I briefly collaborated with a staffer at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. She said that near the big magnets, vision goes to sparkles and rainbows.
I think this experiment might not be a good idea, at least in the cause of understanding the scientific utility of metaphor? From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Santafe <[email protected]> Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 at 7:08 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Metaphor... and more... Thanks Nick, I will have to read your longer-form work. Your use of all this is so far from my own, and so far from any literature and user community that I work with or in, that I don’t even know what you mean different words to be doing in your sentences, and thus what you believe yourself to be asserting. (If I could track that much, I could then come back to whether I think the assertions “go through”, or under what analysis one would make such a judgment.) Clearly this is going to be a matter of just blanking my mind (giant magnetostimulation of the brain) and submerging in your writing for a while, to try to “get a feel” for your language usage. Then come back to these short forms and see if I can follow them any better. Eric On Apr 6, 2026, at 7:42, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: DES -- One urgent point. I asked George to look at our correspondence to see what I was missing. He caught one thing immediately "Fitness causes selection, selection causes fitness" is not necessarily a tautology nor do i think of it as such. Its a virtuous circle, or "spiral" so long as selection and fitness can be independently known. I apologise for wiring text that was open to that misinterpretation. N On Sun, Apr 5, 2026 at 5:39 AM Santafe <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Nick, I’m kind of relieved that I posted “I promise I really will shut up” on Apr 1, before Gil’s brief blast of exasperation, which I kind of get. I think I should keep my word, as much as possible without being obnoxious. At the same time, thank you for taking the time to reply, including what I actually wrote, and responding to it in-frame. Your two papers are attached to the later email, too, so we have them. I will read if and as I am able. The abstracts sound like they make a much more normal reference to the routine work that people actually do, than many of the post-string here have (to me); so that is hopeful. I tried a couple of times to come up with some kind of reply, and decided it is hopeless. There is a perfectly good language to address the problem that, after we have identified and characterized traits, and observed that sometimes they change frequencies in populations, we don’t generally know at the outset whether there is something about the traits’ functions in organisms’ lives (in their population contexts) that is eligible to be a “cause” of that change in frequency. We would like to know, for which traits in what settings, variations in trait parameters result in variations in function performance that (through the vast noise of everything else that is going on too) poke through to result in changes in trait frequency. There are no tautologies in the statistical reduction that defines different components of change (among which one is fitness, though its definition is partly by convention), and there are no other problems than the ordinary problems of functional characterization and statistical analysis in figuring out which variations in trait parameters and functions correlate with changes in trait frequency robustly enough to be candidates for cause of the change in frequency. It’s all so terribly ordinary and understandable. Meanwhile, you have a program: to assert that there are some tautologies and some ambiguities etc. Therefore I understand that, since we can observe a field of people who get from problem statements to answers, by completely ordinary and conventional steps with standard methods, without tautologies, whatever those people are doing is simply irrelevant to your program. I will admit, so that it doesn’t just seem irritating, that at a half-dozen points below, I am sure that you are just throwing up verbal chaff and playing word games to try to make something that is actually completely ordinary and orderly “look” all mangled and messed up. But it doesn’t look that way to me. At every one of these, I trip over some string of words that looks like complete nonsense, which doesn’t make the idea we were on “look” like anything; it just veers away from the track of that idea to put a word game in its place. (An example: "success causes fitness, and that fitness causes success") It was after trying to call out two or three of these that I realized i need to just give up. I suspect you could follow an ordinary mathematical argument about as well as the next guy, and you just don’t want to. Thus anything I try to reply will just yield another round with the same form as this one. I will add to irritating the list, which is what I wanted to cut away from doing earlier. I appreciated your introduction of placeholders, and of course I am quite open to that kind of thing. Not so open to the Chalmers kind, which is defined as having _no_ added content from what our ordinary, understandable language, is already doing. I don’t know why you think you see a non-Chalmers-like placeholder here; but okay. So, is it the English who say: Please Proceed. I do hope you will be able to push through to the book you were writing. We accumulate all these unfinished efforts, and it is a shame if they can’t get to some safe harbor in some output. Eric On Apr 4, 2026, at 14:23, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: DES -- I hate to drag you back into our den and maul you some more but your last post was fascinating to me and so akin to difficulties we have had with Elliott Sober and difficulties I have had understanding entropy (ugh) that I want to pursue them with you further --for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern work to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given. I am happy to have a variable with a name to represent that dimension. I just think "fitness" is an appalling name for it. Call it selectedness. Call it success. Just don't call it fitness or adaptedness or anything that might confuse a reader into thinking that you have any information about the morphological or behavioral synchrony of the organism with its environment. The essence of D's theory is that success causes fitness, and that fitness causes success. If one calls oneself a Darwinist it must be because those connections between the two ideas are empirical, not logical. — are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all the case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a measurement unit? Indeed, we are Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of reproductive success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the form of a name, so there must be something it names, that is a kind of causal force responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive success. And since there is one name, there must be some one kind of causal force it names. Well, if we do believe that the relative success of every genetic type of organism is systematic then it has a cause. Now I suppose that it's possible that each instance of success has a different cause, in which we would have reduced Darwin's theory to, "whatever causes an animal's sucess causes its success". But I think even FW would rate that a tautology. To escape that bind, we have to find some class of relations that leads to success which is other than the class that leads to failure. And to be a proper Darwinian you have to at least be able to entertain the possibility that selection would produce something other than fitness and vice versa. — to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. Well, here we are. We stand before you. I have been making such a claim in print for 56 years, so either I have managed to pull the wool over many editors' and reviewr's eyes, or it has some resonance somewhere among biologists. I hope calling it "bizarre" isn't the first step toward putting your fingers in your ears and shrieking. . It seems very similar to taking an expression like “elan vital”, and saying that, since it has the shape of a name, there must be something it names. Well, exactly! The example I like to use is the "dormitive virtue"..Years ago, before the dinosaurs, Lipton and I wrote a paper in which we talked about such expressions that purport to be explanatory but which include a reference to the explanandum within the explanans as "recursive". (eg. life is caused by the Life Force) The dormitive virtue was a place-holder for what came to be known as the very specific chemical properties of morphine. The Moliere play makes fun of people who imagine that the assignment of a placeholder has solved the problem. We thought of these place holders as serving to keep the goal in sight while scientists looked for it. Science consists a lot in filling in or dividing up these place holders. The progress in the identification of the AIDS virus is a wonderful example. See, if tempted, Comparative Psychology and the recursive nature of filter explanations <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.clarku.edu%2ffacultyworks%2f66%2f&c=E,1,k4G28ruXzTMikjk22fWt55DQZBrY8oTBaFPZetykCEmKkrdW7Zgm_InoVrTc91PCgHYC1XjdS7pzs2zz_HaX2PnsGuZtad3L3YiDf1g2E2bBiY5y9m0Lp_g,&typo=1> To me, those are strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that don’t have any semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s “colorless green dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that there was anything anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics of lots of cases of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out some vast taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That could well be my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my lack of empathy for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about who is in the world). Indeed. That would explain a lot. Please understand that I am a lifelong unbeliever. I am not even an atheist. My family had no interest in religion whatsoever. You might call me a religious Ignoramist. I have never been cuffed on the ears by nuns. — I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like people who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have talked about Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away imagined this reading of what you were writing. Again, that explains a lot of our difficulties. But I beg to suggest that there is a more generous reading. the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long Emily Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what population geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be left is EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and which isn’t interesting and wasn’t to your point. So, were you claiming that there are biologists operating that way? And are there really biologists operating that way?y Indeed there are. They are called comparative biologists, comparative anatomists,comparative ethologists, comparative physiologists, anybody who studies the form of classes of organisms in relation to their circumstances. Natural design didn't get eliminated by Darwinism; it got partially, and incompletely and in some cases wrongly explained by it. Some effort needs to be expended in finding out the degree to which natural design actually accounts for natural selection and vice versa. Please see Toward a Falsifiable Theory of Evolution <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.clarku.edu%2ffacultyworks%2f67%2f&c=E,1,uEqHnsI2N6agATrwVIuvnLowDECLxZG4KT5Za_GJiyC2lUxcNNve9iY0ZctgPVn2cXHp3MIF_4h0exfyKRO9KdPS6nCz0uerbqjb5nNIWBw,&typo=1> Nick On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 2:17 PM Nicholas Thompson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: DES -- I hate to drag you back into our den and maul you some more but your last post was fascinting to me and so akin to difficulties we have had with Elliott Sober and difficulties I have had understnding entropy (ugh) that I want to pursue them with you further --for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern work to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given. — are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all the case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a measurement unit? Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of reproductive success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the form of a name, so there must be something it names, that is a kind of causal force responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive success. And since there is one name, there must be some one kind of causal force it names. — to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. It seems very similar to taking an expression like “elan vital”, and saying that, since it has the shape of a name, there must be something it names. To me, those are strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that don’t have any semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s “colorless green dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that there was anything anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics of lots of cases of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out some vast taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That could well be my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my lack of empathy for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about who is in the world). — I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like people who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have talked about Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away imagined this reading of what you were writing. If the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long Emily Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what population geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be left is EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and which isn’t interesting and wasn’t to your point. So, were you claiming that there are biologists operating that way? And are there really biologists operating that way? On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 5:15 AM Santafe <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Can I ask one last question? after which I promise I really will shut up: The content of EricC’s note below (about the key in a lock), reflecting back on things Nick said in the early posts about selection’s being a tautology, which got me started digging a hole, have bothered me through the night, and made me wonder if I can understand how I have been missing both-of-y’all’s point. Was it something like the following:? — for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern work to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given. — are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all the case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a measurement unit? Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of reproductive success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the form of a name, so there must be something it names, that is a kind of causal force responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive success. And since there is one name, there must be some one kind of causal force it names. — to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. It seems very similar to taking an expression like “elan vital”, and saying that, since it has the shape of a name, there must be something it names. To me, those are strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that don’t have any semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s “colorless green dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that there was anything anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics of lots of cases of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out some vast taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That could well be my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my lack of empathy for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about who is in the world). — I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like people who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have talked about Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away imagined this reading of what you were writing. If the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long Emily Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what population geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be left is EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and which isn’t interesting and wasn’t to your point. So, were you claiming that there are biologists operating that way? And are there really biologists operating that way? As always, I appreciate whatever patience or indulgence, Eric On Mar 31, 2026, at 15:47, Eric Charles <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I'm a bit confused here... The initial dog pile on Nick seemed (to me) to have as one of its main points something like "Look, old man, once you formalize something mathematically we don't need to care what any of the words might mean or imply in any other context, it is just math, stop thinking that the words matter!" And now there have been several posts by EricS, at least one by Glen, and I think Marcus and Frank are in there somewhere as well, claiming that the words are crucially important and we need to take them much more seriously. So.... where does that leave us? Is everyone now onboard with the metaphors mattering quite a bit? I'll also note that "function" can't do the work on its own to explain evolution. We still need to know why some functions are favored by selection and others are not. EricS seemed to indicate that we assess "fit" by determining if animals are "happy".... but the metaphor of "fit" is like a key in a lock. To explain evolution you need the matching of form-and-function-to-a-particular-environment. That matching *sometimes* increases reproductive success, and *sometimes* the traits in question are hereditary. Population genetics combined with field research can be very powerful along those lines, but the math of population genetics on its own, floating out in the ether, can't do it at all. Best, Eric On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 6:10 AM Santafe <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Nick, Two smaller replies to what have become two sub-threads: > On Mar 30, 2026, at 15:42, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > DES, EPC, FW > > So far as I understand, the argument flowing from Fisher makes no claims > about the kind of trait that produces reproductive success other than that it > is the kind that produces reproductive success. FW, if that's not a > tautology, it's a pretty tight circle. As usual, let’s decamp to more neutral ground in the hope of having an ordinary negotiation. Suppose that, in your overweening pursuit of the study of metaphor, you never noticed that there is a once/4-year gathering called The Olympics. Also never learned what any of its so-called “events” are, what they are about, how they work, and how one differs from another. My hypothetical here is meant to define a condition of having “very little prior information” about some phenomenon that we can, nonetheless, still reasonably unambiguously circumscribe. But a quick inspection shows that a subset of the participants (who all together seem to be called “athletes”) are given metal disks and stand on some kind of 3-tiered podium, while other athletes do not. Being a statistician — a skill so helpful in the study of metaphor that it was worth taking the time out to learn — you immediately recognize that this is a kind of marking that can be used to partition the athletes. Taking notice, for the first time, of some of the conversation in the society around you, who seem not nearly so devoted to metaphor and thus have time to do other things, you gather that these marked people seem to be called “winners” (or better, “medalists”, this “winning” thing is a finer sub-partition; I’ll mis-use “winner” to label the most salient marking for this little parable). It’s handy to have such a term, for use in later sentences, so they become less tedious than the ones I have been typing so far. You also note that while there is only one 3-tiered podium and metal-disk set per one “event”, there seem to be many such distinct “events”, so some kind of event name gives you a second kind of marking you can put on the athletes. Moreover, interestingly, the “event” label is again a proper partition (or at least seems to be; this one is less cut-and-dried than the observation that everyone carrying a metal disk is not someone not-carrying a metal disk, so we are wary; the event label seems to be a bit more abstract): every athlete is in some “event” set, and it appears that no athlete is in more than one of them. As with the “winners” label, you learn that there are conventionalized names for the events, and you can find a look-up table if you need one or another of them. Now, I can make a list of statements that seem to be of two different kinds (scare quotes here indicate my statisticians’ attribute labels; in my condition of very little prior knowledge, I don’t claim I have any more semantics for them than I listed above): 1. Every “winner" is someone marked as having won something. 2a. Every winner in the “gymnastics” event is shorter than the average over all the participants; 2b. Every winner in the “high jump” event is taller than the average over all the participants; … (we could presumably look for other such summary statistics that seem to be unusually regular and to carry different values in different “events”). I would say sentence 1 is “a tautology”, or close enough to it for the purpose of this negotiation. Maybe I should use EricC’s good, and slighly more flexible term, “truism”. Now you may write a protest email: But the sentences 2a, 2b, have not told me what constitutes “competition” in these “events”: “gymnastics” and “high jump”, and given me the rule book for scoring them. Okay. And they didn’t cook your dinner and do the dishes afterward either. Life is hard. And more a propos (breaking my little 4th wall here), the path to a fully-adequate “causal” theory through statistical inference is like the Road to Heaven: narrow, tortuous, and inadequate to many things one can rightly want to know. That’s what other sciences are then for. But if you claim: The sentences 2a and 2b didn’t give me _any information_ about these “events”, and couldn’t have, because they are tautologies, I would say you made an error. Of course, the real Nick would not say that, so we are all safe. The above parable is, of course, about selection. I didn’t say anything about heredity. But if I had happened to note that height is a fairly heritable trait, I could have spun out a much longer story, and defined some Bayesian-posterior conditional probabilities, which would be shown to have properties such as: the posterior probability, under various ceteris paribus conditions, for a child of a high-jump winner to turn out another high-jump winner is higher than for that child to turn out a gymnastics winner, and so forth. The amalgamation of both of those stories would go in the direction of Fisher’s fundamental theorem. It would leave out all the stuff that Fisher left out of emphasis in his mad pursuit of his covariance term as an analog to the thermodynamic 2nd law (a non-valid analogy, as it turns out to be easy to show), and that Price included didactically (and here, to EricC’s answer): that I didn’t even mention that the tall people might get drafted into wars and put into an infantry to fire rifles over tall dijks, while the short people might be drafted into Special Forces and sent on missions to attack through underground tunnels, and so the number of survivors could depend on many factors about which war their country had started, in what theater, and against what opposition, etc. These are the world of everything-else that Fisher lumped together into “deterioration of the environment”, as Steve Frank (and I think also Price) lays out. They are probably not well-analogized to “mutation”, but in genetics, mutation also goes into the same bin in the Price equation — _outside_ the term of Fisher’s fundamental theorem — as the “deterioration” effects. The accounting identity is flexible enough that we don’t need analogies to use it; we can formulate a version for whatever statistics our phenomenon-of-interest supplies. Anyway; at issue: Seriously, do we have a problem in scientific work, of people being unable to gain partial knowledge about phenomena through sentences of the kinds 2a, 2b, because they can’t tell the difference between those and sentence 1? In the world where I live, I don’t see evidence for this mistake. Eric .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,GvQhgG8mgl44zu_Tqszk_wQFcC3LBswQyBsmnoa7umwcI4cM2jGPGmAYotJwNMri0nXMbYayX6uZw5iDa5Mn0zM5Lzi9_LPGwP2Q6dG2zkm1Zw,,&typo=1> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,23DEBEu6zm1j58j5JsswXw4R4hnyuhIceP4fdD1lMWDKru8V9CE3qD4-RYjtV5Jy9hfTf9uHOrhrlBi_RdYMT7jsteJtGiX2nEMNJisxFedZstuD_29M3FA,&typo=1> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Ec4s1UwqPKENLyqkHX4Ib_R7EzxFYgc2j7jZdKdzIhORPykt1347aKvaSNnoCQ4Arvb6m2_GLwAwKSl29d-U5DrlMczDc4AHiyyrX-KaGBCrMK9RdKapkw,,&typo=1> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,wWOjZ0Q8WKeZG4U9_UBc_a11JtFDvedQPCTS8FL1Usmbm4F-EJO5IWv_Ignpmf4vTC3CO23cIKVFR_FtMZC8DWD4hyxlN0c7hdOfez8KEw,,&typo=1> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,kwN2JIDPqIj9UxOfed-aORUfsTjJO1DufRCI0ppHAlXiormfdNykgyPSWLfGlw5BiruUeiaRfbSG8W1tubwpfhSXeau4oRt3nvXTRhaRUQDZn1ezcoU,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,kwN2JIDPqIj9UxOfed-aORUfsTjJO1DufRCI0ppHAlXiormfdNykgyPSWLfGlw5BiruUeiaRfbSG8W1tubwpfhSXeau4oRt3nvXTRhaRUQDZn1ezcoU,&typo=1> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQqYu7I-SVHGT_AjFnLh-XWpOng69axviT6aY8I-XQhC5yk80tH2Ke3qOfyvs8l3RCZeAkeZoIR8TnddaWkwLAXTuoc5QvUR8RvkfEpSQA4,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQqYu7I-SVHGT_AjFnLh-XWpOng69axviT6aY8I-XQhC5yk80tH2Ke3qOfyvs8l3RCZeAkeZoIR8TnddaWkwLAXTuoc5QvUR8RvkfEpSQA4,&typo=1> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Scpn5Z6qKVVYYNEU1u9CRDlFHpw1wgOZOdNM_lN_6PGv3Act07AQi7IpeyFshe33FmWkTI9CAG8DxLRlNRkf96ox2bRdyp5XC_cgCr8eGG_qVIaFKTZQtQ,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Scpn5Z6qKVVYYNEU1u9CRDlFHpw1wgOZOdNM_lN_6PGv3Act07AQi7IpeyFshe33FmWkTI9CAG8DxLRlNRkf96ox2bRdyp5XC_cgCr8eGG_qVIaFKTZQtQ,,&typo=1> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NLxA-XaYLw7kDphTWfVR6urQXoJSKIwq0etxJd8ER-oc2b18abBXo9Qeee2OhAh_25GSqFBFw3JCMtIdxzYZ2dNpnjUjp4hMFRrpN814z2HxmIPhG0rfxUF-CQ,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NLxA-XaYLw7kDphTWfVR6urQXoJSKIwq0etxJd8ER-oc2b18abBXo9Qeee2OhAh_25GSqFBFw3JCMtIdxzYZ2dNpnjUjp4hMFRrpN814z2HxmIPhG0rfxUF-CQ,,&typo=1> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <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 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,zA-G5QKVxSPBJmAMP_AJzjZBgLoWIDEwNhUXDpDE-ij5HxoUybuXHsL7hq3XSjcaie2WQdh2hKkTDoZpSv083KPYvq8qWzFQDpts4RVeb0UxKke--9Km&typo=1> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,YuoMqhAnODFK7gL8VQKwXiuMZPGgTcNdV3JgB-s9IGxudIzKjP_2nuVrv9XASA2GmtPpabPVY1SoV_P65J8zfqHN98PEQERGPn4JY3pb&typo=1> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,RTuBnYPs7aSXh6PCRgC3eltQzFenug0NrzICyO63IHxkmDRWr5as1yZl_aRfSuQdRBjUi6qNKJ8UnKmwUBClw5Wo4YjechJlRTyTQYdOsg,,&typo=1> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,-sgioWyoJ9Vy0MyLRBgl8ZQKbLOXF9VqGGTEutRE5wJioXcx3l2BEzHSM8_-tGX-WDZdF5260g7Uh0Nx9QOxyVNE4HeeRJ0JlF_paQyH75-KjEXPeg-W9RQpyVuR&typo=1> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,TtGHguBztcaI183g6Goerj-O4VoUmgxpx6RFwy76dnUtcD6dMcEs2GfRLne1FYCYIv9JZQ_Qlp0DYwPIxqwUF0P5yyaODACw5wXNyxIS_4NA3OoABA1XdQ,,&typo=1> https://substack.com/@monist <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,mMVE-osMfLMKveVRGsDNOLbCQxE2gtCfa9lLV-tXT5ooNLpQD3mqsdWZrYkDx7mKJDcf7XYJbAAs76SMkAt7fhk6zh8pI_xm2uaiDg2olbukzFktpA,,&typo=1> -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,2XwwB39XAWBxm8sZIiJJtQaGopoq86JnxTvN46gGqo6aH0noWqqKl_l7rB_k-DozfW1XYaJks5IPwIsYhgQEFcMMYaST1TtrgzyaPODraxU,&typo=1> https://substack.com/@monist <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,svFJjYNZT04uLonFV0yujfOyRi6wCR5qc-O348ai4iwT5_F08j6oi7TW8PPCmquF6PKjGNjXrIdHlZlDzzHj1-5A3toxXWZa5j7dj8mSyCtOtir_evUN4QOA5A,,&typo=1> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,1Yj3oXBfXU9FL5YgY7_61lUY6S944YYnB3lhy68u4K0zPI0_lLJl4_qjp8pcYomUasPvoVenzsSlxfJNtZS8lkb_ALVAI9XA-ws_REd_mBz6DeUH5u3xUKaLb4A,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,1Yj3oXBfXU9FL5YgY7_61lUY6S944YYnB3lhy68u4K0zPI0_lLJl4_qjp8pcYomUasPvoVenzsSlxfJNtZS8lkb_ALVAI9XA-ws_REd_mBz6DeUH5u3xUKaLb4A,&typo=1> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,0_T3p9FRn72Wb576gUkbP3yykjXY0kTI-AElcl-eqAWYU5womwJJ5TSlBwcpkYmObXMkPxa-cqkpKy04LnwF9q_s1uc78x2KFJsgvxP6LOgk5twjJd_wXnHKPa0S&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,0_T3p9FRn72Wb576gUkbP3yykjXY0kTI-AElcl-eqAWYU5womwJJ5TSlBwcpkYmObXMkPxa-cqkpKy04LnwF9q_s1uc78x2KFJsgvxP6LOgk5twjJd_wXnHKPa0S&typo=1> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,9_aFoYc8LEBvlTRa6JAb15n0L4Hhp9lNSuX13T_IT-91Oq1jkfJ6EgnCAuLWMPdqpP-KDjnAUT7o3BnwzAIHxkvOxLzAfkPL3aSIq7ro&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,9_aFoYc8LEBvlTRa6JAb15n0L4Hhp9lNSuX13T_IT-91Oq1jkfJ6EgnCAuLWMPdqpP-KDjnAUT7o3BnwzAIHxkvOxLzAfkPL3aSIq7ro&typo=1> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,lMJPwQ_tUH-IPBwp6f2KXYAEarkDc0KOAA6TwZdPbWwifDQprErklE2-hCs5OWhc1DmB88QWKxpEPkPKXWnNOWMIFzI2Nsv2-XLYgRhUcGlyR_J5clz3J8k1pQ,,&typo=1 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,lMJPwQ_tUH-IPBwp6f2KXYAEarkDc0KOAA6TwZdPbWwifDQprErklE2-hCs5OWhc1DmB88QWKxpEPkPKXWnNOWMIFzI2Nsv2-XLYgRhUcGlyR_J5clz3J8k1pQ,,&typo=1> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <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 <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,EHRAq7ghLpjsl4ZHF55qmSa36UhxkealN7ABfO5qkV1J2Mu-lYC4DrN5c9FnHwPRLggzrNN6rWaSOsNed8iBIyLpQVXv1Rorh78hIsygsvEtQ-gJ03xn58aZUZ2Y&typo=1> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,CPvtQP2Uq9O6hx6OoaGqvcOng_hflp90R4THZAMnk-bf2VdAlQHEaFMMukttoZR2uyYsZgR26YJosoJyZ-dw7iTGPHXyIAlnuaqMN8_mLVj8za6HIQln1mmHQapE&typo=1> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,b3AvXhVEy1N77hAdXidLqY4OnlxMl_fkKC4MfVp9DHPWwtZDZjxApEeZrUcZw35Dve69osD9oJEpNlPcXDkCs7aZTCrlkMPel65x03DIYwaqmCcXTc5c&typo=1> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,eFxPkHDLGdpdeTO-gztrhV4LEU-uCg8Vl8HgGV-NYUbjcqSv9dEjbcOW599M-ZdEWWYP_ahE2rpzPG6T4mNxVaoyagEc53ho0qfIezO1GwnGWEy0i95YVw,,&typo=1> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,yOlkmrrUeTaGeYex3-BP2up_KTKEECrDeXyMl2bn9HMBnlqmOWOhGvMQOKYLoybbMqLzqnZSs7-_jUa1hkV7hkzl30kqZYwyMpt1XgLahOOdGMUu_KCS&typo=1> https://substack.com/@monist <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,sECLaBy8NN4JIxn0K_XdKJaqDL_5f-DBJjVXY18AdRfpb1OgG3a0kH415SIPlY-o8cIJxjTizTCnZ6jKbQKh39BkP19S9307-0f-Ic2zdY6d&typo=1> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,tC0PdYiCVSRc7b8jz4x7Yig5Hz71QYRfF3irlQEjCQChVMEQeyRN9YpFygqtdMjjNaAY26D2u5JvjHK-zYJYexEHINcvJUeaY1w-_Oh9zuU78r-Vy2mwuJHIdvnH&typo=1 to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,2jJpuVLI2AmmQBLt5lXMu7iYyu1XmT5ctf5oDB0lgfOJhgZFy9kEb5BrFx8O8jEnVxJiV8UKNrvg45SI5-G0cNgA8zmL9lA54oNbx1TwbTkm0RE,&typo=1 FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,YtDpEX1fabSs1AlCN26XsY-EWjggWd8DwKaaGy4-VIPf0iFrJLBmyul8mQ5A7Q2Btig_DA8y8zKiI4bE9mWoTBg_21KyKki9nm5aCZijj-OY-rl5iliL&typo=1 archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NvWsaA57CgBqzhKbNfM7nTbeUEIi3Nz3UaZ__wXB6K9DGDMn3mhCOKtx-Y5A9I84BYiPEgB3aTVYkxRGfBJEFfhZoK6HEIhqbrDn_FY5&typo=1 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. 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/
