Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-23 Thread glen ropella 
On 04/22/2013 06:53 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved
> with language itself? [...]   How much does sharing some
> basic language (structure?) get involved in empathic understanding?

Yes, it's entirely possible that they happened to evolve together.  But
it may not be necessary that they will/would always evolve together.
Personally, I think sharing basic language _requires_ the ability to
empathize, to put yourself in another's position.  Without that ability,
we devolve into silly arguments like the Chinese room or the existence
of consciousness-less zombies.

> What I think we are both talking about is:  1) Taking a(n educated?)
> guess that involves causal relations; 2) Formulating a way to test this
> guess by *doing something*; 3) Doing something; 4) Observing the
> results;  5) Recording the results;  6) repeat any/all of 1,2,3,4,5
> until 5 matches 1 (excluding the obvious cheat of simply adjusting 5 to
> match 1, also practiced for the purpose of gaining future funding but
> generally frowned upon)
> [...]
> Hypothesis generation and testing combined with repeatability (by
> others) is all I mean by "the Scientific Method".   I think you do too?

I don't include hypothesis generation.  We could classify scientists
into different types, at least "minimal" vs. "sophisticated".  And if we
did that, then the sophisticated ones would develop clear hypotheses and
then test them with a reality-bifurcating experiment.  But I think there
are "street scientists" who spend their lives bifurcating reality
without ever pausing to yap about what they've demonstrated.  And to
keep the conversation simple, it is my intention to focus on these
"minimal" scientists.

Well, the point of the conversation I wanted to have was about science
WITHOUT language, if such is possible.  If you have a way to show me how
a hypothesis can be an _action_ as opposed to a thought or something
that's is primarily represented in written or spoken form, then we can
talk about a "science" that includes non-lingual hypotheses and, of
course, non-lingual experimentation.

-- 
glen  =><= Hail Eris!


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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Russ Abbott 
Nick,

Those were Glen's words, not mine.


*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Glen -
>
> Right.  I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to
> "point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root.
>  But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living
> organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of
> language is useless.  My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively
> ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of
> some kind is the definition of life.
>
>  Good clarification... and I (think we) agree that a nounless language is
> an odd thing to consider indeed.   I *like* the nonduality that the
> rheomode (and I believe Navajo?) carries explicitly in it's preference for
> *not* distinguishing subject from object, but I'm not sure what a
> process/verb/predicate only language would be?   Maybe creatures such as
> the Cetaceans are more prone to this given their somewhat
> fluid/flux/gradient environment (compared to our own generally discretized
> "chunky" environment?)   Or advanced Jellyfish-like Gas Bag sentients
> living in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter?
>
> Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the
> neurological structure that allows us to empathize.
>
>  And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved
> with language itself?  I presume you use the phrase "appendage with which
> to point" fairly metaphorical as we know plenty of people who can point
> quite effectively with:  their finger (pick any one of several for nuanced
> implication); their gaze; their shoulder;  their head; their chin; their
> lips...   Do Dolphins and Orcas point?  I do believe the ones in captivity
> have no trouble understanding various pointing gestures including gaze and
> appendage.How much does sharing some basic language (structure?) get
> involved in empathic understanding?
>
>That's critical.
> E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point.  But not very often.
> For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger.  Do cats have
> "language" ... well, it all depends on your definition.  I would say No,
> because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at
> least mine don't seem to. ;-)  I'd be interested in the neural
> mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds.
>
>  I've had pointing breeds and *their* pointer in my experience is really
> their gaze, with which their posture follows.  I did not train them in this
> regard, just observed their instinctual nature.
>
> I've never had a dog that actually understood *my* pointing.  I could drop
> a bit of food in the kitchen and when asking for help cleaning it up, no
> amount of pointing would help right up to moving the pointing finger they
> were staring at all the way down to the actual object.  I would do better
> to just avoid stepping on the bit of food for a few moments and let the dog
> find it with their nose.   But silly me, I always try to engage as I would
> with a human.  My 1 year old granddaughter seemed to understand pointing
> soon after her eyes began to focus and she seemed to recognize discrete
> objects.   In her case (and all babies?) pointing started with reaching, a
> reach that intrinsically exceeds it's grasp?  Perhaps *this* is what
> identifies humans and/or sentience...  a reach that exceeds the grasp?
>
> I've had dogs which understand (quite clearly) the gesture of throwing.
> In this case, pretending to *throw* something would give he hint to look or
> even *run* in the direction where my (pointing) appendage ended up
> pointing.   I had an Irish Setter who also understood (halfway) that a
> thrown object had a shadow (often) and instead of trying to track the
> object, would chase the shadow.   He was as fast and he obsessive.  When
> the sun was low, his chase would trace a long arc, ending with the (tennis
> ball usually) bouncing off of his snout which he would then snatch from the
> air or after another short chase.   I think this might be a  rederivation
> of Fermat's Principle of Least Time in Optics, by Irish Setter?  Oh yeh, he
> also only had three legs.
>
> My current dog (a strange mix of chocolate lab and doberman or viszla?)
> has a total jones for a laser pointer which has grown to include flashlight
> beams.  Walking at night with her is totally strange, you have to be
> careful where you point the flashlight because she is *always* aware of
> where the beam is and w

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Steve Smith 

Glen -

Right.  I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to
"point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root.
  But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living
organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of
language is useless.  My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively
ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of
some kind is the definition of life.
Good clarification... and I (think we) agree that a nounless language is 
an odd thing to consider indeed.   I *like* the nonduality that the 
rheomode (and I believe Navajo?) carries explicitly in it's preference 
for *not* distinguishing subject from object, but I'm not sure what a 
process/verb/predicate only language would be?   Maybe creatures such as 
the Cetaceans are more prone to this given their somewhat 
fluid/flux/gradient environment (compared to our own generally 
discretized "chunky" environment?)   Or advanced Jellyfish-like Gas Bag 
sentients living in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter?

Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the
neurological structure that allows us to empathize.
And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved 
with language itself?  I presume you use the phrase "appendage with 
which to point" fairly metaphorical as we know plenty of people who can 
point quite effectively with:  their finger (pick any one of several for 
nuanced implication); their gaze; their shoulder;  their head; their 
chin; their lips...   Do Dolphins and Orcas point?  I do believe the 
ones in captivity have no trouble understanding various pointing 
gestures including gaze and appendage.How much does sharing some 
basic language (structure?) get involved in empathic understanding?

   That's critical.
E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point.  But not very often.
For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger.  Do cats have
"language" ... well, it all depends on your definition.  I would say No,
because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at
least mine don't seem to. ;-)  I'd be interested in the neural
mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds.
I've had pointing breeds and *their* pointer in my experience is really 
their gaze, with which their posture follows.  I did not train them in 
this regard, just observed their instinctual nature.


I've never had a dog that actually understood *my* pointing.  I could 
drop a bit of food in the kitchen and when asking for help cleaning it 
up, no amount of pointing would help right up to moving the pointing 
finger they were staring at all the way down to the actual object.  I 
would do better to just avoid stepping on the bit of food for a few 
moments and let the dog find it with their nose. But silly me, I always 
try to engage as I would with a human.  My 1 year old granddaughter 
seemed to understand pointing soon after her eyes began to focus and she 
seemed to recognize discrete objects. In her case (and all babies?) 
pointing started with reaching, a reach that intrinsically exceeds it's 
grasp?  Perhaps *this* is what identifies humans and/or sentience...  a 
reach that exceeds the grasp?


I've had dogs which understand (quite clearly) the gesture of throwing.  
In this case, pretending to *throw* something would give he hint to look 
or even *run* in the direction where my (pointing) appendage ended up 
pointing.   I had an Irish Setter who also understood (halfway) that a 
thrown object had a shadow (often) and instead of trying to track the 
object, would chase the shadow.   He was as fast and he obsessive.  When 
the sun was low, his chase would trace a long arc, ending with the 
(tennis ball usually) bouncing off of his snout which he would then 
snatch from the air or after another short chase.   I think this might 
be a  rederivation of Fermat's Principle of Least Time in Optics, by 
Irish Setter?  Oh yeh, he also only had three legs.


My current dog (a strange mix of chocolate lab and doberman or viszla?) 
has a total jones for a laser pointer which has grown to include 
flashlight beams.  Walking at night with her is totally strange, you 
have to be careful where you point the flashlight because she is 
*always* aware of where the beam is and will try to pounce on it as she 
does laser pointers (just like a cat?!). Pointing the flashlight in the 
path for your guests on the way to their car leads to them tripping over 
a very eager and focused dog instead.  She even seems to correlate the 
pointing with the (first it was my Infrared Thermometer, then a 
conventional laser pointer, then accidentally the flashlight) pointing 
device.  A conventional (telescoping or not) "pointer" means nothing to 
her except that I might either throw it for her to chase or *whack* 
her.  Maybe if I affixed a laser pointer to it?

*Science:*
I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the
Scie

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Nicholas Thompson 
Russ:  I you aware that these words might have been quoted, word for word,
from Peirce? 

 

Yes.  Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for
future behaving.  Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to
(semi)permanently modify our surroundings.

 

Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not just
me.  Engineering is a process of other-modification.

 

I think you might take over the mantle of the Village Pragmatist, here. 

 

Nick 

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science and language

 

Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM:

> The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures 

> out what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses 

> that knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of 

> mankind). Would you say it differently?

 

Yes.  Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for
future behaving.  Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to
(semi)permanently modify our surroundings.

 

Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not just
me.  Engineering is a process of other-modification.

 

Hence, medicine is in an interesting position.  It's a little bit science
and a little bit engineering.  Unfortunately, it's approached as purely
engineering.

 

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott <
<mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com> russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 

>> There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to 

>> manipulate the world.

 

I disagree.  I'd say that something like 90% of today's science is something
any individual can use to manipulate the world.  The trick is that you have
to think scientifically.  How can you _test_ E=MC^2?  Most people don't even
think about how they might actually test that, because they're _programmed_
to think it's some high-falutin' idea that they can't use.

 

 

Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:26 AM:

> Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't any 

> expression of knowledge imply a language?

 

As I said before, the question boils down to the definition of language.

Is it "expressing knowledge" to, without writing or talking, bake a cake
while another person watches?

 

 

--

=><= glen e. p. ropella

I'm living free because the rent's never due

 

 



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 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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread glen 

Yes, I think how knowledge is recorded includes the machines that do the
recording and the playback.  For example, knowledge recorded on a
magnetic tape is _not_ really knowledge if we don't have a tape player.
 Only when the tape is played can we call it knowledge.

Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 02:56 PM:
> Do you consider how knowledge is recorded? In your view is there any way
> to record knowledge other than in human (or other animal?) memory?
> Perhaps a video is another possibility. What about a cartoon video? If
> that's acceptable, what about the code that generates that cartoon
> video? If that's ok, then suppose we can factor that code into the
> (traditional) knowledge part and the part that converts the knowledge to
> a presentation. You see where this is heading.


-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
But they won't tell us why



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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Russ Abbott 
Glen,

Do you consider how knowledge is recorded? In your view is there any way to
record knowledge other than in human (or other animal?) memory? Perhaps a
video is another possibility. What about a cartoon video? If that's
acceptable, what about the code that generates that cartoon video? If
that's ok, then suppose we can factor that code into the (traditional)
knowledge part and the part that converts the knowledge to a presentation.
You see where this is heading.


*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM, glen  wrote:

> Steve Smith wrote at 04/22/2013 12:49 PM:
> > *Language:*
> > I *think* you (Glen) made the point that what *most of us* call language
> > would be the spoken/written tip of the proverbial iceberg, and that you
> > would claim that language is much more than that.   I think using the
> > notion of "pointing at" only barely opens the can of language worms by
> > essentially coining "nouns" or "subject" and/or "object" symbols.
>
> Right.  I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to
> "point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root.
>  But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living
> organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of
> language is useless.  My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively
> ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of
> some kind is the definition of life.
>
> Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the
> neurological structure that allows us to empathize.  That's critical.
> E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point.  But not very often.
> For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger.  Do cats have
> "language" ... well, it all depends on your definition.  I would say No,
> because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at
> least mine don't seem to. ;-)  I'd be interested in the neural
> mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds.
>
> > *Science:*
> > I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the
> > Scientific Method?
>
> Perhaps. But "scientific method" is a hoity-toity word intended (or
> accidentally) used to intimidate people. There really is no Grand
> Unified Scientific Method.  There are methodS, emphasis on the S.  There
> are people who log what they do and people who don't.  A scientist is a
> person who logs what they do in such a way that others can repeat what
> they've done.
>
> So, a) you have to do stuff, not just think.  And b) you have to do it
> in such a way so that others can also do it.
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> Instead of dragging your swamp for your lost love
>
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread glen 
Steve Smith wrote at 04/22/2013 12:49 PM:
> *Language:*
> I *think* you (Glen) made the point that what *most of us* call language
> would be the spoken/written tip of the proverbial iceberg, and that you
> would claim that language is much more than that.   I think using the
> notion of "pointing at" only barely opens the can of language worms by
> essentially coining "nouns" or "subject" and/or "object" symbols.

Right.  I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to
"point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root.
 But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living
organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of
language is useless.  My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively
ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of
some kind is the definition of life.

Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the
neurological structure that allows us to empathize.  That's critical.
E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point.  But not very often.
For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger.  Do cats have
"language" ... well, it all depends on your definition.  I would say No,
because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at
least mine don't seem to. ;-)  I'd be interested in the neural
mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds.

> *Science:*
> I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the
> Scientific Method?

Perhaps. But "scientific method" is a hoity-toity word intended (or
accidentally) used to intimidate people. There really is no Grand
Unified Scientific Method.  There are methodS, emphasis on the S.  There
are people who log what they do and people who don't.  A scientist is a
person who logs what they do in such a way that others can repeat what
they've done.

So, a) you have to do stuff, not just think.  And b) you have to do it
in such a way so that others can also do it.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Instead of dragging your swamp for your lost love



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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Steve Smith 

What is Language?
What is Science?
What is Engineering?
What is Metaphysics?

It seems that Glen is confronting us to sort these out a bit 
more/differently than usual.  I find your (Glen) presentation of these 
concepts idiosyncratic but generally to good effect.   I almost always 
flinch and want to disagree at your first sentences, but by the end of 
the paragraph or post, I usually appreciate the point you are making or 
position you are taking.  It almost always provides parallax and 
sometimes clarification.


*Language:*
I *think* you (Glen) made the point that what *most of us* call language 
would be the spoken/written tip of the proverbial iceberg, and that you 
would claim that language is much more than that.   I think using the 
notion of "pointing at" only barely opens the can of language worms by 
essentially coining "nouns" or "subject" and/or "object" symbols.


While I think that your definition of language is probably a good 
motivation for the kernel or core of language or maybe only "proto" 
language.  I don't know that the ability to name things sufficiently 
covers the span of language, but it is a "good start".


 I defer to Bohm's Rheomode on what might perhaps be the next step in 
complexity, perhaps that of defining (only symmetric?) relations 
(predicates) between what we conventionally call Subject/Object.  The 
non-dualists here (of which Rich is the only hard-core one I have seen 
self-identify, though I think Tory might accept that same term?) would 
probably want our elaboration of "language" to stop at that point... and 
not allow for the differentiation between subject and object...  I'm 
unclear on whether dualism is a valuable tool or an illusion or if I'm 
thinking like Glen, maybe both?


/Sidenote.../

   It seems to me that classical procedural programmers
   would prefer the modern definition of "predicate" while the OO
   programmers would prefer the more classical (where the
   grammarial object is part of the predicate, but the OO Object is
   the grammarial subject)? Seems like Glen/Marcus and a few others
   might have an opinion/observation on this little sidenote...


*Science:*
I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the 
Scientific Method?  I agree that without the act (including the will, 
the means and the ability?) to test hypotheses, I'm not sure what we 
would have...  possibly magick or alchemy?   Possibly less than that.


I also accept your contention that much of what we call Science is 
Metaphysics.   I also share Glen's appreciation of metaphysics as a 
context-provider for science itself.


*Engineering*:
A great deal of the *rest* of what we call Science is instead 
Engineering.   I'd contend that most of what passes for experimental 
science is *engineering* in the sense that it is about constructing and 
crafting various apparatti to establish a controlled context for testing 
an hypothesis.   The generation of the hypothesis (aside from the 
intrinsic iterative nature of science) is outside of this engineering, 
as is the interpretation of the results.


/In summary/...
We discuss (here and many other places) the role of Science without 
distinction between what is Metaphysics, what is Mathematics, and what 
is and what is Engineering.  For the most part that is not a problem, as 
we all share a common vernacular use of the term "Science" to roughly 
mean "all things which touch Science".   Medicine (a great deal of 
Engineering/Technology and Social Practice) we tend to call Science.  
Anything involving technology we tend to refer to as Science.  And 
anything requiring (or benefitting from?) Mathematics we tend to want to 
refer to as Science.


I think this is not that interesting of a question... in Nick's terms I 
think all that might be wanted here is some *local* (within this 
community?) convergence on the use of the terms: "Science, Engineering, 
Mathematics, Metaphysics".   I think this has all been settled long ago 
and all we are asking for between each other is some "you know what I 
meant" class of understanding.


As for Language... I think *this* is a more interesting question of 
which the former question(s) are strongly influenced.


Just my $US.02 (e.g. adjust downward in other currencies)

- Steve


Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM:

The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
you say it differently?

Yes.  Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for
future behaving.  Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to
(semi)permanently modify our surroundings.

Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not
just me.  Engineering is a process of other-modification.

Hence, medicine is in an interesting position.  It's a little bit
science and a l

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread glen 
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:19 AM:
> The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
> what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
> knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
> you say it differently?

Yes.  Science is the set of behaviors we use to refine our behaviors for
future behaving.  Engineering is the set of behaviors we use to
(semi)permanently modify our surroundings.

Science is a process of self-modification, where the self is us, not
just me.  Engineering is a process of other-modification.

Hence, medicine is in an interesting position.  It's a little bit
science and a little bit engineering.  Unfortunately, it's approached as
purely engineering.

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott  wrote:
> 
>> There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to
>> manipulate the world.

I disagree.  I'd say that something like 90% of today's science is
something any individual can use to manipulate the world.  The trick is
that you have to think scientifically.  How can you _test_ E=MC^2?  Most
people don't even think about how they might actually test that, because
they're _programmed_ to think it's some high-falutin' idea that they
can't use.


Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 11:26 AM:
> Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't
> any expression of knowledge imply a language?

As I said before, the question boils down to the definition of language.
Is it "expressing knowledge" to, without writing or talking, bake a cake
while another person watches?


-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
I'm living free because the rent's never due



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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Russ Abbott 
I would say that the product of the scientific enterprise is knowledge. If
that's the case, then the question becomes how one expresses that
knowledge. Is it possible to express knowledge without language? Doesn't
any expression of knowledge imply a language?


*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Russ Abbott  wrote:

> The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
> what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
> knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
> you say it differently?
>
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_*
> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>
> *  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>   Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> *  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>   CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
> *_*
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
>> There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to
>> manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that
>> other people build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that
>> fit in? Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice
>> definition of engineering to the effect that it's the application of the
>> forces of nature for the benefit of mankind (or something like that). If
>> you remove the "benefit" part and simply talk about the application of the
>> forces of nature, is that what you are calling science?
>>
>>
>> *-- Russ Abbott*
>> *_*
>> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
>> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>>
>> *  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
>> *
>> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>>   Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
>> *  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>>   CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
>> *_*
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM, glen  wrote:
>>
>>> Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM:
>>> > It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
>>> > theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe
>>> that?
>>>
>>> To be as stark as possible, Yes.  It's metaphysics, which is how we make
>>> sense of, give meaning to, physics.  Unlike some, I give metaphysics
>>> quite a bit of respect.
>>>
>>> To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between "theoretical
>>> physics" and "speculative physics".  In order to be "scientific", a
>>> theory must be testable.  So, as long as you can _also_ describe your
>>> test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say
>>> that your theory is scientific.
>>>
>>> But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to
>>> draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that
>>> your theory is scientific, but not science.  It's related to the
>>> science, but it's not the core constituent.  "E = MC^2" is a fine
>>> thought.  But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it
>>> to make reality different, then it's not science.
>>>
>>> The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in
>>> and breathe and manipulate with our fingers.
>>>
>>> --
>>> =><= glen e. p. ropella
>>> A greased up atomic pavillion
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Russ Abbott 
The implied division of labor in the preceding is that science figures out
what the forces of nature are and how they work; engineering uses that
knowledge to manipulate those forces (for the benefit of mankind). Would
you say it differently?


*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Russ Abbott  wrote:

> There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to
> manipulate the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that
> other people build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that
> fit in? Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice
> definition of engineering to the effect that it's the application of the
> forces of nature for the benefit of mankind (or something like that). If
> you remove the "benefit" part and simply talk about the application of the
> forces of nature, is that what you are calling science?
>
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_*
> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>
> *  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
> *  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
>   Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> *  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
>   CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
> *_*
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM, glen  wrote:
>
>> Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM:
>> > It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
>> > theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe
>> that?
>>
>> To be as stark as possible, Yes.  It's metaphysics, which is how we make
>> sense of, give meaning to, physics.  Unlike some, I give metaphysics
>> quite a bit of respect.
>>
>> To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between "theoretical
>> physics" and "speculative physics".  In order to be "scientific", a
>> theory must be testable.  So, as long as you can _also_ describe your
>> test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say
>> that your theory is scientific.
>>
>> But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to
>> draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that
>> your theory is scientific, but not science.  It's related to the
>> science, but it's not the core constituent.  "E = MC^2" is a fine
>> thought.  But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it
>> to make reality different, then it's not science.
>>
>> The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in
>> and breathe and manipulate with our fingers.
>>
>> --
>> =><= glen e. p. ropella
>> A greased up atomic pavillion
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Russ Abbott 
There isn't much in today's science that I personally can use to manipulate
the world. Much of it provides the foundation for devices that other people
build through which I manipulate the world. How does all that fit in?
Are you saying that only engineering is science? There is a nice definition
of engineering to the effect that it's the application of the forces of
nature for the benefit of mankind (or something like that). If you remove
the "benefit" part and simply talk about the application of the forces of
nature, is that what you are calling science?


*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM, glen  wrote:

> Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM:
> > It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
> > theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?
>
> To be as stark as possible, Yes.  It's metaphysics, which is how we make
> sense of, give meaning to, physics.  Unlike some, I give metaphysics
> quite a bit of respect.
>
> To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between "theoretical
> physics" and "speculative physics".  In order to be "scientific", a
> theory must be testable.  So, as long as you can _also_ describe your
> test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say
> that your theory is scientific.
>
> But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to
> draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that
> your theory is scientific, but not science.  It's related to the
> science, but it's not the core constituent.  "E = MC^2" is a fine
> thought.  But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it
> to make reality different, then it's not science.
>
> The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in
> and breathe and manipulate with our fingers.
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> A greased up atomic pavillion
>
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread glen 
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:59 AM:
> It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
> theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?

To be as stark as possible, Yes.  It's metaphysics, which is how we make
sense of, give meaning to, physics.  Unlike some, I give metaphysics
quite a bit of respect.

To be a bit more subtle, there's a difference between "theoretical
physics" and "speculative physics".  In order to be "scientific", a
theory must be testable.  So, as long as you can _also_ describe your
test, even if it's not yet possible to perform the test, then I'd say
that your theory is scientific.

But if you hold out the theory _separate_ from the test, then I have to
draw a distinction (you FORCED me to draw the distinction) and say that
your theory is scientific, but not science.  It's related to the
science, but it's not the core constituent.  "E = MC^2" is a fine
thought.  But until/unless _you_ (not Bob or Sally, but you) can use it
to make reality different, then it's not science.

The core constituent is the test, the experiment, the stuff we live in
and breathe and manipulate with our fingers.

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
A greased up atomic pavillion



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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Russ Abbott 
It sounds like you're saying that theoretical science isn't, i.e., that
theory and abstraction isn't part of science. Do you really believe that?


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, glen  wrote:

>  "If I manipulate machine X with buttons Y and Z, then A,
> B, and C obtain."
>




*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*

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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread glen 
Russ Abbott wrote at 04/22/2013 10:21 AM:
> How would you say "E = MC^2" without language?

I don't think a scientist would say such a thing.  But I also don't
think "E = MC^2" is science.

Yes, I know.  After saying that, you will (again) think to yourself that
it's not worth talking to me. ;-)  But the point Nick raises remains.
Science is about peeking and poking the stuff around you, not idealizing
everything down into abstract math.  The math is a tool, but not the
objective.

So, a scientist would not say "E = MC^2".  A scientist would say
something like "If I manipulate machine X with buttons Y and Z, then A,
B, and C obtain."  What that experiment _means_, ideologically, is left
to the metaphysicians, some of which may trigger new behaviors in the
scientists.

So, your question boils down to "how would you teach a student to run a
particle accelerator without talking or writing anything down?"

-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Swan diving off the tongues of crippled giants



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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread Russ Abbott 
How would you say "E = MC^2" without language?


*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:51 AM, glen  wrote:

>
> I agree that the closure of the feedback loop between peeking and poking
> (experimentation) is the root of science.  Of course, perhaps that's not
> much of a statement _if_ that's the root of everything, as maybe the
> autopoiesis guys might claim.
>
> An interesting question is what would the _medium_ look like for a
> language-less science?  Can we imagine an alternative reality where some
> form video sprouted from cave paintings, through comic strips, to
> movies, without written language?
>
> Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/22/2013 09:41 AM:
> > A really interesting exchange.  It feeds into my conversation with my
> Peirce
> > Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and
> experimentation
> > being, at its root, poking the world with a stick.  ("It walks like a
> duck,
> > it quacks like a duck.  Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes.  It's a
> > duck!")  I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done
> > without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists
> that
> > all thought is in language.
>
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> Broadcast dead revolution don't pay
>
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language

2013-04-22 Thread glen 

I agree that the closure of the feedback loop between peeking and poking
(experimentation) is the root of science.  Of course, perhaps that's not
much of a statement _if_ that's the root of everything, as maybe the
autopoiesis guys might claim.

An interesting question is what would the _medium_ look like for a
language-less science?  Can we imagine an alternative reality where some
form video sprouted from cave paintings, through comic strips, to
movies, without written language?

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/22/2013 09:41 AM:
> A really interesting exchange.  It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce
> Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation
> being, at its root, poking the world with a stick.  ("It walks like a duck,
> it quacks like a duck.  Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes.  It's a
> duck!")  I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done
> without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that
> all thought is in language.  


-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Broadcast dead revolution don't pay



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

Re: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)

2013-04-22 Thread Owen Densmore 
Ha! Nick, you DO understand computer science: Duck Typing has been popular
as a way of describing loosely typed dynamic languages.  I guess to be fair
I'll start calling it Peirce Typing.

   -- Owen


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Glen, John,
>
> A really interesting exchange.  It feeds into my conversation with my
> Peirce
> Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation
> being, at its root, poking the world with a stick.  ("It walks like a duck,
> it quacks like a duck.  Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes.  It's a
> duck!")  I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done
> without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that
> all thought is in language.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:42 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)
>
>
> That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without
> language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors.
> I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that.
> But science is unrelated to thought at all.  It's all about methods and
> getting other people to do what you do.
>
> And if we can imagine that language is somehow related to grooming, e.g.
> the reason humans usually don't lick their fingers and wipe smudges from
> each others' faces on a regular basis is because our language has obviated
> most of that behavior.  We've replaced grooming with moving our jaws up and
> down and emitting complex sequences of grunts.
>
> If we can imagine that, and temporarily accept that science is unrelated to
> thought, then perhaps we can imagine a language-less science?  I suspect it
> would be similar to the apprenticeship model for education.
> It might also be similar to the ritualistic oral traditions of people like
> the Celts.
>
> But the problem I'm having imagining it comes down to the definition of
> language.  To what extent is abstraction (symbol manipulation) necessary
> for
> us to call something a "language"?  At bottom, I think it boils down to the
> ability to _point_ at things, which requires the ability to see, an
> appendage with which to point, and the neurological structures to empathize
> (put yourself in the pointer's shoes).  This strikes me as the root of
> language.  If so, a harder counterfactual is:
>
> Can we imagine science without the ability to point at things?
>
> I think the answer to that is, "No."  But as long as we have that root,
> regardless of the structure and dynamic that might grow from that root, I
> think the answer is "Yes, science can exist without the implementation
> details of what we now call language."
>
>
>
> John Kennison wrote at 04/22/2013 06:49 AM:
> > My first thought was that we would first need language -without
> > language it is hard to imagine what consensus would look like and hard
> > to imagine science. How could we say that an experiment disproved a
> > hypothesis, or even that one experiment is a repetition of another?
> > But without consensus, how do we get language? Maybe science and
> > language develop in tandem, --assuming we are programmed to believe
> > that gestures and vocal sounds mean something --which can be
> > determined through experimentation. This would explain why science
> > seems to start with unsophisticated statements such as "Objects tend
> > to fall in a downward direction." And why it seems necessary, when
> > grappling with new, abstract scientific (and mathematical) ideas to
> > reduce them to simpler statements involving ideas we are already
> > comfortable with.  And Russ's question might be part of what is needed
> > to understand abstract concepts of modern Physics. In 1962 I had a
> > grad course in quantum mechanics (given by the Math Dept). It started
> > with a discussion of motion in the physical world and a look at some
> > of the questions we would ask. But very soon we adopted the axiom that
> > the set of all questions was isomorphic to the set of all closed
> > subspaces of a Hilbert space. Even the instructor admitted that this
> > was a bit hard to swallow, but once we swallowed all would eventually
> > become clear. I learned a lot about operators on a Hilbert space and
> > even got an A in the course, but I never connected it to any ideas I
> > had about the physical world.
>
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com There is all the
> difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to
> make them equal. -- F.A. Hayek
>
>
> --
> =><= glen e. p. ropella
> The suckers giving up their souls
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> t

Re: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)

2013-04-22 Thread Nicholas Thompson 
Glen, John,

A really interesting exchange.  It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce
Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation
being, at its root, poking the world with a stick.  ("It walks like a duck,
it quacks like a duck.  Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes.  It's a
duck!")  I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done
without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that
all thought is in language.  

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)


That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without
language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors.
I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that.
But science is unrelated to thought at all.  It's all about methods and
getting other people to do what you do.

And if we can imagine that language is somehow related to grooming, e.g.
the reason humans usually don't lick their fingers and wipe smudges from
each others' faces on a regular basis is because our language has obviated
most of that behavior.  We've replaced grooming with moving our jaws up and
down and emitting complex sequences of grunts.

If we can imagine that, and temporarily accept that science is unrelated to
thought, then perhaps we can imagine a language-less science?  I suspect it
would be similar to the apprenticeship model for education.
It might also be similar to the ritualistic oral traditions of people like
the Celts.

But the problem I'm having imagining it comes down to the definition of
language.  To what extent is abstraction (symbol manipulation) necessary for
us to call something a "language"?  At bottom, I think it boils down to the
ability to _point_ at things, which requires the ability to see, an
appendage with which to point, and the neurological structures to empathize
(put yourself in the pointer's shoes).  This strikes me as the root of
language.  If so, a harder counterfactual is:

Can we imagine science without the ability to point at things?

I think the answer to that is, "No."  But as long as we have that root,
regardless of the structure and dynamic that might grow from that root, I
think the answer is "Yes, science can exist without the implementation
details of what we now call language."



John Kennison wrote at 04/22/2013 06:49 AM:
> My first thought was that we would first need language -without 
> language it is hard to imagine what consensus would look like and hard 
> to imagine science. How could we say that an experiment disproved a 
> hypothesis, or even that one experiment is a repetition of another? 
> But without consensus, how do we get language? Maybe science and 
> language develop in tandem, --assuming we are programmed to believe 
> that gestures and vocal sounds mean something --which can be 
> determined through experimentation. This would explain why science 
> seems to start with unsophisticated statements such as "Objects tend 
> to fall in a downward direction." And why it seems necessary, when 
> grappling with new, abstract scientific (and mathematical) ideas to 
> reduce them to simpler statements involving ideas we are already 
> comfortable with.  And Russ's question might be part of what is needed 
> to understand abstract concepts of modern Physics. In 1962 I had a 
> grad course in quantum mechanics (given by the Math Dept). It started 
> with a discussion of motion in the physical world and a look at some 
> of the questions we would ask. But very soon we adopted the axiom that 
> the set of all questions was isomorphic to the set of all closed 
> subspaces of a Hilbert space. Even the instructor admitted that this 
> was a bit hard to swallow, but once we swallowed all would eventually 
> become clear. I learned a lot about operators on a Hilbert space and 
> even got an A in the course, but I never connected it to any ideas I 
> had about the physical world.


--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com There is all the
difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to
make them equal. -- F.A. Hayek


-- 
=><= glen e. p. ropella
The suckers giving up their souls



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