --
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:53 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$  > wrote:
> 
> I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. 
> We're consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that 
> ... or this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call 
> such nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey of 
> atheists. But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted so many 
> "foodies", it literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No matter how 
> much the True Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome New 
> Breakfast Place or whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't have to 
> hear you talk anymore.
> 
> We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the Singularians. 
> We see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners are especially 
> bad, coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But weightlifters are no 
> better. Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Pretty much 
> anywhere anyone can "get carried away" with something, you'll find the True 
> Believers waiting in the wings to swoop in and brainwash you.
> 
> At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most 
> True Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be 
> fascinated. My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward 
> fascination, a desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The 
> trick is to ask, given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need 
> to focus on it? Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of 
> concentrating individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to 
> focus on it for a year or so.
> 
> In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of 
> True Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive 
> *because* they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that 
> gives the pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of 
> their hole. But like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp 
> littered with human feces and used needles, educating the True Believers can 
> be dangerous. The abyss stares back into you.
> 
> On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> > Yeah I don’t know. 
> >
> > For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a feel 
> for seawater.  For all the devices you design, it is all-surrounding and 
> omnipresent.  It relentlessly intrudes through any crack, seam, or pore, and 
> it corrodes whatever it touches.  For whatever reason, this describes the 
> affect of my response to people’s religiosity.  The more genuine and sincere 
> they are, the stronger my aversion to that in them.  It’s not even the same 
> as being averse to the whole person.  There

Re: [FRIAM] Schwill Rock?

2021-10-12 Thread Roger Critchlow

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 9:22 PM Jon Zingale  wrote:

> [...]
>
> That said, I made some effort a few weeks ago (as well as on Friday) to
> get a conversation started around what suggestion engines and search
> engines could potentially do differently. One promising idea I have been
> researching a lot lately is to adapt weighted ensemble methods (those used
> for protein folding, say) to get better estimates on the all too
> volatile energy landscape that is our individually fickle musical tastes.
> Other ideas might include methods for rewarding actions in favor of
> tolerance. But hey, just about anything would be better than the "geodesic
> humping", "least-action loving" and "k-cluster fucked" nightmare we have
> presently.
>

I want to get this into some ethics of AI/ML course materials, but I guess
it would be the aesthetics of AI/ML and the ethics of inflicting bad
aesthetics on a captive audience.

-- rec --

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] QuickMap

2021-10-12 Thread thompnickson2

Stephen,

Is this your work?

 

http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/ 

Nick


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread Roger Critchlow

As Yogi Berra might have said: all this talk about the ineffable, je ne
sais quoi.

The way that can be spoken is not the way, because the speaking itself
spoils the effect.  Chuang Tzu's butcher can carve a beast in one fluid
stroke of the knife, but he can't explain how he's doing it; and if he did
explain how he was doing it, it wouldn't be the same it anymore.

https://inference-review.com/article/primate-memory

IN MY OWN WORK, I have often described the social learning techniques of
> chimpanzees as education by master-apprenticeship.11
>  Mothers
> and other adults take on the role of the master. The young chimpanzees in
> the community learn by carefully observing the behavior of the masters.
> Observational learning has three important aspects: the master models
> behavior but does not actively teach it; the apprentice has a strong and
> intrinsic motivation to copy the behavior; and, importantly, the masters
> are tolerant toward their apprentices while they learn.


Note that the chimpanzees also learn to be teachers by the same method,
they model the "moral obligation" to teach along with the practical
lesson.  One could almost say that the chimpanzees "believe" in teaching
their young.  Or that the chimps are practicing a kind of "ancestor
worship" by preserving these activities in their "culture".  Then again one
could write it all off to natural selection of traits that accidentally map
to moral categories.

And we taller primates also learn a lot this way, language, moral judgment,
bragging about our language skills and moral judgment, and bullying others
to acknowledge our skills and accept our judgments.

-- rec --



On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:53 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$  wrote:

> I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually.
> We're consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or
> that ... or this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could
> call such nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite
> bogey of atheists. But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted
> so many "foodies", it literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No
> matter how much the True Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome
> New Breakfast Place or whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't
> have to hear you talk anymore.
>
> We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the Singularians.
> We see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners are especially
> bad, coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But weightlifters are no
> better. Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Pretty much
> anywhere anyone can "get carried away" with something, you'll find the True
> Believers waiting in the wings to swoop in and brainwash you.
>
> At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most
> True Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be
> fascinated. My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward
> fascination, a desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The
> trick is to ask, given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need
> to focus on it? Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of
> concentrating individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to
> focus on it for a year or so.
>
> In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of
> True Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive
> *because* they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that
> gives the pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of
> their hole. But like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp
> littered with human feces and used needles, educating the True Believers
> can be dangerous. The abyss stares back into you.
>
> On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> > Yeah I don’t know.
> >
> > For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a feel
> for seawater.  For all the devices you design, it is all-surrounding and
> omnipresent.  It relentlessly intrudes through any crack, seam, or pore,
> and it corrodes whatever it touches.  For whatever reason, this describes
> the affect of my response to people’s religiosity.  The more genuine and
> sincere they are, the stronger my aversion to that in them.  It’s not even
> the same as being averse to the whole person.  There are people of whom I
> think the world, and to whom I am very attached, in whom I just have to
> work around this one radioactive thing.  n.b., however, that all such
> people are related to me by birth.  There don’t seem to be any ones I have
> sought out as friends of whom that happens to be the case.  Maybe,
> borderline, one or two Jews, who seem to have a decorum and sense of proper
> privacy (those particular people, I mean) for themselves and for others.
> >
> >

Re: [FRIAM] [dis]integrated

2021-10-12 Thread uǝlƃ ☤ $

I feel that way about anyone who "stands in awe" of anything, actually. We're 
consistently bombarded with phrases like "the majesty of" this or that ... or 
this or that "takes my breath away" and whatnot. Maybe we could call such 
nonsense the Idioms of Awe. Religious belief is the favorite bogey of atheists. 
But we find it everywhere. Back in Portland, I abutted so many "foodies", it 
literally dis-gusted me. Food is fuel. That's it. No matter how much the True 
Believers proselytize the latest fad, that Awesome New Breakfast Place or 
whatever. It's just food. Please eat so we don't have to hear you talk anymore.

We see it a lot in our obComplexity crowd. We see it in the Singularians. We 
see it in the formalists and even the Dionysians. Runners are especially bad, 
coonnssttantly yapping about their religion. But weightlifters are no better. 
Even the mobility bros seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid. Pretty much anywhere 
anyone can "get carried away" with something, you'll find the True Believers 
waiting in the wings to swoop in and brainwash you.

At least the Rationalists have a method for mind-changing, unlike most True 
Believers. But rationality isn't *fascinating*. People need to be fascinated. 
My own pet theory is that our anatomy has been pressured toward fascination, a 
desire to concentrate, to focus for an extended time. The trick is to ask, 
given the target domain/problem/issue, how long do we need to focus on it? 
Perhaps some domains really do need multiple generations of concentrating 
individuals. Perhaps some domains only need a few people to focus on it for a 
year or so.

In that context, those who are seemingly stuck in some gravity well of True 
Belief are more pitiful than repulsive. (Or maybe they're repulsive *because* 
they're so pitiable?) What we need is an education program that gives the 
pathetic True Believers some tools that help them climb out of their hole. But 
like the cops responding to a call from a homeless camp littered with human 
feces and used needles, educating the True Believers can be dangerous. The 
abyss stares back into you.

On 10/11/21 12:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> Yeah I don’t know.  
> 
> For some years I was working in ocean-floor engineering, and got a feel for 
> seawater.  For all the devices you design, it is all-surrounding and 
> omnipresent.  It relentlessly intrudes through any crack, seam, or pore, and 
> it corrodes whatever it touches.  For whatever reason, this describes the 
> affect of my response to people’s religiosity.  The more genuine and sincere 
> they are, the stronger my aversion to that in them.  It’s not even the same 
> as being averse to the whole person.  There are people of whom I think the 
> world, and to whom I am very attached, in whom I just have to work around 
> this one radioactive thing.  n.b., however, that all such people are related 
> to me by birth.  There don’t seem to be any ones I have sought out as friends 
> of whom that happens to be the case.  Maybe, borderline, one or two Jews, who 
> seem to have a decorum and sense of proper privacy (those particular people, 
> I mean) for themselves and for others.
> 
> There is another metaphor that also serves.  I have a friend with fairly bad 
> arachnophobia.  I was commenting that I didn’t know what that would feel 
> like, as spiders don’t particularly bother me, was for example ticks do.  She 
> commented that it was funny, because her brother had said the same thing, 
> using the same examples.  The reason, of course, is that most spiders prefer 
> to mind their own business.  (Some Australian mouse spiders, perhaps less 
> so.)  For ticks, their business is _you_.  Likewise, there is no box within 
> which religiosity is content to stay.  It’s business is always _you_, so you 
> can never turn your back on it in rest.
> 
> In trying to form a clear view, for my own purposes, of why I respond this 
> way, in a quite different context earlier this week, I was thinking of trying 
> to explain to someone that I grew up with religious people on me trying to 
> force some kind of “religious conversion” and, in looking for a metaphor, the 
> one that came to me was “like cops on a black man”.  And no matter how 
> submissive I am and how much I would like to be cooperative, I so far have 
> not found it in myself to want to go back into that.
> 
> It surprises me that these studies don’t seem to address questions of 
> domination and constriction, and the degree to which being able to breathe 
> matters to one or another person.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't work for me.   My parents are in a very liberal church and (I think) 
>> like it because it gives some structure and support in their community.   My 
>> dad's (I think formative) education at a strong liberal arts college 
>> probably contributed to my tendency to deconstruct things.   I'm not 
>> particularly annoyed with their

41 matches

Mail list logo