If they talk about their magical thinking, then that talk can be mined as well. ________________________________ From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of glen <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:43 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading
I think that's the very definition of behaviorist. I/O supervenes on structure. The non-behaviorist conjecture is that degenerate structures exist and harbor latent Black Swans. So, they can mine whatever I/O they want, for however long, and they will only ever *approach* those internal structures. On 9/7/22 09:28, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Meta, Google, etc. may have relatively surface behaviorist measures now, but > eventually they'll be mining all the media streams they provide to peopple, > all scholarly articles, everything. It won't be shallow and behaviorist. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of glen > <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:34 AM > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading > But doesn't this answer your question of "why model some complex (if > meaningless) phenomena if it can driven toward something less complex?" The > answer is: because Meta, Google, etc. take only surface, shallow, behaviorist > measures. Depth search can reveal (perhaps overly) complex structures the > breadth search can't take. If the behaviorists are right, ontologically, and > everything significant *is* written on the surface, then yes, the power is > already gone. > > But if the behaviorists are wrong, depth search, complex models, will be a > power reserve not available to the identifiably Bad Faith behaviorists who > think they can simulate invested community members at will. > > Being a skeptical agnostic, my best guess (or hope) is that both depth and > breadth have power. Perhaps what "we are for" is deep modeling. The whole > rigmarole of denying the Hard Problem, Mysticism, the "inner life", etc. may > well circumscribe the eventual value of the unique individual. It need not be > any kind of metaphysical/biological thing, either. Once some future bot, a > descendant of LaMDA, does possess "sentience", that bot will also be a > deep/complex modeler. > > Your question can be reformulated: Do we need deep/complex modelers? And it's > just a restatement of the Hard Problem. > > On 9/7/22 08:09, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> There's an energy efficiency benefit of biological systems over silicon ML, >> but we make up for it by driving around in cars and using huge amounts of >> energy crushing rock to make our roads and buildings. I maybe know a >> hundred people, but these large-scale systems at Meta, Google, etc. can >> study millions of people over hundreds or thousands of hours of measurement. >> It might be possible someday to grow a computing system from a seed, but >> for now I think you are right. I don't see any point in talking about >> ceding power, it's already gone. Best case scenario is joining a hive. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen >> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:00 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading >> >> Right. I agree with the sentiment that something like "agency" exists inside >> a trained LLM, and that the ontogeny of that LLM has historicity. That >> balled up pocket of "expertise" is not significantly different from the >> balled up expertise in an expert human like Murray Gell-Mann. But what *is* >> different is the asymmetric power held by the ontogenic process. >> >> Like GitHub or OpenAI literally profiting off the efforts of open-sourced >> code or scrapable manually generated art, you *cannot* withhold the >> source(s). The construction (and execution) of such models is and will be >> limited to those of us with the *power* to do so. I.e. Google, Amazon, >> Microsoft, etc. Spinning up T0pp <https://huggingface.co/bigscience/T0pp >> <https://huggingface.co/bigscience/T0pp>> on your own machine requires you >> to have enough "disposable" resources to instantiate that machine. >> >> Of course, it's reasonable to throw up one's hands and give people like >> Thiel a pass when he gives $15 mil to an evil-doer like JD Vance. Thiel has >> the right to do whatever he wants because he has the *power* to scrape all >> that data and use it to create a new Monarchy backed by Oligarchy. What ya >> gonna do? >> >> The above *should* demonstrate why the ontogeny of Dall-E is *not* the same >> as a horseman (or blacksmith or brewer or whatever) who continues to >> practice that obsolete artisanry. That's a false equivalence. The >> re-generation of Dall-E (into something like Stable Diffusion) is not like >> smithing or horsemanship. It's permanently a task that can only be done by >> those who have the power to do it. >> >> So, sure, we can cede the power to the Thiels as you argue. But let's be >> prepared to be the serfs we'll be when that happens. >> >> On 9/7/22 07:38, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> It's like a horseman that insists on practicing his trade despite the >>> existence of cars. There's some market for it, but if that market got >>> bigger due to some world event, people would easily relearn it. It is >>> funny to hear people preach about the importance of being literate and >>> informed. But, when a multi-billion parameter deep neural net reads many >>> texts and can synthesize new ones, it is regarded I in a different way. >>> If someone says, "I wrote a novel", I can and do think "Ok, she offers to >>> have me review the evidence of her latent state encodings." The bigger >>> question is what does human cognitive life look like after AI starts to >>> outperform us? What are we for? >>> >>> Deep fakes are going to get better and better, and really the only defense >>> I can see is withholding the sources that make it possible. >>> >>> My point about prescriptive vs. descriptive models is about the appetite >>> for them, rather than whether they are good or not. There is little >>> political or commercial value in aspiring to greater things if one can get >>> by on demagoguery and repetitive advertising. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:05 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading >>> >>> As long as our metaphysical commitment is to an open system, I agree it's >>> pragmatic to choose the model/explanation that's only as complex as it >>> needs to be, not a bit more. But if we're wrong and the world is not open, >>> or non-convex so that some regions of the space, once lost may be >>> difficult to reach again, lost complexity might imply lost opportunity. >>> "Use it or lose it", I guess. >>> >>> Personally, imagine trying to learn long-form literature or philosophy in >>> these days of large language models: >>> >>> https://return.life/2022/07/26/conversation-stopper/ >>> <https://return.life/2022/07/26/conversation-stopper/> >>> >>> I'm seeing more and more links like "I wrote a novel with GPT-3!" Ugh. Why >>> would I read that? And what's the point of learning to write if you can >>> knead GPT-3 into doing it for you? >>> >>> If we're all out here *driving* models to their least complex, we won't be >>> able to detect deep fakes or resist manipulation by evil-doers like >>> Palantir. Nobody'll be able to tell the difference. It'll be bronzer all >>> the way down. >>> >>> On 9/6/22 17:54, Steve Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> On 9/6/22 6:17 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>> Why model some complex (if meaningless) phenomena if it can driven toward >>>>> something less complex? I mean, jeez, isn’t DJT’s patchy and >>>>> inconsistent use of bronzer proof that people don’t really care about >>>>> detail? >>>> >>>> I am often perplexed by this... I can't tell if DJT >>>> cluelessly/arrogantly bronzed up with his own tiny fists or if he had a >>>> professional makeup person go to the effort to make him look that bad... >>>> my father's comment about Rodeo Clowns was: "you have to be really good >>>> to look that bad"... >>>> >>>> There are other features of DJTs behaviour that suggests it really is >>>> arrogant cluelessness, but then there is *also* clearly a "method to his >>>> madness" on many levels... He is the ultimate "tool" which is fascinating >>>> because he has created (or groomed) so many "tools" himself... if one >>>> must grant him "genius" it is rooted somehow in his ability to play both >>>> ends against the middle in so many dimensions... >>>> >>>>> I watched this black comedy last night. _Killer Joe_. It predated MAGA. >>>>> It nicely captures how low-dimensional culture can be. What’s needed in >>>>> these circumstances is a complete deconstruction and deletion of empathy. >>>>> Ask what rats would do. Oh it takes me back. >>>> I do like me a good "black comedy"... I recently enjoyed Woody Harrelson >>>> as _The Man from Toronto_... McConaughey also rarely disappoints. >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 6, 2022, at 11:15 AM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't find/recall the exact quote, but you made something of a convert >>>>>> of me when we were discussing whether creativity/learning was *anything >>>>>> more* than complex/elaborate mimicry. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Crypto-anythings (closeted "whatevers") have worked this in a similar >>>>>> way to spies, but where there is a little more complicity by the >>>>>> non-cryptos who may well be collaborating in the "closeting", in the >>>>>> spirit of "don't ask, don't tell"... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "I/he/she/it/ze can pass" is the bar... it is OK if some/many of the >>>>>> observers "suspect" the true nature but the community shares the >>>>>> consequences of a community member proving to be "less than >>>>>> fully-compliant". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Whitelash supremacists' dog-whistles are a good example. I don't want >>>>>> to think that my neighbor is part of that movement, so some of the >>>>>> slightly "off color" things she might say across the fence, I am >>>>>> inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to... so if she notice I don't >>>>>> respond to her dog whistles, she continues to whistle them under her >>>>>> breath now and then, just to soothe her inner racist/mysXinist and maybe >>>>>> keep checking if I maybe have been "converted", and I continue to >>>>>> (hopefully) ignore it and keep bringing her casseroles (laced with >>>>>> xanax) when her husband is recovering from his latest self-inflicted >>>>>> gunshot wound... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In this case, we are *all* "acting as if"... until someone gets >>>>>> converted to "radical honesty" and that just adds another level of >>>>>> indirection of (self/other) deception. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/6/22 8:37 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>>> I had to do some cybersecurity training and it was set up so that all >>>>>>> the choices one could make led to the same outcome. The point was to >>>>>>> understand the properties of the paths, not the outcome. >>>>>>> While that wisdom might be of some value in some other situation, often >>>>>>> there is no discernable difference between the nuance in a social rule >>>>>>> and variation that arises due to novelty or ambiguity of circumstances. >>>>>>> The signal to noise ratio just isn't high enough to justify the extra >>>>>>> precision. The actors in this training could have been interpreted as >>>>>>> quietly demonstrating concern rather than neglect. One could imagine >>>>>>> a cartel boss would not want to wait for a reasonable number of >>>>>>> outliers before taking action. After all the cartel boss is a criminal >>>>>>> and not concerned with fairness. An experienced undercover cop knows >>>>>>> she needs to mimic the expected distribution very carefully, and that >>>>>>> even if she does mimic it very carefully her life is still in danger. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marcus >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of glen >>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:57 AM >>>>>>> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading Well, >>>>>>> Steve's targeting of "feeling included" does target "understanding". >>>>>>> I'd argue that the spies don't understand the communities they >>>>>>> infiltrate. Even deep undercover or method acting doesn't provide >>>>>>> understanding. I argue that any bad faith actor like a spy or "acting >>>>>>> while cynical" has a reductive objective as their target. What was >>>>>>> interesting about the concept of bad faith was Sartre's suggestion that >>>>>>> the deep undercover operator who finally *does* begin to identify with >>>>>>> the community they've infiltrated is the interesting edge case. That's >>>>>>> the cusp of understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose I'm making a similar argument to EricC's argument for >>>>>>> "belief", which I call "dispositional". If you don't act on your >>>>>>> belief, then you don't actually believe that thing. So, an undercover >>>>>>> cop who infiltrates a drug cartel but refuses to Necklace a local >>>>>>> do-gooder just doesn't understand what it means to be in the cartel. >>>>>>> They can't understand. And they shouldn't understand. The spy is there >>>>>>> for a more specific objective, not understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One of those more specific objectives might be *prediction*. In >>>>>>> simulation and [x|i]ML, there's a stark distinction between predictive >>>>>>> versus explanatory power. Ideally, strong explanatory power provides >>>>>>> predictive power. But practically, 80/20, reductive prediction is >>>>>>> easier, faster, and more important. The excess meaning is swept under >>>>>>> the rug of variation or noise. At raves, a reductive objective is harm >>>>>>> reduction. Sure, it would be fantastic to teach all the kids >>>>>>> pharmaco[kinetics|dynamics] and chemistry ... as well as psychology and >>>>>>> neuroscience. But the harm reduction tent is not really there to get >>>>>>> into the kids' minds. The objective isn't understanding. It's a >>>>>>> reductive focus on dampening the edge cases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/3/22 08:47, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>>>> The claim is that there is all this diversity in subcultures and that >>>>>>>> the only way to understand them is to participate in them. If it is >>>>>>>> possible to fake it, and I think it is, then that raises doubts about >>>>>>>> the claim. That is what spies specialize in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have spent most of my life avoiding "acting while cynical"... I >>>>>>>>> have *felt* cynical about a lot of things, and Marcus' description of >>>>>>>>> a lot of things speaks to my "inner cynic" but I haven't spent much >>>>>>>>> time being *harmed* by engaging in "performative activities while >>>>>>>>> feeling cynical about them". If I dig a hole it is either because >>>>>>>>> *I* need a hole, or someone else *needs* a whole, and only rarely do >>>>>>>>> I help someone dig a hole as a team/trust/affinity building exercise >>>>>>>>> unless the There are too many holes in the world that *want* >>>>>>>>> digging to spend much effort en-performance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've never felt particulary "included" in any social circle and I >>>>>>>>> have seen that a little bit of "Performative Grease" might have >>>>>>>>> helped this square peg fit more-better in the round holes it >>>>>>>>> encountered, but generally I simply avoided those activities and >>>>>>>>> drifted further and further out. That is not to say I haven't >>>>>>>>> *tried* to be a good sport and do what others were doing on the off >>>>>>>>> chance that it would actually be something that worked for me, but >>>>>>>>> generally not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BTW... there seems to be some inverted general usage of >>>>>>>>> "square-peg/round-hole", drilling a round hole and then driving a >>>>>>>>> square(ish) peg into it guarantees a good tight fit... it is >>>>>>>>> preferred to round peg-round hole in traditional joinery. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/22 8:17 AM, glen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> OK. But the affinity and "inner self" alluded to by the phrase >>>>>>>>>> "faking it" is nothing but a personality momentum, a build-up of >>>>>>>>>> past behaviors, like a fly-wheel spun up by all the previous >>>>>>>>>> affinities and faking of it. We faked it in our mom's womb, faked >>>>>>>>>> it as babies, faked it as children on the playground or in class, >>>>>>>>>> etc. all the way up to the last time we faked it digging ditches or >>>>>>>>>> pair programming in Java. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only difference between feeling an affinity and engaging in a >>>>>>>>>> new faking it exercise is the extent to which the new collaboration >>>>>>>>>> is similar to the previous collaborations. As both Steve and Dave >>>>>>>>>> point out, spend enough time living in a world and you'll grow >>>>>>>>>> affine to that world (and the world will grow affine to you). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I suppose it's reasonable to posit a spectrum (or a higher dim >>>>>>>>>> space) on which some people have particularly inertial fly-wheels >>>>>>>>>> and others have more easily disturbed things that store less energy. >>>>>>>>>> Of the Big 5, my guess would be neuroticism would be most inertial. >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps openness and agreeableness would be the least inertial. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/22 05:35, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> There are many common tasks that parties could direct their >>>>>>>>>>> attention toward. This happens at companies, prison cafeterias, >>>>>>>>>>> and churches. That it is grounded in a particular way doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> make it any truer, or anyone more committed to it. We are often >>>>>>>>>>> forced to participate in cultures we don't care about, and faking >>>>>>>>>>> it is an important skill. Just because someone sweats or gets >>>>>>>>>>> calluses or tolerates others' inappropriate emotions in some circle >>>>>>>>>>> of people, doesn't mean there is any affinity toward that circle. >>>>>>>>>>> Oh look, he dug a hole. I dug a hole. Sure, I'd do those kind >>>>>>>>>>> of performative activities if I were a politician, as I bet there >>>>>>>>>>> are people who think this way. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:06 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And, of course, there is no such thing except appearance. What >>>>>>>>>>> could it possibly mean to say that an appearance of a bond exists, >>>>>>>>>>> but no actual bond exists? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On September 1, 2022 7:29:45 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to create the appearance of a bond where none exists, >>>>>>>>>>>> get to work. Once one recognizes the nature of work it is easy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 1, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Prof David West <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From glen: "If you want to share values with some >>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary shmoe, then get to >>>>>>>>>>>> *work*. Build something or cooperate on a common task. >>>>>>>>>>>> Talking, >>>>>>>>>>>> communicating, is inadequate at best, disinfo at worst." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is kinda the whole point of Participant Observation at the >>>>>>>>>>>> core of cultural anthropology. The premise is you cannot truly >>>>>>>>>>>> understand a culture until you live it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is still a boundary, a separation, between the >>>>>>>>>>>> anthropologist and those with whom she interacts, but sweat, >>>>>>>>>>>> calluses, blood, and emotions go a long way toward establishing >>>>>>>>>>>> actual understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> davew >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/1/22 11:21 AM, glen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Inter-brain synchronization occurs without physical >>>>>>>>>>>> co-presence during cooperative online gaming >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222 >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222> >>>>>>>>>>>> 001750 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot piled into the aggregate measures of EEG. And the >>>>>>>>>>>> mere fact of the canalization conflates the unifying tendencies of >>>>>>>>>>>> the objective (shared purpose) with that of the common structure >>>>>>>>>>>> (virtual world, interface, body, brain). But overall, it argues >>>>>>>>>>>> against this guru focus on "sense-making" (hermeneutic, monistic >>>>>>>>>>>> reification) and helps argue for the fundamental plurality, >>>>>>>>>>>> openness, and stochasticity of "language games". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe, then get to >>>>>>>>>>>> *work*. Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking, >>>>>>>>>>>> communicating, is inadequate at best, disinfo at worst. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree somewhat with the spirit of this, however a recent >>>>>>>>>>>> writer/book I discovered is Sand >>>>>>>>>>>> Talk<https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714>> >>>>>>>>>>>> by Tyson Yunkaporta and more specifically his references to >>>>>>>>>>>> "Yarning" in his indigenous Australian culture offered me a >>>>>>>>>>>> complementary perspective... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I definitely agree that the "building of something together" is a >>>>>>>>>>>> powerful world-building/negotiating/collaborative/seeking >>>>>>>>>>>> experience. The social sciences use the term Boundary >>>>>>>>>>>> Object<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object>> and Boundary >>>>>>>>>>>> Negotiation Artifact. Jenny and I wrote a draft white-paper on >>>>>>>>>>>> the topic of the SimTable as a "boundary negotiating artifact" >>>>>>>>>>>> last time she visited (2019?). A lot of >>>>>>>>>>>> computer-graphics/visualization products provide fill this role, >>>>>>>>>>>> but the physicality of a sand-table with it's tactility and >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple perspectives add yet more. The soap-box racer or fort >>>>>>>>>>>> you build with your friend as a kid provides the same. The bulk >>>>>>>>>>>> of my best relationships in life involved "building something >>>>>>>>>>>> together" whether it be a software system or a house... >>>>>>>>>> -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
