Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
Carlos, I think that was my point, although I am starting to get confused. (see below). It makes no sense to speak of mind as IN the body because it is an activity OF the body. Nick Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > [Original Message] > From: Carlos Gershenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Date: 7/19/2006 10:52:11 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind > > > Minds do not, in our common talk, have arms, legs, mouths, eyes, etc., > > Yes, but you cannot have a (human) mind without a body. > > In a similar way, you cannot have e.g. Linux running without a PC, > and Linux doesn't have a CPU, HD, RAM, etc... > > This has lead people to either aim at real world robotics as the only > way forward in AI, or at developing inside the computer complex > bodies and environments... > > Best regards, > > Carlos Gershenson... > Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel > Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium > http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ > >To know your limits you need to go beyond them > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
Gak!, Phil, Reminds me of that anecdote that is designed to show the fallacy of induction. Drunk falls off the patio of the 14th floor of an apartment abuilding. On every patio for the 13 floors below, is, (as it happens) an eager psychology student ready to record the drunk's reactions as he goes by. "So far, so good." Nick Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > [Original Message] > From: Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Date: 7/19/2006 9:19:18 PM > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind > > Well, it depends on what you mean. I like metaphors too for lots of > reasons and agree whole heartedly that you need to check if the > "analogues line up" as you say. I think if you consider computers and > minds as metaphors the analogues very definitely line up well. If, on > the other hand, you consider them as things, there are quite a number of > problems. We haven't demonstrated that mental processes are digital > yet, for just one example, or found any distinction in brain structures > between software and data, for another. On most difficult issues we > seem quite satisfied by not having any way to test them, using the "I > can't imagine what else" explanation for ending with the same > proposition we started with. > > An actual willingness to doubt is a rare and wonderful thing, of course, > partly because it takes a certain perversity to smash your head into the > strangely common disconnects scattered about, taking on both the risk of > rudeness and rejection. There does seem to be some mental trick I > can't explain to some of the things I've found, and lots of things I > can't solve, but there is definitely a substantial cluster of > disconnects in the common perception of nature hiding a world of hugely > fun, and potentially profitable, stuff to explore. Take the general > assumption that humanity and the earth will continue to successfully > respond, ever more rapidly, to ever more complicated change, forever... > > > Well, the virtual model does it just fine!! What could be the > problem??? > > > > Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. > ~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson > > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:35 AM > > To: friam@redfish.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind > > > > > > All, > > > > My last friam issue came to me in two parts, the second > > containing the last four items and no header. Was that Just > > Me or were others so afficted. > > > > As to computer metaphors, I believe profoundly in metaphors. > > In fact, for me it's metaphors all the way down. All the way > > up, too. And sideways, as well. > > > > But because I think metaphors are so important, I believe > > that one must be very careful when using them to make sure > > the analogues line up. > > Generally, when we talk about minds, we strip away all the > > peripherals. > > Minds do not, in our common talk, have arms, legs, mouths, > > eyes, etc., even though they are often said to "do inside" > > all the acts that demand these peripherals. When we talk > > about computers, however, we endow them with keys, printers, > > screens, etc. If minds are truly INSIDE, isnt the best > > computer metaphor for a mind a turing machine, plain and > > simple. (or do I misuse the term) ? Or at least an unadorned > > box with nothing connected to it, or nothing PARTICULAR > > connected to it. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: > > > Date: 7/19/2006 7:57:09 AM > > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 26 > > > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > > friam@redfish.com > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
Dear Robert,Similarly, who says I can't have a mind without a body? Won't it carry on existing in the mind of the Intelligent Designer?You could say so, just as a Linux OS could be sitting in a CD... but it wouldn't function, so for practical purposes, it is as good as non-existant. Thus, a mind needs a body and an environment to be able to be perceived by an observer.Best regards, Carlos Gershenson... Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ “Tendencies tend to change...” FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
Title: Message It was a beautiful response, though, both fascinating history and a great example of the history dependence of the natural design process. Can you separate things from how they evolve by any means but loosing sight of them? Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·.~~~680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas RobertsSent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:21 PMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee GroupSubject: Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mindYou're starting to have too much fun with this, Roger.;-] On 7/19/06, Roger Critchlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/19/06, Robert Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:> Not strictly true I think. Sure, Linux can't run without a PC but does that> mean it can't exist without one? Linux started its existence in Torvalds'> head before it appeared on a CPU and if all CPUs vanished tomorrow it would > still exist in his and other experts heads.>There's a funny sort of ontology here.Linus wrote Linux because he was inspired by Andrew Tanenbaum's Minix.Andrew Tanenbaum developed Minix on a PC using Coherent, a UNIX clone from the Mark Williams Company, because it provided the necessarytools. It also provided an existence proof, but he didn't really needthat. Coherent was the brainchild of Bob Swartz, but it wasoriginally developed on a DEC PDP-11 and ported to the Zilog Z8000 before the 8086 or the IBM PC existed. The Mark Williams Companyitself was originally a subsidiary of Embosograph founded to market a7-Up knockoff soft drink formula called Dr. Enuf. Coherent waswritten by a core of students from the University of Waterloo, working in Chicago under sometimes questionable immigration status. The worktook place in a huge brick building at 1430 West Wrightwood which hadthe word Teletype engraved over the entrances. But the onlyprofitable part of this family commercial empire was Embosograph itself and its profits derived from the manufacture of plastic beersigns, embossed graphics on plastic augmented by lights and waterfallillusions.So beer rating, or the rating of the fizzy alcoholic beverage which many americans call beer, is where Linux started.-- rec --FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org-- Doug Roberts, RTI International[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]505-455-7333 - Office505-670-8195 - Cell FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
There was actually a series of brain simulations done a few years ago. While the original site is gone, it has been archived: *http://tinyurl.com/6heev* For example: * http://tinyurl.com/q5oa4 Best, Martin * FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
Well, it depends on what you mean. I like metaphors too for lots of reasons and agree whole heartedly that you need to check if the "analogues line up" as you say. I think if you consider computers and minds as metaphors the analogues very definitely line up well. If, on the other hand, you consider them as things, there are quite a number of problems. We haven't demonstrated that mental processes are digital yet, for just one example, or found any distinction in brain structures between software and data, for another. On most difficult issues we seem quite satisfied by not having any way to test them, using the "I can't imagine what else" explanation for ending with the same proposition we started with. An actual willingness to doubt is a rare and wonderful thing, of course, partly because it takes a certain perversity to smash your head into the strangely common disconnects scattered about, taking on both the risk of rudeness and rejection. There does seem to be some mental trick I can't explain to some of the things I've found, and lots of things I can't solve, but there is definitely a substantial cluster of disconnects in the common perception of nature hiding a world of hugely fun, and potentially profitable, stuff to explore. Take the general assumption that humanity and the earth will continue to successfully respond, ever more rapidly, to ever more complicated change, forever... Well, the virtual model does it just fine!! What could be the problem??? Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:35 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind > > > All, > > My last friam issue came to me in two parts, the second > containing the last four items and no header. Was that Just > Me or were others so afficted. > > As to computer metaphors, I believe profoundly in metaphors. > In fact, for me it's metaphors all the way down. All the way > up, too. And sideways, as well. > > But because I think metaphors are so important, I believe > that one must be very careful when using them to make sure > the analogues line up. > Generally, when we talk about minds, we strip away all the > peripherals. > Minds do not, in our common talk, have arms, legs, mouths, > eyes, etc., even though they are often said to "do inside" > all the acts that demand these peripherals. When we talk > about computers, however, we endow them with keys, printers, > screens, etc. If minds are truly INSIDE, isnt the best > computer metaphor for a mind a turing machine, plain and > simple. (or do I misuse the term) ? Or at least an unadorned > box with nothing connected to it, or nothing PARTICULAR > connected to it. > > Nick > > Nicholas Thompson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Date: 7/19/2006 7:57:09 AM > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 26 > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > friam@redfish.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > >1. Re: Beer Ratings, brewer, brewpub, bar, beer > reviews and more > > (Jochen Fromm) > >2. singularity (Carlos Gershenson) > >3. Re: Intentionality is the mark of the vital (Carlos > Gershenson) > >4. Re: Intentionality is the mark of the vital (Phil Henshaw) > >5. Re: Beer Ratings, brewer, brewpub, bar, beer > reviews and more > > (Phil Henshaw) > >6. Re: singularity (Bill Eldridge) > > > > > > > -- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:37:52 +0200 > > From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM]
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
You're starting to have too much fun with this, Roger.;-]On 7/19/06, Roger Critchlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/19/06, Robert Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:> Not strictly true I think. Sure, Linux can't run without a PC but does that> mean it can't exist without one? Linux started its existence in Torvalds'> head before it appeared on a CPU and if all CPUs vanished tomorrow it would > still exist in his and other experts heads.>There's a funny sort of ontology here.Linus wrote Linux because he was inspired by Andrew Tanenbaum's Minix. Andrew Tanenbaum developed Minix on a PC using Coherent, a UNIX clone from the Mark Williams Company, because it provided the necessarytools. It also provided an existence proof, but he didn't really needthat. Coherent was the brainchild of Bob Swartz, but it wasoriginally developed on a DEC PDP-11 and ported to the Zilog Z8000 before the 8086 or the IBM PC existed. The Mark Williams Companyitself was originally a subsidiary of Embosograph founded to market a7-Up knockoff soft drink formula called Dr. Enuf. Coherent waswritten by a core of students from the University of Waterloo, working in Chicago under sometimes questionable immigration status. The worktook place in a huge brick building at 1430 West Wrightwood which hadthe word Teletype engraved over the entrances. But the onlyprofitable part of this family commercial empire was Embosograph itself and its profits derived from the manufacture of plastic beersigns, embossed graphics on plastic augmented by lights and waterfallillusions.So beer rating, or the rating of the fizzy alcoholic beverage which many americans call beer, is where Linux started.-- rec --FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org-- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]505-455-7333 - Office505-670-8195 - Cell FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
On 7/19/06, Robert Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not strictly true I think. Sure, Linux can't run without a PC but does that > mean it can't exist without one? Linux started its existence in Torvalds' > head before it appeared on a CPU and if all CPUs vanished tomorrow it would > still exist in his and other experts heads. > There's a funny sort of ontology here. Linus wrote Linux because he was inspired by Andrew Tanenbaum's Minix. Andrew Tanenbaum developed Minix on a PC using Coherent, a UNIX clone from the Mark Williams Company, because it provided the necessary tools. It also provided an existence proof, but he didn't really need that. Coherent was the brainchild of Bob Swartz, but it was originally developed on a DEC PDP-11 and ported to the Zilog Z8000 before the 8086 or the IBM PC existed. The Mark Williams Company itself was originally a subsidiary of Embosograph founded to market a 7-Up knockoff soft drink formula called Dr. Enuf. Coherent was written by a core of students from the University of Waterloo, working in Chicago under sometimes questionable immigration status. The work took place in a huge brick building at 1430 West Wrightwood which had the word Teletype engraved over the entrances. But the only profitable part of this family commercial empire was Embosograph itself and its profits derived from the manufacture of plastic beer signs, embossed graphics on plastic augmented by lights and waterfall illusions. So beer rating, or the rating of the fizzy alcoholic beverage which many americans call beer, is where Linux started. -- rec -- FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
On 7/19/06, Robert Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not strictly true I think. Sure, Linux can't run without a PC but does that > mean it can't exist without one? Linux started its existence in Torvalds' > head before it appeared on a CPU and if all CPUs vanished tomorrow it would > still exist in his and other experts heads. > > Similarly, who says I can't have a mind without a body? Won't it carry on > existing in the mind of the Intelligent Designer? The problem here is the same problem virtually every discussion of consciousness has, which is that a certain degree of mysticism inevitably develops. The good side is that it happens so often because there's probably really something there of some kind; the bad side is that once you get on that tangent having a logical discussion becomes quite difficult, and avoiding religion becomes almost impossible. I think avoiding religion in discussion is a good principle just because it means you can avoid offending people. (This is the same reason I try not to mention Smalltalk.) -- Giles Bowkett http://www.gilesgoatboy.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
But Robert, Linux is an operating system, not a computer. Is the analogy to mind from a computer or from an operating system. If so, would you say that a program is "inside" a computer or "an organization of the resources of " a computer. Hence, you would say that a mind is "of a brain" not "in a brain". And to the extent that a computer program organizes peripherals and even other computers than the one it is "of", you would have to say, consistent with the metaphor, that a mind is not just "of" its brain but also "of" the things in the world around that brain. No? Nick Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson - Original Message - From: Robert Holmes To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7/19/2006 11:53:59 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind Not strictly true I think. Sure, Linux can't run without a PC but does that mean it can't exist without one? Linux started its existence in Torvalds' head before it appeared on a CPU and if all CPUs vanished tomorrow it would still exist in his and other experts heads. Similarly, who says I can't have a mind without a body? Won't it carry on existing in the mind of the Intelligent Designer?Robert On 7/19/06, Carlos Gershenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Minds do not, in our common talk, have arms, legs, mouths, eyes, etc.,Yes, but you cannot have a (human) mind without a body.In a similar way, you cannot have e.g. Linux running without a PC,and Linux doesn't have a CPU, HD, RAM, etc... This has lead people to either aim at real world robotics as the onlyway forward in AI, or at developing inside the computer complexbodies and environments...Best regards, Carlos Gershenson... Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ "To know your limits you need to go beyond them" FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's Collegelectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
Not strictly true I think. Sure, Linux can't run without a PC but does that mean it can't exist without one? Linux started its existence in Torvalds' head before it appeared on a CPU and if all CPUs vanished tomorrow it would still exist in his and other experts heads. Similarly, who says I can't have a mind without a body? Won't it carry on existing in the mind of the Intelligent Designer?RobertOn 7/19/06, Carlos Gershenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Minds do not, in our common talk, have arms, legs, mouths, eyes, etc.,Yes, but you cannot have a (human) mind without a body.In a similar way, you cannot have e.g. Linux running without a PC,and Linux doesn't have a CPU, HD, RAM, etc... This has lead people to either aim at real world robotics as the onlyway forward in AI, or at developing inside the computer complexbodies and environments...Best regards, Carlos Gershenson... Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ "To know your limits you need to go beyond them" FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's Collegelectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
> Minds do not, in our common talk, have arms, legs, mouths, eyes, etc., Yes, but you cannot have a (human) mind without a body. In a similar way, you cannot have e.g. Linux running without a PC, and Linux doesn't have a CPU, HD, RAM, etc... This has lead people to either aim at real world robotics as the only way forward in AI, or at developing inside the computer complex bodies and environments... Best regards, Carlos Gershenson... Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ “To know your limits you need to go beyond them” FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] computer models of the mind
All, My last friam issue came to me in two parts, the second containing the last four items and no header. Was that Just Me or were others so afficted. As to computer metaphors, I believe profoundly in metaphors. In fact, for me it's metaphors all the way down. All the way up, too. And sideways, as well. But because I think metaphors are so important, I believe that one must be very careful when using them to make sure the analogues line up. Generally, when we talk about minds, we strip away all the peripherals. Minds do not, in our common talk, have arms, legs, mouths, eyes, etc., even though they are often said to "do inside" all the acts that demand these peripherals. When we talk about computers, however, we endow them with keys, printers, screens, etc. If minds are truly INSIDE, isnt the best computer metaphor for a mind a turing machine, plain and simple. (or do I misuse the term) ? Or at least an unadorned box with nothing connected to it, or nothing PARTICULAR connected to it. Nick Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 7/19/2006 7:57:09 AM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 26 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > friam@redfish.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Beer Ratings, brewer, brewpub, bar, beer reviews and more > (Jochen Fromm) >2. singularity (Carlos Gershenson) >3. Re: Intentionality is the mark of the vital (Carlos Gershenson) >4. Re: Intentionality is the mark of the vital (Phil Henshaw) >5. Re: Beer Ratings, brewer, brewpub, bar, beer reviews and more > (Phil Henshaw) >6. Re: singularity (Bill Eldridge) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:37:52 +0200 > From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Beer Ratings, brewer, brewpub, bar, beer reviews > and more > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > The rating is not correct. Although a cold > Guinness or Heineken is good as well, there > is no doubt that the best beer is made > here in Germany, most of them is not available > in the US. Germany is famous for its beer. > There are at least 1,300 breweries in Germany, > brewing over 5,000 varieties of beer. > > Some of the best brands available in > the whole country are Krombacher Pils > (excellent) and Warsteiner (refreshing). > There are also a lot of regional brands: > > In the North Flensburger Pils, Beck's and Jever > In the Middle Koenig Pilsener, Veltnis and Bitburger > In the South Erdinger Weissbier and Paulaner > > Mixed beers are popular, too, in Hamburg > "Alster" (with lemonade), in Berlin > "Berliner Weisse" (with syrup), and > many other alcopops popular especially > among young people FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
