IS: Ruminations from the M.I. S. WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Hi everybody,

You all be glad to know that I have been in New England for the last three days and have yet to see the sun. The green is overpowering. Apparently, they had a record-breakingly warm February here followed by and equally record-breakingly cold March which has resulted in in an eruption of ticks.  Yes, folks, this year, even the ticks have ticks.  

  While I was traveling, you all suddenly had a burst of Complexity Talk, which I am now trying to recapture.  This brings me back to one of my annual laments : that this medium, into which we have poured so much creativity over the last ten years, makes it almost impossible to recover a coherent record of an interesting thread.  I don't know whether some progress has been made on this problem since the last time I lamented it.  For an academic (such as myself) this all looks like so much spilled-seed.  What you wrote, seems to sketch out the arguments of a publication on the subject, which, if we could recover a text of what you wrote, could be filled out and submitted to a journal.  "Submitted to a Journal!???"  Big Whoop.  Mock me if you will.  Many of my ilk have died for the lack of good, fresh, passionate argument to submit to a Journal.  

Also, while I am in a reflective mood, it is probably time for me to apologize to Steve S. for my rhetorical snark.  Actually, his use of in form is normative.  (I have seen dictionaries that make his usage the FIRST usage.)  So actually, I have NO normative leg to stand on.  To bulk up my critique of his use of the word, I have to build a much bigger argument concerning the use of words that have two meanings in place of words that have but one in the hope of avoiding two-close scrutiny of the meaning being conveyed.  But even that argument is shaky, because SS could say, I meant EXACTLY what I said.  I MEANT to say that something ... some speech, some idea, some event ... shaped the inside of something.  And now, those of you who know me well, will see the actual source of my disgruttlement with his usage:  my behaviorism.  [OH GAWD, THOMPSON, DO YOU HAVE TO DO THIS?]  For a behaviorist, the metaphor implied by "information" itself is profoundly dangerous because it appeals to the shape of something which we cannot see.  Even when we speak of informing somebody in the normative, everyday usage, we are obfuscating.  Speech influences behavior at least in some long-term global sense, or it does nothing at all.  (Yes, Frank, it's true! (};-)]  )  

Lord knows, I miss you all!  If anybody has the energy to summarize your recent complexity debate, I would be in your debt.  

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of gepr
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 7:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

I've struggled to understand your point here. Are you saying that, eg, a phase diagram of a device like a refrigerator, with ice in the freezer part, jello in the fridge part, and coolant in the compressor:

1. violates a definition of 'space',
2. cannot exist,
3. reduces to a common, atomic, phase space, or 4. something else?



On May 26, 2017 5:39:40 PM PDT, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of
>phase space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a
>phase space - There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space.

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

I think this is the key. Any project requires a driver of some sort, even if they're merely a facilitator. It's banal work to summarize, collate, etc a collaborative paper. No secretary implies no artifact.

I used to participate in collaborative fiction chain letters, where each receiver continued a story with all previous characters and events. We could steal a character's identity and make them do something the original author would be offended by, change the physics of the universe, etc. But even that​ extent of  distributed authority required a shared motivator.


On May 28, 2017 8:21:55 AM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>If anybody has the energy to summarize
>your recent complexity debate, I would be in your debt.  

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

> You all be glad to know that I have been in New England for the last three days and have yet to see the sun. The green is overpowering.
My father, who emigrated to the west from KY after WWII referred to this
as "so green, it hurts your eyes!"
> Apparently, they had a record-breakingly warm February here followed by and equally record-breakingly cold March which has resulted in in an eruption of ticks.  Yes, folks, this year, even the ticks have ticks.
I hear it is this way in the upper midwest/great-lakes region as well.
>  
>
>    While I was traveling, you all suddenly had a burst of Complexity Talk, which I am now trying to recapture.
...
>   Many of my ilk have died for the lack of good, fresh, passionate argument to submit to a Journal.
I am sympathetic with your desire to capture/render some of these
informal/semi-formal discussions in a more formal form, but believe that
a good portion of the back and forth here is _mere_ collective
brainstorming.   In this particular round-robin, I see Russ having had a
very specific (but not completely exposed) idea about the boundary
region between life and non-biological complex systems, which he posed
as a challenge.

A number of us threw down in various forms, mostly trying to answer his
specific question, or in my case asking him if he wasn't really noticing
that there may be no clear boundary between life and non-biological
complex systems... suggesting that it is our definition of "life itself"
which deserves a constant expanding.   I think Glen's listing of
precedents for this question, roughly from Rosen to Kauffman was another
way of suggesting that, though I've been wrong about what Glen means before.

I am also a firm believer that what we often do (when we do it well) in
this type of forum is to refine a question until it may (or may not)
have a simple or obvious (but non-trivial?) answer.

I think the residue of the discussion, as refactored by Stephen Guerin
is still a very much alive horse worth beating, or at least leading to
water.

I am afraid that what is needed is not a better mechanical *threading*
tool to preserve these discussions (I can easily sort my inbox by
subject/date and recover the thread (and others could do the same on the
archive)).   Merely capturing the discussion as it was
generated/played-out does not achieve more than the baseline of what you
want I think.   There may be automatic semantic processing tools which
could help to tie all of this together into something more structured
than a series of "he said/he said" arcs.   There are complex references
within this corpus and much richer references to the larger corpus of
writing on the topic(s) (complexity science, life, etc.)

It feels as if what you are wishing for is an automated "editor" in the
broadest sense, including the role of curator and summarizer. Or maybe
just the tools to aid a human in that process.   I know you have talked
this up many times and it often falls dead or gets you a round of
razzing, so I don't want to instigate that.  I don't know how often your
role has been as an editor of others' technical work, but is it fair to
say that is where you are looking for leverage?
>  
>
> Also, while I am in a reflective mood, it is probably time for me to apologize to Steve S. for my rhetorical snark.  Actually, his use of in form is normative.
I didn't mind your snark at all, it was a good excuse to engage with
you, if only in a simple riposte.   I do think that the use of language
is important and our current (ab)uses at the highest levels of
government and politics(for example) which play off the most base
(mis)uses by the populist populace (aka unwashed masses) makes it feel
ever more urgent.
>   (I have seen dictionaries that make his usage the FIRST usage.)  So actually, I have NO normative leg to stand on.  To bulk up my critique of his use of the word, I have to build a much bigger argument concerning the use of words that have two meanings in place of words that have but one in the hope of avoiding two-close scrutiny of the meaning being conveyed.  But even that argument is shaky, because SS could say, I meant EXACTLY what I said.  I MEANT to say that something ... some speech, some idea, some event ... shaped the inside of something.
I WILL cop to a propensity of deliberate use of slightly unfamiliar
words or familiar words in unfamiliar contexts... I don't like to think
I do it for simple effect, I like to think I *usually* do it to draw
attention to the specificity of the usage.  In this case, I felt there
were nuances suggested by "inform" over "shape" (as I've already
argued... not arguing here... just illustrating).
>    And now, those of you who know me well, will see the actual source of my disgruttlement with his usage:  my behaviorism.  [OH GAWD, THOMPSON, DO YOU HAVE TO DO THIS?]  For a behaviorist, the metaphor implied by "information" itself is profoundly dangerous because it appeals to the shape of something which we cannot see.  Even when we speak of informing somebody in the normative, everyday usage, we are obfuscating.  Speech influences behavior at least in some long-term global sense, or it does nothing at all.  (Yes, Frank, it's true! (};-)]  )
I do hope we can sit for many hours some day and for me to let you
edjumicate me a little more on the broader implications of being a
behaviorist.  I"d like to understand better how that informs (gak!) your
worldview and the things you find it easier to discuss in a particular
mode and the things you find more difficult to think around.
> Lord knows, I miss you all!  If anybody has the energy to summarize your recent complexity debate, I would be in your debt.
I doubt my summary is of the kind you want, more of a blow-by-blow than
anything, but I do hope the discussion proceeds in a way that is useful
to you.  Your own tradition of scholarship and un) questions of the rest
of us.

I think Glen Biohazard's comment "without a secretary, there is no
artifact"...  Are you therefore maybe asking for a "mechanical
secretarial turk"?

Carry on!
  - Steve

>    
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of gepr
> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 7:38 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> I've struggled to understand your point here. Are you saying that, eg, a phase diagram of a device like a refrigerator, with ice in the freezer part, jello in the fridge part, and coolant in the compressor:
>
> 1. violates a definition of 'space',
> 2. cannot exist,
> 3. reduces to a common, atomic, phase space, or 4. something else?
>
>
>
> On May 26, 2017 5:39:40 PM PDT, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of
>> phase space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a
>> phase space - There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space.
> --
> ⛧glen⛧
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Dear Steve,

I am taking a break from the black flies. Let's see if I can remember all the points in your excellent message.

Summary:  Thanks for it.  that will help me a lot as I try to figure out what hell they are talking about. I am always baffled when so called hard scientists start to talk about systems.  The way they talk about them is so subjective and sloppy.  (};-)]

Archiving Friam discussions: BUT you are completely wrong about what I am looking for in an email processor.  I am NOT looking for an editor.  What I am looking for is a processor that gets rid of all the redundancy, the headers, the inclusions of previous messages, etc., and simply presents the texts, in order of writing.  I know, you say, Nick, that's easy.  But try it for a few minutes.  Download the archive from Redfish and then try to arrange it in any readable fashion, as, say, one might read it in a book as a Famous Correspondence.  It's a LOT harder than you might suppose.   Well, it was a lot harder for me than I supposed it was going to be.

It is a problem we inflict on ourselves by how these email forums are organized. Google had one that was chronologically organized; RG forums are chronologically organized, but not archived (!!!!).  If you archive a RG forum yourself, it comes out in the right order, and pretty clean, as well.  

Behaviorism.  Pending the edumication, I have attached an article which I think you might actually enjoy.  It contains a very succinct (for me, anyway) statement of the perils that go along with NOT being a behaviorist.  

Nick






Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 12:31 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Ruminations from the M.I. S. WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?


> You all be glad to know that I have been in New England for the last three days and have yet to see the sun. The green is overpowering.
My father, who emigrated to the west from KY after WWII referred to this as "so green, it hurts your eyes!"
> Apparently, they had a record-breakingly warm February here followed by and equally record-breakingly cold March which has resulted in in an eruption of ticks.  Yes, folks, this year, even the ticks have ticks.
I hear it is this way in the upper midwest/great-lakes region as well.
>  
>
>    While I was traveling, you all suddenly had a burst of Complexity Talk, which I am now trying to recapture.
...
>   Many of my ilk have died for the lack of good, fresh, passionate argument to submit to a Journal.
I am sympathetic with your desire to capture/render some of these informal/semi-formal discussions in a more formal form, but believe that a good portion of the back and forth here is _mere_ collective
brainstorming.   In this particular round-robin, I see Russ having had a
very specific (but not completely exposed) idea about the boundary region between life and non-biological complex systems, which he posed as a challenge.

A number of us threw down in various forms, mostly trying to answer his specific question, or in my case asking him if he wasn't really noticing that there may be no clear boundary between life and non-biological complex systems... suggesting that it is our definition of "life itself"
which deserves a constant expanding.   I think Glen's listing of
precedents for this question, roughly from Rosen to Kauffman was another way of suggesting that, though I've been wrong about what Glen means before.

I am also a firm believer that what we often do (when we do it well) in this type of forum is to refine a question until it may (or may not) have a simple or obvious (but non-trivial?) answer.

I think the residue of the discussion, as refactored by Stephen Guerin is still a very much alive horse worth beating, or at least leading to water.

I am afraid that what is needed is not a better mechanical *threading* tool to preserve these discussions (I can easily sort my inbox by subject/date and recover the thread (and others could do the same on the
archive)).   Merely capturing the discussion as it was
generated/played-out does not achieve more than the baseline of what you
want I think.   There may be automatic semantic processing tools which
could help to tie all of this together into something more structured
than a series of "he said/he said" arcs.   There are complex references
within this corpus and much richer references to the larger corpus of writing on the topic(s) (complexity science, life, etc.)

It feels as if what you are wishing for is an automated "editor" in the broadest sense, including the role of curator and summarizer. Or maybe
just the tools to aid a human in that process.   I know you have talked
this up many times and it often falls dead or gets you a round of razzing, so I don't want to instigate that.  I don't know how often your role has been as an editor of others' technical work, but is it fair to say that is where you are looking for leverage?
>  
>
> Also, while I am in a reflective mood, it is probably time for me to apologize to Steve S. for my rhetorical snark.  Actually, his use of in form is normative.
I didn't mind your snark at all, it was a good excuse to engage with
you, if only in a simple riposte.   I do think that the use of language
is important and our current (ab)uses at the highest levels of government and politics(for example) which play off the most base (mis)uses by the populist populace (aka unwashed masses) makes it feel ever more urgent.
>   (I have seen dictionaries that make his usage the FIRST usage.)  So actually, I have NO normative leg to stand on.  To bulk up my critique of his use of the word, I have to build a much bigger argument concerning the use of words that have two meanings in place of words that have but one in the hope of avoiding two-close scrutiny of the meaning being conveyed.  But even that argument is shaky, because SS could say, I meant EXACTLY what I said.  I MEANT to say that something ... some speech, some idea, some event ... shaped the inside of something.
I WILL cop to a propensity of deliberate use of slightly unfamiliar words or familiar words in unfamiliar contexts... I don't like to think I do it for simple effect, I like to think I *usually* do it to draw attention to the specificity of the usage.  In this case, I felt there were nuances suggested by "inform" over "shape" (as I've already argued... not arguing here... just illustrating).
>    And now, those of you who know me well, will see the actual source
> of my disgruttlement with his usage:  my behaviorism.  [OH GAWD,
> THOMPSON, DO YOU HAVE TO DO THIS?]  For a behaviorist, the metaphor
> implied by "information" itself is profoundly dangerous because it
> appeals to the shape of something which we cannot see.  Even when we
> speak of informing somebody in the normative, everyday usage, we are
> obfuscating.  Speech influences behavior at least in some long-term
> global sense, or it does nothing at all.  (Yes, Frank, it's true!
> (};-)]  )
I do hope we can sit for many hours some day and for me to let you edjumicate me a little more on the broader implications of being a behaviorist.  I"d like to understand better how that informs (gak!) your worldview and the things you find it easier to discuss in a particular mode and the things you find more difficult to think around.
> Lord knows, I miss you all!  If anybody has the energy to summarize your recent complexity debate, I would be in your debt.
I doubt my summary is of the kind you want, more of a blow-by-blow than anything, but I do hope the discussion proceeds in a way that is useful to you.  Your own tradition of scholarship and un) questions of the rest of us.

I think Glen Biohazard's comment "without a secretary, there is no artifact"...  Are you therefore maybe asking for a "mechanical secretarial turk"?

Carry on!
  - Steve

>    
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of gepr
> Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 7:38 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>; Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> I've struggled to understand your point here. Are you saying that, eg, a phase diagram of a device like a refrigerator, with ice in the freezer part, jello in the fridge part, and coolant in the compressor:
>
> 1. violates a definition of 'space',
> 2. cannot exist,
> 3. reduces to a common, atomic, phase space, or 4. something else?
>
>
>
> On May 26, 2017 5:39:40 PM PDT, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of
>> phase space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a
>> phase space - There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space.
> --
> ⛧glen⛧
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

"Download the archive from Redfish and then try to arrange it in any readable fashion, as, say, one might read it in a book as a Famous Correspondence."

That's like trying to participate in a game by reading the box scores.

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Owen Densmore]

But Nick, I gave you the answer. Unfortunately there is no way to automate it but the Friam list is archived and you could search/browse through it for topics you think would make a nice discussion.

Then you use medium.com to put it together. You can have all the participants help spiff it up too.

   -- Owen

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

"Download the archive from Redfish and then try to arrange it in any readable fashion, as, say, one might read it in a book as a Famous Correspondence."

That's like trying to participate in a game by reading the box scores.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

I participated in a document co-authored by a ridiculous number of people.  We used Google Docs.  It was significant work for the primaries.  But I think it worked very well in capturing a literal room full of people's perspectives:

  http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/oee1-ws-report-submitted.pdf

On 05/29/2017 08:45 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> But Nick, I gave you the answer. Unfortunately there is no way to automate
> it but the Friam list is archived and you could search/browse through it
> for topics you think would make a nice discussion.
>
> Then you use medium.com to put it together. You can have all the
> participants help spiff it up too.


--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Owen Densmore]

​OK so who'd be willing to help Nick?​

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:51 AM, ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I participated in a document co-authored by a ridiculous number of people.  We used Google Docs.  It was significant work for the primaries.  But I think it worked very well in capturing a literal room full of people's perspectives:

  http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/oee1-ws-report-submitted.pdf

On 05/29/2017 08:45 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> But Nick, I gave you the answer. Unfortunately there is no way to automate
> it but the Friam list is archived and you could search/browse through it
> for topics you think would make a nice discussion.
>
> Then you use medium.com to put it together. You can have all the
> participants help spiff it up too.


--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Barry MacKichan]

Possibly off-topic, but I’m attaching a clip from my email program
(MailMate on the Mac) that show the current message in the context of
its thread. Each dot is clickable.

--Barry


On 28 May 2017, at 13:17, Nick Thompson wrote:


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Barry,

That's kinda nifty.

n

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Barry MacKichan
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 4:32 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Ruminations from the M.I. S. WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Possibly off-topic, but I’m attaching a clip from my email program (MailMate on the Mac) that show the current message in the context of its thread. Each dot is clickable.

--Barry


On 28 May 2017, at 13:17, Nick Thompson wrote:



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Barry MacKichan]

😉 However, when the thread gets long, the thread graph is less
useful. See attached.

--Barry


On 29 May 2017, at 14:32, Barry MacKichan wrote:

> Possibly off-topic, but I’m attaching a clip from my email program
> (MailMate on the Mac) that show the current message in the context of
> its thread. Each dot is clickable.
>
> --Barry
>
>
> On 28 May 2017, at 13:17, Nick Thompson wrote:

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove