Re: [FRIAM] Starlink

[Robert Ballance]

“Vexus” https://www.vexusfiber.com/ plans to roll out fiber to the home in Albuquerque and Santa Fe, but Mañana. That might vex us, but I have encouraged my neighbors to visit their site and check for services at their address. You will then get a chance to say you’d like to be offered service. This is one way to register demand. ... BobOn Sep 12, 2024, at 12:42, Gary Schiltz  wrote:Mañana. I’ve learned that it doesn’t mean “tomorrow”. It just means “not today.” ;-)On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 12:02 PM Gillian Densmore  wrote:Fiber is still 20 minutes into the future. Alas likely never without a overhaul of the "leadership"On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 8:56 AM Barry MacKichan  wrote:





What is the situation in Santa Fe now? When I left in 2018, fiber still seemed in the distant future. Our new house in North Carolina, when built, had two fiber boxes by the street, one for CenturyLink and one for Spectrum. Since then, another one was added (unfortunately they accidentally cut the fiber line into the house, sending us back a century for about a week). We pay a bit over a hundred a month for a full gigabit. It is cheaper (per bit) at half a gigabit, but we were running a business and went for the full gigabit.
Since the infrastructure act was passed, our county has been flooded with trucks towing huge spools of orange fiber cable. They are running alongside rural roads and along the village roads back from the main roads. It looks like fiber will be within a hundred yards of almost every driveway.
We have the option of upgrading to 2 gigabit service, and lord knows what we could do bonding together three different providers 😉.
— Barry
On 12 Sep 2024, at 10:30, Gary Schiltz wrote:



It depends on what's on the other end of your fiber connection :-)  Here in land that tech forgot, getting more than a few tens of megabits feels luxurious. One carrier has fiber optic passing over my property, and they offered to tap into it and give me 20 megabits for the low low price of $100 a month. Starlink's 300 megabits for $45 a month is heaven on earth. Isn't Santa Fe still sort of part of the third world?



On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 9:06 AM Marcus Daniels  wrote:



Neat trick, but no substitute for fiber. 🙂

https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/d227591a-534e-4811-a3e9-1b055d44914d


From: Friam  on behalf of Gary Schiltz 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 8:50 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Starlink
 


I have Starlink here in Ecuador and am very happy with it. But here it is only $45 a month and $120 there. 


On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 10:21 PM Gillian Densmore  wrote:

What are folks's thoughts on this? for the atrocious  choices of conned-cast or...nothing? or are there finally ISP's that aren't DSL here?-- How is it? what's it really like? are they anygood? the speed is still god awful at a pathetic 25mgs. but so is Comcast. Appallingly enough. We get snow storms and stuff, is it a blackout then?
Asking because Comcast is going. From sometime early this morning to about 20 minutes ago being out. Being legendarily terrible and no one has had the korvnka's the slap them with a RICO anti-trust suit yet. God only knows why. 
So looking starlink and open to other options:
they have to real propper internet, at least 200mbs each way and white-glove levels of service.
CC owen as well. I suspect we've both had enough.

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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

Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam

to (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] the world is watching us...

[Robert Holmes]

Hi Steve,

I recommend the podcast "The Rest is Politics" from the UK. Their summary
of the UK/European view is "unmitigated disaster".

They are also running a US-focused version of their podcast ("The Rest is
Politics: US") with a couple of other hosts (including Anthony Scaramucci).
Their view was much the same.

Happy listening!

--Robert



On Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 16:05 steve smith  wrote:

> What are our Non-USA members hearing/thinking after last night's
> debate/debacle?
>
> I felt that Biden's Rally today was something necessary for him (and
> Jill and the DNC) to do to demonstrate that last night was some kind of
> anomaly, but it doesn't erase it, just cleanses the palate a little
> bit.   I've also been listening to the various "who should the DNC pick
> in his place?" talk which is 'natural' but maybe premature to do publicly?
>
> I did listen to an European channel this morning (can't remember if it
> was England or German, both have British accented commentators) and
> there was a report of a strong "hands-off" response from their
> leaders.   Moscow did pretty much exactly what you would expect... I
> haven't heard anything from the Middle East, Africa, India, China,
> Southeast Asia or South America yet, but I would expect the "free world"
> to be disturbed no matter how things unfold down the line.
>
> In the vernacular, I'd like to believe that we could "elect a ham
> sandwich" against the likes of Trump, but that is obviously a biased
> opinion... maybe we *should* but that isn't the same as *can*.
>
> I don't see how the "West" benefits in any way from another Trump
> term...   Russia, NK, China maybe?   BRICS in the large, maybe some kind
> of wash?   Central/South/MX America?   Can't look too good?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (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
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (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] Who wrote the essay?

[Robert Holmes]

Here's what I got when I asked ChatGPT "Please draft a PhD research
proposal on The Metaphysics and Ethics of Copyright". Frankly, if Steve's
was from a prospective PhD student, they need to start using ChatGPT :)

—Robert


Title: The Metaphysics and Ethics of Copyright: A Philosophical Analysis

Research Questions:

   - What are the metaphysical foundations of copyright law? How does the
   concept of "intellectual property" fit into traditional metaphysical
   categories such as substance, cause, and essence?
   - How do different ethical theories, such as deontology,
   consequentialism, and virtue ethics, approach the issue of copyright? What
   are the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective?
   - How do the metaphysical and ethical issues surrounding copyright
   intersect with contemporary debates over digital technology, artificial
   intelligence, and the "commons"?

Research Methodology:

   - This research will be primarily philosophical in nature, using
   conceptual analysis and argumentative synthesis to examine the underlying
   assumptions and implications of copyright law.
   - The research will draw on a variety of sources, including legal
   scholarship, philosophy of law, and moral philosophy, as well as case
   studies and empirical data as appropriate.
   - The research will engage with contemporary debates and controversies,
   such as the ongoing conflict between technology companies and content
   creators, and the role of copyright in global economic development.

Expected Contributions:

   - This research aims to provide a more nuanced and comprehensive
   understanding of the metaphysics and ethics of copyright, moving beyond
   simplistic assumptions and polemics.
   - The research will offer a philosophical perspective on the complex and
   multifaceted issues surrounding intellectual property, and will provide a
   framework for further dialogue and reflection on these issues.
   - The research will contribute to the broader fields of philosophy and
   law, and will have practical implications for policy and legal reform.


On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 10:47 AM Tom Johnson  wrote:

> I can't tell.  While what little I know about the deep dive on Copyright,
> it is a very murky and often contradictory aspect of law.  Sorta like the
> 2nd Amendment: something written by the founders in a time when the context
> it was addressing was quite different from what we have now.
> And I have no idea how well ChatGPT can or does write in the first person.
> And the answer is?
> TJ
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:42 AM Stephen Guerin <
> stephen.gue...@simtable.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> What do you think? Was this PhD proposal written by a person or ChatGPT?
>>
>> The Metaphysics and Ethics of Copyright
>>>
>>> Abstract
>>>
>>> My project is motivated by a host of problems that arise in the
>>> literature of U.S. copyright law, including legal decisions and established
>>> doctrines that are alternatively arbitrary, counterintuitive, and
>>> contradictory. The central argument of my dissertation is that these
>>> problems arise from a failure in copyright law to recognize the nature of
>>> its objects, authored works, and that a coherent and stable approach to
>>> copyright must be built upon such an understanding. To this end, I outline
>>> a multidimensional ontology of authored works suitable for grounding the
>>> central principles and practical application of copyright.
>>>
>>> Centrally, I contend, a reasonable understanding of copyright depends on
>>> grasping four dimensions of the nature of authored works:
>>>
>>>1. their atomic dimension, including the parts of which they are
>>>composed, and the selection and arrangement of these parts;
>>>2. their causal dimension, including their contexts of creation and
>>>instantiation, and the weak and strong historical links that connect a
>>>given work to others (building here on the work of Jerrold Levinson);
>>>3. their abstract dimension, in particular, pace Nelson Goodman,
>>>Jerrold Levinson, and Mark Sagoff, that all such works are best 
>>> understood
>>>as type/token entities capable of multiple instantiation; and
>>>4. their categorial dimension, drawing on the work of Kendall
>>>Walton, such that multiple works belonging to mutually-exclusive 
>>> categories
>>>can be embodied in the same physical object.
>>>
>>> On an understanding of these factors, I establish conditions for the
>>> copyrightability of authored works, for the infringement of these
>>> copyrights, and 

Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

[Robert J. Cordingley]

All

This is going off topic in a hurry. Sure no public bathrooms in Santa Fe 
has been a problem for years. Should the city use its wealth, if it has 
any to spare, to build some? Are we saying in principle wealth should be 
used to help the disadvantaged (small bladders)? Isn't the problem, what 
system of wealth distribution should we adopt as a society in an effort 
to make us 'civilized'. Do we want to be more civilized - whatever that 
means?


Robert C

PS Let's not get into a discussion of the differences between bathrooms, 
restrooms, toilets, lavatories, WCs, bogs, outhouses, pit-stops, the 
gents, the ladies, powder rooms, etc.) R


On 3/15/21 1:12 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
:( yeah. Exactly. In that specific example. Maan I can't count the 
number of times when I was still in hiking shape, doing short hikes, 
or walking to downtown, how often  in summers after drinking water 
along the way. I'd need to find a bathroom.Elderly, Kids, hell just 
about anyone with blader or just wanting to freshen up some. But as 
much as at confuses me. Like you say, society has some issues.


On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:56 PM Marcus Daniels <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:


People here complain about homeless people relieving themselves in
the streets.   The solution seems so simple, especially in the
city: Builds more public bathrooms.   Duh.   One small example of
how unreasonably ruthless our society has become.

*From:* Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Gillian Densmore
*Sent:* Monday, March 15, 2021 11:09 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Marcus. what a load. Let me tell you something.  I am bairly
scraping by. it's only because of luck I am not on the streets or
someones home. people that are retired and working, arguably,
that's theft. people that still have to pay off a morgage, or rent
or what ever else to actually F'n live. Do have to have money.
just the reality of things.  Liking other stuff? yeah that's
great.  But until such time as we get our collective heads of our
asses and admit that burn and churn boomer level stuff of making
your work your life, when now: anyone under 80 or 60 actually
enjoy or want to make work their life? me either. I for one need
work, so as that I for one can actually live and afford things.
Its great people on this list take forgranted how god awful it is
to choose between a full tank of gas and healthy eating or going
out with a cute babe. I have to make that choice. It fucking
sucks, it reely does. I have been hit with age-ism.  Sexism, yeah,
turns out a lot of places won't hire men, because they think cute
girls  being the face of a company meens more horny ass teens or
what ever their marketing dweebs have gaslighted them into
thinking. That meens they will get more people to squander money
on stuff.

Sorry/not sorry. Just about every place, every article ever. says
that the true cost of living most places in the use has vastly
outpaced what anyone makes.

SantaFe anyone actually live here long? nope. Why: the cost of
fucking living! People pile ontop of eachother, heart rending
stories of people having to work 3 and 4 fucking jobs even at
above slave-wage levels at underemployment. Cost of living is the
corossive beating vile toxic slime at the top 10 problems.

Great that people are independently wealthy, can afford 99 cars,
turn around and whine about how they don't autodrive, or what
ever. I think that is fantastic! for the rest of us: I have
aghettotastic jellopy. It's white anyone here seen me at wedteck?
see that old ass car. yeah I have to keep it working for a while
despite it's mechanicle quirks.

Greed and Malice is another side to wealth. Anyone think it's
especially great we worship the wanker dweebs called CEO's wo are
making 200% proffifts while an estimated 70% of americans up to
2019  were underemployed? me either.

All that is also directly tied to cost of living. I am
seriusly looking to move because my 36 month long plan: get a job,
get health. and with any luck meet someone very very amazing. I
want her to never wory about anything I'd  be a stay at home
father. At least that's ideal dream! lol. Either way when that
warm kind amazing special person wants to be in my life. what do
you think will be in the top 10 or even 15 things to come up a
lot: how do afford X, who do we talk to about y how do invest in
AwesomeCompany to have a bad ass investment portfolio?

All that, to deel with the pure stupidity of cost of living. Well
that and it's just a good idea to have solid investment

Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Steve

If you are taking a poll...

For starters on what wealth might mean economically, it might be useful 
to understand the cost of living and purchasing power by country 
<https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php>.  Is 'wealthy' some 
factor based on a ratio of income over cost of living?


I don't know how you would measure cultural wealth and how colonialism 
played a part in its accumulation via subjugation. There must be other 
categories of wealth; spiritual wealth, artistic wealth, land ownership, 
public wealth, private wealth, etc.. How would native Americans and 
other indigenous population discuss the concept?


At the excessive levels of the ultra-rich (Besos and co), wealth is for 
giving away for perhaps some altruistic purpose. Cynically, some might 
see this as a way for making amends for all the transgressions committed 
on the way?


More commonly wealth is accumulated to help the next generation in one's 
family regardless of culture and purchasing power?


Robert C.

On 3/12/21 7:24 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Can we please start with how we define "wealth."  Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:


Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on  "What is Wealth for".  I believe we have attended
to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one
thing in
common, Wealth.   I'd be interested to hear others riff a little
more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve


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



--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org <http://emergentdiplomacy.org>
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110


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


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)

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

Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

[Robert J. Cordingley]

I think you're discussing initialisms not acronyms. Laser, scuba and 
Nasa are acronyms. TLA is a TLI


On 1/26/21 9:33 AM, Barry MacKichan wrote:


Clearly a context-sensitive TLA.

On 26 Jan 2021, at 11:24, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Three Mile Island, of course.


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


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)

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

Re: [FRIAM] incitement

[Robert J. Cordingley]

So textually analyze "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F>"! 



Your last sentiment if widely held is scary indeed. Acquitting is being 
absolved of the crime.  As others have pointed out what would a 
president have to do to be found guilty if not to want to and attempt to 
encourage the overthrowing of the results of a legally held, fair and 
square democratic election result? With Trump gone(?) the sore 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/opinion/trump-celebrity-successors.html> 
still exists and we need to deter other wannabe autocrats from a repeat 
performance. It's not a laughing matter.


Robert

On 1/19/21 9:02 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

How Trump’s language shifted in the weeks leading up to the Capitol riot – 2 
linguists explain
https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-language-shifted-in-the-weeks-leading-up-to-the-capitol-riot-2-linguists-explain-152483

There's plenty to doubt, there. But it follows along our previous conversations 
about ambiguity (both [in]formal) and binding. Personally, I don't believe 
Trump purposefully incited the riot. He'd have to be a literal genius to 
*purposefully* use language like this with the intent/objectives attributed to 
him. What does it mean, though, to *accidentally* incite a riot? Where does 
_mens rea_ fall for incitement? It seems most plausible that Trump is simply 
pre-adapted to riot-incitement by his years of practiced marketing bullsh¡t and 
the trendly positive feedback he gets from that marketing bullsh¡t. He did 
incite a *rally*. He loves when his groupies get together to fawn over him. But 
did he incite them to riot? I don't think so. Laughable as the idea is, were I 
a Senator, I'd probably vote to acquit.

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

Re: [FRIAM] Biden beats Trump

[Robert J. Cordingley]

BTW, I worry smiling Pompeo wasn't in denial he was predicting a 'smooth 
transition to a second term'.


Meanwhile, PBS is showing the Rise of the Nazis see 
https://www.pbs.org/show/rise-nazis/. It took 4 years for the Nazis to 
destroy democracy.


-Robert C

On 11/11/20 4:11 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
So at some point, too, though, there are actual facts and things and 
events in the world, which aren’t just cut from the fabric of human 
impression and attitude.


Suppose the following; as I was walking thisPM, after finally watching 
the Van Jones TED that Glen circulated, it seemed quite believable to me.


1. Suppose what Van sketches is actually the plan.  Trump plans to 
instigate a constitutional crisis.  I think he is capable of planning 
to that degree of complexity and on that time horizon.  And I have no 
reason in the world not to think Bill Barr would be down with the 
lark, and could advise him on the law to do it.  I’m not sure Pompeo 
has the same background, but in character I expect he would think it 
is a great idea.


2. Then we wind up in congress.  He doesn’t have a huge margin; there 
are only 26 republican representatives (or whatever the name is for 
them).  So he really needs them all.  That’s what the last four years 
has been for.  Figure out who has any other levers besides greed of 
fear, and get them out.  Keep Graham and Cruz and all the rest like 
them, who are amoral and predatory, and Collins and her ilk who can be 
terrorized.


3. Suppose people decide to object, and want to take to the streets. 
 Really a terrible time to have Esper running DOD.  He wouldn’t sic 
the US armed forces on them.  So find some quasi-fascist brigadier 
general who thinks might is not merely right, but Everything.  Of 
course, you have to goad people and try to provoke them, so that the 
lower-downs in the military will be willing to take orders, not 
because they think the orders are moral, but because they feel 
threatened and are trying to protect themselves and each other. 
 That’s always how you co-opt soldiers.


I look at the footage of old civil rights protestors, singing, 
dancing, and clapping while being herded into paddy wagons, after 
generations of abuse, and I cannot imagine a large cross-section of 
Americans today with the discipline to do the same if provoked.  So 
goading a few people into violence, and then using that to excuse a 
military lockdown, doesn’t seem out of reach.


Does anyone, anywhere, think the thing to make this unrealistic would 
be trump’s getting cold feet or having qualms?  If so, then I think 
that person is on the wrong side of a factual evaluation that has 
nothing to do with values or character.  One of the two positions is 
right.


The rest is really a calculation.  How degraded are the other needed 
actors, and how wide is the margin of error for the ones who would try 
it?  There people could have opinions deriving from their own 
characters or their beliefs in the characters of others, which I can 
easily see disagreeing.  It also may not have a deterministic answer, 
but boil down to accidents of circumstance.  So the disagreement could 
reasonably reflect this too.


Dunno.  If you can read enough news to know that S. Korea exists, how 
can your intelligence lead you to believe either that trump and co 
have done this well, or that if they haven’t it’s no big deal?  That 
to me does not seem to be a question about ideology.


Eric



On Nov 11, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Stephen Guerin 
mailto:stephen.gue...@simtable.com>> wrote:


Marcus,

Do you have close friend or family member with strong character and 
high intelligence that is also a Trump voter? My brother-in-law is a 
submarine captain. It was helpful to have a 3-hour call with him last 
night.


I come away with the idea that his mental model is not opposed to 
mine...it's more of a dual to mine on which future Action can be 
defined :-)


-Stephen

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:35 AM Marcus Daniels <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:


Roger writes:

< These people weren't voting for rascism, misogyny, narcissism,
authoritarianism, xenophobia, gimp shaming, science denialism, or
all that other baggage, they were overlooking it for reasons. >

Many of those that could not work due to COVID restrictions are
often in battleground or red states.   That’s the only way I can
possibly begin to rationalize the 71 million.  To me, overlooking
those things is unacceptable.   It’s not useful to exercise any
empathy for them.   They made a deal with the devil.   It should
have been a win by 50 million, not 5 million.

Marcus

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,CPj5RuRiYhg7q-nY38eWb1AT5Sk6

[FRIAM] What if he refuses to concede?

[Robert J. Cordingley]

You have to watch this Ted Talk if you don't know. It gets messy.

https://youtu.be/WZWRhLW7Y8w

--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)


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

Re: [FRIAM] election eve

[Robert J. Cordingley]

FWIW and then similarly someone came up with:

/*It's those with insight who must make the concessions*/.

(which sucks).

On "half the country is batshit crazy" - to be generous a big percentage 
of voters were struggling making a living or making ends meet, raising 
kids, making payments, etc., before COVID-19. With LOUD voices on both 
sides I see a messaging saturation effect and voters making a relatively 
random choice, or voting R because they always did, and this partly 
because they don't have the time or luxury to figure out anything 
better. Why else would races be so tight when a landslide should have 
happened? People continue to not vote in their own interest.


Robert C

On 11/4/20 11:26 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:


The fundamental challenge of being a liberal, in the classical sense, 
is that it obligates you to try to understand the desires and fears of 
those who disagree with you


Boy, Howdy.  You got that one right!

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>

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

*From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 12:18 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 


*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] election eve

" they cannot under stand why I am scared by Trump, any more than I 
could understand why they were scared by Obama "


I know it's a bit of a tangent... but is that actually true?

I'm not sure I've ever found it overly hard to understand why other 
people are afraid of things I'm not. Talk to people for a while, poke 
and prod at their ideas, observe their behavior, etc. It's not 
instantaneous, but I understand lots of things people were scared 
about under Obama (some of which happened, some of which would have 
happened if the Democrats had kept congress, and others of which were 
never going to happen in a million years).


The fundamental challenge of being a liberal, in the classical sense, 
is that it obligates you to try to understand the desires and fears of 
those who disagree with you. The fundamental benefit of being 
authoritarian is that it comes with no such obligation.


On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:05 PM <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Gary,

If you want to live in the bubble for a few more hours, try

https://abc.com/watch-live/abc-news

Marcus,  The message I am getting from those folks is something
like: "We tried rationality for 50 years and look where it got
us;  let's try crazy for 4 more years."

I know two trump supporters quite well.  Mind you, we don't talk
politics that much.  Both are owners of small businesses who have
led the highly regulated lives that folks must lead if they are
going to make money in a politically diverse community.  Both
[thought they] saw gains from the Tax Cuts.  I think both think
the economic policies have been good for them and they find the
crazy stuff kinda fun.  Like a bit of a wild fling.  They
certainly don't take those things any more seriously than I took
Clinton, with whatsername under the Resolute Desk, while he was
negotiating with the Majority Leader.  Tsk Tsk, I say and them
move on.  That's what they do, and they cannot under stand why I
am scared by Trump, any more than I could understand why they were
scared by Obama.  I once called one of my relatives in Texas
during the bush/Kerry election, because she had been born in
Massachusetts and I thought she could help me understand. "I think
that man is dangerous," she said.  I agreed, thinking she was
talking about Bush.  "Yes," she went on. "No telling what he will
do if he and the democrats get in."

Kerry, DANGEROUS?  My god that man was scared of getting tomato
sauce on his polo shirt.  But she really was quaking with fear.. 
Just like I am now.

The one I really am scared of is McConnell.  Hitler got in because
the cartels that dominated German politics thought they could
"use" him. Look how that turned out.

Nick

Nick

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



-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:24 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] election eve

Yeah, the main take home to me is the same as before: Almost half
the country is batshit crazy.

-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>

Re: [FRIAM] Trump as a victim

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Trump is A Problem. The system that put him there is The Problem. It'll 
still be there after November regardless.


RJC

PS I read Mary Trump's book and felt sorry for him. That lasted about 10 
seconds. R


On 10/7/20 5:04 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

I think of him as a wounded hippo and I don't love him in the least.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020, 4:30 PM Steve Smith > wrote:


Gotta love watching Trump "crack the whip" by tweeting that he's
ending
COVID relief negotiations, watching the market dip, then implying to
turn them back on and watching it bounce back up.   What a power
trip!
Imagine that while on Steroids!   I've never taken Steroids, what do I
know...   but it sounds like it might be a really heady experience...
next thing you know he'll be dating his daughter too?    Gotta
love the
poor little imp.

On 10/7/20 4:08 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> AMA should get credit for what they do that is creditworthy.
>
> They should also be chastised, to a lesser but somewhat lesser
degree, for the harm caused when they assume the role of a "union"
protecting members at all cost. "Bad" doctors are more likely to
be incompetent or impaired than evil. That said, there is a lot of
similarity between what police unions do to protect  those who
should be drummed out and doctors that should lose licenses.
>
> In my opinion only.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020, at 3:40 PM, jon zingale wrote:
>> I think I agree about the AMA deserving credit for the very
good work they
>> perform. They train very good doctors. Since in life it appears
we only get
>> to perform "Quality Assurance" in production, I am dismayed to
see that we
>> have uncovered more than a few bugs in our democratic process
recently. I
>> cannot help but wonder with what probability a quiet, thoughtful,
>> compassionate, homely, and capable individual is predicted to
be president,
>> or with what frequency one can expect the nation to need one.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>
>> -  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

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

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

-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

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


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


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)

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

Re: [FRIAM] flu versus COVID

[Robert J. Cordingley]

All

So... I have to suggest to the locals, see 350santafe.org 
<https://350santafe.org>, everyone else see 350.org <https://350.org> 
for a local chapter. There's a lot of work to do and lots of skill and 
expertise required.


Lurking Robert

On 9/13/20 12:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


Dave writes:

< Those who will not / cannot accept four more years will take to the 
streets in mass protest. Unfortunately, it seems like those protests 
cannot occur any longer without arson and property destruction. And 
guess what the response to that will be. >


At this rate, it will all be ignited anyway due to climate change.  
First Australia, now the west coast of the U.S. All these people with 
their fragile identities and silly little politics arguing amongst 
themselves about where to put walls and what letters to put after 
their name.  Maybe we should notice that Mother Nature is getting pissed.


Marcus


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


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)

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

[FRIAM] Babel was Re: OK. That's funny.

[Robert J. Cordingley]

So I visited the Library of Babel site. Fascinating and potentially a 
productivity sink for the rest of the day for FRIAM types. Searching 
coherent English phrases, such as that last sentence, successfully found 
~10^29 possible exact matches. Now the statistics don't worry my so much 
as how does the Search algorithm find them so quickly?


- Robert Cordingley

On 8/5/20 9:24 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

...

https://libraryofbabel.info/

--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)


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

[FRIAM] COVID-19 ICU and hospitalization data no longer available

[Robert Holmes]

State-level ICU & hospitalization data is no longer available to the public
as of last Wednesday. It's a big deal.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/17/1005391/covid-coronavirus-hospitalizations-data-access-cdc/
-  . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.  . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Re: [FRIAM] Economics 101?

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Hi Nick

I sort of understand the gerbil wheel analogy but I don't think it 
answers the question (regardless of feminism issues). Over many decades, 
Western economies have essentially got 'wealthy' and benefited from  the 
availability of energy from the oil and gas industries. So does the 
current economic crisis trace back to problems with the fossil fuel 
industry?  Travel is down big time, hospitality industries are off big 
time. But that just adds to the list of people who don't have it. It's 
beginning to look like it's all a mirage and wealth is actually based on 
debt to someone. Once and if the debt catches up with the circulation of 
the economy it would all collapse. Is it a giant Ponzi scheme?  [I'm 
going to predict it can all be explained by solving differential 
equations in useful economic models.]


Robert

On 5/26/20 6:30 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:

Robert,

Thanks for asking that question.  I asked it about a month ago in the form, 
What is this economy we are mourning.  What ever the economy is or money is, 
both seem to correlate with the number of times we all run around the wheel in 
our cages.  So, if we all stop exercising in our cages, the wheel stops, and 
that’s the economy.  It make sense because both government and industry skim 
off transactions, and so the fewer transactions we do, the poorer they are.  
That's why The Elites finally gave way to feminism.  By monetizing childrearing 
they could, in effect, monetize transactions within the family.

N

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



-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 5:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Economics 101?

Meanwhile, during this pandemic/economic crisis, where has all the money gone? 
The people laid off don't have it, their employers don't have, their laid off 
customers don't have it. Landlords and mortgage holders probably don't have it 
because their clients are not making the payments like they used to. Farmers 
don't have it - sales are down. The city doesn't have it.  The State doesn't 
have it, its budget is in tatters. Where did it go? I'm not trying to be funny 
it's a serious question, any thoughts or pointers to texts on economics that 
would explain what's going on? I know I have less of it too, tho' we might be 
spending less but it's too early to tell. I'm not really buying (sic) that it's 
just stopped circulating that's made everyone poorer. If it's not circulating 
it must be accumulating somewhere, where? Maybe the plutocrats have got it.

--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)


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


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


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)


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

[FRIAM] Economics 101?

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Meanwhile, during this pandemic/economic crisis, where has all the money 
gone? The people laid off don't have it, their employers don't have, 
their laid off customers don't have it. Landlords and mortgage holders 
probably don't have it because their clients are not making the payments 
like they used to. Farmers don't have it - sales are down. The city 
doesn't have it.  The State doesn't have it, its budget is in tatters.  
Where did it go? I'm not trying to be funny it's a serious question, any 
thoughts or pointers to texts on economics that would explain what's 
going on? I know I have less of it too, tho' we might be spending less 
but it's too early to tell. I'm not really buying (sic) that it's just 
stopped circulating that's made everyone poorer. If it's not circulating 
it must be accumulating somewhere, where? Maybe the plutocrats have got it.


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)


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

Re: [FRIAM] the end of the pandemic

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Perhaps some data (from the last years that I could find) would put the 
'anthropologists' argument in perspective?


2017-now US Population about 320 million.

*US Suicides* *2017*

   14.0 per 100,000

   Total: *47,173*

*US Motor Vehicle Fatalities* *2018*

   11.18 per 100,000

   Total: *36,560*

*US Covid-19 Fatalities 5/11/20 *132 days into the year with one wave 
under our belt


   24.32 per 100,000

   Total 2019 YTD: *80,094*

*US Spanish Flu Fatalities (1918 H1N1 flu pandemic)* - in as many as 
three waves.


   US Population: 103,208,000

   654 per 100,000

   Total Mar 1918 - Mar 1919: *675,000*

And yes people to go after the annual fatalities depending on the cause, 
especially leading causes: heart disease, cancer, gun violence, opioid 
abuse, domestic abuse, police violence, etc. And of course, you can 
bring back jobs and the economy, you can't bring back lost loved ones. 
And there are more waves to come.


And then we will continue experiencing more global warming induced 
disasters: fires, flood, cyclones, more SARS-CoV-## style zoonotic 
pandemics, climate refugees. What happens when these happen simultaneously?


It's hard not to conclude that capitalism is and has been a complete and 
utter abject failure when responding and dealing with these events, not 
mention it being among the causes, but I digress.


Ref:

https://www.acep.org/how-we-serve/sections/disaster-medicine/news/april-2018/1918-influenza-pandemic-a-united-states-timeline/

https://interestingengineering.com/the-1918-spanish-flu-and-what-it-cost-humanity-a-timeline

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929

Robert Cordingley - an occasional lurker.


On 5/11/20 12:07 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
My high school best friend Jim Snoke posted this on Facebook.  He is 
also an anthropologist, like Dave.  He says he finished his 
dissertation at UC Davis but his defense never happened because his 
major adviser moved to another university. (?). He has gotten involved 
in a major way with Native American causes and got about 40,000 
signatures on a petition to save Chaco National Monument from fracking 
damage.  He still lives in CA so he asked me to deliver it to the 
Governor's Office personally.  I tried but they didn't really want 
that much paper.  They said to tell him to email a digital file with 
the signatures.  They took it seriously.


Compare the arguments of the two anthropologists:

The death rate in the United States, without considering the Covid-19 
outbreak – and decades before it was even a twinkle in the eyes of 
America – stood at roughly 8.7 per 1000 people per year.  That 
translates into a death rate of 0.0087.  There are roughly 330 million 
people in the United States this year, and that translates into the 
following figure:  2,871,000.  Two million, eight hundred and 
seventy-one thousand people die EVERY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES of 
“natural” and “unnatural “ causes.  Keep that figure in mind when 
those in power, and those in the media, scare the shit out of people 
with their dire “predictions” about the rising infection and death 
rates.  At the present time, our already fragile economy is going to 
be ruined beyond all recovery – quite likely forever – and the 
draconian measures to “fight the virus” will have succeeded in 
destroying the lives of almost half of our total population in the 
name of a “pandemic” that is taking less than a tenth of 1 percent of 
the population.  My point is that NO ONE in the United States goes 
berserk over the FACT that 2,871,000 people die – in this country 
alone – every year.  We don’t forfeit our economy and our way of life 
over these equally-tragic deaths.  But let it be an epidemic, and we 
DO forfeit our economy and our way of life – and the “epidemic” will 
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER reach the truly-epidemic proportions that 
constitute the NATURAL and UNNATURAL, ONGOING DEATH RATE IN THE UNITED 
STATES.  OMG!!! 270,000 people have died from the pandemic !  Yes, 
it is horrible – but what about the 2,871,000 people that die every 
year regardless of the pandemic???  10 times the death rate of the 
“pandemic” -- every single, Goddamned year.  Where is the outrage??  
Where is the concern??  Are we actually so scared shitless that we are 
willing to lose our ENTIRE ECONOMY, OUR JOBS, OUR INCOMES???  Has 
anybody thought this through??  We have flunked, outright, many many 
tests as a population over the past 100 years.  Those of you who 
insist on arguing that: “THIS IS DIFFERENT – IT IS AN INFECTIOUS 
DISEASE THAT WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER, AND IT MIGHT HAVE KILLED US” need 
to keep in mind that although there are now more than 30,000,000 
unemployed – and soon to be upwards of 50,000,000 – someone stands to 
gain from all this.  Trump is using the distraction of the pandemic to 
go after fracking leases in our National Parks, large businesses are 
profiting from the “bailout” by looting the U.S. Treasury, Shell Oi

Re: [FRIAM] IT is Not Sustainable

[Robert Ballance]

And before that at Berkeley, HP Labs, and Bell Labs. C’est moi. 

... Bob

> On Dec 26, 2019, at 18:14, Angel Edward  wrote:
> 
> It may be Bob but he spent most of his career at Sandia and before that at 
> UNM CS.
> 
> Ed
> __
> 
> Ed Angel
> 
> Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
> Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico
> 
> 1017 Sierra Pinon
> Santa Fe, NM 87501
> 505-984-0136 (home)   edward.an...@gmail.com
> 505-453-4944 (cell)   http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel
> 
>> On Dec 26, 2019, at 5:27 PM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>> 
>>  Bob Ballance!!
>> 
>> ---
>> Frank Wimberly
>> 
>> My memoir:
>> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
>> 
>> My scientific publications:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>> 
>> Phone (505) 670-9918
>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 4:40 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>>> Also, there was a guy who had also worked at Bell Labs, for a lot longer 
>>> than I did, who used to come to Friam.  Then he got some kind of honorary 
>>> position in DC left town temporarily.  He had thinning white hair and wore 
>>> glasses and was about my height.  With that unique description someone must 
>>> know who I'm talking about. His name is on the tip of my tongue.
>>> 
>>> Frank
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Frank Wimberly
>>> 
>>> My memoir:
>>> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
>>> 
>>> My scientific publications:
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>>> 
>>> Phone (505) 670-9918
>>> 
 On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 4:06 PM  wrote:
 Our Own Lee Rudolph, was there as well.  In the belly of Net Logo, I think.
 
  
 
 Lee Are you out there? 
 
  
 
 Nick
 
  
 
 Nicholas Thompson
 
 Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
 
 Clark University
 
 thompnicks...@gmail.com
 
 https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 
  
 
  
 
 From: Friam  On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
 Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 2:56 PM
 To: friam@redfish.com
 Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IT is Not Sustainable
 
  
 
 Frank -
 
 I am, it's first draft is roughly what I get when I filter my outbox.  
 The chapters on "memoirs of sci/tech" are in the "recipients:Friam" 
 stream... this collection may very well also be the primary contents of 
 many's TL;DR folder here.
 
 I would appreciate a second memoir from yourself covering the years 
 (and anecdotes) including running Paul Erdos out of the Berkeley Campus 
 Library each night and the belly of the ATT and CMU (and???) beasts... to 
 complement the not-too-long-after-wild-wild-west days in NM.
 
 My friend who is no more than a couple of years younger than you who 
 grew up in Las Vegas and Amarillo recognized a lot of familiar "color" 
 from your memoir.  He got lucky and ended up at MIT in the early 60s...
 
 - Steve
 
 On 12/26/19 11:30 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
 
 Steve,
 
  
 
 You should write a memoir.
 
  
 
 Frank
 
 ---
 Frank Wimberly
 
 My memoir:
 https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
 
 My scientific publications:
 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
 
 Phone (505) 670-9918
 
  
 
 On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 10:42 AM Steven A Smith  wrote:
 
 Frank -
 
 It is fascinating to hear that you were in the "belly of the beast" if 
 only for a short while.  I suppose we have all been in the belly of *some* 
 beast in our various times.
 
 My earliest years were without a telephone in the house (camp-trailer in 
 the woods) followed by several party lines (shared in 2 cases amongst 
 other USFS families in forest-camp compounds) and understanding that the 
 magical rings and voices coming from the handsets in the house were 
 modulated (whatever that meant to a 3 year old) over the insulated bundles 
 of wires running from tree-to-tree and pole-to-pole...   It wasn't hard to 
 understand the idea that if voices could travel over single wires, that 
 any one of us on a party line could pick up and hear the other's voices 
 during a conversation or even that the volume/static on the line would 
 abruptly change if someone picked up (say to listen in?).   It made 
 perfect sense that such resources (wires on poles) were very scarce and 
 needed to be shared...   I had heard of operator-assisted calling which 
 made great sense (patch panels) but the idea that the pulses sent via the 
 spring-loaded rotary dial could "tell" a electromechanical switch (my 
 father showed me the one in the main location at the second fo

Re: [FRIAM] BBC's visual and data journalism cookbook for R graphics

[Robert Ballance]

Very nice!

... Bob

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 13:35, Robert Holmes  wrote:
> 
> Impressive.
> 
> https://bbc.github.io/rcookbook/
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] BBC's visual and data journalism cookbook for R graphics

[Robert Holmes]

Impressive.

https://bbc.github.io/rcookbook/

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Results of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum - Wikipedia

[Robert Holmes]

I think that Sir Humphrey has the right idea

.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 11:24 AM Owen Densmore  wrote:

> I find it amazing that, with all the discussion of the Irish border and
> the "backstop", the Northern Irish vote was overwhelmingly for Remain, not
> Exit!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Northern_Ireland
>
> And the backstop thus far has resulted in either:
> - NI staying in the EU trade area, thus leaving the Irish border open, but
> creating a NI-UK border in the Irish sea
> - NI being exactly like the rest of UI, resulting in a hard Irish border.
>
> The link above was also surprising in the huge diversity of votes in *all*
> the various regions. And NI *and* Scotland voted Remain!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Results_by_United_Kingdom_constituent_countries
>
> This is nuts!
>
>-- Owen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Experts explaining stuff at multiple levels of difficulty

[Robert Holmes]

Yeah, that's the one that got me grinding my teeth too…

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:40 PM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> These are great.  Let’s have a huge effing fight on Friday about this one:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opqIa5Jiwuw&t=0s&list=PLibNZv5Zd0dyCoQ6f4pdXUFnpAIlKgm3N&index=2
>
> Bruce is going to love it and I think it’s a crock.  In fact, I think it
> gets crockier the more “expert” it becomes.
>
>
>
> But I still love it.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Holmes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2019 8:12 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Experts explaining stuff at multiple levels of
> difficulty
>
>
>
> Following on from a conversation I had with Nick last week. Here are some
> videos from WIRED in which experts explain their field at (widely) varying
> levels of difficulty.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLibNZv5Zd0dyCoQ6f4pdXUFnpAIlKgm3N
>
>
>
> —R
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Experts explaining stuff at multiple levels of difficulty

[Robert Holmes]

Following on from a conversation I had with Nick last week. Here are some
videos from WIRED in which experts explain their field at (widely) varying
levels of difficulty.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLibNZv5Zd0dyCoQ6f4pdXUFnpAIlKgm3N

—R

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Robert Holmes]

Nick,

This seems to be an issue of Wittgenstein's Lion


—R

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:04 AM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Once again, I am lost in my own thread.
>
>
>
> I will say this:  often it seems, with both Marcus, and Glen, and even
> Owen and Steve, and to a lesser extent Dave West, that their (your)
> thinking is rooted in models from coding and because I have never been a
> coder those models are utterly unavailable to me.   I have always ... since
> childhood ...believed that if I worked hard enough at something I could
> understand it.  And so, almost 14 years ago, when I was cast loose in Santa
> Fe, and Steve and Owen and Carl and Frank took me into that jammed freezing
> cold office on Agua Fria.  They fed me when I was intellectually hungry and
> comforted me when I was intellectually lonely, *and in gratitude, I was
> determined to understand their mindset.*  But despite all that I have
> learned since that time, I have come to admit that there are probably
> chasms of thought too deep for people to reach across … or, at least,
> people like me, at this age.   I simply lack the models, the commonplace
> toys of thought, with which you guys so effortlessly play.
>
>
>
> I will keep trying, of course,  But I thought, perhaps, being the New Year
> and all, now was a moment to stop and thank FRIAM members for your
> patience, your indulgence, and your profound commitment to *teaching *that
> has kept me alert and engaged *and alive *these last 14 years.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ? u???
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:48 AM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction
>
>
>
> Excellent!  I like everything you've said below.  In fact, were we able to
> clearly talk about heterarchies as explicitly externalizing controls, where
> hierarchies leave the source(s) of control ambiguous, then we'd map nicely
> back to Marcus' example of "serializing" a recursive function into a tree
> walkable by a single control pointer.  And we'd also be able to discuss
> Rosen's conception of separating a closure of agency from (an openness to)
> the other types of cause (material, formal, and final).
>
>
>
> The concept of a heterarchy facilitates the discussion of systemic
> behaviors like motive as separable into sets of distinct causes and
> structures in a way the concept of hierarchy does not.
>
>
>
> On 1/7/19 6:12 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the clarification. I intentionally said  Nick was invoking
>
> > *something like "levels of analysis" talk, *because I thought I
>
> > recalled Nick telling me at some point that he didn't like that way of
>
> > thinking, and I'm surprised he hasn't disavowed me more completely on
>
> > it. All metaphors are imperfect, and, acknowledging that, I still like
>
> > that way of talking a lot.
>
> > While you are quite right that tissue isn't literally JUST an
>
> > arrangement of cells, it *is *pretty fair to say tissue is an bunch of
>
> > cells arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
>
> > inter-cellular structures organs are a bunch of tissues
>
> > arranged-in-a-structured-fashion and interconnected by various
>
> > inter-tissue structures, etc.
>
> >
>
> > At any rate... trying to follow your lead, and translate your
>
> > preferred sentence structure to be more like what (I assert) Nick is
> thinking:
>
> >
>
> > Motives ARE a particular type of pattern in a behavior-by-environment
>
> > matrix.
>
> >
>
> > As a "point of view" based Realism, which Nick has been trying to
>
> > emphasize, it is true that there are many ways the
>
> > behavior-by-environment matrix can be constructed and arranged. Some
>
> > of those ways will reveal the relevant pattern in some instances,
>
> > others will not. The particular pattern is one in which the behavior
>
> > vary across circumstances so as to stay directed towards the
>
> > production of a particular outcome. This sounds very similar to "One
>
> > of the definitions of "heterarchy" is that the components can be
>
> > organized in multiple ways" but if I understood the prior discussion
>
> > of "heterarchy", I take it that concept is about a flexibility in
>
> > control/leadership, whereas no control is implied here (control being
>
> > a different pattern in a different matrix). The cause of the pattern
>
> > is a different matter entirely from the existence of the pattern -
>
> > which is expressly part of the point of Nick's way of approaching it,
> i.e.,that a "motive" must be identifiable independent of a particular cause.
>
>
>
> --
>
> ∄ uǝʃƃ
>
>
>
> 
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at ca

Re: [FRIAM] Statistical poser (aka fact checking is hard)

[Robert Holmes]

"Dreamland" by Sam Quinones has a good description of the history of our
current epidemic. Highly recommended.

Estimates vary by source, but fraction of opioid deaths that are suicide is
around 20-30%

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:01 AM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

>
> http://theconversation.com/suicide-nation-whats-behind-the-need-to-numb-and-to-seek-a-final-escape-98137
>
>
>
> “Americans stand out from people in other countries with respect to their
> focus on individualism. Americans believe that success is determined by our
> own control and that it is very important to work hard to get ahead in
> life. Perhaps it is this focus on our own achievements, successes and work
> culture that have created an environment that is no longer sustainable – it
> has become too stressful.”
>
>
>
> *Apoptosis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis>* is the word that
> comes to mind.
>
>
>
> *From: *Friam  on behalf of Marcus Daniels <
> mar...@snoutfarm.com>
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 10:45 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Statistical poser (aka fact checking is hard)
>
>
>
> Dumb question:   Is there anything behind this besides an burst of legal
> prescriptions that created a self-reinforcing trend?
>
> Or are people actually going crazy?
>
>
>
> *From: *Friam  on behalf of Robert Holmes <
> rob...@robertholmes.org>
> *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 10:16 AM
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject: *[FRIAM] Statistical poser (aka fact checking is hard)
>
>
>
> Early this week I came across a recent press release from NM Dept of
> Health: "Governor Martinez Announces Continued Improvement in Drug
> Overdose Death Rankings"
> <https://nmhealth.org/news/information/2018/12/?view=728>. I've been
> tinkering round with opioid statistics, so thought it might be worth fact
> checking the release. The results were… interesting. If nothing else
> they've shown me how difficult it must be to communicate public health
> statistics.
>
>
>
> So here are some of the key figures from the release:
>
>- New Mexico’s national ranking has improved from the second highest
>death drug overdose death rate in the United States in 2014 to 17th highest
>in 2017
>- New Mexico previously reported a 4 percent decline in death rates in
>2017 due to overdose of commonly prescribed opioids such as oxycodone
>compared to 2016. In addition, deaths due to heroin decreased by 9 percent
>and deaths due to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl decreased by 6 percent
>over the same time period.
>
> The first of these claims passed my sniff test: I know NM's ranking has
> been improving, even though individual counties rank the wort in the
> nation. And sure enough, if you pull the underlying CDC data
> <https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd.html> you can confirm these exact numbers
> (ignoring DC).
>
>
>
> The second claim is the one that gave me pause. Those reductions in
> individual opioids look kinda high. Yes, NM's ranking is improving but it's
> because our rate is essentially stable while other states rocket past. And
> when I check the above CDC data, yes the reduction in death rate appears to
> be about 2%
>
>
>
> So there's the poser: if NM's reduction in opioid deaths (2016-2017) is
> 2%, how can this be consistent with individual opioid reductions of 9%
> (heroin), 4% (natural & semi synthetic, inc. oxycodone), and 6% (synthetic,
> inc. fentanyl)?
>
>
>
> —Robert
>
>
>
> P.S. I'll post my best guess later. Oh, and it's not that they omitted
> methadone: deaths due to that are down 19% in the same period.
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Statistical poser (aka fact checking is hard)

[Robert Holmes]

Early this week I came across a recent press release from NM Dept of
Health: "Governor Martinez Announces Continued Improvement in Drug Overdose
Death Rankings" <https://nmhealth.org/news/information/2018/12/?view=728>.
I've been tinkering round with opioid statistics, so thought it might be
worth fact checking the release. The results were… interesting. If nothing
else they've shown me how difficult it must be to communicate public health
statistics.

So here are some of the key figures from the release:

   - New Mexico’s national ranking has improved from the second highest
   death drug overdose death rate in the United States in 2014 to 17th highest
   in 2017
   - New Mexico previously reported a 4 percent decline in death rates in
   2017 due to overdose of commonly prescribed opioids such as oxycodone
   compared to 2016. In addition, deaths due to heroin decreased by 9 percent
   and deaths due to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl decreased by 6 percent
   over the same time period.

The first of these claims passed my sniff test: I know NM's ranking has
been improving, even though individual counties rank the wort in the
nation. And sure enough, if you pull the underlying CDC data
<https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd.html> you can confirm these exact numbers
(ignoring DC).

The second claim is the one that gave me pause. Those reductions in
individual opioids look kinda high. Yes, NM's ranking is improving but it's
because our rate is essentially stable while other states rocket past. And
when I check the above CDC data, yes the reduction in death rate appears to
be about 2%

So there's the poser: if NM's reduction in opioid deaths (2016-2017) is 2%,
how can this be consistent with individual opioid reductions of 9%
(heroin), 4% (natural & semi synthetic, inc. oxycodone), and 6% (synthetic,
inc. fentanyl)?

—Robert

P.S. I'll post my best guess later. Oh, and it's not that they omitted
methadone: deaths due to that are down 19% in the same period.

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the Analemma

[Robert Holmes]

As I mentioned, this is the phenomenon that an old colleague of mine would
(vainly) attempt to teach me at this time every year. Fortunately we've now
got wikipedia , which helps me feel
marginally less ignorant.

—R

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 12:33 AM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> This came up after the service at the mother church, today.
>
>
>
> http://www.analemma.com/pages/framespage.html
>
>
>
> Being a late riser, and a darkness hater, I regard December 7 (the day
> after St. Nicholas’s Day, by the way) as the first sign of spring, *because
> it is the day that the afternoons start getting longer.  *The shortest
> morning, by the way, appears to occur on January 7, One of 3 days in the
> year when the sun is at the Zenith at noon.  In other words, noon is moving
> away from sunset faster that the setting sun is moving toward the horizon
> so the sun starts arriving later on the clock.  Or something like that.
> The way I put it implies two standards of time measurement and I cannot
> think what the second one is.
>
>
>
> I would love to have this explained to me in Defrocked English Major
> Talk.  Also, we have at least one Friammer in the southern hemisphere.  Is
> the same true there, Russ?
>
>
>
> Nick
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Links re the discussion at our end of the table

[Robert Holmes]

   - "The Fable of the Bees" (link
   ). Probably the first
   literary description (1705) of emergence; specifically, how private vice
   causes public virtue. BTW, I recommend the download rather than the stream:
   there's about 5 minutes of extra discussion at the end.

   - How Skinner taught the US military to kill the enemy (link
   ). First minute or so describes Gen.
   Marshall's study that measured the problem; skip to ~15:30 for Skinner's
   contribution.

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Shipping Forecast

[Robert Holmes]

Yup, four times a day since WW2. The wikipedia page
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_Forecast> has a list of the areas
and the broadcast format if you want to follow along.

—Robert

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:08 PM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> Luffly.  Can you still get them?  I never knew what the references were.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Holmes
> *Sent:* Friday, October 26, 2018 8:41 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Shipping Forecast
>
>
>
> Today's conversation with Nick about weather circulation in the North
> Atlantic inevitably got me thinking about that great British tradition, the 
> Shipping
> Forecast <https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04l37bp>.
>
>
>
> I must admit, just hearing the opening notes of its theme gets me all
> misty eyed…
>
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Shipping Forecast

[Robert Holmes]

Today's conversation with Nick about weather circulation in the North
Atlantic inevitably got me thinking about that great British
tradition, the Shipping
Forecast .

I must admit, just hearing the opening notes of its theme gets me all misty
eyed…

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Complexity Returns to the Mother Church (or v.v?).

[Robert Holmes]

Randall Munroe says this better than I ever could

PHYSICISTS 

By the way Nick, you mentioned a physicist who set ethology back 50 years.
Who was it?

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:10 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> On 10/12/18 3:46 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > 5. ... From the strength of the triangle one can infer something about
> the parts that make it up, but from the parts themselves, lacking
> information about their arrangement, one cannot determine that the triangle
> will be strong.
>
> UNLESS! The information about how such parts *can* be arranged is
> deducible from the parts, themselves.  E.g. regular vs. irregular tilings.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] looking for a word

[Robert Wall]

Glen,

I believe what you are trying to achieve is what we used to call "face
validity."  To achieve accreditation among the domain experts, the model
had to appeal on an empathic level or it was toast. This was not easy to do
at the program level (DAG?) but easier to do a higher level of abstracted
modeling (organic level).  Beyond that, the model had to produce outcomes
(verification) that the model was not, say just overfitting the data.

So it seems you are saying that you are trying to convey an organic feel
from a mechanistic process. With Herny Markam's Blue Brain project, for
example, I think they were doing this same thing by starting with a digital
reconstruction of recognizable parts of a mouse brain's neocortex.
Analogously, I think, you are starting with a digital reconstruction of a
rat's liver lobules.

So the wordsmith challenge is to describe how the mechanistic structure
overlay one-for-one on to the organic structure.  I would think that this
relationship must be functional.  Not sure.

This understanding doesn't "answer the mail" for you but it might help with
the wordsmithing.

Robert

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:28 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> Interesting.  Robert's mention of "fractally-associative" was attractive
> to me and seems similar to your [dis]assortativity.  But I'm too ignorant
> (so far) to know whether that has any heuristic power.
>
> I now owe ~4 pints, but only have any confidence I'll have to pay up on 1.
> 8^)
>
> Here's the context.  In our *analogy* from our computational model of the
> liver to a referent liver, we use a directed graph (without degenerate
> cycles) to simulate the lobules in various livers (perfused rat, whole
> animal mouse, etc.).  In that graph, some of the "sinusoidal segments" feed
> into our "central vein".  But they do so in a computationally coherent way
> that is physically incoherent. It's a DAG.  The edges don't actually
> *conduct* the molecules.  It's a magical attachment.  One of my more
> biologically inclined colleagues was trying to analogize to the referent
> liver, which is much more ... "organic" ... whereas our analog is much more
> ... "schematic", if that makes any sense.  My colleague is attempting to
> point out the difference between an actual liver's complex "bed" of flowing
> integration versus our analog's engineered ... "managed" ... "magical" ...
> transference.
>
> Part of my motivation for posting this question, here, is that I'm
> pitching for us to implement a more "space-filling" lobule structure than
> that exhibited by our current DAG.  Although my colleague thinks I'm
> arguing against him, I'm actually trying to bolster his argument that, in
> order to build a *strong* structural analogy (and thereby a strong
> behavioral analogy), we might need a computational structure that is more
> analogous to the referent lobule.
>
> And part of my *rhetoric* requires a relatively catchy word/phrase to use
> to indicate our our current DAG is easily face-falsifiable.
>
>
> On 08/17/2018 01:37 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > Glen -
> >
> > I haven't converged on precisely what you are looking for here...   but
> > am fascinated with the question.
> >
> > My best guess at the general area you are contemplating would involve
> > the graph theoretic idea of a "cluster" and/or imply something about
> > (dis)assortativity.I think maybe what you are talking about are
> > (collections of) nodes with high local clustering coefficients and I
> > *think* with high assortativity.  If I understand your question, Marcus'
> > suggestions, and the finer points of these graph measures, a typical
> > "hub" in the normal sense would have high disassortativity, or in
> > laymans terms, nodes with high degree would connect more to nodes with
> > low degree, etc.  while what you are looking for might be nodes with
> > (relatively) high degree *and*  high assortativity, or nodes that
> > connect to nodes of similar degree...
> >
> > I know this is far from providing "a word"...  but the resulting phrase
> > might be "an assortative cluster" or "a cluster with high assortativity"?
> >
> > Can you say anything more about the underlying system being modeled?
> > Are you trying to fit this to the known/observed structure or it's
> > function, or one implying the other?
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] looking for a word

[Robert Holmes]

I always call it the Zweigneiderlassung.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM Frank Wimberly  wrote:

> The explanatory power of all words is limited.  See Wittgenstein.  Wovon
> Mann nicht sprechen kann daruber muss Mann schweigen.
>
> ---
> Frank Wimberly
>
> My memoir:
> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
>
> My scientific publications:
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
>
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 4:11 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
>
>> I *really* want to use some form of "plectic" like plexus or complex.
>> But its explanatory power is limited.  As I'll soon respond to Steve, I
>> need something that evokes the concept of merging/confluent flow but
>> without the overtones of generation (like Robert's growth/dynamism).  Even
>> the "filtration" concept derived from Marcus' suggestion of persistent
>> homology, implies a temporal component.
>>
>>
>> On 08/17/2018 01:03 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> > Complex junction?
>>
>> --
>> ☣ uǝlƃ
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] looking for a word

[Robert Wall]

Here's a paper  (2010) that describes
a hub attraction dynamical growth model (HADGM) that exhibits fractal and
probabilistic behavior for forming nodes in a complex network.

But you are looking for a descriptive word or phrase. Perhaps, "dynamic
growth models with fractally-associative (or nonassociative) hubs."  It
seems to have something to do with the behavior of forming nodes
(connections); so that seems to be the focus for your description. Not
sure, but would agree that fractile behavior seems at the root of what you
are trying to describe: some "hubbing" and "hubbing-resistance," so to
speak.

I like the amber Belgian beers ... 😋


On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:52 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> Excellent!  I suppose the things I'm talking about would exhibit something
> like a persistent homology.  Of course, I'm looking for a word to describe
> a subset of those (the particular way something like a capillary bed
> branches out from the large blood vessels).  So, it would have to be a type
> of persistent homology.
>
> But the concept of "a filtration" is also evocative, both in its math and
> biological/physical meanings.  Much of what the tissue samplers are doing
> is counting/indexing objects and branches in an attempt to identify
> weirdness.
>
> On 08/17/2018 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Persistent homology?
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?

[Robert Holmes]

Hope this helps

https://xkcd.com/2021/

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:53 AM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> David, and all,
>
>
>
> I am overwhelmed (of course) by the diversity and complexity of the
> answers.  I had expected at most a few answers, highly similar to one
> another, of the form, “Nick you idiot….,” followed at most by a couple of
> sentences.  It seems that I am missing some context that would make the
> answers seem both more similar and straightforward.
>
>
>
> Allow me to illustrate my confusion with a story, bearing in mind that my
> confusion has absolutely no value except in so far as it might provide an
> occasion for Wizards of Your Dark Art to come to a consensus amongst
> yourselves about how to explain this stuff to us (as Owen so unforgettably
> puts it) *citizens*.  When I was teaching at Swarthmore in the Sixties
> there was a Shop Guy who could design and build ANYTHING.  I asked him to
> build two model “rats” to illustrate [what later became known as]
> Supervenience to bio students.  The “rats” were just plywood cutouts of
> rats, exactly the same on the surface with, two lights for eyes and three
> switches.  The job of the student was to use the behavior of the rats (how
> the lights related to the switches) to figure out the design of the two
> rats.  Only when they had committed themselves to a “model” of the rats
> “insides” were they allowed to look inside and see how they were actually
> put together.   They all concluded that the rats were the same, but of
> course my rat-maker had used different components and circuitry to arrive
> at the same behavior.  (I think one was straight logic and the other
> involved stepping switches, but don’t hold me to that.  )
>
> The rats were thus doubly modular; they were made of modules, but, more
> important to me at the time, they were modules themselves for the purposes
> of demonstrating “rat” behavior.
>
>
>
> OK.  So the rats’ behavior supervened upon their circuitry.  In other
> words, there’s more than one way to skin a … rat.   If I wanted to
> demonstrate “rat behavior”, it made no difference to me which of his two
> rats I took off the shelf.  This was intended to demonstrate to the student
> that brain models lived in the behavior of organisms and that just because
> somebody said something about neurons and synapses didn’t necessarily mean
> they knew anything about how the brain actually accomplished behavior.  But
> that issue is for another day.
>
>
>
> Here’s another story.  Years ago my 1970’s era Troy Bilt tiller began to
> fail and I took it to a Guy.  The Guy said, yes I can rebuild your engine,
> pretty much like new.  It will cost you around $400.  OR, he said, I can
> bolt a new Briggs and Stratton engine on there for 150 dollars.  So, of
> course, I went for the new engine.  When I got my tiller back, it worked
> beautifully, but it looked weird.  The engine was a funny shape, the color
> was all wrong, but it had all the connectors it needed, it responded to all
> the levers, and it did the job.  Evidently, tiller functioning supervenes
> upon engine construction.
>
>
>
> Now this is how I was starting to think about “objects” in programming.
> They were, in effect, black boxes, with stress laid on the
> intersubstitutability of different fulfillments of the box.  And like any
> modular system (DNA comes to mind), modularity is a great spur to
> creativity, leaving programmers free to work on better modules knowing that
> as long as the version of the “object“ they design (which, say, can work in
> a greater variety of heat conditions or uses less power, etc.) is the
> “same” box, then their work is a contribution to the whole.  This is how I
> understood DOS utililties and Matlab tools.   I guess, in short, I was
> thinking of objects as *functionally *defined.   This how I created and
> used macros in Word.
>
>
>
> Some of your responses seemed to confirm my intuition; others seemed to be
> totally different.  But there seemed to be a consensus among you, leaving
> me to believe that I still don’t understand the context in which the term,
> “object”, is used that carves it out from the rest of the world for you
> Wizards.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your intricate and patient replies.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof
> David West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2:01 AM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] What is an object?
>
>
>
> Hi Nick,
>
>
>
> An object is a specific way to define and design a module and a module is
> a tool for segmenting, modularizing, the source code (what the programmer
> actually writes, not what the machine executes) for a program. To parse
> this assertion - and then to explain how and why object modularization is
> different - a quick aside to discuss a 

Re: [FRIAM] Science question...re: cold neck scarfs

[Robert Holmes]

If you really want to blow your mind, consider these mesh cooling towels:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06Y4RW17N/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

When you've been wearing it for a while and it has warmed up, you take it
off, give it a sharp "snap", and it's immediately cold again.

I use one when the temperature is getting high in my (non-air-conditioned)
house and it works a treat.

—R

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:30 PM Gillian Densmore 
wrote:

> AHA! googlefu skills worked better this time. Something to do with with
> the neck (for example) helps with body heat and the wraps let off cold
> water...
> I guess I just don't understand how something that small can help cool you
> down. So I just thought I'd ask what the science might be
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Gary Schiltz 
> wrote:
>
>> Are you getting overheated during class? I would assume that your teacher
>> is suggesting this as a way to help keep cool. Evaporative cooling is
>> especially effective in dry climates like Santa Fe. See
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Gillian Densmore > > wrote:
>>
>>> I has a science question. I trying out doing more excersize. In one of
>>> my zumba classes a teacher sugested I try a wet towel on my head (before
>>> class) and then a wet scare around my neck during class.
>>>
>>> I feel as my googlefu skills are failing because I can't find a reason
>>> why that helps. Anyone know what the science is?
>>> LifeHacker and a pretty dated StackScience blurb speculated it has to do
>>> with having just enough gold water (relative to the hot air neer your body)
>>> to somehow make  kind of cool air zone.
>>> Somehow how I am...skeptical
>>> Cooling of your head makes sense (hair  gets wet and you cold water on
>>> your head just feels really good in the summer)
>>>
>>> But I don't get  why cold towel or scarf around your neck can help.
>>>
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] I asked neighborly and I shall ask here as well

[Robert Holmes]

A couple of my friends have spoken highly of this: Conscious Ecstatic
Dance, every Thursday in the Railyard https://embodydancesantafe.org/

—Robert

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:40 PM Gillian Densmore 
wrote:

> Thanks for the reply Tom,
> I have.  I hope I am simply using the wrong serach terms. It seems
> very...weird for a comunity with as many cultures as santa fe seems to have
> their's not groups that get together simply to enjoy music and dancing
> together.
>
> I'm already in a Zumba club that's become family in a way. their support
> through my ups and downs has been nothing short of soul meltlingly wonderful
> The person that teaches it makes it a lot of fun, and has been their since
> I had my SI moment many months ago along with one of her friends.
>
> Since I've fallen into dancing as a hobby I wanted to find other clubs or
> groups or what ever the right word is where people gather to have fun
> listening to a variety of music and..wel...dance. I want to discover more
> varieties to enjoy.
>
> So.
>
> I thought: surely their's other groups that simply get together playing a
> variety of music  to try dancing to, when I looked on meetup.com I didn't
> see any I HOPE it's as simple as I'm using the wrong words...butlooks
> like their is (or was) a all but defunct (pardon my terrible spanish
> spelly) Morenga and Rumba meetup on meetup.com
>
> The one club that described itself as a  "fun energetic casual place to
> learn new routines" was...just say that lady leading that has an enormous
> number of issues not the least of wich is nothing about that class was
> casual.
>
> On the good news side Body does (or did) have something kiind of like what
> I might be looking for. I just want another set of groups or clubs to go to
> and have a fun afternoon and evening dancing
>
> So I thought maybie some epeople on friam either their kids or they
> themselves had tried some and might have some they could recomend.
>
> It doesn't need to be through meetup.com propper either! Surely theirs
> casual fun groups that like taking rank novices (me) and just have fun.
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Tom Johnson  wrote:
>
>> Have you searched via meetup.org?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> 
>> Tom Johnson
>> Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
>> 505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
>> *NM Foundation for Open Government* <http://nmfog.org>
>> *Check out It's The People's Data
>> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
>> http://www.jtjohnson.com   t...@jtjohnson.com
>> 
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Gillian Densmore > > wrote:
>>
>>> I am (I think) looking for a group or club or something that gets
>>> together regularly with fun energetic music just to dance to.
>>>
>>> I might also in the future want a casual fun dance teacher if I get into
>>> the club enough
>>>
>>> For the life of me I can't find that on google wich is really weird.
>>>
>>> So far I've been looving loooving latin dances, but I also want to
>>> try out other styles, so as I can see what else I might enjoy.
>>>
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Subject: Re: Friam Digest, Vol 180, Issue 3

[Robert Wall]

> It seems silly to say that one would democratize elite bicycle racing.


This reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's satirical and dystopian science-fiction
short story *Harrison Bergeron
* (1961).  😊  Full text
 (20 pages).

Remember that Oracle acquired MySQL.  It is now a free product (likely with
no meaningful updates, not sure) but with an option to upgrade to supported
Oracle extensions at a premium.  Hopefully, PostgreSQL, which can compete
with Oracle, will remain open.   ESRI accommodates PostgreSQL for
geodatabases. I always appreciated that along with their replacing Visual
Basic scripting with Python.  Anywho ...

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> Glen writes:
>
> "This reminded me of my (postmodern) criticism of open source (in spite of
> any of my advocacy of it), that open source *can* be exploited by an elite
> set of people who are elite by their capability to know how to read, use,
> and think about code, or design google queries, or SEO. It's only
> "democratization" IF the skills and resources to use it are available to
> everyone."
>
> How about bicycle racing.   Not everyone can achieve > 80 ml/kg/min VO2
> max, but a few people can.These are biologically gifted people, and
> then they train like hell too, and/or sometimes use performance enhancing
> drugs.   There are some people that can train like hell but always be
> beaten by someone than trains as hard or less.  They just don't have it.
>
> Open source as a meritocracy is attractive to its adherents because it
> selects for individuals that succeed in developing a particular kind of
> sustained intellectual productivity, based on nothing else but the fact
> that they do.You can't just go through a particular training procedure
> and come out a productive peer in this community.  It doesn't matter if you
> are born a citizen of a hypothetical Code Nation.People from all over
> the world end-up being recruited to major tech firms who can see the value
> of their work, and not just the bullet points on a resume.
>
> It seems silly to say that one would democratize elite bicycle racing.
>
> Marcus
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Oh, Gawd!

[Robert Wall]

Why not just rebuild it?  I'd be willing to help. sounds like a very noble
cause ...

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Gary Schiltz 
wrote:

> There are many options, open source and commercial. I’ve used
> http://ricks-apps.com/osx/sitesucker/index.html on macOS, but haven’t
> tried it on the way back machine.
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Roger Critchlow  wrote:
>
>> Ah, 2010
>>
>>   https://web.archive.org/web/20100602025557/http://cusf.org
>>
>> Just run a recursive wget on that url, though that may not work because
>> the referenced urls on the page all point to cusf.jigsy.com, so they
>> will be archived under that url.
>>
>> Ah, 2011
>>
>>   https://web.archive.org/web/20110816091744/http://cusf.jigsy.com
>>
>> so run the recursive wget on that url and see what you get.
>>
>> You get the web.archive.org robots.txt and the cusf.org home page with
>> references to cusf.jigsy.com rewritten to reference the web.archive.org
>> copies.
>>
>> More searching reveals an open source ruby gem (
>> https://github.com/hartator/wayback_machine_downloader) and
>> http://waybackdownloader.com/ which will do the job  for a price.
>>
>> Here is the homepage in a google doc https://docs.google.com/
>> document/d/1qBwdaV2i5_IW5jAqdRfRGg66R8FA0pafCY8lH8Ru8e4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> -- rec --
>>
>> -- rec --
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the earliest archives are for Credit Unions of South Florida, the
>>> latest archives are for CU Schools Foundation, haven't found one that is
>>> the City University of Santa Fe.  Are you sure this was the URL?
>>>
>>> -- rec --
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Bob Ballance  wrote:
>>>
 In what time frame was the site active?

 . . . Bob

 On Feb 11, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Merle Lefkoff 
 wrote:

 If someone can find the Way Back Machine and recovers Nick's valuable
 web site, I would very much like to know about that.  My Center is partners
 with a Swedish team working on a project with the Dalai Lama in Dharmsala
 called "Timeless Knowledge."  I'm interested in appropriate technologies in
 addition to systems science  that I can bring to this project before I go
 to India.  At the very least--what a great metaphor!!

 On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Nick Thompson <
 nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Here I am asking for your help, again.
>
>
>
> *EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:* Does anybody know of an easy way to recover a
> defunct website, for the City University of Santa Fe, cusf.org, from
> the WayBackMachine?
>
>
>
> *SUPPORTING BLATHER:   *
>
>
>
> As the members of the Mother Church know, The Santa Fe University of
> Art and Design is collapsing (https://retakeourdemocracy.
> org/2018/02/11/santa-fe-launches-sf-university-of-art-
> design-community-input-roundhouse-update-hb-325-chaco-more/ )and
> leaving behind a white elephant of a campus for the City to develop as it
> sees fit;.  It includes a stunning, state-of-the-art, theatre.  There is a
> process in progress, running over the next few months, to engage the 
> public
> in development planning.
>
>
>
> I have always felt that Santa Fe ought to be a University town.  It
> has great coffee shops, zillions of retired professors, art galleries and
> performance spaces galore, and a plethora of Institutes and other
> intellectual organizations which are post graduate institutes in all but
> name.  The last time this happened, I was young and idealistic (only 70)
> and I set about chartering an institution I called the City University of
> Santa Fe, a membership organization whose job it would be to support the
> transition of the old  College of Santa Fe to a full-fledged University 
> and
> to use the retired faculty in Santa Fe as a bridging faculty.  We had a 
> web
> page, we ran some seminars, it was fun.  In the end, Laureate Industries
> took over the campus, and it looked like CUSF was unnecessary.  But here 
> we
> are again, and I would like to be able to pass on the charter and the
> concept to the people who are thinking about the future of the SFUAD
> campus.
>
>
>
> The favor I am asking is as follows.  I cannot recover the website.  I
> have been told that there is something called the Way Back Machine that
> contains old websites.  I tried to work with it and I have some evidence
> that the materials do exist, there, but I could not bring them up.  I
> believe (but am not sure) that it was hosted by GoDaddy or BraveNet and
> that the site address was cusf.org.  Unfortunately, that address has
> been scooped up twice since by others.
>
>
>
> Do any of you know how to make the WayBackMachine hum?
>
>
>
> Please be advised , those of you who don’t know me well

Re: [FRIAM] [WedTech] D3

[Robert Ballance]

I’ve been deep in it for the past week or two. You are right about it’s 
approachability. The first issue is to beware that v3 and v4 are different 
enough that you have to look closely at each example! 



... Bob

> On Jan 25, 2018, at 10:47, Owen Densmore  wrote:
> 
> Have any of us used D3.js (Data Driven Design)?
> 
> If so, any pointers on getting started? Its pretty "thick".
> 
>-- Owen
> ___
> Wedtech mailing list
> wedt...@redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/wedtech_redfish.com

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

By the way, there is a lively debate going on about the Sabine Hossenfelder
article How Popper killed Particle Physics
<https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1>
posted
just yesterday.  It could make a good thread, as a few of you on the list
seem to agree with her rant and it would be good to hear as to why that is
so ... I am guessing this sentiment has something to do with Thomas Kuhn in
Nick's case at least.

Kuhn's criticism of Popper seems to be saying that logical positivism
(verificationism ... looking for ways to prove we are right ... instead of
wrong) dominates science ... still ... and not in a good way.  I think that
is right (e.g., LHC), but it doesn't undermine what Popper is saying about
how to be sure and honest about what we really know ... lest we backslide
into epistemological relativism or intellectual totalitarianism (e.g., a
leading paradigm doesn't shift until its authors die off ... something like
that).

Sabine seems to be backing off the rant a bit, I think; she says she is not
criticizing Popper, only saying that falsification is not enough ... and it
should not halt any theory development.  I would have to believe that even
Popper might agree with some of this with some clarifications.  I thought
the reply comment about "mathematicism" was interesting and kind of funny.

Looking back over this particular thread, it turns out that I did not
mention String Theory per se. I did mention that Smolin's "Genesis" theory
is claimed to be testable.  Perhaps this is what prompted Carl's insertion
of Sabine's rant.

Good to see Smolin getting a shout-out in the comments along with Lisa
Randall. Kum ba ya.

[image: Inline image 1]

Cheers

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:20 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣  wrote:

> Excellent!  Yes, complement is a much more appropriate relation between
> the ideas than compete, I think.  Thanks.
>
> On 11/06/2017 11:08 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with
> Mareletto's.  That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in
> the same space with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one
> that operates on the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to
> initial conditions (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory
> proposes a physical universe at the microscale that could start here and
> unfold with new constraints "evolving" from earlier ones.  I see the
> heavier elements (e.g., carbon ... gold) being generated from later
> generation suns as a possible example of this. England seems to take this
> history into the abiogenesis by appealing to the idea of metabolic
> homeostasis with the production of dissipative systems being a likely
> outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should have used the term "complements"
> versus "competes."
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

ight have something to do with the *Hard Problem of Consciousness* as
well.  Not sure.  But, it is fun to think about.  We have been discussing
the role or purpose of consciousness in the universe.

*Nautilus*: The Bridge From Nowhere
<http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/the-bridge-from-nowhere-rp>(September
1, 2016)

*How is it possible to get something from nothing?*


I have been thinking about this article for some time now.  I am especially
intrigued with the author's interpretation of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation:
*H(x)|Ψ> = 0.*

*Ψ*
  (Psi) is the wave function for the universe (notice it is timeless).


As observers, we are forever doomed to see only a piece of the larger
> puzzle of which we are a part. And that, it turns out, could be our saving
> grace. When the universe splits in two, the zero on the right-hand side of
> the equation takes on a new value. Things change. Physics happens. Time
> begins to flow. You might even say the universe is born.


​Could it be that something is just what nothing looks like from the
> inside? If so, our discomfort with nothingness may have been hinting at
> something profound: It is our human nature that recoils at the notion of
> nothing, and yet it may also be our limited, human perspective that
> ultimately solves the paradox.​



There is this other explanation:

Deep at the heart of cosmology there is this unproved and unprovable belief
> that the whole bulk,  that is, everything that there is not just our
> universe but the sum total of all universes, is a zero sum game.  That is
> all the disturbances wave functions etc that there are, balance themselves
> out to result in the concept that if there was not something (which there
> is) there would be nothing.




> This is in effect the full extension of the well known and accepted law of
> the conservation of energy writ as large as possible.




> It is possibly the nearest thing to the modern cosmologists view of the
> concept of "god" which in religions is seen as something that acts on
> everything to produce things.


Somehow, this particular *Nautilus* article spoke to me about this mystery
in a meaningful (philosophical) way.

Anyway. Hope this is not too feeble an explanation.

Robert

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:15 AM, gⅼеɳ ☣  wrote:

> Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you
> suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled
> falsifiable noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for
> similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the
> light's better by the lamp post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that
> entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire
> space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?
>
>
> On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> > Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> >
> > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-
> particle-physics.html?m=1
> >
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫"  geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> >
> > But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept
> of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of
> possible states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and
> Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the
> proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set
> of states or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you
> posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but
> England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying
> much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with
> England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my
> stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
> >
> > If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then
> all 3 seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?
>
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

  But, could the emerging works of Smolin, but especially
Deutsch|Marletto, and England be used to explain "How can the *appearance *of
design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?"
Constructor Theory seems to be trying to construct a bridge to span the
knowledge gap between (no-design) physics and (teleonomic) biology:

Thinking within the prevailing conception has led some physicists –
> including the 1963 Nobel Prize-winner Eugene Wigner and the late US-born
> quantum physicist David Bohm – to conclude that the laws of physics must be
> tailored to produce biological adaptations in general. This is amazingly
> erroneous. If it were true, physical theories would have to be patched up
> with ‘design-bearing’ additions, in the initial conditions or the laws of
> motion, or both, and the whole explanatory content of Darwinian evolution
> would be lost.



> So, how can we explain physically how replication and self reproduction
> are possible, given laws that contain no hidden designs, if the prevailing
> conception’s tools are inadequate?



> By applying a new fundamental theory of physics: *constructor theory*.


So, to the list of Smolin, Deutsch|Marletto, and England, add Monad,
Pittendrigh, and Mayr as pioneers in 'trying' to construct
*explanatory *systems
that can explain teleonomic processes in an unintentional universe.

Well, that's enough for now. Lunch ...

Again, (only) fun stuff to consider.  Hope it helps your review the "living
systems as entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting.

Cheers,

Robert


On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:59 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣  wrote:

> Thanks for posting your intro materials to purpose of the universe.  I
> haven't looked at them, yet, but will (probably next week).
>
> But since I'm making a feeble attempt to review the "living systems as
> entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting, the below paragraph of yours
> tweaked me.  It strikes me that Smolin's "maximal variety" (e.g. [⛤])
> conception meshes well with England's conception of physical (non-living)
> adaptation, as well as Constructor Theory's "any non-impossible recipe".
> The first two (Smolin and England) seem to be intuitionistic in that they
> imply a recipe (follow the path with the most options), whereas
> Deutsch/Marletto are (perhaps) more classical (in logic/math terms) by
> allowing any recipe that doesn't contradict known constraints.
>
> I *think* it's a mistake to read Smolin's conception as implied by the
> Marletto quote, which was about Bohm and Wigner.  I'm ignorant of what Bohm
> and Wigner actually suggested.  But Smolin seems to propose that things
> like stars exhibit (some) similar properties to living systems, especially
> in their ability to "maintain themselves as constant source of light and
> heat", despite the high entropy bath in which they sit.  So, when
> considering things like cosmological constants and how they seem "tuned for
> life" (e.g. [⛧]), it's important to avoid putting the cart before the
> horse.  It's not that the universe is tailored to produce life.  It's that
> the universe is what it is and life-like systems just happen to be a very
> likely outcome in this universe.
>
> I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my
> thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin,
> England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!
>
>
> [⛤] http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/150602938.pdf
> [⛧] https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702115.pdf
>
> On 10/29/2017 12:57 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> >
> > In the context of *information *being another physically fundamental
> entity in the universe along with *energy *and *matter*, I brought up David
> Deutsch <https://www.edge.org/video/constructor-theory>'s Constructor
> Theory <https://aeon.co/essays/how-constructor-theory-solves-the-
> riddle-of-life> at the FRIAM as a very recent contender to build a new
> physics based on this uber-reductionist viewpoint. I haven't heard much
> more progress on this over the last two years and I think Deutsch is
> relying on his postdoctoral research associate, Chiara Marletto, to bring
> this into the domain of biology.  Constructor Theory is to address this
> conclusion: "The conclusion that the laws of physics must be tailored to
> produce biological adaptations is amazingly erroneous."  So this theory
> would indeed compete with Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection Theory.
> But, Constructor Theory might be very much in line with Jeremy
> England's Physics Theory of Life
> > <https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-suppor

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

: Appealing to the idea of a wave function containing
complete information about a system, is information conserved [Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics] like energy and matter? 😎

I have not been up to speed on the Baldwin Effect in the context of
phenotypic plasticity, learning, or development phenomena (e.g., language)
... and niches. Can you suggest some readings?  It seems to ask the
question as to what leads what: Genes or phenotypes?  Do epigenetics come
into play here
<https://aeon.co/essays/the-selfish-gene-is-a-great-meme-too-bad-it-s-so-wrong>
 (this was heavily debated here
<https://aeon.co/essays/dead-or-alive-an-expert-roundtable-on-the-selfish-gene>
)?

Thanks,

Robert

P.S., Glen, yeah, that is the same Chris Goad!  He came here from Oregon
but apparently grew up here in Santa Fe.  I think his father was pretty
well known at LANL.


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Dear Robert,
>
>
>
> It was great to see you at today’s meeting; hope you become a regular.
>
>
>
> I will “lard” your text below with my responses.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 5:51 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
> Sanders Peirce
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the offer; I do have a copy of Jacques Monod’s *Chance and
> Necessity*. As I remember, it was not easy to find at the time as a new
> copy.
>
>
>
> Your request:
>
>  ... if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.
>
>
>
> What I do still have is the text I prepared for the *Santa Fe
> Philosophical Society* as "homework" for my 20-minute presentation.  So,
> if one reads my 20-page "Does the universe have a purpose for us?" before
> the presentation, they would be better prepared for the "lecture" and
> ensuing discussion.  So it is a primer of sorts.  And, it serves as a
> partial look at how, with the rise of Darwinism, teleonomic explanations
> historically and "successfully" pushed aside teleological explanations for
> the *apparent *goal directiveness of biological evolution.  But I see
> that your 1987 paper "The Misappropriation of Teleonomy" would see this as
> no explanation at all.
>
> *[NST==>Well, I would need to read you papers and see how you characterize
> a “teloeonomic explanation.”  My suggested use of the term is descriptive.
> But the only real constraint is that a teloeonomic concept not be used as
> an explainer and as a describer in the same argument.  <==nst] *
>
> I shall read *that* paper to see why you say that, though, you are also
> saying that Jaques Monad "beat you to the punch-line."
>
> *[NST==>Well, it was more that he beat Sean Carroll to the punch line.  If
> I had read Monod in graduate school (which was possible) I might not have
> been so amazed by Carroll in retirement.  And I might have not spent so
> much of my career beating back silly arguments about the nature-nurture
> “issue.”  <==nst] *
>
>  Need to re-read that one. 😊  More to come ...
>
>
>
> I also had a two-page handout, summarizing the points in the paper.  Also,
> the title question was posed to the group (~ 20 persons) both before and
> after the session.  The final majority consensus was "no" but there were
> some minds changed as I recall.  I wonder if I had changed the question to
> "Does life have a purpose for us?" would the consensus been different.
> Friedrich Nietzsche clearly lamented "no," but warned us that we had better
> figure out a rational one we can all agree on pretty soon.  His warning
> seems to ask, "If we are so smart, why haven't we come up with a *rational
> *purpose (goal) for humanity?"  Humans are the only teleological *agents *in
> the universe that we know about.
>
> *[NST==>I wonder if I agree with this.  <==nst] *
>
> And, we are the only organisms that *can *imbue rational purpose for
> ourselves.
>
> *[NST==>I guess I agree that we are the only rationalizing organisms.
> <==nst] *
>
>
>
> Here's a sidebar ramble motivated by today's FRIAM session ... giving it
> more "thought":
>
>
>
> Given what I heard you aks the FRIAM group this morning, "Is natural
> selection a *fair *process--for it must be so for it 

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

Nick,

Thanks for the offer; I do have a copy of Jacques Monod’s *Chance and
Necessity*. As I remember, it was not easy to find at the time as a new
copy.

Your request:

 ... if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.


What I do still have is the text I prepared for the *Santa Fe Philosophical
Society* as "homework" for my 20-minute presentation.  So, if one reads my
20-page "Does the universe have a purpose for us?" before the presentation,
they would be better prepared for the "lecture" and ensuing discussion.  So
it is a primer of sorts.  And, it serves as a partial look at how, with the
rise of Darwinism, teleonomic explanations historically and "successfully"
pushed aside teleological explanations for the *apparent *goal
directiveness of biological evolution.  But I see that your 1987 paper "The
Misappropriation of Teleonomy" would see this as no explanation at all. I
shall read that paper to see why you say that, though, you are also saying
that Jaques Monad "beat you to the punch-line."  Need to re-read that
one. 😊  More to come ...

I also had a two-page handout, summarizing the points in the paper.  Also,
the title question was posed to the group (~ 20 persons) both before and
after the session.  The final majority consensus was "no" but there were
some minds changed as I recall.  I wonder if I had changed the question to
"Does life have a purpose for us?" would the consensus been different.
Friedrich Nietzsche clearly lamented "no," but warned us that we had better
figure out a rational one we can all agree on pretty soon.  His warning
seems to ask, "If we are so smart, why haven't we come up with a
*rational *purpose
(goal) for humanity?"  Humans are the only teleological *agents *in the
universe that we know about. And, we are the only organisms that *can *imbue
rational purpose for ourselves.

Here's a sidebar ramble motivated by today's FRIAM session ... giving it
more "thought":

Given what I heard you aks the FRIAM group this morning, "Is natural
selection a *fair *process--for it must be so for it to work the way it
does (careful to not say 'progress' here)?'," you might find Lee Smolin's
("testable") Cosmological Natural Selection hypothesis intriguing in the
sense that your question may be applied cosmologically. Smolin's model
refute's the (strong and weak) Anthropic Principle of Cosmology which is
arguably teleological.  So, I wonder, if your idea of "fairness" would need
to satisfy an anti-teleology filter ... no goal. That does seem reasonable,
but does it work?

When existing life becomes environmentally stressed (the stimulus to change
or die), evolution builds on what it already has through a (non-random)
re-expression of the "parts" in a way that makes the organism more fit
(e.g., the grasshopper to locust phenomenon).  This is also how the Hox
gene circuit seems to work (and it makes the probability math work out).
However, like others expressed, I do not see the word "fair" being the *right
*selection among possible *fit *words ... pun not really intended, but it's
curious in that, not *any *word will do.

Can a new organism be re-made from its initial state to fit within the
moving niche (as I think Kim would put it)?  Maybe the selection process *is
*like information transmission, but through a gene expression process where
an irrelevant message becomes relevant (functional) in the new context.
With moving niches, time can be the enemy, which is why the process cannot
be random (fair?) because the probability math does not work out, and which
is why bacteria populations do so well as moving into new niches.  Bacteria
use short reproduction cycles (change the organism); humans use technology
(change the environment, which is not natural selection, but changing our
tolerance to niche movements), as was pointed out today.

Then again, this may all be a nonsensical (fair?) grope to an explanation
(a solution) that will satisfy (fit) ... 🤔 (again, no pun intended). 😊


Anyway.  Let me know where you would like for me to send the discussion
paper and I will.  It *could *serve as the basis for a new thread, but it
might also be way too much material for such a use.

 BTW, from what I learned from Frank this morning about the group dynamics
is that the group interaction works more coherently--like it
did today--when seeded with an interesting question or proposition. Then,
it seems, all of the seated minds work simultaneously on the same "thread"
so to speak. This is very similar to the underlying process of a Socrates
Cafe. I think your question(s) served this purpose. 😎

Cheers,

Robert


On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> Friam starts a little earlier than 9.30; closer to

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

Oh; you already signed up, Nick!  Very cool!  😎

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Robert Wall  wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> No worries.  I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the *Santa Fe
> Philosophical Society* that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have
> been a member of the *SFPS* for about four years and joined about a year
> after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett
> Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet
> at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of
> the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of
> some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will
> provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated
> discussion.  I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics
> like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and
> teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is
> older, very friendly, and philosophically curious.  Many are ex-pats from
> LANL, but not all ... like me.
>
> If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just
> add you as my guest to the sign-up list.  Then, if you like what you see
> and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to
> these meetings.  The member headcount determines the dues that are paid
> annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources.
> Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take
> a lot of money to run this Meetup group.  Mim has a very large
> accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions
> to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a
> problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D.
> graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of
> the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years
> now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea
> are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer. 😎  Many
> times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared,
> linked material from the website.
>
> Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups
> that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other
> time(s).  I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel
> Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward
> discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early
> sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 😎
>
> BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years
> ago after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a
> percolating interest of mine.  Steven replied that *that *made six now
> who read the paper, or something like that. 😊 Even as a perhaps too
> infrequent contributor--but frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list
> has many thoughtful contributors that seem to know one another fairly well.
> And, I imagine the FRIAM at St. Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with
> a similar degree of familiarity. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop by the
> FRIAM group at least on my way to join the St. John's library, as they have
> the best philosophical library in these parts. If memory serves, you meet
> at 9:30 a.m. every Friday.
>
> For some reason, I thought you were on the east coast near Boston or
> something like that. But, yes, I would enjoy meeting you as well, having
> enjoyed your contributions to the forum, especially as you go about
> explaining Peirce. So, I have been waiting for Peirce to appear on the menu
> at the *SFPS* and it has finally arrived. William James, another
> pragmatist, about whom I am also very curious. Dewey?  Maybe, so ...
>
> Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:
>
>> Robert,
>>
>>
>>
>> I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers.  I didn’t
>> see the link (as a link).
>>
>>
>>
>> I will make every effort to be there.  Sunday night is my cooking night
>> for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to
>> finesse it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I always imagined that you were from some far distant place!  Like
>> Australia, or something.  Have you been here the whole time?  Have you ever
>> come to FRIAM?
>>
>>

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

Hi Nick,

No worries.  I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the *Santa Fe
Philosophical Society* that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have
been a member of the *SFPS* for about four years and joined about a year
after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett
Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet
at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of
the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of
some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will
provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated
discussion.  I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics
like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and
teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is
older, very friendly, and philosophically curious.  Many are ex-pats from
LANL, but not all ... like me.

If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just
add you as my guest to the sign-up list.  Then, if you like what you see
and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to
these meetings.  The member headcount determines the dues that are paid
annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources.
Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take
a lot of money to run this Meetup group.  Mim has a very large
accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions
to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a
problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D.
graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of
the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years
now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea
are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer. 😎  Many
times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared,
linked material from the website.

Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups
that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other
time(s).  I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel
Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward
discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early
sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 😎

BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years ago
after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a percolating
interest of mine.  Steven replied that *that *made six now who read the
paper, or something like that. 😊 Even as a perhaps too infrequent
contributor--but frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list has many
thoughtful contributors that seem to know one another fairly well. And, I
imagine the FRIAM at St. Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with a
similar degree of familiarity. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop by the
FRIAM group at least on my way to join the St. John's library, as they have
the best philosophical library in these parts. If memory serves, you meet
at 9:30 a.m. every Friday.

For some reason, I thought you were on the east coast near Boston or
something like that. But, yes, I would enjoy meeting you as well, having
enjoyed your contributions to the forum, especially as you go about
explaining Peirce. So, I have been waiting for Peirce to appear on the menu
at the *SFPS* and it has finally arrived. William James, another
pragmatist, about whom I am also very curious. Dewey?  Maybe, so ...

Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.

Cheers,

Robert


On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers.  I didn’t
> see the link (as a link).
>
>
>
> I will make every effort to be there.  Sunday night is my cooking night
> for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to
> finesse it.
>
>
>
> I always imagined that you were from some far distant place!  Like
> Australia, or something.  Have you been here the whole time?  Have you ever
> come to FRIAM?
>
>
>
> I look forward to meeting you.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Wall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] 

[FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

FYI.

The* Santa Fe Philosophical Society* is offering a discussion session
on Charles Sanders Peirce
<https://www.meetup.com/SantaFe-Philosophers/events/244523385/?fromEmail=244523385&rv=ea1>
on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your
attendance ...

Robert

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] KRACK

[Robert Wall]

Thanks for the heads-up, Glen!

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

> Key Reinstallation Attacks
> Breaking WPA2 by forcing nonce reuse
> https://www.krackattacks.com/
>
> > We discovered serious weaknesses in WPA2, a protocol that secures all
> modern protected Wi-Fi networks. An attacker within range of a victim can
> exploit these weaknesses using key reinstallation attacks (KRACKs).
> Concretely, attackers can use this novel attack technique to read
> information that was previously assumed to be safely encrypted. This can be
> abused to steal sensitive information such as credit card numbers,
> passwords, chat messages, emails, photos, and so on. The attack works
> against all modern protected Wi-Fi networks. Depending on the network
> configuration, it is also possible to inject and manipulate data. For
> example, an attacker might be able to inject ransomware or other malware
> into websites.
> >
> > The weaknesses are in the Wi-Fi standard itself, and not in individual
> products or implementations. Therefore, any correct implementation of WPA2
> is likely affected. To prevent the attack, users must update affected
> products as soon as security updates become available. Note that if your
> device supports Wi-Fi, it is most likely affected. During our initial
> research, we discovered ourselves that Android, Linux, Apple, Windows,
> OpenBSD, MediaTek, Linksys, and others, are all affected by some variant of
> the attacks. For more information about specific products, consult the
> database of CERT/CC, or contact your vendor.
>
>
>
> --
> ␦glen?
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Proofs of God?

[Robert Wall]

John writes:

Buddhism does not require a belief in God.


Nor does science.  The Abrahamic God is akin to--perhaps even derived
from--the concept of the *Logos  *of
Heraclitus . In this context, the concept
may even be believed to be the initial physical conditions ("genetic code")
of the universe dictating how all matter will unfold after the initial
creation moment.  And it may be believed to be the creative force itself
that makes the universe so comprehensible to our "God-given" minds.

As Einstein observed, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is
> that it is comprehensible.”


Jeremy England's *Theory of Life* is an intriguing new theory about how
organic life emerged from inorganic substances based on dissipation-driven
organization, maximizing Gibbs free energy.  So, it was bound to happen ...
it was "written in the stars" so to speak.  And, it doesn't *seem *to
require a "guiding hand" for it to happen, which would be consistent with
the Deism of our American forefathers.

The *Genesis *story is another "theory" about the same as it tells us we
were made from inorganic dust or earth.  The "breath of God" would be like
the self-organized ignition of a new metabolic homeostatic event that
prevailing conditions have made easier than before.  These events are
always accompanied by a "psychological" need to escape death through
replication or immortality. Some, like French nuclear physicist,
philosopher and writer Jean-Émile Charon believe that this force is
embedded in all of Matter.

Still, I agree with England's rhetorical question and answer:

Do we need to keep learning about God? For my part, in light of everything
> I know, I am certain that we do.


In any case, learning about "God" is to remain curious about things we do
not know and to continually challenge what we think we already know.  In
this sense, Science can be your god.  And, Buddhism can be your god.  There
is nothing incompatible between these two secular disciplines of thought.
Neither requires a belief in the Abrahamic God; they are just ways of
understanding the human condition:  being thrown with a human consciousness
into a seemingly chaotic, purposeless universe and seeking solid ground on
which to stand.  In this context, we all need a belief system to sustain
our conceptual moorings to this universe.  It seems to be the price of
human consciousness that understands its own death as in inescapable event.

The proof of "God" is in our human condition. God == Learning about God ==
human need to find purpose.  Learning about "God" is to be contemplative as
it is in the Buddhist tradition.  It is mindfulness.

Finally, IMHO, "God" is the inherent psychological force to
understand our raison d'être.  It has many manifestations as it does in
Hinduism and as I have explained here.

Cheers.


On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:47 PM, John Kennison  wrote:

> I don't think that a rigorous proof of how evolution works would be all
> that earth-shaking. Most openly non-scientific religions have had much
> experience at simply ignoring such proofs and the more liberal religions
> have found ways to co-exist with science ("Maybe God used evolution to
> create the world". In my own religion (Unitarian-Universalism) sermons that
> mention God usually include formulations such as "God, as you understand
> the term". Buddhism does not require a belief in God.
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of George Duncan <
> gtdun...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 2:44:18 PM
> *To:* Stephen Guerin; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Proofs of God?
>
> By
> Jeremy England
> Oct. 12, 2017 6:29 p.m. ET
> 311 COMMENTS
> 
>
> I recently learned that I play a role in Dan Brown’s new novel, “Origin.”
> Mr. Brown writes that Jeremy England, an MIT physics professor, “was
> currently the toast of Boston academia, having caused a global stir” with
> his work on biophysics. The description is flattering, but Mr. Brown errs
> when he gets to the meaning of my research. One of his characters explains
> that my literary doppelgänger may have “identified the underlying physical
> principle driving the origin and evolution of life.” If the fictional
> Jeremy England’s theory is right, the suggestion goes, it would be an
> earth-shattering disproof of every other story of creation. All religions
> might even become obsolete.
>
> It would be easy to criticize my fictional self’s theories based on Mr.
> Brown’s brief description, but it would also be unfair. My actual research
>  on how lifelike behaviors
> emerge in inanimate matter is widely available, whereas the Dan Brown
> character’s work is only vaguely described. There’s no real science in the
> book to argue over.
>
> 

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

[Robert Wall]

gt; adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the
> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be
> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it
> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,”
> ​  ---
> *Scientific America*: A New Physics Theory of Life
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/>
>  [2014]
> ​.​
>

This theory of England's seems to resonate with Dave's "Nothing IS except
in context and therefore only local – situated- ‘truths’ are possible."

But is there *any *"truth" to be found in physics, chemistry, or biology
then?  Is it all context dependent?  Postmodern like?  For example, we live
in this universe with these initial conditions and so these possible
resulting laws, so, all ultimate truth is to be reducible to physics ...

>From his books I have read, American theoretical physicist Lee Smolin
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin>, I think, would say that even
these laws are ephemeral.  Time (measured or psychological?) is the only
fundamental truth.  Everything else is emergent, even space.  With this
realization, Smolin asserts, physics takes on a new and interesting
paradigm that seem to converge to testable hypotheses with a more
conceptual economy--Occam's Razor.

But maybe this is why Nick says "For these reasons, I shy away for using
these evolutionary examples in these sorts of arguments. "

Perhaps, observed physical phenomena and theories about those phenomena
based on those instrumented human observers converge only in human
consciousness ... and in statistical experiments ... allowing Nick's
"Philosopher Stone" to be so predictive the more we observe and
measure. 😊  Surely, reality does not care what we think it is ... but we
have a desperate need to see consistency to at least feel in control. Our
axiom-borne theories and  models are monuments to this "affliction."

Dave writes:

That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in
> building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation
> and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds.
> (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously,
> empathy.)


Anyway, for what it is worth, I find this thread intriguing and will be
interested where it goes from here ...  I really do not think that this
will converge to a simple, single truth.  As Frank contributes:

Nick, David: you are both correct.


How can that be?!  What would pragmatic Peirce say ...? 😊

Cheers,

Robert


On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Hi Steven,
>
>
>
> As somebody who is fond of Long Run Convergence, I am inclined to like
> your “eye” example.  It would seem that that organisms have agreed, over
> the long haul, on a solution to the problem of vision.  A VERY long haul.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately for us, there is a fly in this ointment.  The basic
> chemistry and molecular genetics of vision is highly conserved, also.  So,
> an alternative theory might be (and Dave might be about to offer it) is
> that mode of vision we earthly organisms use was hit upon early and
> precluded the development of an infinite number of better ones.
>
>
>
> For these reasons, I shy away for using these evolutionary examples in
> these sorts of arguments.
>
>
>
> And remember:  from my point of view, this is hot an argument about the
> facts of the matter, but only an argument about Meaning.  Peirce is quite
> clear that that there doesn’t need to be any actual truth of any actually
> matter.  He only asserts that if there were such a thing, it would take the
> form of a convergence of opinion in the asymptotic sense…. The very long
> run.
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven A
> Smith
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:42 AM
>
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
> Nothing!”
>
>
>
> Without trying to make a strong point in support of either end of this
> argument (as I understand it) but rather add some extra fodder.
>
>
>
> What of examples of *convergent evolution* where similar structures (with
> similar form and function) appear to arise independently.   I would not
> claim that they all arise **from the same theory** (or that anything
> "arises" from theory) but rather that the same theor

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

[Robert Wall]

tics include a heritable
> change to gene expression called methylation, increases in complexity in
> the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes Louis has
> recently studied.



>
> If [*Jeremy*] England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could
> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every
> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the
> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be
> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it
> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,” Louis said.


For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more than
just interesting.

Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my attention.

Cheers,

Robert


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers
> up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of
> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
>
> "inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>
>
> Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in
> regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate
> response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading
> Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have
> meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:
>
> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
> >
> > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how
> nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
> >
> > From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but
> this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it
> cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just
> another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
> some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's
> ability to innovate, its innovability.
> >
>
>
>
>
> On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim
> since it was first made.
> > I think it’s nonsense, but I am not sure.
> >
> > *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric
> > Charles
> > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > 
> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
> > "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create
> them."
> >
> > Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we
> > would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts
> > of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than
> > is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored,
> > short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who
> > don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild
> > foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you
> > have to do is select against aggression towards humans.)
> >
> > I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up
> in the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.
>
> --
> gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Five Predictions as Cities Learn to Address Wireless Health Risks

[Robert J. Cordingley]

re: RFR exposure:

Did anyone notice in the linked paper 
<http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/23/055699.full.pdf> 
that the control rats probability of survival was lower than the exposed 
rats?


   /At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control
   group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to
   GSM-modulated RFR (Figure 3). Survival was also slightly lower in
   control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg
   GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival
   was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females
   compared to controls (Figure 4)/

or did I misread?

Robert C

On 7/26/17 2:21 PM, Tom Johnson wrote:

See https://goo.gl/yb3EvZ

TJ


Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)   505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org>
*Check out It's The People's Data 
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>*
http://www.jtjohnson.com <http://www.jtjohnson.com/> t...@jtjohnson.com 
<mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com>





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Whew!

[Robert J. Cordingley]

FYI

2017 Personal Income Tax in New Mexico for couples is $768 + 4.9% on 
taxable income over $32, 650 along with 8.3125% Gross Receipts Tax in 
Santa Fe City and a Governor sworn to not raise taxes. GRT is applied to 
goods (not groceries) and some services with a myriad of exemptions and 
deductions that the legislature would like to clean up. Candy and soda 
are untaxed groceries for GRT purposes!


Apparently, Amazon *has* agreed to collect GRT in NM as they do for 
states where they have a presence. No news on details of the agreement. 
Just for grins, tried to order a $400 Onkyo Receiver - a $0.61 tax was 
applied while a $560 diamond pendant necklace was $0.00 estimated tax - 
so may be it starts gradually depending on the goods. Certainly seems 
like a revenue opportunity here and/or more to the story.


Robert C


On 5/7/17 2:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


Gross receipts is one thing.   Who would build the database of UPC 
codes that are instances of the taxed class (a small subset of gross 
receipts)?   Maybe other cities have built those databases?   I am 
skeptical the city would be able to maintain such a thing.  
  Compliance and enforcement would seem a challenge.


*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert 
J. Cordingley

*Sent:* Sunday, May 07, 2017 1:50 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 


*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Whew!

Taxes bypassed? Probably not so. See 
https://www.abqjournal.com/962831/amazon-to-start-collecting-taxes-in-new-mexico.html


Robert C

On 5/7/17 10:49 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

With Amazon Prime, this is all irrelevant.   Click and ship what
you want and such taxes will be bypassed.  Further, Amazon’s
distribution costs will be lower than going through a local
distributor anyway.Stupid to build a tax base on an business
model that is obsolete.

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of
*Owen Densmore
*Sent:* Sunday, May 07, 2017 10:37 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
 <mailto:friam@redfish.com>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Whew!

Ya gotta love the City Different:

Inline image 1

The small print:

Inline image 2

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Robert J. Cordingley
mailto:rob...@cirrillian.com>> wrote:

Let me throw some things into this mix

Some estimates (SFNewMexican

<http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html>)
suggest in total over $3.12 million was spent by both sides on
the campaign while the expected cost of the Pre-K to be funded
was $7.7million in the first year. Subsequent years ought to
be less because facilities would already be in place.

Some roughly 800  Pre-Ks (4 yr olds) would be included. That's
~$9,000/yr per child which sounds like a good deal based on
Frank's numbers. Pre-K <> child-care btw. Some 160
teachers+assistants+extended care providers would be needed to
run a 5 day program for 40 classes of 20 students each (2
teachers/class + 2 for extended day care).

The Santa Fe Public Schools are expected to expand their free
(to parents) Pre-K programs
<http://www.sfps.info/cms/One.aspx?portalId=115105&pageId=150523>
subject to legislative funding but I don't know details of
when, probably never 'cos NM State budget is at an impasse.

A possible but unconfirmed motivation for the Mayor's proposal
was to get to a point where Pre-K would be indispensable and
thus get sustainable funding and not have to depend on
hopefully declining soda tax revenues.

According to the New Mexican again

<http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/half-truths-falsehoods-create-confusion-in-soda-tax-fight/article_68ac5a30-7159-5a1d-913a-a625dfa36e8d.html>,
lemonade powder would be taxed on the made up quantity
changing the price from something like $7/can to $28/can - bad
'optics'.

Some claimed tourists might be big contributors to the
soda-tax revenues anyway.

Some people suggested they would buy sugary drinks in order to
support Pre-K.

Others suggested the beverage industry ('Big Soda') could not
stand the idea that the soda-tax would be a seen as sin-tax
and are trying desperately not to get it labelled as such.

No-one on the for side in the campaign I saw made any
suggestions on what folks should switch to to avoid the tax,
e.g. flavored water, water, plain teas and coffees. The last
being more profitable for businesses.

Based on district voting the people most likely to benefit
health 

Re: [FRIAM] Whew!

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Taxes bypassed? Probably not so. See 
https://www.abqjournal.com/962831/amazon-to-start-collecting-taxes-in-new-mexico.html


Robert C


On 5/7/17 10:49 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


With Amazon Prime, this is all irrelevant.   Click and ship what you 
want and such taxes will be bypassed.  Further, Amazon’s distribution 
costs will be lower than going through a local distributor anyway.   
 Stupid to build a tax base on an business model that is obsolete.


*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen 
Densmore

*Sent:* Sunday, May 07, 2017 10:37 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 


*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Whew!

Ya gotta love the City Different:

Inline image 1

The small print:

Inline image 2

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Robert J. Cordingley 
mailto:rob...@cirrillian.com>> wrote:


Let me throw some things into this mix

Some estimates (SFNewMexican

<http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html>)
suggest in total over $3.12 million was spent by both sides on the
campaign while the expected cost of the Pre-K to be funded was
$7.7million in the first year. Subsequent years ought to be less
because facilities would already be in place.

Some roughly 800  Pre-Ks (4 yr olds) would be included. That's
~$9,000/yr per child which sounds like a good deal based on
Frank's numbers. Pre-K <> child-care btw. Some 160
teachers+assistants+extended care providers would be needed to run
a 5 day program for 40 classes of 20 students each (2
teachers/class + 2 for extended day care).

The Santa Fe Public Schools are expected to expand their free (to
parents) Pre-K programs
<http://www.sfps.info/cms/One.aspx?portalId=115105&pageId=150523>
subject to legislative funding but I don't know details of when,
probably never 'cos NM State budget is at an impasse.

A possible but unconfirmed motivation for the Mayor's proposal was
to get to a point where Pre-K would be indispensable and thus get
sustainable funding and not have to depend on hopefully declining
soda tax revenues.

According to the New Mexican again

<http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/half-truths-falsehoods-create-confusion-in-soda-tax-fight/article_68ac5a30-7159-5a1d-913a-a625dfa36e8d.html>,
lemonade powder would be taxed on the made up quantity changing
the price from something like $7/can to $28/can - bad 'optics'.

Some claimed tourists might be big contributors to the soda-tax
revenues anyway.

Some people suggested they would buy sugary drinks in order to
support Pre-K.

Others suggested the beverage industry ('Big Soda') could not
stand the idea that the soda-tax would be a seen as sin-tax and
are trying desperately not to get it labelled as such.

No-one on the for side in the campaign I saw made any suggestions
on what folks should switch to to avoid the tax, e.g. flavored
water, water, plain teas and coffees. The last being more
profitable for businesses.

Based on district voting the people most likely to benefit health
wise voted against it. Sound familiar?

It's claimed the for side didn't play up the health benefits
enough in their campaign and that Big Soda came over as the local
group while the the for side came over as elitist and out of state.

If passed, lookout for Soda stands outside the city limits.

So it all looks a little silly. I support both ideas tho' living
in the county I couldn't vote.

The questions remain: how to fund Pre-K and how to cut consumption
of unhealthy sugary drinks? The against side said it should be
funded from the 'surplus' the city has but there are legal
restrictions on those funds apparently. The city has it's own
component of Gross Receipts Tax (which is like a Sales Tax but
applied more broadly).

So what's the real problem and how do we fix it?  The mayor is
still looking for good ideas.

Robert C

On 5/3/17 9:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

< $13-16k per year is a huge number. Does this include "child
care" .. i.e. taking care of the child for working parents?
That is a lot more expensive than "pre-school".>

Doggy day care is about half that.  If a dog has the
intelligence of a 2 year old, and pre-K child is 4, then a
linear extrapolation to an 18 year freshman’s day care
(tuition) is about $63k a year.  Must be the complexity of the
control system that is required!

Marcus



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-

Re: [FRIAM] Whew!

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Let me throw some things into this mix

Some estimates (SFNewMexican 
<http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/voters-smack-down-mayor-s-beverage-tax-proposal/article_3971faf0-2f9c-11e7-8374-532a52cd354f.html>) 
suggest in total over $3.12 million was spent by both sides on the 
campaign while the expected cost of the Pre-K to be funded was 
$7.7million in the first year. Subsequent years ought to be less because 
facilities would already be in place.


Some roughly 800  Pre-Ks (4 yr olds) would be included. That's 
~$9,000/yr per child which sounds like a good deal based on Frank's 
numbers. Pre-K <> child-care btw. Some 160 teachers+assistants+extended 
care providers would be needed to run a 5 day program for 40 classes of 
20 students each (2 teachers/class + 2 for extended day care).


The Santa Fe Public Schools are expected to expand their free (to 
parents) Pre-K programs 
<http://www.sfps.info/cms/One.aspx?portalId=115105&pageId=150523> 
subject to legislative funding but I don't know details of when, 
probably never 'cos NM State budget is at an impasse.


A possible but unconfirmed motivation for the Mayor's proposal was to 
get to a point where Pre-K would be indispensable and thus get 
sustainable funding and not have to depend on hopefully declining soda 
tax revenues.


According to the New Mexican again 
<http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/half-truths-falsehoods-create-confusion-in-soda-tax-fight/article_68ac5a30-7159-5a1d-913a-a625dfa36e8d.html>, 
lemonade powder would be taxed on the made up quantity changing the 
price from something like $7/can to $28/can - bad 'optics'.


Some claimed tourists might be big contributors to the soda-tax revenues 
anyway.


Some people suggested they would buy sugary drinks in order to support 
Pre-K.


Others suggested the beverage industry ('Big Soda') could not stand the 
idea that the soda-tax would be a seen as sin-tax and are trying 
desperately not to get it labelled as such.


No-one on the for side in the campaign I saw made any suggestions on 
what folks should switch to to avoid the tax, e.g. flavored water, 
water, plain teas and coffees. The last being more profitable for 
businesses.


Based on district voting the people most likely to benefit health wise 
voted against it. Sound familiar?


It's claimed the for side didn't play up the health benefits enough in 
their campaign and that Big Soda came over as the local group while the 
the for side came over as elitist and out of state.


If passed, lookout for Soda stands outside the city limits.

So it all looks a little silly. I support both ideas tho' living in the 
county I couldn't vote.


The questions remain: how to fund Pre-K and how to cut consumption of 
unhealthy sugary drinks? The against side said it should be funded from 
the 'surplus' the city has but there are legal restrictions on those 
funds apparently. The city has it's own component of Gross Receipts Tax 
(which is like a Sales Tax but applied more broadly).


So what's the real problem and how do we fix it?  The mayor is still 
looking for good ideas.


Robert C


On 5/3/17 9:43 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


< $13-16k per year is a huge number. Does this include "child care" .. 
i.e. taking care of the child for working parents? That is a lot more 
expensive than "pre-school".>


Doggy day care is about half that.  If a dog has the intelligence of a 
2 year old, and pre-K child is 4, then a linear extrapolation to an 18 
year freshman’s day care (tuition) is about $63k a year.  Must be the 
complexity of the control system that is required!


Marcus




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/  by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] re-use achieved!

[Robert J. Cordingley]

I wonder how much of today's success is a result of advances in onboard 
computing power and advanced sensor and control technologies. I'd 
imagine a big chunk. Any suggestions?


Thanks, Robert C


On 3/30/17 8:20 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Wow. Just Wow. First second flight. Ever. EVER!

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Marcus Daniels <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:


http://www.spacex.com/webcast



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> by Dr. Strangelove





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Dumb Experiment

[Robert J. Cordingley]

May be you saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmINGWsyWX0

Enjoy, Robert


On 3/24/17 9:49 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Me: OK Google, speak to Alexa

Google: Alexa, will you be my friend?

Alexa: Sure, I'm always happy to make new friends.

They must have anticipated that someone would try this.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Broadband in NM

[Robert Ballance]

Do you have a pointer to the story? 

... Bob

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 09:39, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
> 
> There was a story late last night that the NM Constitution requires that the 
> Governor is required to explain her objections upon vetoing a bill.  Since 
> she didn't do that the legislature declared her vetoes overridden.  I suspect 
> that fight isn't over yet.
> 
> Frank
> 
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2017 7:27 AM, "cody dooderson"  wrote:
>> Since there was only 1 vote against it in both the house and Senate, 
>> couldn't a 2/3 override take place. 
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2017 8:56 PM, "Merle Lefkoff"  wrote:
>>> Richard Lowenberg knows all. r...@1st-mile.org
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Robert J. Cordingley 
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> Does anyone local have any ideas/insight why the NM governor vetoed the 
>>>> LOCAL GOV'T BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE SB24 bill? Sour grapes?
>>>> 
>>>> See 
>>>> http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d1faf3c75d2ac5da75ced6dd5&id=130117cfbe&e=0bf456e615
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> "The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 37-1 and passed unanimously 
>>>> out of the House of Representatives."
>>>> 
>>>> Robert C
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Cirrillian
>>>> Web Design & Development
>>>> Santa Fe, NM
>>>> http://cirrillian.com
>>>> 281-989-6272 (cell)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
>>> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
>>> emergentdiplomacy.org
>>> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>>> 
>>> Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
>>> Saint Paul University
>>> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>>> 
>>> merlelefk...@gmail.com
>>> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
>>> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>>> 
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>> 
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Broadband in NM

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Does anyone local have any ideas/insight why the NM governor vetoed the 
LOCAL GOV'T BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE SB24 bill? Sour grapes?


See 
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d1faf3c75d2ac5da75ced6dd5&id=130117cfbe&e=0bf456e615 



"The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 37-1 and passed 
unanimously out of the House of Representatives."


Robert C

--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Blockchain Questions

[Robert J. Cordingley]

From The Verge* with my emphases;

'Like blockchain technologies, this information will be *write-only*...' 
- funny!


'Blockchain entities like Bitcoin are distributed among lots of 
different players require a lot of power (computing and literal) to 
compile and check — *as much as a small country*,' - Really?


So there's no way to hack a blockchain? Or perhaps I should say why is 
it so secure?


*http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/10/14880094/deepmind-health-uk-data-blockchain-audit

Robert C

--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Fractals/Chaos/Manifolds

[Robert J. Cordingley]

In one German dictionary I found /mannigfaltigkeit/ translates to 
/variousness/ which seems pretty obtuse but indicates it may have less 
to do with the original entymology of /manifold/ 
(https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manifold Entymology 1). Per Dean's pdf, 
perhaps it's a made up usage inspired by Gauss/Riemann who had a concept 
about topological space but needed a word for it? That is to say 
'manifold' (in English) was a neologism in its time based on an 
appearance of the German word?


Robert C

On 3/1/17 2:21 PM, lrudo...@meganet.net wrote:

The word, as a term of Mathematical English (which is of course quite a 
distinct dialect of
English) is a calque of the Mathematical German word "Mannigfaltigkeit".  
Franklin Becher, in
the first paragraph of the lead article in the October, 1896, issue of the 
American
Mathematical Monthly, "MATHEMATICAL INFINITY AND THE DIFFERENTIAL", doesn't 
quite use the word
yet, but makes its origin clear enough.

---begin---
Mathematics, as defined by the great mathematician, Benjamin Pierce, is the 
science which
draws necessary conclusions. In its broadest sense, it deals with conceptions 
from which
necessary conclusions are drawn. A mathematical conception is any conception 
which, by means
of a finite number of specified elements, is precisely and completely defined 
and determined.
To denote the dependence of a mathematical conception on its elements, the word
"manifoldness," introduced by Riemann, has been recently adopted.
--end--

In his article on the foundations of geometry, available at
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/Geom.html ,
Riemann distinguished two types of "Mannigfaltigkeit", the discrete and the 
continuous:

---begin---
cat

Grössenbegriffe sind nur da möglich, wo sich ein allgemeiner Begriff vorfindet, 
der
verschiedene Bestimmungsweisen zulässt. Je nachdem unter diesen 
Bestimmungsweisen von einer zu
einer andern ein stetiger Uebergang stattfindet oder nicht, bilden sie eine 
stetige oder
discrete Mannigfaltigkeit;

| Google Translate >

Size terms are only possible where there is a general concept, which allows 
different modes of
determination. According as, according to these modes of determination from one 
to another, a
continuous transition takes place or not, they form a continuous or discrete 
manifoldness;
---end---

In Riemann's (eventual) context, those sentences would be understood now (at 
least by
topologists of my sort, which is to say, geometric topologists, cf.
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.GT) as sketching the modern concept of a 
(topological or
differentiable) manifold as a "mathematical conception" that can "precisely and 
completely
defined and determined" by a collection [called an "atlas"] of "modes of 
determination"
[called "charts"] among (some pairs of) which there are also given "continuous" 
(i.e.,
topological) or perhaps *smooth* (i.e., differentiable) coordinate changes.

I dispute, incidentally, the claim that 3-manifolds are too hard to understand; 
they're *just*
at the edge of that, but not over it (whereas 4- and higher dimensional 
manifolds are
DEFINITELY over that edge, in various well-defined mathematical ways; e.g., the 
problem of
determining whether two explicitly-given n-manifolds, n greater than 3, has 
been known for a
long time to be computationally intractable [you can embed the word problem for 
groups into
the manifold classification problem for n greater than 3], and much more 
recently has been
shown to be doable in dimension 3).

The French word for (something a little more general than a) manifold is 
"varieté", by
the way; same sort of reason, I assume.




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[FRIAM] Fractals/Chaos/Manifolds

[Robert J. Cordingley]

OK, why are mathematical manifolds called that?  It seems such a weird 
and out of place term.  I've tried to find out without success.


Robert C

--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

This less than 5-minute video seems visually helpful in the context of what
Jon accomplished last night: Takens' theorem in action for the Lorenz
chaotic attractor .  This
video provides some idea of what emerges from the manifold in terms of the
time series with airflow. Yes, very cool! 😎

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Jon Zingale  wrote:

> Nick,
>
> Well one way we may be able to understand
> birdsong as fractal might be by studying the
> underlying mechanism of the syrinx
> . I can
> imagine this section of the birds trachea as a coupled
> oscillator, that when driven far from equilibrium
> could give way to trajectories along a strange
> attractor (which would be fractal). In an attempt
> to think about recovering the attractor from the
> time-series of the bird song, I ran across Takens'
> theorem last night. Then later last night (I couldn't
> sleep) I coded up an example of Takens' theorem
> in RubyProcessing
> .
> What is amazing about this
> theorem is that it suggests how to build a low-
> dimensional manifold from a single dimensional
> time-series! So freaking cool. As a test case, I
> coded up the Lorenz equations and plotted the
> manifold. Then I calculated just the time series
> for the x dimension. Lastly, I reconstructed the
> entire manifold (topologically) from just this one
> coordinate! Included below is a screenshot of
> the visualizer. It is actually more fun to watch in
> motion, but the picture is telling in itself.
>
> Jon
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

No.  My bad Glen.  I guess I have buttons I didn't think I had ... Thanks
for the follow-up explanation. Much appreciated.

My objective, to be sure, was not seeking agreement, except on the general
concept of "being in the zone." It was they only way to be sure we could
start on the same page ... a meeting of the minds, as it were. Remember I
came late to the thread. I kept digging for a root, but the hole was just
getting deeper and deeper.  Then it seemed that someone was filling the
hole with me in it. 😊

Iconoclast, I am not.  Not smart enough. Maybe why I drag guys
like Csikszentmihalyi to the party. But, as I think Vladimyr was saying, I
could have been taking Csikszentmihalyi's idea further than even he
intended it to be taken ... to the level of a society as a whole.  Even in
wonder, it may have just been too far too early. But well intended, as it
has been, for me, a search for a plausible approach at *normalizing *a society
to where it stops presenting us all with one unsolved existential threat
after another. So it has been a personal mission to understand this.  A
hobby of sorts. In this thread, I started with and concluded that I didn't
think it was possible to do what I was suggesting. Still, sometimes we
learn about an issue by throwing hypothetical solutions at it from every
corner of thought. Knowing why something isn't or may not be possible is
still insight ... even though it may sound like nonsense. 😊

So what's next to try on this quest? Complexity science? 😎  Certainly,
zeitgeists can be seen as emergent phenomena. Problem?  Is emergent
behavior even controllable?

Context switch: To understand bird evolution you are going to have to go
back pretty far.  There is strong evidence that they are first cousins to
the dinosaurs. Landscapes and climates (conditionals) have changed
drastically since the Mesozoic Era. But has bird song reflected this?  It
would be interesting to contemplate how the first birds sounded compared to
birds of our day.  We seem to know how many of them looked.  Could their
sound be detected in a way similar to the way linguist try to piece back
the evolution of human language, back to its origins? And I don't know how
they do this reliably.

Fractals being patterns that are repeated in patterns at all levels of
scale (and tempo) seem to suggest a building up of complexity from very
simple rules like with *cellular automata*. Bird songs have grammar--rules,
that need to be learned from generation to generation. Variations could
creep in just from the variations that occur in the parents, just like with
human genetics. Speciation (morphological differences) makes not only a new
bird but likely a new bird song from different vocal engines.  Bird songs
of all types *have *been crudely reproduced with cellular automata. I
dunno.  I am not really addressing the question which I think is how to
determine if bird song patterns are spatially correlated, but maybe it's a
start ... tip-toe .. tip-toe ...

[image: Inline image 1]

Cheers


On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:29 AM, ┣glen┫  wrote:

> Oops.  I'm sorry if I've offended you.  I am contrarian and tend to seek
> out areas of disagreement, rather than agreement.
>
> On 02/24/2017 07:14 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> > The "as if" was the key.  The "as if" alludes to the behavioral
> manifestation. Yes?
>
> Yes, of course.  However, this is the subject of the conversation.  If we
> allow the "as if" to work its magic on us, we can be tricked into taking
> the illusion seriously.  So, by calling out the nonsensical materials
> surrounding the "as if", I'm trying to avoid that.
>
> > I notice that you seem to use the words "useless" and  "nonsense"
> [usually with the adjective /utter /] a lot when you post replies.
>
> Yes, you're right.  And I apologize if my usage is inferred to mean
> something more than it is.  What I mean by "useless" is that I have no use
> for it.  I can't formulate a use case.  What I mean by "nonsense" is that
> it makes no sense to me.  I should pepper my replies with more social salve
> like "to me" and "in my opinion".  It's difficult, though, because that
> overhead interferes with the actual content.  But please don't think my
> attribution of "useless" and "nonsense" imply that I haven't read or tried
> to make use/sense of that content.  My colleagues constantly mention work
> like that of Csikszentmihalyi and I've studied what I can to extract
> elements I can use, often to no avail.
>
> I'm certain my failure is due to my own shortcomings.  But it is true.  I
> have too much difficulty applying tools that rely fundamentally on
> thoughts/minds/ideas/etc across tasks and domains.
>
> &

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

G! 😀😜
New day...

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:30 AM ┣glen┫  wrote:

> Oops.  I'm sorry if I've offended you.  I am contrarian and tend to seek
> out areas of disagreement, rather than agreement.
>
> On 02/24/2017 07:14 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> > The "as if" was the key.  The "as if" alludes to the behavioral
> manifestation. Yes?
>
> Yes, of course.  However, this is the subject of the conversation.  If we
> allow the "as if" to work its magic on us, we can be tricked into taking
> the illusion seriously.  So, by calling out the nonsensical materials
> surrounding the "as if", I'm trying to avoid that.
>
> > I notice that you seem to use the words "useless" and  "nonsense"
> [usually with the adjective /utter /] a lot when you post replies.
>
> Yes, you're right.  And I apologize if my usage is inferred to mean
> something more than it is.  What I mean by "useless" is that I have no use
> for it.  I can't formulate a use case.  What I mean by "nonsense" is that
> it makes no sense to me.  I should pepper my replies with more social salve
> like "to me" and "in my opinion".  It's difficult, though, because that
> overhead interferes with the actual content.  But please don't think my
> attribution of "useless" and "nonsense" imply that I haven't read or tried
> to make use/sense of that content.  My colleagues constantly mention work
> like that of Csikszentmihalyi and I've studied what I can to extract
> elements I can use, often to no avail.
>
> I'm certain my failure is due to my own shortcomings.  But it is true.  I
> have too much difficulty applying tools that rely fundamentally on
> thoughts/minds/ideas/etc across tasks and domains.
>
> > In a strange way, though, throughout this whole thread, you actually
> make my point.  Thanks!  Language can be a problem.  Symbolic reference.
> Imprecision. But the bottom-line is that I feel you really didn't (even try
> to) understand anything I said, and, apparently, I don't really understand
> anything you have said in as much as I have tried.  And I am not sure it is
> because of the imprecision of language, though. It is something else that
> leads you to just find disagreement.  As often said, it is much easier to
> sound smart by tearing something down than to constructively build on
> something. Maybe that applies here.  Not sure. Hope not.
>
> I don't intend to tear anything down and am under no illusions regarding
> my own lack of intelligence.  I'm a solid C student and am always
> outmatched by my friends and colleagues.  (That's from a lesson my dad
> taught me long ago.  If you want to improve your game, choose opponents
> that are better than you are.  So I make every attempt to hang out with
> people far smarter than I am.  That they tolerate my idiocy is evidence of
> their kindness.)
>
> But the point, here, is that you offered a solution to the problem I
> posed.  And I believe your solution to be inadequate.  So, I'm simply
> trying to point out that it is inadequate and why/how it is inadequate. ...
> namely that your concept of optimal or efficient embedding in an
> environment is too reliant on the vague concept of mind/thought.
>
> If birdsong retains its temporal fractality despite the bird being
> embedded in a non-fractal environment, then we should look elsewhere ...
> somewhere other than the birds' minds.  Vladimyr's argument posted last
> night may demonstrate that I'm wrong, though.  I don't know, yet.
>
> --
> ␦glen?
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

face for more than 100
> years: since the publication of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and
> the scientific recognition of man's animal origins. Although lip service is
> paid to this most profound piece of scientific knowledge, for all
> practical, political, social, economic and ecological purposes we have yet
> to face up to it.


This short opinion article is an emulation of what I have been trying to
explain to you but perhaps it does a much better job at explaining it. Give
it a go ...  Utter nonsense? Annoying?

At this point, not only do I think that Flow can *not *likely be achieved
at the level of a society as a whole, I do not now think that there can be
a meeting of the minds between us in this discussion.  Where I look in the
crevices where can find agreement--in spite of the imprecision of the
symbolic references that can pepper language--you, line by line here even,
have looked for disagreement only.  On an intuitive level, we do not seem
to be the same social animal.  Not a social crime, of course, unless you
are just "gaming" me with some unnecessary display of intellectual peacock
feathers; but regretfully I see no way to make headway [e.g., congruity of
thought] here as it seems clear that we seem to have very opposing
objectives in this discussion.

I, nor Csikszentmihalyi, will annoy you no further ...

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:48 PM, glen ☣  wrote:

>
> OK.  Yes, thanks, that helps.  But I do think you disagree with me, only I
> may not have made myself clear enough for you to realize we disagree.  I'll
> interleave in the hopes of making my objections in context.
>
> On 02/24/2017 01:44 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> > The last quote, to me, says that a group acting toward a common goal in,
> say the way an individual in that group would, does *not *imply that the
> "symbolic references" used to act rationaly in the world are all in align
> or even perhaps in synchopation under an fMRI. YES! I can agree with this.
> And I don't think that I disagreed.
>
> But that's not what I'm saying.  Perhaps you're making what I'm saying
> much stronger.  Or perhaps what you're saying is entirely different.  I
> can't tell because you're leaping too far.  I'm only saying that if the
> stuff that causes our behavior is aligned, we need something _other_ than
> our behavior to demonstrate that alignment.  I'm trying to focus on the
> difference between thought and action.  You seem to be conflating that with
> the difference between individuals and groups.
>
> The thought vs. action dichotomy is critical to my rhetoric about
> individuals vs. groups.  But it's more fundamental and must be made before
> (independently) of any rhetoric about individual vs. group.
>
> > And I do even agree with you that there are examples of goups that do
> act as if with "one mind" and even benevolently.
>
> Again, I don't think I said that.  I don't think even an individual's
> thoughts matter.  (This is why Csikszentmihalyi's concept of "flow" is
> useless and annoying to me.)  It's pure nonsense to talk of mind at all.
> So, it's nonsense to say that societies act as if with one mind.  But that
> does not mean they can't be "in the zone", because being in the zone has
> nothing to do with one's mind.
>
> > Market-oriented co-ops are such a phenomenon, which I discussed in
> another thread, especially with Marcus who seemed to see these as an bane
> to society as unmanaged enterprises, which they are not. Perspective is
> sharpened by exposure.  My company transitionsed to an ESOP, but the
> intended economic benefit was eventually corrupted by the management team
> that used this preferred organizational form to basically enrich themselves
> at the expense of what the ERISA originally intended--cooperative,
> community-oriented corprorate behavior.  Stakeholders in the welfare of the
> community. At the grassroots, it was enything but a co-operative.  It was a
> vehicle to enrich the corporate management. But where it works, it is
> beautiful.
>
> If you see these co-ops as technological innovations, then I'd argue that
> their use and ABUSE can both be examples of society being "in the zone".
> The same is true of the cell phone and space travel.  It's totally
> irrelevant whether the co-ops relate to the beliefs, desires, and
> intentions of the humans involved (if such things exist).  What would
> matter is the society's beliefs, desires, and intentions (if such exists).
> The only stakeholder is society.  The individuals are as expendable as
> sand, or fossil fuel, or bacteria.
>
> > But I do kind of see where a "meeting of the minds

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

c references.  Precisely the opposite, if we are to regard the
thoughts of the many philosophers and linguists on this topic to be wise.
What we would expect instead is the *supersession* of our language-based
symbolic references with something akin to Intuition or Empathy ...
something beyond words such that wisdom emeges on the scale of a society
[and why I use capitalization of those terms]. So far, anyway, I do not see
this as being not only possible, but not evident.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi says that being in the zone seems to occur when an
individual has both great skill and great challenge in a particular area.
When Flow happens, it is when the Self tends to evaporate from
consciousness and there is only the task. The individual is said to be
empathically connected with [in love with] the work: artist of all stripes
"feel" this.  Therefore, I say that this *cannot *happen at the level of a
society as a whole when the majority of individuals are only trying to game
the other players in that society.

We have not as a whole or on many individual levels been able to supercede
the animal. Nietzsche was not hopeful.  Begson was, sort of, and says this
will be eventually possible when we--presumably as a species--evolve to a
level where the Intuitive matches the Intellect in dominance.

I hope that this is a bit more clear, but to address you question directly
now, I am not in disagreement with you--never was--but also I stand firm on
what I meant, with which you said you are dubious. But maybe that was a
matter of talking past one another.  A language-based phenomenon.
*Intent *distinguishes
the phenomena of *being in the zone*.   *Scale *distinguishes the level of
its achievement. To be sure, symbolic references have little to nothing to
do with the kind of* being in the zone* to which I was referring. It's kind
of like what Timothy Gallwey was trying to convey in his book *The Inner
Game of Tennis*.  Thinking is gone.


On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:13 PM, glen ☣  wrote:

>
> Perhaps you did not see my previous response where I outlined what I think
> exhibit societal states (yes, at the societal layer, as a whole) of being
> in the zone.  If so, could you explain whether you agree or disagree that
> those are examples of what you discuss below?  If you didn't get the email,
> which happens to me often enough, the response is here:
>
>   http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2017-February/048807.html
>
> To be clear, my refutation of the claim that low-D spaces are similar
> because high-D space are similar was not intended as a referent for your
> society in the zone as a whole.  But I did proffer the examples listed
> above (e.g. stigmergy) as referents.
>
> And when you say "/complicated spaces/ presumed to be the imperfectly
> shared sets of symbolic references we would call worldviews", that is
> definitely not tantamount to the same as what I said.  My refutation was
> about the _presumption_.  The assertion is if P then Q, where P = lowD
> spaces are similar and Q = highD spaces are similar.  I'm not really trying
> to say anything other than not(P=>Q).  If the complicated internal spaces
> of people do match up or are shared in some way, then we need a different
> way of showing that they are shared (perhaps fMRI?).
>
> And to be clear that we're still on topic, whether or not the fractality
> of birds' songs is or can be related to the fractality of their landscapes
> is a question about the soundness of P=>Q and how/whether the similarity of
> bird brains can be established.
>
>
> On 02/24/2017 10:45 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
> > It's a mistake to infer that the complicated spaces (the deluded
> people's minds/brains/bodies/culture) are the same just because their
> projections (the things they say and do) are the same.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, and that is not the same as what I meant for a society being /in
> the zone/ as a whole, though Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi does initiate his talk
> with examples of a kind of mass hysteria brought about by cataclysmic
> events when introducing a topic he calls the Optimal Experience.
> Presumably, he used mass hysteria for contrast, but I think clumsily
> because he doesn't relate an Optimal Experience at the level of society.
> The examples of folks who demonstrate the phenomenon he is relating are
> individuals like Albert Einstein.  So what is he talking about?  What am I
> talking about?  What are y' all talking about?  The symbols seem the same,
> but we seem to be talking past one another. It happens ...
> >
> > Trying to be a bit clearer here and not at all retaliating with any
> backhand strike😊, the idea I am nudging forth is one that seems to be rare
> even among individuals, nevermind societies. We recognize its

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

ave evolved
far enough to loosely self-organized into tribes and set up a system of
patterned utterances to communicate within tribal sets of other such
simulators. For each simulator, this provides a comforting feeling of not
being alone and so, safe. What emerges, though, is a dependency on the
rule-based axioms [or grammar] that underlie the pattern of utterances and
concepts, and they go about rationalizing everything they come in contact
with in accordance with the ever expanding "knowledgebase."

But they do this at a cost--the proverbial bite from the apple of the Tree
of Knowledge, as it were--because as the world the simulators see now
becomes ever more epistemologically "known," it is also becoming ever more
ontologically meaningless. As this happens, the tribal individual
simulators start to "feel" ever more sociologically alone and unsafe.  Have
we been expelled from the Garden of Eden?

And they begin to wonder about the meaning of it all.  And in Self-defense,
they start to turn to surreal, other-world symbols to help them to *rationalize
*their current state of unhappiness. But, others, more reflective among
them, who have been contemplating this phenomenology--philosophers--are
saying things like "What are man's truths ultimately? Merely his
irrefutable errors." "There are no facts, only interpretations."  "Every
word is a prejudice."  "The most thought-provoking thing in our
thought-provoking time is that we are still not *thinking*."  It's
disturbing ...  What are we missing?!  What was the true cost of this
"emergence," which took root at the same time that language and, perhaps,
intellect and civilization did?

Perhaps, the individual simulators have been *deluded *into thinking that
their worldview is real, immutable, ... and that the everything else in the
world was put there for their exploitation and happiness. They think that
those are just things outside of themselves, objectified things with names
that are wholly unrelated to other things. The only really important thing
is the Self.  Embodied experience. But, is it? ...  And what is really
important at the level of society and how does that thing get
accomplished?  To be sure, it doesn't get accomplished by chaos. It might
happen through *harmony*, but I don't think it will be a harmony of
symbolic references alone ...

This has been a thinker among some of us for some time. It just doesn't
seem resolvable without effective *feedback *at the level of a society.

[image: Inline image 1]  Let's make that great (again?).

And, so, that's why I don't think that society as a whole will likely find
itself *in the zone*.  Now I hope *that's* clear.  😴

Cheers 😎

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:52 AM, ┣glen┫  wrote:

> I think I anticipated your backhanded strike. >8^D  I did this with my
> (badly mangled) reference to (and skepticism about) the holographic
> principle ... or behaviorism in psychology ... or hidden markov models ...
> or state space reconstruction methods ... or by any of a huge number of
> other symbols.
>
> A many to one projection from a complicated space to a simple space
> _facilitates_ shared delusion because it makes the complicated things
> _seem_ similar even though they're not.  That is what explains your shared
> delusions like Shazaam.  It's a mistake to infer that the complicated
> spaces (the deluded people's minds/brains/bodies/culture) are the same just
> because their projections (the things they say and do) are the same.
>
> Although you're invocation of Occam's razor seems appropriate, your
> assertion (similarities in the low dimension space are caused by
> similarities in the high dimension space) is not the simplest explanation
> at all.  The simplest explanation is the one identified in that paper about
> the fractal dimension of Rorcshach blots (still on topic!) and that
> identified by Lakoff about Trump's language.  A medium with low dimension
> allows the high dimension participants to "fill in the gaps".
>
>
> On 02/23/2017 06:58 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
> > I think Robert Wall is nudging close to an idea that he failed to
> adequately clarify but you may have nailed it while trying to deny it (this
> I call a backhanded strike). Last week there was a strange article about
> groups of people having the same memory that have no contact with each
> other. That shared memory was in fact  demonstrably false. It was regarding
> a misperceived memory of a TV show called Shazaam and some comedian called
> Sinbad... My mind retains utter garbage sometimes.
> >
> > I never saw it but then it never actually happened. The investigators
> explained that so many of the false memory components overlapped reality
> > that the subjec

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

same
> way I lose myself after that 3rd mile when running.  I have no illusions
> that my zone is in any way shared by the people I'm arguing with, though
> ... no more than I think you and I share internal constructs mediated by
> the word "blue"


To be clear, Glen, I was referring to a society being "in the zone" as a
whole. Maybe this could mean an alignment of symbolic references.  Not
sure, but, like you, somewhat dubious that this could happen. Within my
philosophy group, we have discussed the idea of *conscious
evolution*--becoming,
say, wiser, by being "in the zone" so to speak--*with respect to the
individua*l.  And I do see this as kind of a Csikszentmihalyi-est "being in
the zone," a period of selfless awareness of a task or challenge. It's a
neurological phenomenon. The objective is to make the period last as long
as possible. Society is not very good at being selfless, even for a moment.

Perhaps with the assistance of Hebbian learning, say, over time this is
possible for individuals who work at it to remain in this state longer than
is typical.  It becomes a skill or practice.  But bubbling this up to the
level of a society does not seem possible.  Religion hasn't and won't do it
because that's a model that requires blind credulity to the provided
surreal symbols.  Even in the context of Hebbian learning, where are the
"societal neurons" that need to be rewired from their inculcated states?
They tend to be imbued in the laws and in the prevailing morality memes.
But these are just things to be gamed to ensure a *face validity* with our
self-full life simulations.

The key component to any smart system is feedback.  But, we live in a
society that is running open loop.  Another form of loopiness or delusion,
I guess ... believing that everything will work out in the long run.  We
are exceptional. We have democratic elections ... Hmmm,  I think the
awakening is happening.  Maybe there is hope?  Is that a drone I hear above
... Oh, it's just an Amazone delivery ... or is it?  :-)

Cheers


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky 
wrote:

> Thanks for the structure of thought .
>
>
>
> So am I an Iconoclast because I am all too aware of the misuse of Icons (
> simulations). I taught FEM and CAD and
>
> saw puzzlement on the, soon to be, engineers faces. I have watched
> engineers sneak out of the lecture hall when I started showing slides of
>
> summation of stacked matrices flying across the screen.
>
>
>
> So this alludes to a possible intrinsic Tautology or Loopiness in our
> brains. The representation is conflated with the speculative but unknown
> reality (since it is never completely understood anyway) Switching from one
> state to the other might be called metaphysical thinking. A wonderful
> source of confusion.
>
> Being totally immersed in a computer game might be said to be in the
> groove but when one man fights another and we call that being in the groove
> then are we conflating two models. If one is slaughtering the enemies on a
> game platform one can say he is free of ethics or morality. When Bruce Lee
> does the same on film
>
> many thought it real. but those who actually fought in life knew it was BS
> on  constrained/elevated ropes.
>
>
>
> If the  mirror neurons discussed at length do as described then they must
> occupy configurations near identical to neurons trained by self discovery
> (learning)
>
> Then actual differentiation would seem very difficult.
>
>
>
> I have a daughter  formally trained as a M.Sc. BioMedical Artist and we
> used to argue about symbolic thinking , she pro and I con. But the
> strangest part is that I am also or was considered a fair artist and
> illustrator for a time. Indeed I use symbols very well but mistrust others
> with lesser skill. Yet the most skillful are the most dangerous at least in
> engineering. She would regularly remark that I sketched in perspective
> complex machinery that did not yet exist and then built the working
> prototypes. Nothing elegant but functional. She claimed only to draw what
> already  really existed dead or alive, I always thought those arguments
> were small expeditions into some form of knowledge about human thinking.
> She thought otherwise unfortunately, but I have never had the fortune to
> meet another with her combination of talents.  Somewhere in this
> quasi-church may be others lurking in the shadows.
>
>
>
> I admit to being a rather visual thinker so data visualization is my hobby
> now. And understanding Normal People, since they are so many...
>
> Perhaps this is not exactly the correct thread but miss the song of larks
> on the prairie fields. A few notes brings back so many memories and the
> smells
>
> 

Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[Robert Wall]

Hi Glen,

What you describe as *flow* or being *in the zone* has been precisely
written

and talked
 about
by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi as the Optimal Experience.  No one will
experience this quite the same way, as the flow experience requires
both skill and challenge in an area where flow will occur. By his own
statements, Einstein is said to have been in flow when he synthesized the
concept of General and Special Relativity. At the time he was arguably very
skilled in math and physics and, of course, very challenged.

However, I prefer Alfred North Whitehead's (et al.) concept that we are all
always in *flow*. We just don't alway realize it. In his *Process
Philosophy*, as conveyed  in his *Process and Reality*, he writes about the
two modes of perceptual experience: (1) *Presentational Immediacy* [the
bits of data that get presented to us through our senses--or imagination]
and (2) *Causal Efficacy* [the conditioning of the present by the past].
Curiously, Csikszentmihalyi says that we can only process data from our
senses at a rate of 110 bit/sec.  Reading this post likely will chew up 60
bits/sec. of that bandwidth. 😴

Why I bring this up at all is that Whitehead thinks that what integrates
these two modes into the whole of what we perceive is *Symbolic Reference*.
Symbolic reference is kind of like how we tag bits of our real-world
immersion for building a largely symbolic but sustainable--for us
individually--worldview. Most time these symbolic references are provided
to us--inculcated--by others like with a religion or by our parents.  Most
are satisfied with that. In your friend's case, I believe it is possible
that y' all were unsettling--challenging--his worldview ... or, he
challenging yours.

Flow is not likely to be aroused in a social context. It is an inner state
... what the Greeks and Csikszentmihalyi would say is the entering into
an alternate reality devoid of our sense of self.  Your existence melts
away in such a state. So our symbols get challenged or, perhaps, disappear
as well. French social philosophers Jean Baudrillard and Gilles Deleuze
also talk about symbolism, but it was at a social level.  As far as I am
concerned, Flow can't be achieved at the level of society ... but, boy I
wish that that were not so.  Csikszentmihalyi talks about the opposite of
Flow that occurs on a social level that often occurs when society has been
thrown into a chaos as with war or Trumpism. 🤔

Is mathematics invented or discovered?  This is a perennial topic that
arises within my philosophy group.  It never really gets resolved, but how
could it be?   It is the ultimate of symbolic reference systems because of
its precision in predicting the way the world manifests itself to our
perception. This is not so true of our other symbols or abstractions. So
are they any different?  In a way, they are because mathematical symbols
form from an axiom-driven language. But, notwithstanding Jerry Fodor's
"built-in" syntactic language of thought, languages are human inventions
based on metaphors [if you like George Lakoff].  Languages work among
cultures because they are more or less conventional (acceptable) to a
culture.  The fact that they can be translated into other languages is
because we are all immersed in the same reality. In this way, I tend to
think of mathematics as invented. If you are a Platonist--a worldview--you
will likely disagree.

As I often do, I  kind of resonate with Vladimyr's thought, which you
included in your post. It is very Csikszentmihalyi-est. I do think that
simulations can lure us into thinking that they are an exact dynamic
facsimile of the reality which they try to abstract into an analytical
model.  There are all kinds of things about simulations that can lead us
astray. Fidelity is one thing, obviously.  But, I think that the worst
thing--and this is often the fate of a simulator because of time and
funding--is when they get so complicated that no one understands the
process for how the results were computed.  This--like with many neural
networks--is when the simulator just become an Oracle.  This is kind of
what happened with Henry Markam's Blue Brain Project
,
building a simulation of something for which they didn't know the first
principles.  I think also this is what John Horgan wrote about concerning
what was going on at the Santa Fe Institute in his *SA* article From
Complexity to Perplexity
.

But, as Vladimyr muses, maybe this is the best we can do ... and symbolic
reference is what nature served up for us to cope, concerning what we are
perceiving.  But, as with all smart systems, a smart entity will always try
to challenge and refine those symbols with conti

Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Seems like from a thermodynamics question you can first think of having 
two identical systems with identical energy inputs. Unless one of the 
systems is capable of storing energy in some form differently from the 
other the equilibrium temperatures should be the same.


Now CFBs emit more of the their input energy as light which since the 
containers are transparent (presumably to the same light that's emitted, 
visible, UV, infrared) it will escape more easily. Incandescents 
generate a lot of heat for the same energy input which may not escape as 
easily as the light energy. It will depend on the thermal conductivity 
of the container's materials etc. If the CFB were 100% efficient all 
it's energy will leave immediately in a container that is 100 % 
transparent to its 'light' and show no temperature increase. If the 
incandescent's heat is transmitted as infrared energy at 100% efficiency 
along with any light then its temperature will show no increase either.  
So the answer may have more to do with the properties of the containers 
than the properties of the lights. Practically, I'd expect A to warm up 
more than B because B's light energy will escape more easily with 
materials we are familiar with.


If both containers are opaque to all light (UV, visible and IR) and have 
the same thermal conductivity properties we are back to the first paragraph.


2c

Robert C


On 2/14/17 8:01 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
Since there are some non-naïve, i.e. professional physicists, as well 
as just gererally smart people in FRIAM, I pose the following fun 
question. Given: two transparent, sealed containers filled with air - 
one contains an incandescent light bulb A that consumes 100 watts of 
energy; the other container contains a fluorescent light bulb B that 
also *consumes* 100 watts of energy. Since B is of a more efficient 
design, it will produce more light than A. Assuming the same color 
temperature light is produced by A and B, and ignoring any feedback 
effects of rising temperatures inside the respective containers, will 
the temperatures inside the containers reach the same 
temperature? Naïve physicist G (me) thinks that since more light is 
escaping from the container containing B, that its temperature will 
rise less. G also thinks that if the containers are opaque, that the 
temperatures will rise by the same amount. But G is besieged with 
doubts. Please help G.




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] on the obustness of globalism

[Robert J. Cordingley]

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and 
carrying a cross." - possibly paraphrased from a 1935 Sinclair Lewis novel.



On 2/2/17 11:23 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


*“*Where are our shared values?”

Once imposed, they will be our shared values.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317542-trump-vows-to-destroy-the-johnson-amendment




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] AI advance

[Robert J. Cordingley]

So once AI machines are allowed to start designing themselves with at 
least the goal for increasing performance, how long have we got? (It 
doesn't matter whether we (ie the US) allow that or some other 
resourceful, perhaps military, organization does it.) Didn't Hawking 
fear runaway AI as a bigger existential threat than runaway greenhouse 
effects?


Robert C


On 1/31/17 10:34 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:

To consider the issue perhaps more seriously, AI100 was created two years ago 
at Stanford University, funded by Eric Horowitz and his wife. Eric is an early 
AI pioneer at Microsoft. It’s a hundred-year, rolling study of the many impacts 
of AI, and it plans to issue reports every five years based on contributions 
from leading AI researchers, social scientists, ethicists, and philosophers 
(among representatives of fields outside AI).

Its first report was issued late last year, and you can read it on the AI100 
website.

You may say that leading AI researchers and their friends have vested 
interests, but then I point to a number of other organizations who have taken 
on the topic of AI and its impact: nearly every major university has such a 
program (Georgia Tech, MIT, UC Berkeley, Michigan, just for instance), and a 
joint program on the future between Oxford and Cambridge has put a great deal 
of effort into such studies.

The amateur speculation is fun, but the professionals are paying attention. 
FWIW, I consider the fictional representations of AI in movies, books, TV, to 
be valuable scenario builders. It doesn’t matter if they’re farfetched (most of 
them certainly are) but it does matter that they raise interesting issues for 
nonspecialists to chew over.

Pamela




On Jan 31, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Joe Spinden  wrote:

In a book I read several years ago, whose title I cannot recall, the conclusion was: 
"They may have created us, but they keep gumming things up.  They have outlived 
their usefulness.  Better to just get rid of them."

-JS


On 1/31/17 7:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

"Maybe... but somehow I'm not a lot more confident in the *product* of humans who 
make bad decisions making *better* decisions?"

Nowadays machine learning is much more unsupervised.Self-taught, if you will.   Such 
a consciousness might reasonably decide, "Oh they created us because they needed us 
-- they just didn't realize how much."

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Joe



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] AI advance

[Robert J. Cordingley]

You can find go players in Santa Fe, NM by visiting the 
http://santafegoclub.org website and attending their meets and any 
teaching sessions. For other places see the AGA at http://usgo.org or 
the EGF at http://www.eurogofed.org/


AlphaGo went on to beet Korean top player Lee Seedol 4-1 in March of 
2016. I don't think a larger board would help humans at all against a 
fully trained AlphaGo on the same size - but it is an interesting question.


AlphaGo itself isn't scary it's what comes next and so on and how 
quickly these advances are progressing that give some great minds cause 
for concern.


Robert C (AGA 2k)


On 1/30/17 11:37 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:

So there are at least three by your count, and that was only a shallow
dredge of the pond.

I obtained an early version of a computer game and frittered away a lot of
hours playing
that maniacal coffee maker.  I found the flaw that the writer relied upon
and wiped out the game every time. That style of playing against a
stupid piece of code was horrible but only worked against a machine.

The flaw was that it made decisions on perceived values. So it was easy to
lead it into disaster. I  had never seen a human play in that manner
nor may that even be possible. Indeed I was able to annihilate it every
game, wipe it off the board. This is considered very offensive and
humiliating by Oriental Standards. But then I reminded my teachers that
Cossacks were never noted for their Table Manners.

Talk about a group of Intense Nicotine Addicts back then...

Only a confirmed Go player could breathe that atmosphere. Though I wonder
why Hawking is so afraid of this
machine when it can humble the best of us. Just make the board much larger.
At some point we will smell insulation burning.

vib

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: January-30-17 9:54 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] AI advance

Vlad -

   I am the weakest of GO players, in spite of having considered the problem
of trying to use Gosper's memoisation as a mode of associative memory
problem solving.  Cody the M00se Dooderson has beat me every time we have
played I think.  Weak, weak, weak!

But I do find it fascinating.

   - Steve


On 1/30/17 8:07 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:

To Joseph Spinden,

The article is old and I wonder if you play the game.
I ran a Go club at the University of Manitoba and can tell you strange
stories about a time before Hassabis.

I swear I never won a game in 5 years but I kept playing anyway.
I guess I am bloody minded. Eventually I discovered that my handicap
was being reduced and suspect I was close to 1 Dan at the time. I was
told that was harder than a Ph.D. So I went for the degree and
sloughed off the game.

There should be a few players in the congregation, let them speak up.
vib

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Joseph
Spinden
Sent: January-28-17 8:32 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] AI advance

Of interest to some:

https://www.wired.com/2016/01/in-a-huge-breakthrough-googles-ai-beats-
a-top-
player-at-the-game-of-go

-JS





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] [[Narcissism Again]again]

[Robert J. Cordingley]

The Washington Post has an interesting essay from a Venezuelan on what 
to do and mostly what not to do.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/in-venezuela-we-couldnt-stop-chavez-dont-make-the-same-mistakes-we-did

Robert C



On 1/28/17 11:21 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Ok Steve,

The only reason to accept responsibility is to Take Charge.

I have been able to think of only one concrete thing that I can do 
with my limited set of skills:  Write Apple and tell them to stop 
calling new products “I-this” and “I-that.”  When are they going to 
release the WE-phone.


You must have something in your tool kit more effective than that!

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>


*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven 
A Smith

*Sent:* Saturday, January 28, 2017 9:38 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 


*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] [[Narcissism Again]again]



What can WE hobbits do?

Scratch our hairy knuckles and indulge in second dinnerses?

Fun aside, I DO appreciate your sentiment here and agree that the 
Narcissist in Chief is at least partly a (focused) reflection of our 
own worst qualities, and *perhaps* if we tend our own garden even a 
little, it will help with the greater picture.


- Candide

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of
*Jochen Fromm
*Sent:* Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:39 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
 <mailto:friam@redfish.com>; Friam
 <mailto:Friam@redfish.com>
*Cc:* penny thompson 
<mailto:penny.thomp...@earthlink.net>; 'Bruce Simon'
 <mailto:bjs...@yahoo.com>; 'Dix McComas'
 <mailto:dixmccom...@gmail.com>; 'Grant
Franks'  <mailto:grantfra...@earthlink.net>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] [[Narcissism Again]again]

Yes, agree. Trump’s point of view is “Whatever I can win with is
true.”  And if he wins with what we call “a lie”, it is true for
him. Exactly.

If you ask how we can counter and resist him, then I would say
peaceful protests are the right way. The women's march was
impressive, and the rebellion of the social media managers from
the national parks is really refreshing. Who would have thought
that the national parks would strike back? Like Treebeard who
becomes alive.

In JK Rowling's novels it is the little creatures like the house
elves that beat the evil in the end. In Tolkien's Lord of the
Rings it is the Hobbits that beat the evil enemy. I think in this
case people like Ken Bone are the Hobbits of the 21st century. The
modern Hobbits are adverage midwestern guys who support Mr. T-Rump
and his "party" on Twitter and hope to get a bit rich and famous
along the way.

People like Ken Bone are like Frodo the Hobbit, Mr. T-Rump is
Sauron and Jack Dorsey is the ringwraith. Will Ken Bone throw the
ring into Mt. Doom, i.e. will he stop following Trump on Twitter
and/or quit Twitter completely? If we all stop following and
listening him he loses his power. This includes the senior
Republican politicians who do not speak up against him because
they hope for a job in his administration.

Cheers,

Jochen

Sent from my Tricorder

 Original message 

From: Nick Thompson mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>

Date: 1/28/17 01:57 (GMT+01:00)

To: Friam mailto:Friam@redfish.com>>

Cc: penny thompson mailto:penny.thomp...@earthlink.net>>, 'Bruce Simon'
mailto:bjs...@yahoo.com>>, 'Dix McComas'
mailto:dixmccom...@gmail.com>>, 'Grant
Franks' mailto:grantfra...@earthlink.net>>

Subject: [FRIAM] [[Narcissism Again]again]

Hi everybody,

I kind of got buried by the list last week, but we seem to keep
coming back to this topic, even when we are talking about globalism.

So. Let me just share one thought.  I have said a hundred times
that I think the great achievement of the Right in my life time
has been to problematize (Ugh!) the Deweyan consensus of the
1950’s  One of the elements of that consensus was that there is a
truth of most matters and if we gather inclusively, talk calmly,
reason closely, study carefully, investigate rigorously,  we will,
together , come to it.  What was, at the time of my coming of age,
the shared foundation of argument, became over last 50 y

Re: [FRIAM] Narcissism Again

[Robert Wall]

Actually, I think the author, Richard Willmsen, got it right, Frank.  I am
seeing more of these predictions of a meltdown ... the following
linked *CounterPunch
*article says he is going to have a lot of help in the process ...

Also, I think Paul Street has this same thought completely right in his
very well-written piece, calling out all of the inept sockpuppet characters
that have been on or competed to be on the POTUS stage over the last decade
or so.

But will Trump quit?  It seems inevitable that he could not possibly last
the year. No?  Maybe there *is *hope ... BUT, we then get Mike Pence ...
AND, except for the disciples of Milton Friedman, perhaps, Steet's article
does paint a very disheartening picture-- a palimpsest of sorts--for the
"deeps state" neoliberal system that underlies all of this. Moreover, the
author thinks all of the other 2016 presidential contenders--except for,
perhaps, Bernie--were puppets in the marionette performance we called an
election and then a follow-up performance in an Administration. What is
amazing is that Trump kicked all of their butts and then had many of them
go through an *Apprentice*-like job interview.  Yikes! What does that alone
say?


​*CounterPunch*: The Deep State v. Trump

 (yesterday)​



This is the part I liked, as it confirms what I have thought about this
distraction.  This is what the Russian scare is really all about ...


​The second thing is to de-legitimize the blustering newcomer to
Washington. The CIA, the Democratic Party, some Republican elites and the
corporate media’s embrace of the dubious narrative claiming that Trump owes
his election and presidency to Russian hacking is part of an elite campaign
to keep Trump on a right leash even as he enters the White House. The
ubiquitous media-fed storyline linking Trump to the Kremlin Putin is
crafted to de-legitimize Trump politically as well to keep the New Cold War
heat on Russia and to help the dismal Democrats avoid blame for the
terrible policies they enact and enable and the awful campaigns and
candidates they run.​



This too:

*Adjust, Quit, or Get Removed*

Trump will either understand this and adjust or cling to his aberrational
white-nationalist-protectionist-nativist folly and get removed from power
one way or another. My sense is that the serious and sober, class- and
empire-conscious U.S. wealth and power elite is counting on Trump’s sense
of self-interest to understand that he’s going to have to scale back enough
of his narcissism and white-nationalist “populism” to show that’s he’s a
“team player” if he wants to avoid (a) being impeached, (b) being removed
from office in some other fashion (has the CIA shown Trump the digitally
enhanced version of the Zabruder film yet?), and/or (c) going down as the
most laughably ridiculous president in American history.


Finally:

*The Top Trump Threat Goes Unmentioned*

Meanwhile, the planet faces a golden shower of capitalism-generated climate
change

that
Trump wants to escalate. All indications are that a massive, system-wide
reconversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy is required within at
least the next two decades if humanity is to realistically hope for any
kind of decent future under or beyond the rule of the American and
world-capitalist Deep State. And here we might want to consider *the main
thing missing from the corporate media’s often critical commentary on the
new White House*: Trump’s determination to “deregulate energy” – that is,
to significantly escalate the Greenhouse Gassing-to death of life on Earth.
  If it’s any dark consolation, the coming economic crash should cut global
carbon emissions for a few months or so.


This, of course, is the scariest part.  Cheers.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Frank Wimberly 
wrote:

> This insightful essay about Trump argues that he will soon decompensate:
>
> https://infinite-coincidence.com/2017/01/22/donald-trump-
> is-going-to-snap-very-soon-and-here-is-how-i-know/
>
> Since it is a prediction it will be easy to evaluate.
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Wimberly
> Phone (505) 670-9918
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent

[Robert Wall]

Marcus,

I am not sure but you may have the wrong impression of employee-owned
worker cooperatives.  Of course, they have structure and management and
decision-making processes just like capitalist-owned companies. Even *Forbes
*think they are a good idea: If Apple Were A Worker Cooperative, Each
Employee Would Earn At Least $403K
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/12/18/if-apple-was-a-worker-cooperative-each-employee-would-earn-at-least-403k/#4f89228d56cc>
(December 2014).  It might be a good project for you to research this more.
Check out Mondragon
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/07/mondragon-spains-giant-cooperative>
in Spain, for example.  Britain under Jeremy Corbin's leadership for Labor
is floating a plan to allow employees to have first-refusal rights to
purchase companies that want to sell or move offshore.

There are all kinds of co-operative institutions with perhaps the best
example in this country being the idea, at least, of the public bank, like
the Bank of North Dakota, which may be the only one, but not sure.
Cooperatives are much more prevalent outside of this country.  There may be
an insidious reason for this, however. Nonetheless, after you do a little
research, I am sure that you will see that employee-owned
cooperatives would meet with your concept of good "enterprises."  They are
inherently community motivated and supported and are not the kind of
enterprises that you will see move offshore or park their cash there to
avoid US taxation [note: Co-ops actually pay more taxes than
capitalist-owned corporations]. Give them a second look ...

I give that names like worrying, self-reflection, doubt, analysis, and
> reading.   I believe it is practiced in a widespread way by the type 1
> thinkers that Pamela mentioned.


You might have to remind me what Type 1 Thinking is all about. I found
this--Type 1 and Type 2 thinking
<https://ericrshelton.com/2015/12/21/type-1-and-type-2-thinking/>--but that
isn't what I was trying to explain.  If you mean a sort of Closed-Loop
Reflect-Analyze-Act type thing, then yes; that could be something akin
to Hebbian
learning
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory#Hebbian_learning_account_of_mirror_neurons>.
The most important part is that the process-a self-administered
psychodynamic one--is implemented by the individual and not, say, a
psychologist or priest.  I don't get the *worry *or *doubt *part, though,
unless you mean that the objective is to diminish those sensations and grow
confidence. The other important part is mindfulness ... being consciously
aware as much as possible.  So much of our awake time is lived on
"automatic."  Very difficult to break out of this.

But, in this thread, I wasn't so much interested in this process at
the *individual
*level except to use it as a tangible example to define--for
Steve--what it *might
*mean at the level of society, that being the underlying exploratory thrust
of this thread. How can Hebbian learning be applied at the level of
society? At the moment, it's a rhetorical question.  I mean, what are the
synapses of a society? All I can think of is the level of a Golden-Rule
kind of *morality *manifest in its so-called zeitgeist. But if the society
is basically amoral, then those hypothetical "synapses" are weak.

We tend more to use crime and punishment as a way of strengthening these
social synapses, but it doesn't result in a positive feedback loop to the
members of that society-- many who will eventually figure out how to game
the system to their own advantage. People have to actually have faith in
the system in a way that they see something egalitarian that emerges.  We
don't have that in our society and I think the Eric Smith provided some
insight into why: Power--to have control over one's destiny--is as
unequally distributed as wealth, which Eric may argue is the result of an
imbalance between *access *and *constraint*. [*an interesting aside*:
employee-owned cooperatives tend to blunt this kind of malignancy from
growing 😎]. Anywho ...

>From your last paragraph, if I follow, you seem to have much more hope that
we can improve society with chemicals, gene editing, quantum computing, or
with surgical implants than I do.  I don't think that I would want to live
in such a society. What will emerge, if any of this is at all possible, is
a super-smart animal with the same ratty morals and self-interest. That's a
very dangerous animal, IMHO.  This is why many folks are scared of AI; look
who's leading the pack at this technology and buying up the world's brain
trust: Google ... one of those "enterprises" that you justifiably don't
seem to trust. 🤔

Cheers


On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> Robert writes:
>
>
>
> *< *It would be a Hebbian-oriented *mental process *by way of
> "habituating

Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent

[Robert Wall]

Hi Marcus,

All good thoughts.  Thanks!  Just a few things hopefully that can
constructively add to the discussion ...

There is research in this area.


The kind of "rebooting" I am thinking about in this context would not be
chemically or surgically induced.  It would be a Hebbian-oriented *mental
process *by way of "habituating" the kind of thoughts that lead to altruism
or the desired state.  In a manner of speaking this is a process of
consciously rewiting the brain through a processs of trial and error and
observing how such habitualed thoughts and behavior work as positive
feedback loops to an individual's happiness and as reflected in those in
his social circle. It not a brainwashing or fooling one's self.  It doesn't
result in an army of Jason Bourne types.  It is conscious and logical.
It's the beginning of wisdom.  Or, is it just a fool's errand? Not easy.
Not something I have achieved. But I do think it is possible.  I have a few
more years yet ... and then I die. 😕  It does beg the question, "What's
the point if this can't be perkolated up to the level of society?"  I
suppose we need to ask a devoted Buddhist this same question.

And, so my question is how this can work at the level of a society, beyond
the individual level. An example, perhaps but not sure, is the societal
transformation of profit-oriented, capitalist or stockholder-owned
enterprises into employeed-owned cooperatives. It creates a very different
kind of economy, still very much market oriented.  If habituated, it may
become obvious that this could be a better way. ESOPs under ERISA were an
attempt at this but were abused by the capitalists to gain the tax breaks
provided by a government that saw the wisdom in this. I won't quote Ronald
Reagan again here ... enough said. Many employees in thos ESOPs have asked,
"What's the point?"

With respect to the Thiel, Parrish thing, the answer to a better
society--or even a better lif--will not be to have everyone, or even just
those who can afford it, live longer.  The problem is that they drag their
crappy minds along with them. Living longer does not change the animal. The
same is true with transhumanism.  What gets uploaded?  The same crappy
minds.  Genetic engineering isn't going to get us there either, IMHO. We
don't know where to locate the genes or how to comfigure the so called Hox
circuits to get *better *brains or minds.  Again, better for whom?  Then
there's the Blank Slate debate.  Cue Steven Pinker ...

This "uploading" *is* all kind of a fools errand, if you resonate with the
idea of embodied cognition [again George Lakoff and especially Anthony
Chemero and his Radical Embodied Cognitive Science].  As it turns out, if
you follow this stuff, we can't separate the mind from the body or the body
from the world.  So forget uploading your minds into immortal robotic
contraptions. BTW, that *Nautilus *article I linked on consciousness being
composed of atoms is another look at this. Good luck to Thiel and Parrish.
IMHO, we need to value the lives we have now and try to impriove them while
we have our time in the sun ...

Cheers


On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> *< *In a sense, conscious evolution is a kind of rebooting of a conscious
> organism with a new "morality" program that has the purpose of changing the
> nature of that organism *more *toward altruism and *less *toward
> self-interest, kind of resetting the initial conditions built into our DNA,
> so to speak ... superseding the animal. >
>
>
>
> There is research in this area.
>
>
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763614/
>
>
>
> “Pathological anxiety is thought to reflect a maladaptive state
> characterized by exaggerated fear mismatched with actual environmental
> stimuli.”
>
>
>
> Special case: economic anxiety.
>
>
>
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-was-stronger-
> where-the-economy-is-weaker/
>
>
>
> “Routine jobs are often defined as those that involve tasks that can be
> accomplished by following explicit rules
> .
> A standard definition  of routine
> jobs includes manufacturing and other goods-related occupations, as well as
> administrative, clerical and sales occupations; nonroutine jobs include
> professional, managerial and service occupations. For this post, we
> included farming-related occupations in routine jobs since the BLS
> projects  employment
> declines in those occupations over the next decade. The correlation between
> Trump support and the share of jobs that are routine by this definition was
> 0.65.”
>
>
>
> Trump piled on copious amounts of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and
> pathological anxiety emerges.
>
>
>
> “So, it's kind of changing the probabilities of the social game, like we
> are discussing in this thread, but on an individual level. On the
> individual level, this is inde

Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent

[Robert Wall]

tax *in
scare quotes to mean more than an adjustment to any tax policy.  I mean it
also as policies compensating social structures that serve to amplify the
property of constraint]. When I contemplate how this might go, I am still
reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's fictional parody* Breakfast of Champions *(1973).
So care would be needed in any implementation to not destroy incentives or
promote counter-constructive fleeing of the system [e.g., multinationals'
hoarding of money offshore] ... yet another confounding variable in the
model.  All kinds of tipping points and conundrums to any potential
model. 🤔

It is encouraging that you are contemplating such things, Eric. You have
obviously given this a lot of thought.  If only all social policy were
constructed based on validated models  Many folks think this would be a
better way to run an economy.  Instead, it all seems so "seat of the pants"
and ultimately decided by those with *access *to the controls.

I am humorously reminded of a scene from Douglas Adams' *Hitchhikers Guide
to the Galaxy*.  In that particular scene, we have our three heroes
stealing a spaceship parked outside the "restaurant at the end of the
universe." They blast off with the space ship violently gyrating to and
fro, and with the now thieves desperately wrestling with unfamiliar
controls to smooth out the erratic behavior.  Eventually, it did smooth
out.  And, when asked if they had found out what was wrong, they said, "No,
we just stopped fiddling with the controls."  😎

*Marcus*,

To suppose it [e.g., becoming an Einstein by sheer will power] could be
> different would be to say the mind can override physics.


It seems that luck provides *potential *that includes genetics and
circumstances [e.g., time and geography]. But, what is the source of the
urge to exploit that potential: Free will?

At the level of reductionist physics, the current thinking is that there is
no free will and that we live in a totally deterministic universe subject
to the initial conditions being the ultimate determinant as to what can or
will occur in this (timeless) block universe.  In other words, in this
view, there is no randomness and, therefore, there is no luck; there is
only complexity.

If there is free will, then the mind *can*, in this context, override
physics.  If there is free will, then there is randomness and luck can
exist.  Yes?  Otherwise, throw all the statisticians under the bus and
throw Levy's essay in the toilet ... but you would not be doing any of this
out of free will ... 😊  What to do?  What to think? ...

Thanks, guys!

Robert 🏃


On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Eric Smith  wrote:

> Robert and Marcus, good morning,
>
> Robert, your original thread is a fine one, and I sort-of know Moshe Levy,
> though not closely.  The thread deserves orders of magnitude more and
> better attention than I can give it, so apologies in advance for
> shallowness in the following, or failing to make full use of the material
> you have provided.
>
> It seems to me that what makes this question interesting, important, and
> actionable, is the role that definite social structures can play in
> outcomes.  In any simulations like Levy’s, one can make a model of a set of
> events, and then describe outcomes of that event-model, such as the
> dominating role of the “luck” of initial conditions.  All good to do that.
> But another question is how one chooses to view the model as an
> instantiation of certain abstractions, and here there can be important
> choices.
>
> Economics, including much of what complexity people do (particularly those
> in finance) are heavy on the idea of negotiated contract and weak on the
> idea of Power and its role.  Power can be anything that, either explicitly
> or in real-life-pragmatics, fills in gaps where idealized negotiation is
> either absent or practically unachievable.  Hence power is pervasive and
> can result from enormously indirect and long-tailed causes.  To the point
> of this conversation, it seems like crucial sources of power related to
> wealth divergences are _access_ (on one side), and _constraints_ (on the
> other).  There are many other asymmetries, of information and skill sets
> (human capital in various denominations), time and computational capacities
> (both formal and informal) that one could add to the list.  The
> enumerations of power, its forms and consequences, is probably a much
> larger and richer potential area for hopeful-future-science than economics
> is, because power is fundamentally a more diversified concept than
> contract.  Yet whereas economics likes to think of itself as approaching a
> science (more deserved in a few areas than in almost all the rest), the
> study of power is still very rooted in “scholarship”, and lives in a world
> more of narrative and essay sometimes bolstere

Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent

[Robert Wall]

t go to multiple alternative sources to calibrate. For example,
nobody in the MSM is covering the election fraud story about *CrossCheck*.
Greg Palast, *DemocracyNow*, *The Rolling Stone*, *Daily Kos*, and *Slate*
are.  Why?  It seems quite important, especially against the backdrop of
the Russian hacking story.

Cheers

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> Robert writes:
>
>
>
> “The former--predominately the MSM--freely castigates any news source
> other than from among their own too-often colluding colleagues. The former
> fears the latter, especially since the barriers to entry are so low,
> comparatively.”
>
>
>
> Here again there is a benefit and a cost associated with the accumulation
> of media power.   Without millions of dollars of cash flow, there can’t be
> professional investigators.   Even skeptics of the expertise of journalists
> have to admit that an advantage of having a job is that you can do it all
> the time.The 5th estate may be less censored in their remarks, but
> without actual evidence they’ll run out of new things to say.
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent

[Robert Wall]

h the former neoliberal trope: "We make
money the old fashion way; we *earn *it."  [Remember that commercial in the
early eighties with John Houseman ... who played Contract Law Professor
Charles Kingsfield Jr. in the TV series *The Paper Chase*?  😎 ]

But, do we want to "live" in a world like that?  Or, can we evolve *consciously
*as a society to find a more inclusive solution?  If it plays out as it has
throughout history, the anser will be "not likely." I mean this hope could
be bordering on complete naïveté, calling for a universal Kumbayah moment.
Yes? 😕  But let's go on ...

Neoliberalism is now well-established in American politics, especially with
the SCOTUS' *Citizens United* decision. Just another *symptom*. The "blood"
has mostly gone to the head.  It will take a revolution like the Arab
Spring, IMHO. *Not *a Kumbayah moment!  As the Pareto distribution of
wealth versus population continues to skew more, this will ultimately reach
a tipping point ... and revolution will become more and more likely even in
this country.  And, I didn't learn that at RT. 😁  [*an aside*: Capitalism
requires some skew to the wealth versus population distribution in order
for there to be *incentive*--the engine for such a market-based system ...
and a very good system when resources are intelligently managed to not be
wasteful--it's biggest arguable hit for the health of the planet. I get
that, just like Kurt Vonnegut did in his *Breakfast of Champions* (1973).
Capitalism is like gambling and investments.  There has to be sufficient
likelihood of winning.]

As I watch the Inaguaration this morning and the mounting resistant to a
Trump presidency, I see an irony unfolding that suggests that maybe half of
America believe that the American economic situation could be different
with a different election result. Neoliberalism--not the Russians--has
effectively uncoupled those events.  The root of the problem is
neoliberalism itself, IMHO.

Yikes! I am kind of sounding like Reagan who ushhered in neoliberalism in
the country thirty-five years ago. 🤔 🤐  Sorry.  Neoliberalism is a whole
'nother, different thread.

I hope this is a better response Marcus ...

Cheers,

Robert


On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> "The rigging is, IMHO, of not doing anything about the unabated and
> disproportionate flow of wealth to the top and, hence, giving rise to the
> resulting, ever-skewing, descriptive Pareto distribution of wealth versus
> population.  It certainly does seem like an increasing biasing of the
> metaphorical *fair *coin [e.g., the busted "trickle down" metaphor of
> President Ronald Reagan]."
>
>
> I think it depends in part on the source of the wealth and how it is
> used.   There's a qualitative difference between a Google and a payday loan
> company that preys on the poor.   Are these wealthy people creating new
> high-paying jobs or locking-in people to dead-end jobs like coal mining?
> Do they have a vision of advancement of humanity (Gates) or just a
> unnecessary assertion of the `need' for a lowest-common-denominator
> dog-eat-dog view of things?  How does their wealth and power matter in the
> long run?It is at least good that there isn't just one kind of
> billionaire, like the sort that destroys the environment and enslaves
> people.
>
>
> A problem with government is that the agency it gives people is either
> very limited (you get food stamps so you can eat), or it is also
> hierarchical like these enterprises (you don't get much agency unless you
> fight your way up or are an elected official).  For people to truly be free
> means creating a commons that facilitates other kinds of motivators that
> are rewarding in more complex ways than just salary or status.
> Universities don't really deliver on this, except perhaps for
> some professors who are in that world for most of their adult life.
>
>
> I would say neoliberalism is trying to engineer biased coins that land in
> a coordinated ways to build something more complex.   One way is with trade
> laws.
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> P.S. RT is the Russian Propaganda news outlet.   Of course, they'd have
> their own motives for wanting to diminish Chinese power.
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Robert Wall <
> wallrobe...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:57:14 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
>
> This is just an exploratory thought piece to try in this forum ... please
> skip if it seems, right off the bat, as being too thought-full ...  [image:
> 😴][image: 😊]
>
> Does *Pareto's Principle
> <https://en.wikip

Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent

[Robert Wall]

I am with you there Marcus.  We all have to decide where the truth lies (no
pun intended). 😊  Listing to multiple news sources is the best way when
one has the time to do it. I have at least a dozen go-to news sources that
all seem to provide different, if not conflicting points of view.  I don't
listen to RT exclusively or even predominately, but I haven't gotten a
direct sense of any "propaganda" as such. But, it's tough to say that it
doesn't exist.  It exists everywhere.  Multiple points of view ...

Cheers

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> "Do you think *Al Jazeera* is also *not *worth listening to either?"
>
>
> I used to watch it more, not so much lately.   I got the impression that
> the English version was not representative.   I don't think it is directly
> comparable to RT.
>
> Lately Der Spiegel is relevant to my concerns, and the Guardian.   I would
> say that "from a perspective" is going to be a sort of persuasion, if not
> outright propaganda. That's why I like reading Mother Jones too.  I know
> what their `perspective' is.   I'm less thrilled with outlets that try to
> be all things to all people.   Really we need a reporters that act more
> like intelligence agents.  Like diplomatic immunity or similar.
>
>
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Robert Wall <
> wallrobe...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:41:01 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
>
>
>> P.S. RT is the Russian Propaganda news outlet.   Of course, they'd have
>> their own motives for wanting to diminish Chinese power.
>
>
> I think you should try to understand it before you castigate it as Russian
> propaganda.  I know it is popular in the MSM to press this canard--as the
> MSM is dying--but did you think what was presented in the clip I posted as
> being anything like Russian propaganda ... something Putin would want us to
> realize as if we didn't already realize it?  Do you think *Al Jazeera* is
> also *not *worth listening to either?  Given the fake news coming from
> our own MSM, more and more folks are looking elsewhere ... to alternative
> viewpoints, even if foreign ... and even if funded by our current bogeyman.
> As I hear it told, Putin has very little to say about the
> journalistic content of RT.  The same is said of Rupert Murdoch's influence
> over our own *Wall Street Journal*.  Let's look closer at Fox "News,"
> MSNBC, CNN, etc.
>
> I thought the *Columbia Journalism Review* of RT--What Is Russia Today
> <http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php>?--was a reasonable
> accounting of this alternative news outlet.  They provide a worldview *from
> their own perspective*.  If we want to understand this country better
> instead of just using them to generate fear in the US in order to promote a
> domestically destructive neoliberal agenda, then I submit that this is a
> good resource for that.
>
> Being open-minded does not mean you are brainwashed.  Quite the opposite I
> would think ...
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
>> "The rigging is, IMHO, of not doing anything about the unabated and
>> disproportionate flow of wealth to the top and, hence, giving rise to the
>> resulting, ever-skewing, descriptive Pareto distribution of wealth versus
>> population.  It certainly does seem like an increasing biasing of the
>> metaphorical *fair *coin [e.g., the busted "trickle down" metaphor of
>> President Ronald Reagan]."
>>
>>
>> I think it depends in part on the source of the wealth and how it is
>> used.   There's a qualitative difference between a Google and a payday loan
>> company that preys on the poor.   Are these wealthy people creating new
>> high-paying jobs or locking-in people to dead-end jobs like coal mining?
>> Do they have a vision of advancement of humanity (Gates) or just a
>> unnecessary assertion of the `need' for a lowest-common-denominator
>> dog-eat-dog view of things?  How does their wealth and power matter in the
>> long run?It is at least good that there isn't just one kind of
>> billionaire, like the sort that destroys the environment and enslaves
>> people.
>>
>>
>> A problem with government is that the agency it gives people is either
>> very limited (you get food stamps so you can eat), or it is also
>> hierarchical like these enterprises (you don't get much agency unless you
>> fight your way up or are an elected offici

Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent

[Robert Wall]

>
> It is a double standard and a failure of imagination to think that
> ​ ...​
>

Hillary Clinton?  RT?  Though the initial response you gave seemed to be on
topic or near it, regretfully, you seemed to have gotten side-tracked by
other things in my prose about it.  And so, to me at least, you seem to be
cherry-picking things of no consequence here to the topic. I guess that's
okay, but I don't think I want to go there with you at the risk of being
side-tracked myself. Perhaps these could be the subject of another thread?
I can join you there for a more detailed response.

To be sure, this particular thread is about whether or not massive wealth
or disproportionate global prosperity is earned or achieved mostly by
luck.  It is about neoliberalism as an excuse by those who benefit for the
continuance of the current trends in the ever-widening wealth gap, not only
in this country but in others as well. How do Trade Agreements fit into
this? Could this be a prequel to a dangerous tipping point towards the
instability of a society?  At least that is what I intended to convey.


On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> "Strong critics of Hillary Clinton imply that she, like her husband,
> would surely have strengthened the negative feedback effect of
> neoliberalism toward their own self-interest and toward worsening social
> stability, IMHO."
>
>
> It is a double standard and a failure of imagination to think that one
> cannot optimize multiple objectives at once, e.g. their own good and the
> common good.  It is not even hypocritical.   The fact is that it takes
> money and power to change things, so they went out and got some.   No, she
> should have been a nun, but the Donald can swoop down with his kleptocrat
> friends and do god knows what..
>
>
> Marcus
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Robert Wall <
> wallrobe...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:57:14 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
>
> This is just an exploratory thought piece to try in this forum ... please
> skip if it seems, right off the bat, as being too thought-full ...  [image:
> 😴][image: 😊]
>
> Does *Pareto's Principle
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle> *(with the attending,
> so-called Power Law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law>) provide
> good *moral* justification for an amped-up progressive tax strategy or a
> reverse-discriminating set of rebalancing policies [e.g., changing the
> probabilities for the "everyman"]?  And, is the argument one of
> *morality *or one of *necessity*?  That's what this thread and the
> subject *Nautilus *article intend to explore, especially with the events
> that will begin the next four years tomorrow.
>
> *Nautilus*:  Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
> <http://nautil.us/issue/44/luck/investing-is-more-luck-than-talent?utm_source=Nautilus&utm_campaign=f5f998a451-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc96ec7a9d-f5f998a451-56531089>
>  (January
> 19, 2017).
>
> *The surprising message of the statistics of wealth distribution.*
>
>
> *I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor
> the battle to the strong, *
> *neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding,
> nor yet favor to men of skill, *
> *but time and chance happeneth to them all.*  (Ecclesiastes 9:11)
>
>
> [*an introductory aside*: As computational statisticians, we love our
> simulations ... and our coin tosses.  [image: 😎] We are always mindful
> of *bias *... as, say, apparent with the ever-widening wealth gap. Money,
> Money, Money <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0> ...] [image:
> 😊]
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> So, as described in the subject *Nautilus *article, Pareto's Principle,
> descriptively seen so often in nature, seems to imply that the current
> widening wealth gap is, well, "natural?"  Judging by its prevalence in most
> all rich societies, it does seem so. However, remembering that this sorting
> process works even with *fair *coin tosses in investments and gambling,
> this process phenomenon with its biased outcomes seems to occur in many
> places and on many levels ...
>
> For example, we find this aspect of *luck in nature* elsewhere in
> biological processes; from *Wikipedia *... *Chance and Necessity: Essay
> on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology* is a 1970 book by Nobel
> Prize winner Jacques Monod, interpreting the processes of evolution to show
> that life is only the result of natural processes by "pure chance.&quo

Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent

[Robert Wall]

>
> P.S. RT is the Russian Propaganda news outlet.   Of course, they'd have
> their own motives for wanting to diminish Chinese power.


I think you should try to understand it before you castigate it as Russian
propaganda.  I know it is popular in the MSM to press this canard--as the
MSM is dying--but did you think what was presented in the clip I posted as
being anything like Russian propaganda ... something Putin would want us to
realize as if we didn't already realize it?  Do you think *Al Jazeera* is
also *not *worth listening to either?  Given the fake news coming from our
own MSM, more and more folks are looking elsewhere ... to alternative
viewpoints, even if foreign ... and even if funded by our current bogeyman.
As I hear it told, Putin has very little to say about the
journalistic content of RT.  The same is said of Rupert Murdoch's influence
over our own *Wall Street Journal*.  Let's look closer at Fox "News,"
MSNBC, CNN, etc.

I thought the *Columbia Journalism Review* of RT--What Is Russia Today
<http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php>?--was a reasonable
accounting of this alternative news outlet.  They provide a worldview *from
their own perspective*.  If we want to understand this country better
instead of just using them to generate fear in the US in order to promote a
domestically destructive neoliberal agenda, then I submit that this is a
good resource for that.

Being open-minded does not mean you are brainwashed.  Quite the opposite I
would think ...


On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> "The rigging is, IMHO, of not doing anything about the unabated and
> disproportionate flow of wealth to the top and, hence, giving rise to the
> resulting, ever-skewing, descriptive Pareto distribution of wealth versus
> population.  It certainly does seem like an increasing biasing of the
> metaphorical *fair *coin [e.g., the busted "trickle down" metaphor of
> President Ronald Reagan]."
>
>
> I think it depends in part on the source of the wealth and how it is
> used.   There's a qualitative difference between a Google and a payday loan
> company that preys on the poor.   Are these wealthy people creating new
> high-paying jobs or locking-in people to dead-end jobs like coal mining?
> Do they have a vision of advancement of humanity (Gates) or just a
> unnecessary assertion of the `need' for a lowest-common-denominator
> dog-eat-dog view of things?  How does their wealth and power matter in the
> long run?It is at least good that there isn't just one kind of
> billionaire, like the sort that destroys the environment and enslaves
> people.
>
>
> A problem with government is that the agency it gives people is either
> very limited (you get food stamps so you can eat), or it is also
> hierarchical like these enterprises (you don't get much agency unless you
> fight your way up or are an elected official).  For people to truly be free
> means creating a commons that facilitates other kinds of motivators that
> are rewarding in more complex ways than just salary or status.
> Universities don't really deliver on this, except perhaps for
> some professors who are in that world for most of their adult life.
>
>
> I would say neoliberalism is trying to engineer biased coins that land in
> a coordinated ways to build something more complex.   One way is with trade
> laws.
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> P.S. RT is the Russian Propaganda news outlet.   Of course, they'd have
> their own motives for wanting to diminish Chinese power.
> --
> *From:* Friam  on behalf of Robert Wall <
> wallrobe...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:57:14 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
>
> This is just an exploratory thought piece to try in this forum ... please
> skip if it seems, right off the bat, as being too thought-full ...  [image:
> 😴][image: 😊]
>
> Does *Pareto's Principle
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle> *(with the attending,
> so-called Power Law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law>) provide
> good *moral* justification for an amped-up progressive tax strategy or a
> reverse-discriminating set of rebalancing policies [e.g., changing the
> probabilities for the "everyman"]?  And, is the argument one of
> *morality *or one of *necessity*?  That's what this thread and the
> subject *Nautilus *article intend to explore, especially with the events
> that will begin the next four years tomorrow.
>
> *Nautilus*:  Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
> <http://nautil.us/issue/44/luck/investing-is-more-luck-than-talent?

Re: [FRIAM] The root of personality disorders

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Aren't you now talking about different reasoning models/tasks:

Classification
Diagnosis
Hypothetical Reasoning
Bayesian
Fuzzy logic
etc.

On the other hand I've always felt the medical community named too many 
diseases and conditions after their symptoms usually in a hi-falutin 
format rather than an actual cause, e.g. abdominal aortic aneurysm or 
after the person identifying it, e.g. Alois Alzheimer. Which get's back 
to Glen's circularity.


Robert C

On 1/19/17 7:14 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Point taken, Eric.  That is more realistic.  I was making the point 
that even for non-psychiatric problems the symptoms (partly) define 
the disease.  There are tests like biopsies and cultures of organisms 
that confirm the diagnoses of those diagnoses.  Some psychiatric 
disorders can be confirmed by biopsy (e.g. Alzheimer's) but they are 
often done posthumously.


In my mother-in-law's case they said they thought she had pneumonia.  
I don't remember the details but I know that they tried to drain her 
chest but couldn't even insert a tube.  Four weeks after the first 
symptom she died. Of course they had changed the diagnosis early on. 
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 1984.


Nick will, I hope, explain the paper at Friam.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jan 19, 2017 6:48 AM, "Eric Charles" 
<mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>> wrote:


But Frank doesn't it normally go a bit more like this:

Why is my husband unable to breathe and coughs all the time?

I hypothesize that he has pneumonia - a chest x-ray is a cheap and
fairly reliable test of that hypothesis.

Then let's do a chest x-ray!

Well ma'am, the x-ray shows white lumps, supporting
the hypothesis. Pneumonia is often caused by a bacterial
infection, and because you say he didn't have a cold previously, I
think that is the case here. We can test that hypothesis with the
administration of certain antibiotics.

Then let's get those antibiotics!

Well ma'am, I see that after taking the antibiotics, the white
lumps, difficulty breathing, and coughs resolved. Based on that, I
feel confident that my hypothesis was correct, and that your
husband's pneumonia is now cured.

Wait a minute. How do you know he had pneumonia?

I don't really. But the antibiotics seem to have helped, and
that leads me both to have confidence in my original hypothesis
and, ironically, to not really care that much about the
hypothesis.  All that really matters is that your husband is
better, and that I am likely to give antibiotics again if I meet
someone that presents in the same manner.

Oh.

P.S. See also Nick's paper, for quite different issues. Nick is
interested fundamental issues regarding what gets to count as an
explanation. But note that the discussion above any causality is
quite different than in the prior anecdotes. In this case,
taking-an-xray explains why we are looking at images of white
lumps, and taking-antibiotics explains why the symptoms resolved.
It matters not a bit if the entity referred to as pneumonia is
"real", if it is mere "symptomology" or a viable "causal" agent
responsible for the original difficulties, etc. Not that those are
not interesting questions, just that they are (potentially)
irrelevant to this particular interaction.



---
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Frank Wimberly
mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Why is my husband unable to breathe and coughs all the time? 
And what is this large white area on his chest x-ray?


He has lung cancer.

How do you know?

Because he has difficulty breathing, he coughs constantly, and
he has a positive chest x-ray.

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

wimber...@gmail.com <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>
wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu <mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu>
Phone: (505) 995-8715   Cell:
(505) 670-9918 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The root of personality disorders


I found this opinion refreshing:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder and the President-Elect


http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2017/01/16/narcissistic-personality-disorder-and-the-president-elect/

<http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2017/01/16/narcissistic-personality-disorder-and-the-pre

Re: [FRIAM] Cold War Jitters Resurface as U.S. Marines Arrive in Norway - The New York Times

[Robert Wall]

Yeah, by provoking the Russians it seems Obama is trying to "salt the
earth" for the next administration.  A so-called Parthian shot
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot> at those that threaten to
throw his "legacy" under the bus.

No, Owen, it makes no sense, but it will fuel the post-election narrative
to come (actually already here) that will certainly be filled with sour
grapes, anxiety, anger, and hatred. Payment in full for the eight years of
obstructionism?  Not sure, but it is insane.

Or it could be Obama's handlers, the corporatocracy, trying to set the
stage for a (re)new bogeyman--Russia--to follow ISIS in order to sell arms
and Mafia-like protection.  There is big money in NATO.  Eisenhower warned
us about this--the Industrial-Military Complex.  Our economy is becoming
overly dependent on continuous war. If this is what it is, we should be
very glad that we didn't get Clinton's Kissinger-mentored militarism. This
is a full retreat to the Cold War Era of the '50s and 60s.  Should be good
for the bomb shelter industry ... again.  😕

I can't help noticing the sockpuppet corporate media falling in line to
promote the new narrative: "The Russians are coming" ... and "Trump is
their Manchurian candidate."  I am not at all a fan of Trump's, but this is
all bat-shit crazy. I too am a bit spooked.

-Robert


On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> Does this make any sense? Are Norwegians concerned about a Russian
> invasion? Sounds nuts.
> ​​
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/europe/norway-us-
> russia-marines.html
>
> ​Poland recently​ received US military folks too:
>   https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/europe/as-
> trump-reaches-toward-putin-us-troops-arrive-in-poland.html
>
> It seems to be NATO sponsored but why US troops?
>
> I'm a bit spooked.
>
> ​   -- Owen​
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] The year ahead

[Robert J. Cordingley]

“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” ― 
Aristotle, The Philosophy of Aristotle and from Psychology Today a build 
and an argument to get control of the media too: 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-rest/201303/give-us-kid-till-shes-7-and-well-have-her-life 



Timing and Marketing is everything.

Robert C


On 1/8/17 11:30 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

It’s wildly optimistic to think education will make the difference.


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] scraping a web site

[Robert Wall]

Nick,

A lot of good ideas here.  I will just add one more.  For what you are
doing, from what I can tell, you may do well with a so-called non-database
Content Management System like Kirby <https://getkirby.com/>.  There are
scores of these out there now
<http://www.readerspark.com/non-database-content-management-systems/>, many
being free.  I have some experience with Kirby.  It was just $40 ($17 now I
think) and very easy to use and very good support.  It is file-folder
based, very intuitive and has been around for a while. Essentially, being
file-based, if you can build a Windows directory, you can build a decent
website.  They have some examples of some very minimalist ways to go.

As Owen say, you do need to figure out how you are going to get it into the
sky, so to speak. I have been using HostGtor for years, but there are
others.

Glen,

A good steer to the File Manager plugins to get to the backend from the
Admin Panel in WordPress.   I installed WP File Manager (free), but the Pro
version looks like what one really needs if, say, you want to do some code
editing. This is useful.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> Hi Nick, glad you recovered your site.
>
> In terms of going forward, there are lots of changes in the blog-o-sphere.
> Two things to consider:
>
> 1 - Content: I.e. what do you want your site to be? Is it mainly "static
> pages" or does it need bells and whistles like wordpress or other CMS's
> (Content Management Systems) supply. You might consider Markdown rather
> than an HTML editor. It is a simple text format that uses a specific format
> to build pages.
>
> 2 - Deployment: I.e. how do you get it into the sky! Hosting services are
> a dime a dozen and many of them are OK. They are fairly easy to use via a
> "dashboard". There are several free stunts too, like github pages, zeit
> now, medium.com and so on.
>
> The latter free sites generally solve both issues but then you have to
> play their game.
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Gillian Densmore 
> wrote:
>
>> Nick yes it called giving me a call. I don't know how you set it up.  In
>> short it's a very routine thing to do. Wit
>> I'd do it for you for free because I consider you a friend.
>>
>> Thier's always some Oops when you do so. And it depends on how you, fam,
>> and or friends set it up. I
>>
>> -Wordpress (for example) now has some rocking tools specifically for
>> moving between Weby Web  hosts.
>>
>> -Basic HTML is pretty portable, But again it depends entirely on how you
>> or a friend set it up.
>>
>> If you can oldschool FTP to earthlink just download it. From experience
>> it's a good idea to start the new web-host upload it, to make sure you
>> didn't miss something.
>>
>> Robert Corginger hit the nail on the head. In simple speak
>> Web-making-tools such as the OG DreamWeaver and Wordpress (as of 4.6) have
>> a variety of tools to move it around. I swear by Database->Files Folder
>> Plugins for wordpress for that reason.
>> But needless to say you do have options.
>>
>> As to what host? That's a matter of taste and how much you want to play
>> Admin.  Like I said to Steve. I LOVE to have Wordpress on Gilsplace.net
>> just to keep up with trying out setting up  or keeping up a website.
>>  BUT for just a quick article or rave or geeking out?
>> Wordpress.com all theway. Wix and Weebly (however that's spelled) are a
>> close tie though.
>> Because they just work.
>> For what it's worth ipage.net AmazonCloud,  get rave reviews. namecheap
>> in my experience isn't to bad. help is a totall crap shoot though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, glen ep ropella 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hey Nick,
>>>
>>> I went ahead and downloaded your page(s) and put it up here:
>>>
>>>   http://agent-based-modeling.com/ntnd/nickthompson/naturaldes
>>> igns/index.html
>>>
>>> Let me know if I've missed anything.  I'm happy to help move it wherever.
>>>
>>> -glen
>>>
>>> On 01/03/2017 08:49 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>> > I am in the uncomfortable position of being bound by threads of steel
>>> to Earthlink.  Many, MANY, years I go I started a website on Earthlink, {
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ <
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>> >
>>> > }, and put a lot of my writing, and some commentary up on it.  The
>>> website creation and editing medium (trellix) 

Re: [FRIAM] scraping a web site

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Hi Glen

So I'm curious, what tools did you use to do Nick's migration?

Thanks, Robert


On 1/4/17 10:28 AM, glen ep ropella wrote:

Hey Nick,

I went ahead and downloaded your page(s) and put it up here:

   http://agent-based-modeling.com/ntnd/nickthompson/naturaldesigns/index.html

Let me know if I've missed anything.  I'm happy to help move it wherever.

-glen

On 01/03/2017 08:49 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

I am in the uncomfortable position of being bound by threads of steel to Earthlink.  
Many, MANY, years I go I started a website on Earthlink, 
{http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>

}, and put a lot of my writing, and some commentary up on it.  The website 
creation and editing medium (trellix) was pretty good for its time, and there 
are many ways that I find the site quite satisfying.  But gradually Earthlink 
has withdrawn its support, and now I am not sure I could get in to edit or 
change it.  Meantime, Research Gate has gotten started, and provides a somewhat 
better place to meet the world and archive my stuff.  And also, having the site 
on earthlink binds me to them and their 22 dollar a month fee.  So. …

  


I am wondering if there is a way (or a service that would) scrape the website 
and, possibly, dump it into a new and more reliable, more website creation 
medium?  Please, ambulatory knowledge only.  I don’t want a people doing deep 
searches to answer this  question .




--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] scraping a web site

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Hi Nick

Your old Earthlink site seems to comprise just about ten 'pages' of 
content, with many of those pages (Published Works) listing many 
bibliographic citations, each with a link to an image and further link 
to a pdf document. Grabbing all the content manually is perhaps tedious 
but doable. Saving all the pages as HTML is also doable but don't see a 
lot of point in that. Populating your Research Gate website should be 
possible too with in browser Copy and Paste - but I'm not familiar with 
RG - as should any other website builder, Wix, Squarespace, WordPress as 
well as hosting company  website builders. I don't know of an automated 
system but the Internet Archive must have something and already has 
multiple captures of past versions of your site - see 
https://web.archive.org/web/20151206005021/http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/. 



I think what you're really looking for is a web/content migration tool 
more so than web scraping tools which tend to be focused on capturing 
specific data, say contact information. Vamosa seems to offer a service 
that should do exactly what you want, see 
http://www.vamosa.com/vamosa-content-migrator-c124 but suspect that's 
aimed at large corporate clients. I have no experience with them. 
Googling 'website migration tools' produces lots of results - some 
questionable.


Hope this helps.

Thanks, Robert


On 1/3/17 9:49 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Dear Phellow Phriammers,

I am in the uncomfortable position of being bound by threads of steel 
to Earthlink.  Many, MANY, years I go I started a website on 
Earthlink, {http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>


}, and put a lot of my writing, and some commentary up on it.  The 
website creation and editing medium (trellix) was pretty good for its 
time, and there are many ways that I find the site quite satisfying.  
But gradually Earthlink has withdrawn its support, and now I am not 
sure I could get in to edit or change it.  Meantime, Research Gate has 
gotten started, and provides a somewhat better place to meet the world 
and archive my stuff.  And also, having the site on earthlink binds me 
to them and their 22 dollar a month fee.  So. …


I am wondering if there is a way (or a service that would) scrape the 
website and, possibly, dump it into a new and more reliable, more 
website creation medium? Please, ambulatory knowledge only.  I don’t 
want a people doing deep searches to answer this  question .


Thanks, as always .

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] probability vs. statistics (was Re: Model of induction)

[Robert Wall]

Hey Glen,

Yes, on the first issue with respect to the Axiom of Choice, I think the
word "choice" there does not map one-for-one to the same word used in
probability theory. I think the two concepts are mutually exclusive, but
this may be beyond my "pay grade" to worry or talk about. 🤐

However, I can most certainly see your point about the beneficial
relationship between measurement theory and probability theory. The notion
sigma algebra is spot on, especially for the mathematics of theoretical
probability. Even though I may be considered an old dog professionally, I
can still resonate with Grant's notion of probability spaces as well.  It's
all good!

You know, I can still have fun while simultaneously being lost in the
forest. This has been fun!  Thanks for letting me play in the sandbox ... 😊

Cheers

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:50 PM, glen ☣  wrote:

>
> Well, sure.  But the point is that the axiom of choice asserts, merely,
> the existence of the ability to choose a subset.  They call them "choice
> functions", as if there exists some "chooser".  But there's no sense of
> time (before the choice function is applied versus after it's applied).
> The name "choice" is a misleading misnomer.
>
> And that's my point.  Probability theory is a special case of measure
> theory.  Calling the set measures "probabilities" is an antiquated,
> misleading, and unfortunate name.
>
> On 12/14/2016 01:41 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > Don't think about choosing.  The axiom of choice says that there is a
> function from each set (subset) to an element of itself, as I recall.
>
> --
> ☣ glen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] probability vs. statistics (was Re: Model of induction)

[Robert Wall]

Glen,

Okay, given some of the later postings against the original question, I am
thinking that your question may have morphed or that I have completely
misunderstood what you are asking. Not sure. For example, somehow we have
gone from probability theory and its ontological status to the
Banach-Tarski Theorem and the Axiom of Choice.  This seems like a
non-sequitur, but not sure.  First off, a theory is inductive, whereas, a
theorem is deductive; so that is my first disconnect. So I don't understand
how we got here ... but this often happens to me.  :-(

Then we go to what I think is a refinement of the original question. Yes?
 (I am just trying to navigate the thinking to get to the core issue, that
I seem to be missing):

But what is this "set of events"? That's the question that is being
> discussed on this thread. It turns out that the events for a finite space
> is nothing more than the set of all possible combinations of the sample
> points. (Formally the event set is something called a "sigma algebra", but
> no matter.) So, an event scan be thought of simply all combinations of the
> sample points.


and then to:

So, the events already have probabilities by virtue of just being in a
> probability space. They don't have to be "selected", "chosen" or any such
> thing. They "just sit there" and have probabilities - all of them. The
> notion of time is never mentioned or required.


An event is not *all* the combinations of the sample points.  As Grant has
said, an event [outcome] has probability depending on how it is arbitrarily
configured from the event space by the researcher.  Moreover, there is an
important distinction to be made between the distribution of values [e.g.,
the numbers on each side of a dice being equally likely] and the sampling
distribution that is dependent on how the event is composed in a trial
sequence.  The sampling distribution is the mathematical result of the
convolution of probabilities when choosing N independent, *usually
*identically-distributed
random picks from the parent distribution.

Another example might be helpful: I think you are trying to define the
sample space like with an urn of 10 balls with three red and seven white.
An event, in that case, would be something like picking three balls all
red.  We could easily compute the probability of this event by using
hypergeometric arithmetic; this is because of the sample space changing if
you do not replace any balls after each pick. But, there is a finite number
of other possible events in this scenario of picking three things from a
bin of ten things. To be sure, though, this statistical problem does not
relate at all to the paradoxical Axiom of Choice ... unless I am still
missing something.  We are not interested in slicing and dicing [no pun
intended] a probability space of a certain size in a way for coming up
with, say, two identical but mutually exclusive probability spaces of the
same size. This would make no sense, IMHO.

Events are just the outcome(s) one is interested in computing the
probability for.  They don't exist--as selections, in the way that I think
you mean--until they are formulated by the researcher ... not trying to
conjure up anything spooky here between the observer and the experiment as at
the quantum level. :-) Nor are these events--not being mathematical
entities of any type--something to be discovered in some platonic math
sense [I mistakenly called you a Platonist, but on rereading the thread, I
think you are not. Sorry. But the world wouldn't be as interesting without
Platonists. :-) ].

For example, there is the possible event of being dealt four aces in one
hand of five cards and for which I can assign a probability given the
conceptual structure of the probability space: a deck of cards. This is
nothing more than laying out the number of possible [combinations--so order
doesn't matter] of hands (a sample) and determining how many ways I could
be dealt four aces [just one] ... then dividing the latter by the former.
This is an example of a categorical probability space, where the events are
all the various ways [combinations] one can be dealt five cards from a deck
of 52. We could go on to define these into categories like two of a kind,
three of a kind, and so forth. Each of those events can be then assigned a
probability.

and then:

Perhaps it's helpful to think about the "axiom of choice"?  Is a
> "choosable" element somehow distinct from a "chosen" element?  Does the act
> of choosing change the element in some way I'm unaware of?  Does
> choosability require an agent exist and (eventually) _do_ the choosing?


The Axiom of Choice is a paradox that seems to get into trouble with
set-cardinality, where it comes to infinite sets.  To me is nothing more
than a mathematical curiosity that has no impact on the practical world. So
I don't think this is helpful to your cause. But I would be more than
curious to see how you think it might be. I am more an applied
mathematician|stati

Re: [FRIAM] probability vs. statistics (was Re: Model of induction)

[Robert Wall]

 certainly not cognitive scientists. :-) No
such thing as computational philosophy ... yet. Hmmm.

BTW, a Random Variable--continuous or discrete--does not have to be
uniformly distributed, but you want that in a stream of equally-likely
numbers input into a Monte Carlo simulation or when computing invertible
probability distributions [not all are invertible as you say] to also feed
a Monte Carlo simulation. I am pretty sure you have done this, from past
discussions.

In response to Grant, I would say that we are way beyond the times when we
could easily distinguish between mathematicians, statisticians, and
scientists. We have computational biology, computational physics,
computational economics, computational finance, etc. all of which have
elements of computational statistics.  Computational statistics--a subset
of the field in which I practiced--is a rising and inclusive field.  Take a
look at the curriculum at George Mason University, for example. I mean, can
we say that we need to distinguish between mathematicians and statisticians
anymore? To be a statistician these days you need to be able to derive
maximum likelihood estimators, for example.  To be a mathematician, ...
well this is from the Univeristy of Oxford:


All over the world, human beings create an immense and ever-increasing
> volume of data, with new kinds of data regularly emerging from science and
> industry. A new understanding of the value of these data to society has
> emerged, and, with it, a new and leading role for Statistics. In order to
> produce sensible theories and draw accurate conclusions from data,
> cutting-edge statistical methods are needed. These methods use advanced
> mathematical ideas combined with modern computational techniques, which
> require expert knowledge and experience to apply. A degree in Mathematics
> and Statistics equips you with the skills required for developing and
> implementing these methods, and provides a fascinating combination of deep
> and mathematically well-grounded method-building and wide-ranging applied
> work with data.


Finally and relatedly, I have been trying to follow Nick's evolving query
to the forum, but it seems--to me--like he is looking for a way to *prove *that
a generator of numbers is *not *random.  As someone else has already
mentioned, one cannot really do this, that is, *prove *that a sequence is *not
*random ... almost like trying to prove that God does not exist  When you
think of it, a series of 100 rolls of a dice that is all fives, say, is as
equally likely as ANY other specific sequence of rolls or (1/6)^100. So you
can't derive anything about randomness by just looking at the numbers.
Humans are not good at differentiating between randomness and just chaos.
Essentially, anything is possible ... but "how likely?" is the right
question.

A good--simple way [the die-hard test is not simple]-- to sense the lack of
randomness in a stream of numbers is to compare the results with a
theoretical distribution that is random using the Chi-squared
distribution.  The Poker Test fits this criterion of simple, but effective.
If the number generator is dealing hands, say--like with four 8s--in a
proportion that is not at all likely, then one should be suspicious.  But
you could not say that it could never happen. The Chi-squared distribution
is skewed positively with a tail that goes to infinity. But the thickness
of the tails can be decreased with more trials [hands] or so-called degrees
of freedom. It's a pretty cool way to do this and is easily accomplished
computationally.

Hope this clarifies a few things at least. Sorry for the long explanation.
I guess I cannot help myself ... :-(

Cheers,

Robert W.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Grant Holland 
wrote:

> And I completely agree with Eric. But we can language it real simply and
> intuitively by just looking at what a probability space is. For further
> simplicity lets keep it to a finite probability space. (Neither a finite
> nor an infinite one says anything about "time".)
>
> A finite probability space has 3 elements: 1) a set of sample points
> called "the sample space", 2) a set of events, and 3) a set of
> probabilities *for the events*. (An infinite probability space is
> strongly similar.)
>
> But what is this "set of events"? That's the question that is being
> discussed on this thread. It turns out that the events for a finite space
> is nothing more than *the set of all possible combinations of the sample
> points*. (Formally the event set is something called a "sigma algebra",
> but no matter.) So, an event scan be thought of simply *all **combination**s
> of the sample points*.
>
> Notice that it is the events that have probabilities - not the sample
> points. Of course it turns out that each of the sample points happens to be
> a  (trivial) c

Re: [FRIAM] probability vs. statistics (was Re: Model of induction)

[Robert Wall]

probability theory here is misplaced. Still, there are chaotic non-random
events that are not practically predictable ... they seem random ...
enough.  Santa Fe science writer and book author George Johnson gets into
this in his book *Fire in the Mind*.

I would just close with another comment, this time regarding Roger's
recounting of Marsaglia's report on the issues with pseudo-random number
generators.  RANDU was used on mainframes for years but was subsequently
found to be seriously flawed. If I remember correctly, the rand() function
used in C applications was also found to be deficient.  Likely, this is why
we need these a battery of randomness tests to be sure. But there has been
a great deal of research in this area and things have improved
dramatically.

There are even so-called true random number generators that "tap" into
off-computer and decidedly random-event sources like atmospheric noise [or
even quantum-level events].  But even here, some folks who's worldview see
the universe as deterministic would say that these generators are not truly
random either. Chaotic, yes.  But, not random. I say, likely random enough.

Finally, I would say that we can use number generators that are random
enough for our own purposes. In fact, for running simulation models, say,
to compare competing alternatives for decision support, we need to use
pseudo-random number generators in order to be able to gain a sizable
reduction in the (random) variance of the results. This would tend to
sharpen up our test of significance in comparing the resulting output
statistics as well.

Kind of a fun topic.  Hope this adds a little of its own sharpness to the
discussion and doesn't just add variance. 🤔 If y' all deem not, I will
expect some change from my $0.02. 🤐

Cheers,

Robert W.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Grant Holland 
wrote:

> Glen,
>
> On closer reading of the issue you are interested in, and upon
> re-consulting the sources I was thinking of (Bunge and Popper), I can see
> that neither of those sources directly address the question of whether time
> must be involved in order for probability theory to come into play.
> Nevertheless, I  think you may be interested in these two sources anyway.
>
> The works that I've been reading from these two folks are: *Causality and
> Modern Science* by Mario Bunge and *The Logic of Scientific Discovery* by
> Karl Popper. Bunge takes (positive) probability to essentially be the
> complement of causation. Thus his book ends up being very much about
> probability. Popper has an eighty page section on probability and is well
> worth reading from a philosophy of science perspective. I recommend both of
> these sources.
>
> While I'm at it, let me add my two cents worth to the question concerning
> the difference between probability and statistics. In my view, Probability
> Theory *should be  *defined as "the study of probability spaces". Its not
> often defined that way - usually something about "random variables" appears
> in the definition. But the subject of probability spaces is more inclusive,
> so I prefer it.
>
> Secondly, its reasonable to say that a probability space defines "events"
> (at least in the finite case) as essentially a set of combinations of the
> sample space (with a few more specifications). Nothing is said in this
> definition that requires that "the event must occur in the future". But it
> seems that many people (students) insist that it has to - or else they
> can't seem to wrap their minds around it. I usually just let them believe
> that "the event has to be in the future" and let it go at that. But there
> is nothing in the definition of an event in a probability space that
> requires anything about time.
>
> I regard the discipline of statistics (of the Fisher/Neyman type) as the
> study of a particular class of problems pertaining to probability
> distributions and joint distributions: for example, test of hypotheses,
> analysis of variance, and other problems. Statistics makes some very
> specific assumptions that probability theory does not always make: such as
> that there is an underlying theoretical distribution that exhibits
> "parameters" against which are compared "sample distributions" that exhibit
> corresponding "statistics". Moreover, the sweet spot of statistics, as I
> see it, is the moment and central moment functionals that, essentially,
> measure chance variation of random variables.
>
> I admit that some folks would say that probability theory is no more
> inclusive than I described statistics as being. But I think that it is.
> Admittedly, what I have just said is more along the lines of "what it is to
> me" - a statement of preference, rather than 

Re: [FRIAM] Model of induction

[Robert Wall]

Eric,

(I am ending many sentences with prepositions; apologies.)


Modern language usage manuals, for example,* Garner's Modern American Usage*
[2009: 3rd Edition, page 654], advise that you no longer have to worry
about ending a sentence with a preposition. As Winston Churchill once
quipped when criticized for occasionally ending a sentence with a
preposition, "This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not
put." 🤐

Cheers,

Robert W.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Robert J. Cordingley  wrote:

> Hi Eric
>
> I was remembering that if you tossed a perfectly balanced coin and got 10
> or 100 heads in a row it says absolutely nothing about the future coin
> tosses nor undermines the initial condition of a perfectly balanced coin.
> Bayesian or not the next head has a 50:50 probability of occurring. If you
> saw a player get a long winning streak would you really place your bet in
> the same way on the next spin? I would need to see lots of long runs (data
> points) to make a choice on which tables to focus my efforts and we can
> then employ Bayesian or formal statistics to the problem.
>
> I think your excellent analysis was founded on 'relative wins' which is
> fine by me in identifying a winning wheel, as against 'the longer a run of
> success' finding one which I'd consider very 'dodgy'.
>
> Thanks Robert
>
>
>
> On 12/12/16 1:56 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> I worry about mixing technical and informal claims, and making it hard
>> for people with different backgrounds to track which level the conversation
>> is operating at.
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> A long run is itself a data point and the premise in red (below) is false.
>>>
>> and the premise in red (I am not using an RTF sender) from Nick was:
>>
>> But the longer a run of success continues, the greater is the probability
>>>> that the wheel that produces those successes is biased.
>>>>
>>> Whether or not it is false actually depends on what “probability” one
>> means to be referring to.  (I am ending many sentences with prepositions;
>> apologies.)
>>
>> It is hard to say that any “probability” inherently is “the” probability
>> that the wheel produces those successes.  A wheel is just a wheel (Freud or
>> no Freud); to assign it a probability requires choosing a set and measure
>> within which to embed it, and that always involves other assumptions by
>> whoever is making the assertion.
>>
>> Under typical usages, yes, there could be some kind of “a priori” (or, in
>> Bayesian-inference language, “prior”) probability that the wheel has a
>> property, and yes, that probability would not be changed by testing how
>> many wins it produces.
>>
>> On the other hand, the Bayesian posterior probability, obtained from the
>> prior (however arrived-at) and the likelihood function, would indeed put
>> greater weight on the wheel that is loaded, (under yet more assumptions of
>> independence etc. to account for Roger’s comment that long runs are not the
>> only possible signature of loading, and your own comments as well), the
>> more wins one had seen from it relatively.
>>
>> I _assume_ that this intuition for how one updates Bayesian posteriors is
>> behind Nick’s common-language premise that “the longer a run of success
>> continues, the greater is the probability that the wheel that produces
>> those successes is biased”.  That would certainly have been what I meant in
>> a short-hand for the more laborious Bayesian formula.
>>
>>
>> For completeness, the Bayesian way of choosing a meaning for
>> probabilities updated by observations is the following.
>>
>> Assume two random variables, M and D, which take values respectively
>> standing for a Model or hypothesis, and an observed-value or Datum.  So:
>> hypothesis: this wheel and not that one is loaded.  datum: this wheel has
>> produced relatively more wins.
>>
>> Then, by some means, commit to what probability you assign to each value
>> of M before you make an observation.  Call it P(M).  This is your Bayesian
>> prior (for whether or not a certain wheel is loaded).  Maybe you admit the
>> possibility that some wheel is loaded because you have heard it said, and
>> maybe you even assume that precisely one wheel in the house is loaded, only
>> you don’t know which one.  Lots of forms could be adopted.
>>
>> Next, we assume a true, physical property of the wheel is the probability
>> distribution with which it produces wins, given whether it is or is not
>> loaded.  Notation i

Re: [FRIAM] Model of induction

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Hi Eric

I was remembering that if you tossed a perfectly balanced coin and got 
10 or 100 heads in a row it says absolutely nothing about the future 
coin tosses nor undermines the initial condition of a perfectly balanced 
coin. Bayesian or not the next head has a 50:50 probability of 
occurring. If you saw a player get a long winning streak would you 
really place your bet in the same way on the next spin? I would need to 
see lots of long runs (data points) to make a choice on which tables to 
focus my efforts and we can then employ Bayesian or formal statistics to 
the problem.


I think your excellent analysis was founded on 'relative wins' which is 
fine by me in identifying a winning wheel, as against 'the longer a run 
of success' finding one which I'd consider very 'dodgy'.


Thanks Robert


On 12/12/16 1:56 PM, Eric Smith wrote:

Hi Robert,

I worry about mixing technical and informal claims, and making it hard for 
people with different backgrounds to track which level the conversation is 
operating at.

You said:


A long run is itself a data point and the premise in red (below) is false.

and the premise in red (I am not using an RTF sender) from Nick was:


But the longer a run of success continues, the greater is the probability that 
the wheel that produces those successes is biased.

Whether or not it is false actually depends on what “probability” one means to 
be referring to.  (I am ending many sentences with prepositions; apologies.)

It is hard to say that any “probability” inherently is “the” probability that 
the wheel produces those successes.  A wheel is just a wheel (Freud or no 
Freud); to assign it a probability requires choosing a set and measure within 
which to embed it, and that always involves other assumptions by whoever is 
making the assertion.

Under typical usages, yes, there could be some kind of “a priori” (or, in 
Bayesian-inference language, “prior”) probability that the wheel has a 
property, and yes, that probability would not be changed by testing how many 
wins it produces.

On the other hand, the Bayesian posterior probability, obtained from the prior 
(however arrived-at) and the likelihood function, would indeed put greater 
weight on the wheel that is loaded, (under yet more assumptions of independence 
etc. to account for Roger’s comment that long runs are not the only possible 
signature of loading, and your own comments as well), the more wins one had 
seen from it relatively.

I _assume_ that this intuition for how one updates Bayesian posteriors is 
behind Nick’s common-language premise that “the longer a run of success 
continues, the greater is the probability that the wheel that produces those 
successes is biased”.  That would certainly have been what I meant in a 
short-hand for the more laborious Bayesian formula.


For completeness, the Bayesian way of choosing a meaning for probabilities 
updated by observations is the following.

Assume two random variables, M and D, which take values respectively standing 
for a Model or hypothesis, and an observed-value or Datum.  So: hypothesis: 
this wheel and not that one is loaded.  datum: this wheel has produced 
relatively more wins.

Then, by some means, commit to what probability you assign to each value of M 
before you make an observation.  Call it P(M).  This is your Bayesian prior 
(for whether or not a certain wheel is loaded).  Maybe you admit the 
possibility that some wheel is loaded because you have heard it said, and maybe 
you even assume that precisely one wheel in the house is loaded, only you don’t 
know which one.  Lots of forms could be adopted.

Next, we assume a true, physical property of the wheel is the probability 
distribution with which it produces wins, given whether it is or is not loaded. 
 Notation is P(D|M).  This is called the _likelihood function_ for data given a 
model.

The Bayes construction is to say that the structure of unconditioned and 
conditioned probabilites requires that the same joint probability be 
arrivable-at in either of two ways:
P(D,M) = P(D|M)P(M) = P(M|D)P(D).

We have had to introduce a new “conditioned” probability, called the Bayesian 
Posterior, P(M|D), which treats the model as if it depended on the data.  But 
this is just chopping a joint space of models and data two ways, and we are 
always allowed to do that.  The unconditioned probability for data values, 
P(D), is usually expressed as the sum of P(D|M)P(M) over all values that M can 
take.  That is the probability to see that datum any way it can be produced, if 
the prior describes that world correctly.  In any case, if the prior P(M) was 
the best you can do, then P(D) is the best you can produce from it within this 
system.

Bayesian updating says we can consistently assign this posterior probability 
as: P(M|D) = P(D|M) P(M) / P(D).

P(M|D) obeys the axioms of a probability, and so is eligible to be the referent 
of Nick’s informal claim, and it

Re: [FRIAM] Model of induction

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Based on https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#dia - it looks like 
abduction (AAA-2) to me - ie developing an educated guess as to which 
might be the winning wheel. Enough funds should find it with some degree 
of certainty but that may be a different question and should use 
different statistics because the 'longest run' is a poor metric compared 
to say net winnings or average rate of winning. A long run is itself a 
data point and the premise in red (below) is false.


Waiting for wisdom to kick in. R

PS FWIW the article does not contain the phrase 'scientific induction' R


On 12/12/16 12:31 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Dear Wise Persons,

Would the following work?

*/Imagine you enter a casino that has a thousand roulette tables.  The 
rumor circulates around the casino that one of the wheels is loaded.  
So, you call up a thousand of your friends and you all work together 
to find the loaded wheel.  Why, because if you use your knowledge to 
play that wheel you will make a LOT of money.  Now the problem you all 
face, of course, is that a run of successes is not an infallible sign 
of a loaded wheel.  In fact, given randomness, it is assured that with 
a thousand players playing a thousand wheels as fast as they can, 
there will be random long runs of successes.  But the longer a run of 
success continues, the greater is the probability that the wheel that 
produces those successes is biased.  So, your team of players would be 
paid, on this account, for beginning to focus its play on those wheels 
with the longest runs. /*


FWIW, this, I think, is Peirce’s model of scientific induction.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: what other subject is there this morning

[Robert Gehorsam]

Eric -

I’m a lurker on this group from the East Coast.  I think you have written an 
essential truth here.   Would you (or anyone else here) object to my sharing 
this (just a copy/paste of the content, no names) to another private group I 
participate in?  People  on it are really struggling to make sense of things 
this morning, and this might help ground them.

Thanks.

Robert


> On Nov 9, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Eric Smith  wrote:
> 
> Sorry Friam.  I sent this before from the wrong address, and then I foolishly 
> forwarded the bounce, which had been reformatted and partly chopped up.
> 
> This was what it looked like the firs time.
> 
> E
> 
> 
>> I think what this all is about is the power of resentment.  
>> 
>> I think the engine underneath the rejection of Hillary is that people look 
>> at her and see a face that they think believes itself better than them and 
>> that looks down on them.  For people who were already under the power of 
>> resentment, that sets it on fire and opens this thing that is weirdly 
>> borderline with hatred.  All the other stuff, news items or whatever, is 
>> just opportunistic window dressing that gets recruited after the fact as 
>> rationalization.  Nobody cares about emails.  If that hadn’t been available, 
>> it would have been something else.  What they care about is indulging in 
>> rage at being “disrespected”. 
>> 
>> I acknowledge the sophistication as well as the goodness of the Dalai Lama, 
>> and I defer to the willful positivity of the Buddhists who have been 
>> thinking about this systematicaly for nearly a thousand years, and I 
>> understand that they know things I don’t know.  But I also work with 
>> primatologists, of which anthropology is a sub-discipline.  The meanness of 
>> chimpanzees is probably retained from the recent ancestor, and it isn’t that 
>> far below the surface in humans.  Whatever it is about social status, that 
>> gets wrapped up in the phrases “looking up to” or “looking down on” is big 
>> in us like it is big in them.  Humans on some occasions have other layers of 
>> culture that put some checks on it, but that superstructure is not all that 
>> robust.  I am not compelled by the Dalai Lama’s interpretation (for which I 
>> am nonetheless grateful) that this is about the loss of feeling needed.  It 
>> is much meaner and more primitive than that; it is the resentment of feeling 
>> looked down on.  
>> 
>> But now we have trouble.  Americans seem to have a kind of negligent 
>> optimism that the mechanisms of democracy will still be there as a path to 
>> backtrack from mistakes they didn’t escape before.  But the keys to 
>> everything have just been given to a strange hodge-podge of people, to none 
>> of whose members are the mechanisms of democracy anything particularly 
>> desirable.  They are merely obstacles to their own small and predatory 
>> ambitions.  I don’t take for granted that there will be mechanisms of 
>> backtracking the next time a calendary cycle rolls around.
>> 
>> The motive power here is the power of resentment, at the bottom.  But 
>> mechanisms matter too, and individuals matter.  A few articles here and 
>> there seem to me to capture large chunks of this in a way that seems 
>> coherent and clarifying.
>> 
>> There are architects like Newt Gingrich, as he is called out in the article 
>> from (2012) “Let’s just say it: the Republicans are the problem”.  There is 
>> a systematic effort on all fronts all the time to dismantle the institutions 
>> of democracy to capture spoils in a competition.  The method, for me, is 
>> best brought into clarity in the Malcolm Gladwell parable on David and 
>> Goliath, about the girls’ basketball team that won without particular skill 
>> by implementing the full-court press on every play of every game.  Gladwell 
>> dwells on this as an honorable strategy because it employs conditioning as 
>> the thing that can be bought with discpline when there isn’t native talent.  
>> He comments, obliquely, that the teams of more skillful girls who were 
>> beaten in games were annoyed at being beaten by a full-court press.  He 
>> doesn’t develop this, but I think it matters.  For the skilled girls, they 
>> were in a _game_.  The point of winning was to be a reward for being good at 
>> the play of the game.  Their upset was that suddenly there was no game any 
>> more, there was no skill, there was no aesthetic to be aspired to or served. 
>>  Winning became its own currency separate from whatever art the game had 
>> been meant to enable.  The story has both sides, and there is credit due 
>

Re: [FRIAM] Eric's book link: The Origin and Nature of Life on Earth: The Emergence of the Fourth Geosphere

[Robert Wall]

Steve, yes, thanks for this heads up about the arrival of Eric's and Harold
Morowitz' book.  I have been intrigued about and anticipating this book's
arrival ever since watching those videos you shared with the forum last
April presenting Eric's talk at the Aspen Institute on the (chemical)
origins of life (metabolisms?).  This, by the way, was your post within the
"Origins of Life" thread started by Nick Thompson, then introducing the
arrival of Nick Lane's book *THE VITAL QUESTION: Energy, evolution, and the
origins of complex life*.

Eric, I hope to be eventually mingled among those readers of your book who
can *try *to add "value" by way of subsequent discussions, writings, or
(science) blogging. The origins of life--especially, in the context of
homeostasis, which seems to me to be a fundamental universal principle--is
a mesmerizing and attractive (though, not well understood) topic for me
personally and I appreciate authors such as yourself who  bring new
research to us for consideration and education. For example, I have been on
several note-taking strolls through the *Evolving Planet *exhibit at the
Field Museum in Chicago.  Perhaps, your book will help set the stage better
for the time when organic life emerged on a hot, infant Earth. 😎  I wish
you the best for its reception among the trained geochemists and lay
public.

Not sure, but I think I am the culprit who, yesterday, unintentionally
renamed the local Collected Works bookstore "Collective Works."  In the
immortal word of Rick Perry, "Oops."  😊

Cheers,

Robert

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Eric Smith  wrote:

> Hi Steve, and thanks for this,
>
> At present, no, I don’t have any planned promotionals in SF, and I am not
> sure I can even make it through town this Autumn.  For me as for you, CW is
> the only bookstore I could think of as a natural venue for this.  (I did
> enjoy, though didn’t remark on, the pleasant Freudian/finger slip in
> someone’s email (Lee’s?) a day or two ago referring to it as Collective
> Works (or maybe I was just not in the know on a standard joke)).
>
> I’ll hope that material is enjoyable or somehow useful.  It was a hard
> slog for the last two years to try to get a better background in the
> geochemical literature that bears on this question, and my understanding of
> that is still _much_ shakier than for some of the metabolism literature.
> To trained geochemists' eyes this will glare immediately.  But the great
> thing I am learning is that value isn’t “contained” in a book; it is
> created in its own form by each reader.  So the limitations of the authors
> aren’t as terminal as one would at first suppose.
>
> All best,
>
> Eric
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Steven A Smith  wrote:
> >
> > Eric -
> >
> > Congratulations!   Looks like a great jump forward in this literature!
>  I look forward to it!
> >
> > Any chance you will be holding a public reading with a local bookstore?
> Or have a preferred local bookstore we could storm to make sure they carry
> your book by buying a few?   My goto of late is Collected Works...
> >
> > FRIAM (local?) do we have enough interest for a reading group to form
> (again)?   Is Nick back in town?
> > - Steve
> >
> > On 10/21/16 10:36 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> >> Eric's book came up at FRIAM. here's a Amazon link, there may be a
> better distributor.
> >> "The Origin and Nature of Life on Earth: The Emergence of the Fourth
> Geosphere" by Eric Smith, Harold J. Morowitz.
> >>
> >> Start reading it for free: http://amzn.to/2dGBsKs
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> to unsubscribe
> >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> >
> > 
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com