Hi Steve and all other longsuffering followers of this thread, Warning... getting a bit ...erm... florid.
Let's see. We have brain tissue. Weird stuff, that. Universally recognised as the most complex single chunk of matter in the known universe. And, oh yeah, utterly unique in science now and in the entire history of science because somehow it delivers a 1st person perspective - consciousness, from the perspective of 'being brain tissue'. Utterly unique. Dazzlingly complex. Fantastically mysterious. Call me wacky! I suspect I may not know everything! I know. Sorry about that. One of my failings. But I suspect that .... hey ... wadya think? How about this for 'out there'..... Maybe just maybe we need to set aside all the palsy-walsy folk stories of a 65 year old youthful naive discipline called computer science.. and admit that, shucks..."You and I don't actually know something...." Wow. What a thing! In the face of this really really big unique problem? Well yeah! Why not? Maybe all bets *are *off in this one particular case. If not this particular case (the brain) then ... when? Where? What other fantastically magical place might exist where "what I know for sure" can be questioned, if not *brain tissue*. How about .....just ... like... for example.... A) "I don't know what the physical EM field system contributes to intelligence, cognition and consciousness (I,C&C). So maybe we ought to build it and test that." or, put another way B) "Maybe the actual fields are as necessary to IC&C as wings are to a plane. Simulate them and ...no flight. A flight simulator instead. That kind of thing." for example. Maybe that is the shape of something I don't know. Call me weird. I *don't know *this for sure. Either does anyone else. So what colossal hubris can support anyone saying (C) "You and I know you can simulate absolutely everything ...." or worse "I can't see how simulating the fields creates a problem..." etc etc and that 'knowledge', delivered as mere opinion, should have any credence, ever, in scientific decision making on the route to knowing things about the brain? Is there word bigger than colossal? I don't know that either. Shame. This not knowing things is a bit tricky. But HEY! What if A/B is right?! Then AGI has been chasing a rainbow and advocates of (C) will look, to history, like the advocates of phlogiston looked 300 years ago. "*Everybody **knows* *burning dephlogistinates! Everyone! " So ignore that idiot Lavoisier.* That phlogiston garbage got to be about 100 years old before Lavoisier shut it down *with an experiment*. Does this (C) have to go on for 100 years? Have we learned *nothing* from history? It's 65 years old (so far!) and an experiment will test A/B. When will we do it? "I can't see how anything heavier than air can magically fly!!" etc etc etc etc.... you can find web sites full of this garbage. All I am saying is that we have good reason to look at the fields setting aside all presupposition .... and to take them seriously and do what we always do in science (you know that thingy where we, like, test stuff?) .... run an experiment and "Know" one way or another because of that. Yes! You can simulate the fields. If you had enough information. Yes. Conceded Yes. Got it? So what! I am hypothesizing that even if you knew enough to simulate them it may well be you wouldn't want to because they deliver something equivalent to what wings do to a plane. Maybe. Just maybe. For brain material I am willing to concede that. You see I *don't know*. In this subtle exotic extreme complexity it is the height of arrogance to think you know anything "for sure", especially when it has no theoretical and experimental basis except 65 years of mysterious failure. Have I made myself clear enough yet? I know what side of the history I want to be on.... the one where I did the science and was shown to be right or wrong by experiment. Happy to be wrong. But look! Resistance to this weird idea of revising ideas in the face of evidence...... hey I recognise this!!!! You know... that thing.... whadya callit? Oh yeah. Religion. cheers colin On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Steve Richfield <[email protected] > wrote: > Hey Benjamin, > > The BIGGEST thing that holds science back is that whenever ANYONE figures > something out that fits their mental model - they think that proves their > model is correct, fits 100% of cases, never fails, and is the one and only > correct explanation. > > Colin appears to have a fundamentally religious belief that there is some > sort of UN-simulatable magic going on in EM fields that contains the > consciousness. You and I know that absolutely ANYTHING that can be > described can be simulated - albeit sometimes very slowly. Colin clearly > does NOT believe this - and is waiting for the second coming when entire > brains can be built in a block of silicon to vindicate his theory, never > mind this can't happen until the operation of the components can be > described so they can be made, and once described, it can be simulated, and > if it can be simulated then the religious part of his belief falls apart. > > Further, Colin has particular explanations for many things that are > consistent with laboratory observations, but they are NOT the only > explanations that are consistent with laboratory observations, and some of > the competing explanations, e.g. individual computing ability of ion > channels, would produce smarter neurons than Colin now thinks exist. The > problem with Colin's explanations is that he doesn't seem to want to > examine competing explanations, e.g. Hall-effect operated computations in > individual ion channels. > > Colin has done some REALLY TERRIFIC work here that hopefully others will > soon leverage on to better understand how we think. However, in tenaciously > adhering to his particular model, ANY error in that model will doom his > prospects for eventual success - and we all know that nothing is ever going > to think without a LOT of debugging, which requires a describable model, > and these are ALL simulatable. > > Colin will never get to build his brain-block of silicon, because he > doesn't own a multi-billion-dollar foundry that could potentially build > such a thing, and lacking a simulation, NO ONE will invest a dime to build > something that is backed only by a fundamentally religious belief. > > One of my early consulting projects was assisting Ira Karp to develop the > first time-dependent Schrodinger equation solver. We all know how quantum > computers can supposedly do things ordinary computers cannot do, so by that > logic such a program should be theoretically impossible. As it turns out > there are several mathematical models, each with their own equations for > the SAME processes. When you put the numbers into these various models, > they often blow up on things like divide-by-zero, taking the logarithms of > negative numbers, etc. So, Ira broke the equations down to their smallest > parts and solved them in parallel, discarding the blowups and taking the > median results the survivors. > > Yes, you can model ANYTHING you or Colin can describe, even uncertainty. > > Let's cross our fingers that Colin either comes back to reality, or he > finds the words to convince us that he has discovered something he can > describe, but that somehow it can NOT be simulated. > > Steve > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Benjamin Kapp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why can't you model the thing your building in a computer? Why can't you >> model the fields of the mind? Do you believe there is something >> necessarily material about minds? Isn't this disproved by cybernetic >> implants which have provided people with restored cognitive functionality >> despite being of different material? >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> I had this realisation in 2001/2. At that point I put my ear to the >>> ground and I looked. Hard. In 2004 in frustration I joined academia and had >>> unlimited access to the entire world's publications. Doing a PhD, I kept up >>> with folk at the bleeding edge in lectures, seminars and workshops and >>> conferences.....I soaked through all sorts of 'tech announcement' analysis >>> and 'breaking' stories. >>> >>> My ear is still on the ground. I wait. Today I still wait. >>> >>> Sometimes in some weird materials lab someplace an announcement is made >>> that has keywords that might be construed as along the lines of my >>> proposition. I then look and have, so far, found nothing. >>> >>> You know what usually happens? *"Breakthrough X happens in materials or >>> quantum mechanics. Woohoo!*" Headline. Then everyone gets excited and >>> says wow! "*We may be able to solve the AI problem when we build a new >>> computer with it"* >>> >>> ...... and thus they throw a potential solution at failure. Time and >>> time and time again. Vanadium Dioxide is my favourite exemplar. Recent >>> materials for memristors another. There was yet another of these literally >>> this week! >>> >>> >>> http://www1.rmit.edu.au/browse/RMIT%20News%2FNewsroom%2FNews%2FMedia%20Releases%2Fby%20date%2FSep%2FTue%2030/ >>> >>> Go and look, excited...and yet again...no cigar. >>> >>> Science has begun to make materials that can solve the AGI problem. What >>> they are not applying it to is that right *solution*. There are >>> materials that can do what I want to do. Vast nonlinear control systems. >>> But nobody ever chooses to solve the problem with it. Instead everyone >>> thinks "lets build a computer" Fine. Computing is great. It's just *not* >>> the solution to AGI! >>> >>> >60 years of trained-in habit entails a systemic blindness to the way >>> science was traditionally operating: by building it to understand it By >>> knowing that unless you could build it you don't understand it. And by >>> 'building it' I do not mean use a computer! Instead of letting nature do >>> computation computers and computing model it. Not the same thing. As I >>> write this I can hear the reader's brain grind on my words. How can they be >>> different, you think? Well *in exactly the way I have described in >>> all these posts. and nonstop for over 10 years*. >>> >>> So ironically now we are overprepared for real AGI and the only thing >>> stopping this happening is us. We keep choosing not to solve the problem. >>> Instead it's *if only we had a computer powerful enough" and "Moore's >>> law blah blah...." *receding rainbow of failure. >>> >>> I intend to write a book on this issue! It's bizarre. >>> >>> Maybe someplace there is a lab that does my proposition and it's all >>> tucked away. I doubt it. You know why? Because bodies like DARPA keep >>> throwing $gazillions at doing it with computers (this includes all existing >>> neuromorphic chips of any kind.....where *models of reality *stand in >>> for reality). Unless this is a massive smokescreen or unless left hands and >>> right hands are not talking at a breathtaking level (conspiracy theory >>> bollocks).... then this indicates that out here in the real world of >>> people and a world overdue and in desperate need of it, we have literally >>> programmed ourselves (in tacit culture) to fail in AGI and appear to have >>> actually locked ourselves in a failure loop.... >>> >>> Then I turn up, after decades of thinking about robots and doing control >>> systems in business.... and because I am old enough to have seen how it >>> used to be....and.... because I was not in science, I had none of the >>> programming. >>> >>> And I say "*hey guys why don't we try this?! *(how it was done for 350 >>> years before computers)." >>> >>> And guess what? Here I am in 2015 saying the same damned thing. And all >>> it is is what the original cybernetics folk *would have done* had >>> computers never been built. And by now AGI would be real had they continued >>> (the likes of Ashby et. al.) without computers and with the neuroscience we >>> have now. Indeed today, neuroscience itself would look entirely different >>> had this happened. So the damage is not just confined to AGI. People have >>> been hurt because of the lack of knowledge. The failure to look at solving >>> AGI without computers *has actually hurt people*. Sick people. >>> >>> Some days I wish I had never seen anything, and taken the blue pill and >>> re-joined everyone in the matrix. So here I am, some kind of Morpheus with >>> a red pill and ... yeah metaphor overdose. You get the picture. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Colin. >>> (This email or something like this will appear in the new book) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Colin >>>> >>>> Fascinating thread and subject matter. Just a general question please. >>>> >>>> How certain are you that some governmental scientists somewhere have >>>> not already done this research and constructed such bio-machines? You may >>>> be surprised, or disappointed even, to find that you're not the only person >>>> on this list who thinks along these lines. >>>> >>>> Publications, as indicators of technological progress, usually are a >>>> few years behind the actual times and hardly-ever reflect the true >>>> state-of-the-art research, e.g., the GRAPE system. >>>> >>>> I'm asking specifically, because I noticed quantum-detailed >>>> publications in this field around 2009/2010, which trends well with >>>> field-test-ready prototypes for 2014/2015. >>>> >>>> The other reason I'm asking is because I've been studying a particular >>>> phenomenon, which systemic behaviour you might actually be describing to >>>> me. Unfortunately, details are subject to a commercial NDA, etc. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your reply. >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 09:11:33 +1000 >>>> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are More >>>> Powerfulthan Narrow AI >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Steve Richfield < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Colin, >>>> >>>> Two quick thoughts: >>>> >>>> 1. Your description of ion channels sounds a LOT like a Hall-effect >>>> device. I suspect that ion channels may be **VERY** sensitive to magnetic >>>> fields!!! Aside from implementing natural compasses, Hall-effect may be a >>>> part of their computational functionality. Note in passing that Hall-effect >>>> devices are FAST, so it may not be beyond reason that there might be some >>>> really high-speed analog computation going on in ion channels!!!. >>>> >>>> >>>> Individual channels have a (relatively) slow stochastic nature. You >>>> need about 10 tightly bunched. All 'computation' then sits atop that >>>> overall average regularity, resulting in both types of signalling that then >>>> do all relevant computations. See the book HILLE Ion Channels of Excitable >>>> Cells. I don't have to bother with the stochasticity. I can build >>>> filamentary currents that get straight to work fast. Currents that then >>>> produce the same 2 signalling types. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. You might be able to model some of the things your are thinking >>>> about with a fish tank full of salty water and structures made of Play >>>> Dough. You will also need a battery, a voltmeter, and some insulated wire >>>> with exposed ends. Electrolytic tanks have been used to model many complex >>>> EM things. >>>> >>>> Fishtank full of Gatorade and playdoh and radioshack toy >>>> instruments.... bliss!!!! Yay!!! I knew this had to become fun eventually!! >>>> Can I use a 3D printer too? :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi again, >>>> Yes the *potential* drops off as 1/r and the dipole as 1/r^2 as you >>>> say. Not the field intensity. That is 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 resp. But this is >>>> irrelevant. Don't confuse potentials with the fields. I wrote an article >>>> on this >>>> >>>> Hales, C. G. and S. Pockett (2014). "The relationship between local >>>> field potentials (LFPs) and the electromagnetic fields that give rise to >>>> them." *Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience* *8*: 233. >>>> http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00233/full >>>> >>>> The line source you mention doesn't actually contribute to the field >>>> system in any functional sense for subtle reasons. This is another broken >>>> aspect of the thinking. >>>> >>>> You have to deal with the actual physics of ions in water and in ion >>>> channel pores in space and the details of the charge transport as applied >>>> through Maxwell's equations,,..NOT the physics of a model. Just because a >>>> resistor is in a model and predicts voltages correctly does not mean that >>>> the fields in nature are the fields of a resistor. In general: the >>>> physics of the field system is not the field system of the circuit element >>>> models. >>>> >>>> The *same total * *current *has 3 lives: 1) Intracellular 2) >>>> Transmembrane and 3) extracellular. >>>> >>>> In terms of contribution to the actual functional field system (2) >>>> Dominates both (1) and (3). >>>> >>>> To see this: >>>> >>>> The ion transit speed and transport dynamics in the extracellular space >>>> and intracellular space is 10000-50000 times *slower *than >>>> transmembrane *and radically diffuse and diluted*. Almost non existent >>>> as a charge *density*. It is the electric field that matters and when >>>> you do the math the field due to the axial current (line source) is >>>> negligible because the current does not involve a functional charge density >>>> even though the total current is the same. ergo negligible E field >>>> contribution. >>>> >>>> In contrast, the transmembrane portion (of the exact same total >>>> current) is radically confined to an Angstrom-level pore-width and along a >>>> path length in a very particular direction 20-50 times longer than anywhere >>>> else in tissue (through the thickness of the membrane). The transmembrane >>>> ions are like bullets from hundreds of *parallel* machine guns in >>>> comparison to traffic in the extracellular space and the intracellular >>>> space, where ions are confined by water to almost zero path length and >>>> bounce in totally randomised directions. None of this detail is in any >>>> circuit element model. >>>> >>>> It is charge *density and *current *density *(not current) that matter >>>> for field generation. Charge density and current density are radically >>>> different in each phase of ion transport (1), (2) and (3). Hence they >>>> produce different fields. >>>> >>>> I am doing the full convective simulations of this over the next few >>>> months. The failure, over decades, to look at the actual ion transport >>>> mechanisms in the ECS and ICS and contrast them with the transmembrane ion >>>> channel current has caused yet another stuff-up in understanding the field >>>> system. The only people that actually know this are in *microfluidics* >>>> and it is a modified form of microfluidics equations that I will solve >>>> (with the water flow velocity set to zero). >>>> >>>> When you actually compute the magnitude of the real electric field >>>> produced by the transmembrane ion traffic as totalled by tens of 1000s of >>>> cells within in a 500um radius sphere they can easily add up to that needed >>>> to effect each other even though the field drops off as 1/r^3. This is a >>>> very short distance. It is the *gradient* of the potential, not the >>>> potential that matters. The E field is a very complex vector sum that >>>> dominates even though it drops off faster with distance. The E field in the >>>> Lorentz force does the work. >>>> >>>> You can choose a million exotic circuit elements and find a part of a >>>> neuron who's potentials may be modelled with it. That does not mean that >>>> the neuron 'is' one of those things. Its not diodes yet there's lots of >>>> diode like things going on. It's not a resistor yet there are lots of >>>> behaviours that obey resistor-like laws. You can view neurons through a >>>> model-lens made of SR or bar fridges and hockey sticks and igneous rocks >>>> that produces the same voltages and current. .... and on and on and >>>> on.....and you are welcome to do that to suit what you are doing. In none >>>> of it does it tell you what the actual natural material is doing in >>>> relation to EM fields. >>>> >>>> That is why I build what I will build. I build what the brain does, not >>>> what a model of the brain does. I can't help it if this is the way the >>>> brain is. If I found anything different I'd be building that instead. >>>> >>>> When I compute (1), (2) and (3) I'll send the results to the list. >>>> It'll be a while. >>>> >>>> Congrats! My work here of showing you the potholes on the road to >>>> understanding EM field origins is done. :-) I think we are officially >>>> grokked out. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> colin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Steve Richfield < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Colin, >>>> >>>> You have described regenerative operation, which is a near-field sort >>>> of thing and not capable of sensing small things at a distance where >>>> signals drop off as r^2, HOWEVER, I just realized that the field from a >>>> line (rather than a small dipole) source, like from an axon rather than an >>>> ion channel, drops off LINEARLY with distance. Hence, at distances that are >>>> short compared with axon length, regeneration might be enough to work. >>>> >>>> I just didn't see any need to stick with a purely regenerative model, >>>> when SR completely sidesteps the limits of regeneration AND there is plenty >>>> of evidence of SR in neurons. >>>> >>>> Regarding the past tense of grok - it becomes past tense when you can >>>> no longer grok - like when you get Alzheimer's or die. Until then it is an >>>> active sort of thing, like your fields, and so remains in the present. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:09 PM, colin hales <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Steve, >>>> The fields originate in a dissipative evanescent dipole that exists as >>>> long as the action potential transmembrane current exists. EM field >>>> feedback is in modulation of distant network signal timing and propagation >>>> phenomena. Positive, negative whatever. It emerges at a higher >>>> organizational level that has nothing to do with the physics originating >>>> the fields. >>>> >>>> The magnetic field comes from a brief transmembrane current. The >>>> electric field is a result of a battle between diffusion and >>>> electromigration in the immediate vicinity of the ends of the very same >>>> transmembrane current. If the transmembrane current is large and long >>>> enough (requiring lots of collocated ion channels)... Then this causes a >>>> depletion of ion charge on one side and accretion on the other....dipole >>>> big enough to contribute to signaling at distance. It exists as a >>>> dissipative cascade that is momentary, stops and then equilibrium is >>>> chemically restored. Think of it as a capacitor discharge, stop, recharge. >>>> In the EM field feedback the moment of discharge is determined in part by >>>> impinging E field from elsewhere in the tissue. That may constitute a >>>> positive feedback from distances a long way away. >>>> >>>> Positive feedback also exists within the longitudinal propagation of >>>> the action potential. That is regenerative. Models usually depict this as >>>> resulting from potentials and currents. I suspect that it's actually the >>>> magnetic field that is very strong at distances of um. That magnetic field >>>> tickles distant ion channels located in the same membrane (because the >>>> magnetic field is strongest in the plane of the membrane) into the >>>> conformation change that causes the next transmembrane current that >>>> then..... But that magnetic field role something I'm speculating ...doing >>>> simulation over the coming months. Regardless of how you think is positive >>>> feedback involved in action potentials. >>>> >>>> So there's 2 kinds of +ve feedback. One in action potential propagation >>>> down the membrane, one impacting timing transversely through the tissue at >>>> the speed of light. >>>> >>>> I hope one day to make hardware that does both in the same way the >>>> brain does it. >>>> >>>> Lots of + feedback. Right there. >>>> >>>> I already have this in the design. So where does this lack of positive >>>> feedback issue come from? I can't see it. >>>> >>>> There's pencils standing up and falling down in vast numbers in the >>>> design already. So to speak. SR is just not telling me anything I need, at >>>> least in early replication efforts. >>>> >>>> Are we grokked yet? And is that the past tense of grok? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Colin >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> From: Steve Richfield <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: 10/05/2015 6:34 AM >>>> To: AGI <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are More >>>> Powerfulthan Narrow AI >>>> >>>> Colin, >>>> >>>> Here you have made exactly the same point I was trying to convey in my >>>> immediately-preceding posting on SR... >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:08 AM, colin hales <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>>> Replicating voltages is _not_ replicating fields. Gauge invariance >>>> makes the relationship degenerate. An infinity of different field systems >>>> can produce the same voltages. That very degeneracy is the reason why >>>> electric circuit theory exists! >>>> >>>> >>>> This SAME gauge-invariance would doom your ion-channel theory UNLESS >>>> there is some sort positive-feedback mechanism at work to extract the >>>> INFORMATION from the EM field. If not SR, then WHAT? >>>> >>>> >>>> I am rather excited by the recognition of something that is so obvious >>>> and whose lack fits the failure etiology of half a century perfectly, >>>> including the lack of the actual empirical test that is needed to justify >>>> neglecting the fields as essential physics. Neglecting the fields is >>>> entirely accidental. >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-f886df0a> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >>>> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >>>> full employment. >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-f886df0a> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >>>> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >>>> full employment. >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-f886df0a> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-f886df0a> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26973278-698fd9ee> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six > hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full > employment. > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-f886df0a> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
