Re: Friam Digest, Vol 164, Issue 38

[jon zingale]

​Thank you, those responsible for the

discussion regarding simulation​ and

the real. Here is a competition currently

sponsored by MIT where competitors write

AI to perform automated war: BattleCode.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:00 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Send Friam mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs (Robert Wall)
   2. Meet the Math Professor Who?s Fighting Gerrymandering With
      Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education (Tom Johnson)
   3. Re:  Meet the Math Professor Who?s Fighting Gerrymandering
      With Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education (Merle Lefkoff)
   4. FW: Grasping the scary, shaping local action (Nick Thompson)
   5. FW: trump/Ford (Nick Thompson)
   6. help with memory (Nick Thompson)
   7. Re: help with memory (Russell Standish)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Wall <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:18:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

Hi Vladimyr,

Nice to chat with you on the glen-channel. :-)  I guess I came late to the chat without fully understanding the how it was vectored.  It happens ... age ...

Wrt conflating the two models of "being in the groove," y' all seem to be focused on the, perhaps, unintentional fusing of the real with the symbols we assign to the real for analysis or other purposes.  This issue works on many levels.  Csikszentmihalyi discusses this "being in the zone" in a positive way where creativity happens and what is really lost is our sense of self in the process.  Whitehead writes about this as a continuous process change that largely is motivated by "feeling."  But there is another side that you and Glen seem to be discussing that presents a more destructive side, where one loses the understanding that the representational is not the represented. We give too much meaning to the symbols such that they migrate from epistemological to ontological.  The question becomes are the symbols real?  So this is more one of delusion.   Okay ... I think I am "in the groove" now. :-) 

You draw an interesting distinction between war-oriented computer games and real war engagements.  The distinction, however, seems to be fading away in the drone-engagement wars.  The representational becomes the grounded reality.  An emulation and not a simulation.  One of the combatants--the targeted--are but mere symbols, like on a heads-up display in a military fighter plane or just images on a computer monitor. Empire can go to war without actually going to war ... at least not until you have to own and occupy what Empire has destroyed: the livelihoods of the newly-minted refugees and the newly-minted enemies.  Killing becomes painless and remorseless and danger-free.  It becomes like a war-oriented computer game in that no one is shooting back at the guy who is pulling the trigger or at the "joy" stick. 

For a time, I used to build educating simulators for propositional war games that were used tactically in the field and strategically in a so-called war college. But these were still the kind where the assets and weapons were symbolic and just representational of possible eventualities. The goal was war training with only cyber-oriented risk ... kind of like a flight simulator.  But now, these simulators seem to have been weaponized and the risk all but eliminated.  

When you finally remove all the meaning from the math notation and just manipulate the markings, it can be very hypnotic.  

Yes. For the triggermen, the process is kind of like the one Glen describes where the symbols have become ungrounded, valueless, meaningless. But, in reality, the "game" is no longer a simulation (a model) but an emulation (a surrogate for something real) operating in real time. And, for the targets, the process is the opposite of the one Glen describes where the symbols are very much grounded. Is the corollary that the triggermen are Platonists and the targeted combatants are Constructivists?  

Most of my time working under the rubric of systems engineering, though, was in building simulators for decision support.  This I much preferred.  This seemed more constructive than destructive or combative, even if still only a simulator. But are we deluded to believe these models, or any model, to be reasonable facsimiles of the modeled, at least in the context of its range of applicability? Is face validity enough?  I mentioned some issues concerning this in the previous post.  

With the FEM and CAD background, I suspect you were or are a structural engineer by profession.  In fact, educationally, FEM is being used to analyze Minecraft structural models.  But, these FEM models--like with, say, NASTRAN--are quite accurate at predicting the behavior of mechanical or structural devices under the expected stresses.  We could predict where they would break.  Had to be accurate to have any value.

So I guess the point of all of this is that there is quite a spectrum of simulators to consider. In turn, there is a spectrum of the strength of binding between the representational and the speculative or represented. Analytical simulators are of no value if they are not believable, which comes about through the rigor of verification and validation. 

On the other hand, computer games are inherently unbelievable as they are just for entertainment. But, I have known some folks who get totally lost in cult-like internet games like Dungeons and Dragons, which is what ... forty-years old now?  Yeah, this is loopiness and possibly dangerously tautological. But delusions can be fun. An escape to an alternate reality.  Good that Frank limits this to an hour/day for his grandson. :-)

As for being in the zone socially, I disagree, though I don't particularly care about any jargonal co-option of the term.  During hearty arguments, mostly with religious people, I definitely lose myself in exactly the same way I lose myself after that 3rd mile when running.  I have no illusions that my zone is in any way shared by the people I'm arguing with, though ... no more than I think you and I share internal constructs mediated by the word "blue"

To be clear, Glen, I was referring to a society being "in the zone" as a whole. Maybe this could mean an alignment of symbolic references.  Not sure, but, like you, somewhat dubious that this could happen. Within my philosophy group, we have discussed the idea of conscious evolution--becoming, say, wiser, by being "in the zone" so to speak--with respect to the individual.  And I do see this as kind of a Csikszentmihalyi-est "being in the zone," a period of selfless awareness of a task or challenge. It's a neurological phenomenon. The objective is to make the period last as long as possible. Society is not very good at being selfless, even for a moment. 

Perhaps with the assistance of Hebbian learning, say, over time this is possible for individuals who work at it to remain in this state longer than is typical.  It becomes a skill or practice.  But bubbling this up to the level of a society does not seem possible.  Religion hasn't and won't do it because that's a model that requires blind credulity to the provided surreal symbols.  Even in the context of Hebbian learning, where are the "societal neurons" that need to be rewired from their inculcated states?  They tend to be imbued in the laws and in the prevailing morality memes.  But these are just things to be gamed to ensure a face validity with our self-full life simulations.

The key component to any smart system is feedback.  But, we live in a society that is running open loop.  Another form of loopiness or delusion, I guess ... believing that everything will work out in the long run.  We are exceptional. We have democratic elections ... Hmmm,  I think the awakening is happening.  Maybe there is hope?  Is that a drone I hear above ... Oh, it's just an Amazone delivery ... or is it?  :-)

Cheers

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks for the structure of thought .

 

So am I an Iconoclast because I am all too aware of the misuse of Icons ( simulations). I taught FEM and CAD and

saw puzzlement on the, soon to be, engineers faces. I have watched engineers sneak out of the lecture hall when I started showing slides of

summation of stacked matrices flying across the screen.

 

So this alludes to a possible intrinsic Tautology or Loopiness in our brains. The representation is conflated with the speculative but unknown reality (since it is never completely understood anyway) Switching from one state to the other might be called metaphysical thinking. A wonderful source of confusion.

Being totally immersed in a computer game might be said to be in the groove but when one man fights another and we call that being in the groove then are we conflating two models. If one is slaughtering the enemies on a game platform one can say he is free of ethics or morality. When Bruce Lee does the same on film

many thought it real. but those who actually fought in life knew it was BS on  constrained/elevated ropes.

 

If the  mirror neurons discussed at length do as described then they must occupy configurations near identical to neurons trained by self discovery (learning)

Then actual differentiation would seem very difficult.

 

I have a daughter  formally trained as a M.Sc. BioMedical Artist and we used to argue about symbolic thinking , she pro and I con. But the strangest part is that I am also or was considered a fair artist and illustrator for a time. Indeed I use symbols very well but mistrust others with lesser skill. Yet the most skillful are the most dangerous at least in engineering. She would regularly remark that I sketched in perspective complex machinery that did not yet exist and then built the working prototypes. Nothing elegant but functional. She claimed only to draw what already  really existed dead or alive, I always thought those arguments were small expeditions into some form of knowledge about human thinking. She thought otherwise unfortunately, but I have never had the fortune to meet another with her combination of talents.  Somewhere in this quasi-church may be others lurking in the shadows.

 

I admit to being a rather visual thinker so data visualization is my hobby now. And understanding Normal People, since they are so many...

Perhaps this is not exactly the correct thread but miss the song of larks on the prairie fields. A few notes brings back so many memories and the smells

of clover and honey.

vib

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: February-21-17 2:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

 

Hi Glen,

 

What you describe as flow or being in the zone has been precisely written and talked about by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi as the Optimal Experience.  No one will experience this quite the same way, as the flow experience requires both skill and challenge in an area where flow will occur. By his own statements, Einstein is said to have been in flow when he synthesized the concept of General and Special Relativity. At the time he was arguably very skilled in math and physics and, of course, very challenged.

 

However, I prefer Alfred North Whitehead's (et al.) concept that we are all always in flow. We just don't alway realize it. In his Process Philosophy, as conveyed  in his Process and Reality, he writes about the two modes of perceptual experience: (1) Presentational Immediacy [the bits of data that get presented to us through our senses--or imagination] and (2) Causal Efficacy [the conditioning of the present by the past]. Curiously, Csikszentmihalyi says that we can only process data from our senses at a rate of 110 bit/sec.  Reading this post likely will chew up 60 bits/sec. of that bandwidth. 😴

 

Why I bring this up at all is that Whitehead thinks that what integrates these two modes into the whole of what we perceive is Symbolic Reference. Symbolic reference is kind of like how we tag bits of our real-world immersion for building a largely symbolic but sustainable--for us individually--worldview. Most time these symbolic references are provided to us--inculcated--by others like with a religion or by our parents.  Most are satisfied with that. In your friend's case, I believe it is possible that y' all were unsettling--challenging--his worldview ... or, he challenging yours. 

 

Flow is not likely to be aroused in a social context. It is an inner state ... what the Greeks and Csikszentmihalyi would say is the entering into an alternate reality devoid of our sense of self.  Your existence melts away in such a state. So our symbols get challenged or, perhaps, disappear as well. French social philosophers Jean Baudrillard and Gilles Deleuze also talk about symbolism, but it was at a social level.  As far as I am concerned, Flow can't be achieved at the level of society ... but, boy I wish that that were not so.  Csikszentmihalyi talks about the opposite of Flow that occurs on a social level that often occurs when society has been thrown into a chaos as with war or Trumpism. 🤔

 

Is mathematics invented or discovered?  This is a perennial topic that arises within my philosophy group.  It never really gets resolved, but how could it be?   It is the ultimate of symbolic reference systems because of its precision in predicting the way the world manifests itself to our perception. This is not so true of our other symbols or abstractions. So are they any different?  In a way, they are because mathematical symbols form from an axiom-driven language. But, notwithstanding Jerry Fodor's "built-in" syntactic language of thought, languages are human inventions based on metaphors [if you like George Lakoff].  Languages work among cultures because they are more or less conventional (acceptable) to a culture.  The fact that they can be translated into other languages is because we are all immersed in the same reality. In this way, I tend to think of mathematics as invented. If you are a Platonist--a worldview--you will likely disagree. 

 

As I often do, I  kind of resonate with Vladimyr's thought, which you included in your post. It is very Csikszentmihalyi-est. I do think that simulations can lure us into thinking that they are an exact dynamic facsimile of the reality which they try to abstract into an analytical model.  There are all kinds of things about simulations that can lead us astray. Fidelity is one thing, obviously.  But, I think that the worst thing--and this is often the fate of a simulator because of time and funding--is when they get so complicated that no one understands the process for how the results were computed.  This--like with many neural networks--is when the simulator just become an Oracle.  This is kind of what happened with Henry Markam's Blue Brain Project, building a simulation of something for which they didn't know the first principles.  I think also this is what John Horgan wrote about concerning what was going on at the Santa Fe Institute in his SA article From Complexity to Perplexity. 

 

But, as Vladimyr muses, maybe this is the best we can do ... and symbolic reference is what nature served up for us to cope, concerning what we are perceiving.  But, as with all smart systems, a smart entity will always try to challenge and refine those symbols with continuous feedback--FLOW.  However, in the larger scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if mathematics was invented or discovered. I mean, where did the concept of a hammer come from? 🤔

 

Cheers

 

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's no doubt that there's some kernel of truth to the concept of "flow" or "in the zone".  I always make the mistake of thinking others have had similar experiences to mine.  But at our journal club a few weeks ago, while discussing whether math is invented or discovered, one guy kept conflating mathematical symbols with their semantic grounding.  A couple of us kept trying to make the point that after you've abstracted all the symbols away from their grounding, so that you're just manipulating the symbols, you get into the state where you start to think of the math, itself, as having an ontological existence.  You're "in the zone", so to speak, where the math becomes real as opposed to a proxy for the real.  That the other guy couldn't grok it could be a sign that he's never entered that zone, hamstrung by his grounding to physical reality.

Or, he could have simply felt defensive because he thought we kept attacking him ... you never know how some people interpret the milieu.

On 02/20/2017 10:44 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
> Some music allows some people to focus longer. Maybe Taser jolts work for others. The simulation lures us into fantasy lands. Which I kinda like sometimes.
> Time links these sims of mine but temporality is a coincidence not a true cause and we don't live long enough to test every contingency, so we make do with delusions. There seems no path out of this box. The box just grows with us.
> vib
>
> So why did evolution place so much emphasis on time...

--
☣ 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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>
To: "Friam@redfish. com" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:35:33 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering With Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering With Geometry
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-the-Math-Professor/239260/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:44:32 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering With Geometry - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Interesting.  I posted on my Facebook page this morning an article about the federal court in Wisconsin questioning gerrymandering there--new precedent.  Wonder if this group was involved in this important court decision.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Meet the Math Professor Who’s Fighting Gerrymandering With Geometry
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-the-Math-Professor/239260/

============================================================
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

--

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: Friam <[hidden email]>
Cc: "'Jonathan Barker'" <[hidden email]>, "'Dix McComas'" <[hidden email]>, "'Rachel Folsom'" <[hidden email]>, "'Rachel Thompson'" <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:09:49 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] FW: Grasping the scary, shaping local action

Hi, everybody.

 

Some of you might remember my friend Jonathan Barker, a political scientist from the University of Toronto, who came to visit with us a few years back.    I have turned to him to help me think about how much danger we are actually in, fascism-wise.  I think the short answer he would give is that the danger is substantial. 

 

Here are some materials he has forwarded to me to prod me along in my thinking  (links below). 

 

There is one more I will send in a separate message.

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Jonathan Barker [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 2:21 PM
To: Nancy Barker <[hidden email]>
Subject: Grasping the scary, shaping local action

 

Greetings from Toronto,

Here are four sources for understanding what US politics is in for and one very promising path of effective resistance and redirection. I read a lot on the new administration and these pieces, I find, throw a bright light on the unfamiliar events spilling out every day. Thanks to friends and relatives who signaled them to me.  But let me add that (the late) Sheldon Wolin in his 2008 book Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism shows how thoroughly the ground was prepared for the current corruption and strangulation of the political sphere of Democracy.

Three to read, one to watch for a deeper and deeply disturbing exposure of the Trump phenomenon. You may have seen one or more of these.

They complement, but do not duplicate, one another.

 

All best,

Jonathan

 

(1)  https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n04/sidney-blumenthal/a-short-history-of-the-trump-family   [Sidney Blumenthal, A Short History of the Trump

Family, London Review of Books]

(2)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GAw6dvh8v4  [Masha Gessen on the Trump-Putin relationship - the fifth estate]

(3)  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/  [David Frum, How to build and autocracy. the Atlantic]

(4)  https://www.indivisibleguide.com/about-us/  [About the Indivisible Guide and the thousands of groups taking action to reclaim the public sphere in the U.S]

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: Friam <[hidden email]>
Cc: "'Jonathan Barker'" <[hidden email]>, penny thompson <[hidden email]>, "'Dix McComas'" <[hidden email]>, "rachelfolsom@me. com" <[hidden email]>, "'Rachel Thompson'" <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:15:00 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] FW: trump/Ford

Hi, everybody,

 

Here is the second shoe.  I asked Jonathan to comment on trump on the basis of his experience with the Mayor of Toronto, a man named Ford, who managed to get himself reelected despite the fact that it was pretty clear he was a coke head … and a fool.  I asked him how was that possible and how do we fight it.

 

See below.  I particularly urge you to “stay for “ the newspaper article at the end.  Both Jon’s letter and that article provide ground truth about the difficulties of extracting oneself from such a regime, once it has been stabled.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Jonathan Barker [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:30 PM
To: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: trump/Ford

 

The appeal to the anger of those who feel sidelined and ignored is is similar. They both attacked "the gravy train." They both had great need for popular approval and held the aim of limiting government and taxes. Ford in office was undisciplined and not very effective. He did not systematically attack all city services, but did cut their funding. He had links with shady operators, attacked the media, cared nothing for facts, stuck to a simple message. And his supporters stuck with him despite all the criticism and investigative reporting. Ford had a genuine affection for regular people, answered their calls, and even went to their houses to look after complaints about city services. He also had serious addictions to alcohol and other drugs.  

Opposing him had some similarities to opposing Trump. He did not have firm control of city council and the city is highly dependent on the province. There was room to stymie some of his efforts.  And after he admitted to substance abuse most power was stripped from his office. (There was no provision for removing him from office.) To get him out of power, like for Trump, required grass roots action: organize and get out the vote. But city politics has no organized parties in Toronto which means there were no party organizations to mobilize or to pry supporters from. The seeming futility of well-informed reporting and opposition arguments seems similar in the two cases. In his second election Ford might well have won because the non-Ford vote was split between two strong candidates, but cancer sidelined Ford before election day.

Lessons: Use all available institutional weapons and reach into the places supporting Trump to organize and activate and inform the many people there who oppose him. The key problem is addressing the issues in the Trump voters minds in a convincing way. There are many strands here to think through. What can government and citizens do to reduce inequality and reverse the cultural and physical separation of class and identity groups? How to rehabilitate the reputation of government as a problem solver? And serous media as sources of true information? What groups and places to target first?

Daniel Dale covered Ford and then Trump for the Toronto Star. Here are his thoughts about similarities and differences from an interview after the Republican convention.

The nuclear codes are a worry...

 

Jonathan

=====================

Daniel Dale on Donald Trump and Rob Ford

Towards the beginning of Trump’s campaign, a lot of people drew connections between his political rhetoric and rise in popularity and that of Rob Ford. What’s diverged since — or only gotten bizarrely more similar?

A very big difference is that Ford managed to stay on his best behaviour during his first campaign, in which he managed to convince people he wasn’t quite the erratic, angry, scary man that people had said he was. Trump just doesn’t care. His behaviour has only gotten more concerning to a lot of people, but he’s unwilling to modify it.

Another is that [Trump] has explicitly used racial or ethnic division in an attempt to fuel his popularity with a small segment of the population. Ford may have benefited from the homophobia of the part of the electorate who didn’t like George Smitherman [in 2010], or from blurting out in debates where he didn’t want immigrants coming to the city. But that type of fear-based appeal wasn’t something that he did.

Early in the campaign there were eerie similarities. But the more it’s continued, the more they’ve diverged. Trump has gone beyond.

I think it’s hard in general to compare a Canadian municipal campaign to a U.S. presidential one. But what we saw in Trump’s very dark, angry, fear-mongering speech at the Republican convention last week is nothing like what we saw from Ford. Trump is trying to make crime and law and order central to his campaign. That’s something that’s more often central to municipal campaigns, but it’s not something Ford talked about. Even in his fierce criticism of government, his message was practical: “I am a fixer. I will be more responsive to you than this current government.”

If anything, that’s the parallel. When Trump said, “I am your voice, and you have been forgotten by elites who look after their own interests. I will be your champion.” That’s what Rob Ford did: Instead of Miller, this Harvard-educated lawyer who goes on about bike lanes, I will champion what you want me to champion.

What are some examples of these parallels or divergences you’ve seen in the last week during the Republican National Convention?

The most reminiscent to me during the convention was the way Trump and his campaign responded to the Melania plagiarism problem. It was so obvious that words had been copied. Political advisors spent days screaming the obvious thing: You acknowledge the issue, apologize and move on. But they denied, and said, “No, nothing’s wrong here, it’s just the media making things up.” I think at one point his spokesperson said something along the lines of Michelle Obama thinks she invented the English language.

Finally, after dragging the news cycle on longer, they finally admitted an error. It was so Ford-like to me. It was this perpetual unwillingness to concede anything, and turning yourself into the victim of your own error. [from http://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/shared-values/rob-ford-donald-trump-and-the-future-of-politics].

===============

On 2/16/2017 11:48 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Wondering, to what extent your experience with Mayor Ford is a model for our experience with President Trump.

 

Absent, nuclear codes, of course.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: Friam <[hidden email]>, Faculty Discussion <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:04:38 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] help with memory

Hi, Everybody,

 

Does anybody remember from the 90’s (yes, the 90’s!) a computer web thing, VERY primitive, that tried to imitate a university with class rooms, and discussion groups.  It had a cheesy graphic interface you could “move around in”  I think it was called moo doo, but I possibly have it confused with the Vermont Fertilizer company of the same name.  I don’t know if it bears any relation to the educational software Moodle. 

 

Ring any bells?

 

Have done some poking around on the web but I can’t find anything, possibly because of people using the same or similar names for other things.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Russell Standish <[hidden email]>
To: Friam <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:54:58 +1100
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] help with memory
I know ... I know !

MOOC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 06:04:38PM -0700, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Hi, Everybody,
>
>
>
> Does anybody remember from the 90's (yes, the 90's!) a computer web thing,
> VERY primitive, that tried to imitate a university with class rooms, and
> discussion groups.  It had a cheesy graphic interface you could "move around
> in"  I think it was called moo doo, but I possibly have it confused with the
> Vermont Fertilizer company of the same name.  I don't know if it bears any
> relation to the educational software Moodle.
>
>
>
> Ring any bells?
>
>
>
> Have done some poking around on the web but I can't find anything, possibly
> because of people using the same or similar names for other things.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>

> ============================================================
> 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


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish                    Phone [phone] (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellow        [hidden email]
Economics, Kingston University         http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Friam mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
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