I strongly side with Nick’s take, but that’s independent of the civil rights issue which is the main issue and the sufficient one. I was born just before Roe v. Wade as well and adopted. I would be so narcissistic to think that is somehow cosmically important?
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 12:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wimberly's Conjecture On 9/11/21 12:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: For contrast, one might call teenagers Adult-candidates. ... ad absurdum ... 1. fetuses are child candidates 2. embryos are fetus candidates 3. gametes are embryo half-candidates 4. spermatocytes and spermatids are gamete-candidates 5. healthy cells are cancerous cell candidates 6. living humans are angel-candidates (in some mythologies) 7. many "adults" are *adult* candidates in our culture The abortion debate is *extremely* tired, yet still somehow vital, personal, critical at all scales of human experience. <anecdotes> Roe v. Wade was decided about the time I was becoming sexually active. My older daughter was conceived out of wedlock and could easily (by some measure of easy) have become an abortion statistic, or if her maternal grandmother had had her way, an adoption statistic, instead she became a high functioning scientist working hard on virus research (Flavii not Corona) which has a big impact on global health with a happy, healthy child of her own (my parents promoted ZPG or Ro=1, I practiced Ro=1, my daughters chose an Ro of .5). I would not have encouraged *any* of these pregnancies to be terminated early/deliberately yet I *would* have deferred such choices *to* the mother in each and every case. I've a good friend who likes to point out that *he* was conceived (brought to term, adopted) *just before* Roe v. Wade and would likely NOT have been allowed to come to term if he'd been conceived post RvW, yet I'm pretty sure he is *still* pro-choice. Mary's (R1.5) twin grandchildren (R1) just turned 6. Their gestation was problematic toward the end and in spite of heroic measures to avoid premature birth, they were still 4 weeks premature and spent many weeks in an incubator with significant non-mother support to become viable. The larger of the two at birth *might* have survived without modern technology, though both of them received various treatments beyond simple temperature/nourishment normalization. </anecdotes> I find that most discussions around abortion are fraught with multiple conflations, but then I suppose most issues with strong political/sociological/ideological implications often do. I have remained persuaded from the first time I significantly considered the implications of abortion that the woman who is pregnant has primary and final decision authority about such matters. Anything else represents a much more slippery slope than the (also) obvious issues of *her* making such decisions for her unborn child/fetus/embryo. That does not mean that I don't believe there are other important stakeholders who *do* have a right to an opinion, ranging from the "sperm donor" to the nuclear family (parents, siblings, extant children) to the mother's community of continuation (origin if she does not feel the need to leave it over such issues), her medical providers, her spiritual advisors, etc. Right to opinion, not right to decide. My right to an opinion for anyone else's decisions (or my right for it to be heard?) approaches nil as my social distance rises. I am thankful that such decisions/issues/challenges have never been more than passing, thin possibilities for me to consider personally. I am highly sympathetic with those who have not been so lucky (including biological fathers, grandparents, close confidantes, etc. who were not consulted or considered). - Steve From: Friam <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 11:08 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wimberly's Conjecture Ok. Since you demand that I have an opinion, let’s call them all Child-candidates. Nick Thompson [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 12:39 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wimberly's Conjecture Technology to the rescue! https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112 From: Friam <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 9:01 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wimberly's Conjecture So Nick's point is you don't call an unborn child a "baby". Or a "child". --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 9:36 AM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yes. On Sep 11, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Frank Wimberly <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: we can stop arguing about this for ever. How ‘bout that? Agreed! But what will we talk about? :-) One question which I am asking sincerely. Can amniocentesis detect Down syndrome? Come back safely, Nick. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 9:13 AM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Wimberly's Conjecture: There is no correct, reductionist explanation of > consciousness. Well, depends on what you mean by reduction. If you limit reduction to accounts in terms of events at lower levels or organization, then I absolutely agree, and we can stop arguing about this for ever. How ‘bout that? Nick Thompson [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 4:18 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur 😁 --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 1:22 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I should have known to hide the drugs from the addicts. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 12:16 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur It's your fault for focusing on reading ability instead of some less subjective trait. Had you focused on, say, tool use <https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/our-intelligent-ancestor-neanderthal> or somesuch, then we may not have gone there. ... Aaaaa, who am I kidding? We always go there. On 9/10/21 12:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > How did we get started on consciousness again? The thread started with some > snark about the power of GWAS associations.. > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > *On Behalf Of *Frank > Wimberly > *Sent:* Friday, September 10, 2021 11:56 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur > > > > Wimberly's Conjecture: There is no correct, reductionist explanation of > consciousness. > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 11:44 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > It's no more profound than any other multi-order composition. It's part > of the work we have to do for mechanistic modeling of higher order > constructs. What galls me is that we can talk about it so much without > discussing the mechanisms of construction. > > The details of composing from genes, through physiological structures, > through interoception, to very high order attributes like "reading ability" > are interesting, regardless of any profundity. But some of us need to be > reminded of how the details build the narrative. Like Magic Eye pictures, the > Necker cube, or the lady/vase thing, what might seem banal without the larger > frame can seem profound when the discourse is enlarged ... when it all snaps > into place. > > > On 9/10/21 10:25 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Fine, the goal is some composition of functions and it is all > interdependent. > > > > Sure. Of course. Why is this so profound to y’all? > > > > > > > > *From:* Friam > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> *On > Behalf Of *[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > *Sent:* Friday, September 10, 2021 10:20 AM > > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur > > > > > > > > Which takes us back to thermostats, intentionality, intensional > inexistence, Sober’s epiphomenator, spandrels, and Lorenz’s law: The goal is > never the function. If you build a bird that measures competing male robins > in terms of “brown stick with red fluff” you eventually get an ethologist who > gets that bird to attack by providing only brown sticks with red fluff. > > > > > > > > See. It’s all connected. > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> > <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>> > > > > > > > > *From:* Friam > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>> *On > Behalf Of *Steve Smith > > *Sent:* Friday, September 10, 2021 12:30 PM > > *To:* [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur > > > > > > > > Sometimes all you need is a good aphorism > > > > https://sketchplanations.com/goodharts-law > <https://sketchplanations.com/goodharts-law> > <https://sketchplanations.com/goodharts-law > <https://sketchplanations.com/goodharts-law>> > > > > or maybe boost it up with a cartoon > > > > https://sketchplanations.com/ <https://sketchplanations.com/> > <https://sketchplanations.com/ <https://sketchplanations.com/>> > > > > I can't help but wonder if there's an analog of Goodhart's law > lurking, here. > > > > > > > > > > > > On September 9, 2021 2:31:39 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > Or they are reprogramming their people to be smarter! > > > > (Actually, deCODE is owned by Amgen now.) > > > > > > > > Selection is already occurring, so it isn't as if this is some > sci-fi thing. > > > > > > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/ > > <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/> > > <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/ > > <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/the-last-children-of-down-syndrome/616928/>> > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Friam > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> On > Behalf Of David Eric Smith > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 2:12 PM > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur > > > > > > > > Aha! This is why Iceland has the highest per-capita fraction > of published authors in the world. I had assumed it was the weather…. > > > > > > > > On Sep 10, 2021, at 2:17 AM, Marcus Daniels > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > That can be screened as well with a large population-wide > survey such has been done in the UK or Iceland. > > > > Of course, it is unlikely that complex behaviors will be > governed by isolated mutations, so the task is to look for highly predictive > motifs (e.g. regular expressions). > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Friam > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> On > Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 10:12 AM > > > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur > > > > > > > > Ha! Now you're trolling. The answer is: "because the sites > that generate reading ability (or whatever) *also* generate other > 'abilities'", with "abilities" in scare quotes because many abilities are > considered bad ... like the ability of a pimply faced white dude to shoot up > a church or blow up a federal building. > > > > > > > > In addition to polyphenism, there's robustness. If more > than 1 site generates the same functional ability (reading), then do we write > them all? ... just one of them? ... a probabilistically predictive handful of > them? > > > > > > > > On 9/9/21 10:00 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > > > So find the sites that correspond to reading ability, > or whatever, and WRITE them. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Friam > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> On > Behalf Of u?l? ?>$ > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 9:51 AM > > > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gen'fur > > > > > > > > I was alerted to this article this morning: > > > > > > > > Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters? > > > > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-con > <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-con> > <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-con > <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-con>> > > > > v > > > > inced-that-genetics-matters > > > > > > > > It should delight those amongst us who rant about the > "woke". 8^D But it dovetails nicely with the fraught concept of equality in > the other thread. > > > > > > > > Coincidentally, also on 9/6, the BIAPT announced their > early career prize winner Emily McTernan: > > > > > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.associationfo > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.associationfo> > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.associationfo > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.associationfo>> > > > > rpoliticalthought.ac.uk<http://rpoliticalthought.ac.uk> > <http://rpoliticalthought.ac.uk>%2fbiapt-2021-early-care&c=E,1,Je9MVNdO8lpJQOd > > > > > 6fZwUNe-4z5yuFq0upxNIzMBFjmLFh_h5a63ueVVpd8lkEdWeUx5Xx1RaoPg3T5Ph8YlG > > > > 0558qqHLZD8-DKeBPEC3YYM,&typo=1 > > > > er-prize-winner-dr-emily-mcternan/ > > > > > > > > "In her forthcoming monograph, Dr McTernan develops her > work on social equality further, to advance a pioneering conceptual account – > and robust normative defence – of the phenomenon of ‘taking offence’. > Therein, McTernan contends, we should understand taking offence, under > appropriate conditions, as a civic virtue rather than a vice, as an emotion > that embodies the resistance of social inequalities within a community." > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/8/21 8:06 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > > > From about a cancer rate of 10% (without mutation) > to 50% (with) but it depends on the BRCA variant. > > > > > > > > > https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_ca > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_ca> > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_ca > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_ca>> > > > > n > > > > c > > > > er.htm > > > > > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_c > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_c> > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm>> > > > > a > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm>> > > > > n > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm>> > > > > cer.htm> > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm > <https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/disease/breast_ovarian_cancer/breast_cancer.htm>> > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Frank Wimberly > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the Braca gene that little correlated with > breast cancer? > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Frank C. Wimberly > > > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > > > > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > > > > > > > 505 670-9918 > > > > Santa Fe, NM > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 4:57 PM Marcus Daniels > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yeah, it is hard to get excited about > “unusual” variance. Modern > > > > classification algorithms like gradient > boosting make it possible > > > > to predict phenotypes, and to me that is a lot > more interesting > > > > (and still possible to deconstruct).____ > > > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > > > *From:* Friam > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>> *On > Behalf Of *Eric Charles > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 8, 2021 3:53 PM > > > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>> > > > > *Subject:* [FRIAM] gen'fur____ > > > > > > > > __ __ > > > > > > > > Gen'fur this, gen'fur that... and also the > realities of biological complexity.... -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
