Friam

hidden

Classic

List

Threaded

59 messages Options

123

thompnickson2

May 20, 2020; 4:02am

Re: hidden

Hi, Eric S,

Thanks again for your thoughtful commentary. As I read it, I came in and out of understanding it just as I came in and out of understanding Glen’s gloss on “inside”, just before I FINALLY got it. So there is hope for me.

This is why lists are a death trap, a kind of cognitive-affective pitcher plant. Always there is the impulse to say “Oh no no no! You have misunderstood me!”. But of course there is no sentence compassable that can’t be misunderstood. Whoever is most tenacious will simply outlive the others, and I can promise you it won’t be me. I can’t even imagine what social media must be like for the generation born into it.

At 82, I am not going to outlive any of you, so I would rather not think of the discussion in this way. I have this insane, naïve view that out of such a discussion we could pull an article, a book, a compendium, and academic thingy of SOME sort that would give some permanence, something that we could be proud of. I would love to see a book, written in a language we-citizens could understand, that would convey the algorithmists’ understandings of the topics we have been discussing, e.g., whether they think they are building a machine with a ghost in it or one that merely demonstrates that ghosts are unnecessary.

I would love to participate in such a book In point of fact, over the 15 years I have been coming to FRIAM, I have published four articles, each arising to some degree from our discussions, so it IS possible. I am not sure anybody else thinks it’s a worthy enterprise, or, more particularly, one that they have time to pursue. I am simply helpless to not try to do it. And nothing sharpens a writer more keenly than learning all the myriad ways in which he can be misunderstood.

Sorry for hastily reading your comment on spiritualism. In the meetings of the Mother Church, there are two or three people of a more or less spiritualist inclination whom I have been trying to understand and draw out their threads. So my comment about the Pragmatic implications of spiritualistic position was honest and I hope not haughty.

Thanks once again for your many contributions to my thinking. I need to reread your posts, particularly your back and forth with Jon, to see if I can understand better the mathematical/computational point of view that you are developing there.

All the best,

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hidden

So I can’t do even 1/10 of the line-by-line reply toward which I twitch, or this would turn into the through-the-night conversations between Moriarty and Ginsburg that Kerouac relates in On the Road, and I will accept defeat at the outset rather than go that way.

Only a couple of things, then. I need to re-arrange:

On May 20, 2020, at 3:48 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

They are so hell-bent on not giving an inch to the spiritualists (a worthy position IMO)
[NST===>OK, so here I am about to confirm my philistinity… (By the way, when is the world going to wake up and remember that Philistine is a racist term.)

I do remember it, always since finding out about it. Miserably it is part of the aggression in which such terms are used. The people who would use it against the physicists do not intend to be kind.

… by asking you what you think spiritualism is and what it is worthy OF? In other words, I don’t think you get your “by the way.” It may be “in the way.” <===nst]

My original sentence can be read two ways, one of which is a good-natured, humorous supportive one toward what I read as your motive. Being hell-bent on denying the spiritualists an inch is a worthy position IMO. That was the intended meaning, both the good humor and the supportiveness, to say that my objections are bounded, and there is much in which I am on your side. Should I say more about why you read it the other way? No, clearly not. Interestingly, because I _cannot_, and there is some fundamental element of courtesy in realizing there are limits to what one can know about another. Something about being hidden…. (Sorry; that is trolling.)

And then:

HEP: In principle, whatever you care about is a result of interaction of our building blocks.
ROS: Well, okay, but your saying that hasn’t addressed basically anything in what we wanted to understand from what we do.
HEP: Whatever you wanted to understand was just a problem of assembly.
ROS: “Just assembly” has its own rules which are not already expressed in the rules by which you characterize your building blocks (Of course, the objection was never made with such circumspection, but usually in less clear terms.)
HEP: Well, in principle we understand all that.
ROS: Then In Practice, say something we find useful or interesting.
HEP: In Principle we understand all that.
ROS: You are a robot.

And in that way, “reductionist” got entrenched as a synonym for “philistine” who thinks there isn’t anything left to explain beyond a few descriptions of building blocks. Not only did it lead to a lot of unproductive fighting, it also made it much harder for those who had useful points of view on what reductionism is, or isn’t, to relate its contributions to all the other work that involves understanding of new explanatory primitives.
[NST===>If anybody on this list thinks I hold the above position, I have been a very poor expositor, indeed. <===nst]

... [show rest of quote]

Followed by

[NST===>

[yes I have clipped content here, which does affect context, to highlight a part still intending good faith]

I am an “up-reductionist”. My crime is that I assert that the one key to the mind is to look up and out, rather than down and in. Our minds are something about us, not something within us. <===nst]

“The one key to the mind”. “Our minds are … about … not … within”

This is why I answered Glen about Brouwer (Intuitionism, constructivism) versus the formalists.

If you make your above assertions as answers to a conversation in which you are not constructing something to address what the conversation is about (this question of inner/outer or hidden or whatever), what is the content of the formal assertions?

Someone is asking you to search in the void for the surprise of a new thought. You are answering by declaring a certain kind of sufficiency of thoughts you have long held fixed. You are not claiming to be in possession of all constructions — I understand that and always have — but your “about … not … within” is a certain kind of changing the subject as a pre-emption.

In my cartoon of the reductionism of the physicists above, I wasn’t asking you to make a mapping from the domain-content of that discussion to the domain-content of this one — there is a crass older-school behaviorism, as you say, for which that kind of mapping would have worked, and I know that is not what is at work here, and you are not from that kind of mind — I was asking you to consider the style of thought that substitutes a formalist-style declaration of scope in answer to a constructivist-style search for something surprising because it is hard to find.

You did address this, in a style I recognize:

My monism is limited to formal thought, to the project of building an approach to understanding that is as comprehensive and consistent as possible. I.e., a scientific understanding.

I understood a few days ago that this was the source of your (also good-natured) dig at me asking “must one be doing science all the time? Isn’t it okay to sometimes have a bit of fun?” as a read of my position.

I believe I am as on-board with you as a person can be, in liking consistency, believing that science as an aspiration is somehow in that direction, etc. If there is a difference in the way we are fencing over this position — and there may not be in substance so much as in style — it could be that I expect my belief in my ability to recognize that consistency to be much more thoroughly upended by new thoughts of kinds I could not anticipate. So I don’t think I could define what “science” is, except from a very unimaginative appeal to things I currently happen to know about from our shared past, I would include in that all the Piercing positions I have learned from you on this list, and more things I want to do with them. But that’s just what is already in the library. I hope to be floored by what is opened up by new ideas, the way I am floored by the curved spacetime geometry of black holes as a thinkable thing, which comes from outside my whole experiential history as an animal living in the nearly-flat spacetime of Earth.

I just got off a long Skype call with a student, which is why this awful post got delayed. At several points in the conversation, he started laughing, because suddenly he saw things, and understood that they had been just at his elbow seeable all the time, but not seen. That laughter is the evidence. He is a wonderful student because he would never think of suppressing the admission of it to maintain an image. That surprise is what makes the miserable rest of it worth getting through.

But in the end, all was well anyway:

[NST===>

[a clip, not related to what is kept]

OK, so how about we commit ourselves right now to the design and execution of a research project on dreams. How would we go about it? I think it might turn out to be the hardest thing we ever did. <===nst]

Here you have yourself summarized everything I wanted to say.

All best,

Eric

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

David Eric Smith

May 20, 2020; 4:15am

Re: hidden

Very nice!

On May 20, 2020, at 1:02 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sorry for hastily reading your comment on spiritualism. In the meetings of the Mother Church, there are two or three people of a more or less spiritualist inclination whom I have been trying to understand and draw out their threads. So my comment about the Pragmatic implications of spiritualistic position was honest and I hope not haughty.

A thing I did not know, and which completely changes the way I now can hear the response. Wonderful!

I think that like vaccinations, these kinds of reminders of how incompletely one can hear, and the foundations of both precaution and courtesy in that realization, have to be boosted regularly.

Btw: there was a typo in the last, which I was not going to spam the list to correct. I wrote Percian, and of course the Mac changed it to Piercing, and I didn’t notice until after sending.

My impulse is like yours, to want to somehow produce something. If I were not so goddamned slow and so goddamned obtuse….

Eric

gepr

May 20, 2020; 3:39pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by jon zingale

On 5/19/20 4:55 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> Doing so could be one meaningful way to interpret /tracing a thought/.

Yes. While I don't fully grok the expansions from fibers to bundles/sheaf, what it evokes in my head seems coherent.

> With regards to the discussion about our holographic surface, I could use more
> clarification on the lossy/lossless property. I assume we agree that sorting is
> not dual to shuffling. For instance, defining the type of a shuffling algorithm
> does not require Ord <http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputprelude/Ord_c.html> to be a class constraint, where it /is/ required for sorting.

I think whether shuffle is yet another ordering depends on what we mean by "random". But I don't want to devolve into metaphysical conversations about free will and whatnot. So, if we assume shuffle is ordered, just ordered mysteriously, then we can talk about loss sans metaphysics.

> If we are claiming that the information found on our holographic surface is
> complete, I would like to think we are claiming it to be lossless‡. At the end
> of the day, it may be the case that we will never know the ontological status of
> information reversibility through a black hole. Am I wrong about this? If our
> holographic surface isn't reversible, is hashing perhaps a better analogy?

To do complete justice to the steelman of the EricC/Nick claim, I think we do have to assert no loss. And invertibility of the transform(s) is the right way to think. But I *also* think, if we tried hard enough, we could get EricC/Nick to admit to some loss with the caveat that what's lost in that lossy transform is *irrelevant* somehow (EricC's use of "invalid" and yammerings about Wittgenstein >8^D). And since my point isn't to inadvertently create a *strawman* of their claim by making the steelman too ... well, steely, I'd like to allow for a lossy transform as well as a lossless transform. And, by extension, I'd like to allow both invertible and uninvertible transforms.

That may well be important if the steelman turns out to be nothing *more* than metaphor. If all I'm doing is laying out a metaphor for privacy, then I'll lose interest pretty quick because what I'm *trying* to do is classify privacy. I want string comprehension to be in the same class as behaviorism. I don't want to draw super-flawed analogies between them.

But the distinction ([non]invertibility) might very well help evaluate the believability of the steelman.

> If in the limit of behavioral investigation we find no more semantic ambiguity than
> the semantic ambiguities we experience when attempting to understand an others
> language, [...]

I don't think it is. I think there is a no-go lurking that is associated by EricS's recent mention of the student laughing because the insight was "at his elbow". And it's (somehow) associated with Necker cubes, paradigm shifts, and even a "loss of innocence" you see in people who've become cynical, the difference between work and play, "flow", etc. It's related (somehow) to the opportunity costs of using decoder X instead of decoder Y. As SteveS pointed out, one's participation in the landscape *changes* the landscape.

This is fundamental to the steelman we're building. It's not merely epiphenomenal. By decoding the surface of the ... [ahem] ... "patient", you are *manipulating* the patient. You can see this directly in your worry about [ab]using Frank as our privacy touchstone.

I wanted to set the stage for this in the formulation of 1st order privacy (by obscurity) by laying out the thing to decode side-by-side with the decoder, evoking a UTM where the tape contains both the computation and the description of the machine that can do the computation ... but I thought that would interfere with my main targets EricC and Nick. If they reject the steelman, then this becomes a tangent project of numbers, groups, and codes ... which is cool, but not what I intended [†].

[†] I'd love to sit in on a read of Gentry's paper, though it'd all be over my head.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

May 20, 2020; 3:56pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

What we call "dreaming" is nothing but a dynamic configuration of our bodies. The same is true with thoughts and emotions. The only way to *reliably* study dreams, thoughts, and emotions is by measuring the body.

Now, we can, of course, focus in on some *parts* of the body ... like watching where eyeball focal points go when looking at a picture or, indeed, the words that come out of someone's mouth when they self-report what they ate for dinner, or what they dreamt about. But the fact remains that the only way to study thoughts and emotions is by measuring the body.

It's important to realize that the parts of the body you're measuring is not a *proxy* for some type of thought or emotion. So, that's a complete misunderstanding. REM movement is not a proxy for dreaming. The only way to measure dreams is to measure the body because it's the body that's acting. There's nothing *but* the body to measure. You can't measure dreams because dreams don't exist. Only the body exists.

But we *can* identify patterns in the body's configuration that correlate with that body yapping about "dreams". And if those patterns show a tight cluster, then we can say that that cluster is the state of the body we call "dreaming". (In my limited exposure, I've seen no evidence that the cluster of body configurations is all that tight. REM is an isolated and misleading measure. I think we'd also need some measure of *-crine signaling, elevated chemicals in the blood, etc.)

As for observing your *experience* of the dream, once we've done ALL THE WORK above, then we can talk about *inducing* similar experiences in your future self or inducing them in others. So, we might be able to *force* you to have the same dream over and over again. And maybe I could "observe" your experience by getting you to induce the body configuration in me. Maybe this could even be done in near real-time with some very fast AI. We hook the harness to you and me, with the machine between us and as the machine measures your state it quickly induces a similar state in me. Then we'd be dreaming the same dream.

On 5/19/20 4:26 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> But how is this a study of /dreaming. /

On 5/19/20 4:39 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Q: Why are not dreams, like any other experience, proper objects o study?
> A: Because, unlike other experiences, we report them after we have them.
> Q: No, that can't be right. There is no situation in which we actually report the experience precisely as we have it. So, the difference between a dream and any other reportable experience is a matter of degree.
> A: Oh, all right. We can't study dreams because there is no way to observe you having the experience.
> Q: Well, what if we take REM sleep as a proxy for dreaming. Now we can observe you having the experience.
> A: Well, I suppose. But you can't observe the experience that I am having.
> ... to be continued.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

May 20, 2020; 4:38pm

Gentry link: (was hidden)

In reply to this post by gepr

It wasn't hard to find. But sometimes I get good results from Google and sometimes I don't. So I'll save it in the archives for myself at the very least.

A FULLY HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION SCHEME
https://crypto.stanford.edu/craig/craig-thesis.pdf

On 5/20/20 8:39 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> [†] I'd love to sit in on a read of Gentry's paper, though it'd all be over my head.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

May 20, 2020; 4:42pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by gepr

Please, oh please, would you guys remind me what a "steelman" position is and what it's function is in rhetoric. I feel like you-guys are making progress and I am falling .... falling ... behind.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:40 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hidden

On 5/19/20 4:55 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> Doing so could be one meaningful way to interpret /tracing a thought/.

Yes. While I don't fully grok the expansions from fibers to bundles/sheaf, what it evokes in my head seems coherent.

> With regards to the discussion about our holographic surface, I could
> use more clarification on the lossy/lossless property. I assume we
> agree that sorting is not dual to shuffling. For instance, defining
> the type of a shuffling algorithm does not require Ord <http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputprelude/Ord_c.html> to be a class constraint, where it /is/ required for sorting.

I think whether shuffle is yet another ordering depends on what we mean by "random". But I don't want to devolve into metaphysical conversations about free will and whatnot. So, if we assume shuffle is ordered, just ordered mysteriously, then we can talk about loss sans metaphysics.

> If we are claiming that the information found on our holographic
> surface is complete, I would like to think we are claiming it to be
> lossless‡. At the end of the day, it may be the case that we will
> never know the ontological status of information reversibility through
> a black hole. Am I wrong about this? If our holographic surface isn't reversible, is hashing perhaps a better analogy?

To do complete justice to the steelman of the EricC/Nick claim, I think we do have to assert no loss. And invertibility of the transform(s) is the right way to think. But I *also* think, if we tried hard enough, we could get EricC/Nick to admit to some loss with the caveat that what's lost in that lossy transform is *irrelevant* somehow (EricC's use of "invalid" and yammerings about Wittgenstein >8^D). And since my point isn't to inadvertently create a *strawman* of their claim by making the steelman too ... well, steely, I'd like to allow for a lossy transform as well as a lossless transform. And, by extension, I'd like to allow both invertible and uninvertible transforms.

That may well be important if the steelman turns out to be nothing *more* than metaphor. If all I'm doing is laying out a metaphor for privacy, then I'll lose interest pretty quick because what I'm *trying* to do is classify privacy. I want string comprehension to be in the same class as behaviorism. I don't want to draw super-flawed analogies between them.

But the distinction ([non]invertibility) might very well help evaluate the believability of the steelman.

> If in the limit of behavioral investigation we find no more semantic
> ambiguity than the semantic ambiguities we experience when attempting
> to understand an others language, [...]

I don't think it is. I think there is a no-go lurking that is associated by EricS's recent mention of the student laughing because the insight was "at his elbow". And it's (somehow) associated with Necker cubes, paradigm shifts, and even a "loss of innocence" you see in people who've become cynical, the difference between work and play, "flow", etc. It's related (somehow) to the opportunity costs of using decoder X instead of decoder Y. As SteveS pointed out, one's participation in the landscape *changes* the landscape.

This is fundamental to the steelman we're building. It's not merely epiphenomenal. By decoding the surface of the ... [ahem] ... "patient", you are *manipulating* the patient. You can see this directly in your worry about [ab]using Frank as our privacy touchstone.

I wanted to set the stage for this in the formulation of 1st order privacy (by obscurity) by laying out the thing to decode side-by-side with the decoder, evoking a UTM where the tape contains both the computation and the description of the machine that can do the computation ... but I thought that would interfere with my main targets EricC and Nick. If they reject the steelman, then this becomes a tangent project of numbers, groups, and codes ... which is cool, but not what I intended [†].

[†] I'd love to sit in on a read of Gentry's paper, though it'd all be over my head.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

May 20, 2020; 4:50pm

Re: hidden

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+steelman+argument

In my words, it's an attempt to reformulate an opponent's argument so that you can, authentically, carry it to its logical conclusion. In order to "listen empathetically", you *must* steelman your opponent's view.

On 5/20/20 9:42 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Please, oh please, would you guys remind me what a "steelman" position is and what it's function is in rhetoric. I feel like you-guys are making progress and I am falling .... falling ... behind.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

May 20, 2020; 5:02pm

Re: hidden

Thanks, Glen.

The distinction with "strawmanning" is really helpful. From Dennett, eh? That wiley old fox.

n

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:51 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hidden

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+steelman+argument

In my words, it's an attempt to reformulate an opponent's argument so that you can, authentically, carry it to its logical conclusion. In order to "listen empathetically", you *must* steelman your opponent's view.

On 5/20/20 9:42 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Please, oh please, would you guys remind me what a "steelman" position is and what it's function is in rhetoric. I feel like you-guys are making progress and I am falling .... falling ... behind.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

May 20, 2020; 5:07pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

Good luck with that (having the same dream by hooking people together)

You seem to minimize the importance of the content of dreams which is what most people are interested in. By the way, some people do have recurring dreams especially bad dreams. There can be variations but they are essentially the same dream.

I told you and Nick but not the group about the very large study we did with sleeping newborns in which we measured their EEG and EKG while making loud clicks, right?

Frank

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:56 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

What we call "dreaming" is nothing but a dynamic configuration of our bodies. The same is true with thoughts and emotions. The only way to *reliably* study dreams, thoughts, and emotions is by measuring the body.

Now, we can, of course, focus in on some *parts* of the body ... like watching where eyeball focal points go when looking at a picture or, indeed, the words that come out of someone's mouth when they self-report what they ate for dinner, or what they dreamt about. But the fact remains that the only way to study thoughts and emotions is by measuring the body.

It's important to realize that the parts of the body you're measuring is not a *proxy* for some type of thought or emotion. So, that's a complete misunderstanding. REM movement is not a proxy for dreaming. The only way to measure dreams is to measure the body because it's the body that's acting. There's nothing *but* the body to measure. You can't measure dreams because dreams don't exist. Only the body exists.

But we *can* identify patterns in the body's configuration that correlate with that body yapping about "dreams". And if those patterns show a tight cluster, then we can say that that cluster is the state of the body we call "dreaming". (In my limited exposure, I've seen no evidence that the cluster of body configurations is all that tight. REM is an isolated and misleading measure. I think we'd also need some measure of *-crine signaling, elevated chemicals in the blood, etc.)

As for observing your *experience* of the dream, once we've done ALL THE WORK above, then we can talk about *inducing* similar experiences in your future self or inducing them in others. So, we might be able to *force* you to have the same dream over and over again. And maybe I could "observe" your experience by getting you to induce the body configuration in me. Maybe this could even be done in near real-time with some very fast AI. We hook the harness to you and me, with the machine between us and as the machine measures your state it quickly induces a similar state in me. Then we'd be dreaming the same dream.

On 5/19/20 4:26 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> But how is this a study of /dreaming. /

On 5/19/20 4:39 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Q: Why are not dreams, like any other experience, proper objects o study?
> A: Because, unlike other experiences, we report them after we have them.
> Q: No, that can't be right. There is no situation in which we actually report the experience precisely as we have it. So, the difference between a dream and any other reportable experience is a matter of degree.
> A: Oh, all right. We can't study dreams because there is no way to observe you having the experience.
> Q: Well, what if we take REM sleep as a proxy for dreaming. Now we can observe you having the experience.
> A: Well, I suppose. But you can't observe the experience that I am having.
> ... to be continued.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

... [show rest of quote]

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

gepr

May 20, 2020; 5:13pm

Re: hidden

You're so aggressively authoritarian. Sheesh. Do you ever admit you might be wrong? Or am I simply "rubbed the wrong way"?

You seem to minimize the importance of the *additional* measures I mention over and over again like para- and endocrine signalling, hormones, fMRI, etc.

I am *not* minimizing the content of the dreams. I'm claiming that the content of the *stories* about dreams are not the same as the content of the dreams. I'm further hypothesizing that there may be NO CONTENT to the dreams, only content to the stories told using the dreams as content.

On 5/20/20 10:07 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> You seem to minimize the importance of the content of dreams which is what most people are interested in. By the way, some people do have recurring dreams especially bad dreams. There can be variations but they are essentially the same dream.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

May 20, 2020; 5:14pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I don't know if this was always the common usage of "strawman" but I
historically am more familiar with it applied to a document (formal or
informal) provided to a group as a starting point, and designed
*specifically* to be a least-laughable example to provide an armature
for a group of cooperating people to start from.

The use of Strawman as an adversarial tool was new to me when Glen
started using it (that way) and it was only the Steelman for contrast
that helped me to understand/accept this (alternative-to-me) usage.

- Steve

> Thanks, Glen.
>
> The distinction with "strawmanning" is really helpful. From Dennett, eh? That wiley old fox.
>
> n
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:51 AM
> To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hidden
>
> https://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+steelman+argument
>
> In my words, it's an attempt to reformulate an opponent's argument so that you can, authentically, carry it to its logical conclusion. In order to "listen empathetically", you *must* steelman your opponent's view.
>
> On 5/20/20 9:42 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Please, oh please, would you guys remind me what a "steelman" position is and what it's function is in rhetoric. I feel like you-guys are making progress and I am falling .... falling ... behind.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

... [show rest of quote]

Frank Wimberly-2

May 20, 2020; 5:16pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by gepr

Matrices that have no inverse are called "singular". Would that word work in this context?

The treatment of fibers, bundles, connections, etc. that I am familiar with is in Baez's book Gauge Theory, Knots and Gravity.

Frank

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 5/19/20 4:55 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> Doing so could be one meaningful way to interpret /tracing a thought/.

Yes. While I don't fully grok the expansions from fibers to bundles/sheaf, what it evokes in my head seems coherent.

> With regards to the discussion about our holographic surface, I could use more
> clarification on the lossy/lossless property. I assume we agree that sorting is
> not dual to shuffling. For instance, defining the type of a shuffling algorithm
> does not require Ord <http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputprelude/Ord_c.html> to be a class constraint, where it /is/ required for sorting.

I think whether shuffle is yet another ordering depends on what we mean by "random". But I don't want to devolve into metaphysical conversations about free will and whatnot. So, if we assume shuffle is ordered, just ordered mysteriously, then we can talk about loss sans metaphysics.

> If we are claiming that the information found on our holographic surface is
> complete, I would like to think we are claiming it to be lossless‡. At the end
> of the day, it may be the case that we will never know the ontological status of
> information reversibility through a black hole. Am I wrong about this? If our
> holographic surface isn't reversible, is hashing perhaps a better analogy?

To do complete justice to the steelman of the EricC/Nick claim, I think we do have to assert no loss. And invertibility of the transform(s) is the right way to think. But I *also* think, if we tried hard enough, we could get EricC/Nick to admit to some loss with the caveat that what's lost in that lossy transform is *irrelevant* somehow (EricC's use of "invalid" and yammerings about Wittgenstein >8^D). And since my point isn't to inadvertently create a *strawman* of their claim by making the steelman too ... well, steely, I'd like to allow for a lossy transform as well as a lossless transform. And, by extension, I'd like to allow both invertible and uninvertible transforms.

That may well be important if the steelman turns out to be nothing *more* than metaphor. If all I'm doing is laying out a metaphor for privacy, then I'll lose interest pretty quick because what I'm *trying* to do is classify privacy. I want string comprehension to be in the same class as behaviorism. I don't want to draw super-flawed analogies between them.

But the distinction ([non]invertibility) might very well help evaluate the believability of the steelman.

> If in the limit of behavioral investigation we find no more semantic ambiguity than
> the semantic ambiguities we experience when attempting to understand an others
> language, [...]

I don't think it is. I think there is a no-go lurking that is associated by EricS's recent mention of the student laughing because the insight was "at his elbow". And it's (somehow) associated with Necker cubes, paradigm shifts, and even a "loss of innocence" you see in people who've become cynical, the difference between work and play, "flow", etc. It's related (somehow) to the opportunity costs of using decoder X instead of decoder Y. As SteveS pointed out, one's participation in the landscape *changes* the landscape.

This is fundamental to the steelman we're building. It's not merely epiphenomenal. By decoding the surface of the ... [ahem] ... "patient", you are *manipulating* the patient. You can see this directly in your worry about [ab]using Frank as our privacy touchstone.

I wanted to set the stage for this in the formulation of 1st order privacy (by obscurity) by laying out the thing to decode side-by-side with the decoder, evoking a UTM where the tape contains both the computation and the description of the machine that can do the computation ... but I thought that would interfere with my main targets EricC and Nick. If they reject the steelman, then this becomes a tangent project of numbers, groups, and codes ... which is cool, but not what I intended [†].

[†] I'd love to sit in on a read of Gentry's paper, though it'd all be over my head.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

... [show rest of quote]

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Frank Wimberly-2

May 20, 2020; 5:23pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by gepr

I apologize that I come across to you as aggressively authoritarian. I admit that I'm wrong frequently. Do you remember when I said that NPD is almost psychotic and then took it back? There are many other examples. If learn that I am like Trumpian will withdraw from all human activity.

There does seem to be some frequent misinterpretation and misperception of feelings going on between us. You seem like a different person in the Zoom Friam meetings.

I offer the hand of friendship (if I could),

Frank

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

You're so aggressively authoritarian. Sheesh. Do you ever admit you might be wrong? Or am I simply "rubbed the wrong way"?

You seem to minimize the importance of the *additional* measures I mention over and over again like para- and endocrine signalling, hormones, fMRI, etc.

I am *not* minimizing the content of the dreams. I'm claiming that the content of the *stories* about dreams are not the same as the content of the dreams. I'm further hypothesizing that there may be NO CONTENT to the dreams, only content to the stories told using the dreams as content.

On 5/20/20 10:07 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> You seem to minimize the importance of the content of dreams which is what most people are interested in. By the way, some people do have recurring dreams especially bad dreams. There can be variations but they are essentially the same dream.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

... [show rest of quote]

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Frank Wimberly-2

May 20, 2020; 5:25pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Gauge FIELDS, Knots and Gravity. Sorry.

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:16 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Matrices that have no inverse are called "singular". Would that word work in this context?

The treatment of fibers, bundles, connections, etc. that I am familiar with is in Baez's book Gauge Theory, Knots and Gravity.

Frank

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 5/19/20 4:55 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> Doing so could be one meaningful way to interpret /tracing a thought/.

Yes. While I don't fully grok the expansions from fibers to bundles/sheaf, what it evokes in my head seems coherent.

> With regards to the discussion about our holographic surface, I could use more
> clarification on the lossy/lossless property. I assume we agree that sorting is
> not dual to shuffling. For instance, defining the type of a shuffling algorithm
> does not require Ord <http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputprelude/Ord_c.html> to be a class constraint, where it /is/ required for sorting.

I think whether shuffle is yet another ordering depends on what we mean by "random". But I don't want to devolve into metaphysical conversations about free will and whatnot. So, if we assume shuffle is ordered, just ordered mysteriously, then we can talk about loss sans metaphysics.

> If we are claiming that the information found on our holographic surface is
> complete, I would like to think we are claiming it to be lossless‡. At the end
> of the day, it may be the case that we will never know the ontological status of
> information reversibility through a black hole. Am I wrong about this? If our
> holographic surface isn't reversible, is hashing perhaps a better analogy?

To do complete justice to the steelman of the EricC/Nick claim, I think we do have to assert no loss. And invertibility of the transform(s) is the right way to think. But I *also* think, if we tried hard enough, we could get EricC/Nick to admit to some loss with the caveat that what's lost in that lossy transform is *irrelevant* somehow (EricC's use of "invalid" and yammerings about Wittgenstein >8^D). And since my point isn't to inadvertently create a *strawman* of their claim by making the steelman too ... well, steely, I'd like to allow for a lossy transform as well as a lossless transform. And, by extension, I'd like to allow both invertible and uninvertible transforms.

That may well be important if the steelman turns out to be nothing *more* than metaphor. If all I'm doing is laying out a metaphor for privacy, then I'll lose interest pretty quick because what I'm *trying* to do is classify privacy. I want string comprehension to be in the same class as behaviorism. I don't want to draw super-flawed analogies between them.

But the distinction ([non]invertibility) might very well help evaluate the believability of the steelman.

> If in the limit of behavioral investigation we find no more semantic ambiguity than
> the semantic ambiguities we experience when attempting to understand an others
> language, [...]

I don't think it is. I think there is a no-go lurking that is associated by EricS's recent mention of the student laughing because the insight was "at his elbow". And it's (somehow) associated with Necker cubes, paradigm shifts, and even a "loss of innocence" you see in people who've become cynical, the difference between work and play, "flow", etc. It's related (somehow) to the opportunity costs of using decoder X instead of decoder Y. As SteveS pointed out, one's participation in the landscape *changes* the landscape.

This is fundamental to the steelman we're building. It's not merely epiphenomenal. By decoding the surface of the ... [ahem] ... "patient", you are *manipulating* the patient. You can see this directly in your worry about [ab]using Frank as our privacy touchstone.

I wanted to set the stage for this in the formulation of 1st order privacy (by obscurity) by laying out the thing to decode side-by-side with the decoder, evoking a UTM where the tape contains both the computation and the description of the machine that can do the computation ... but I thought that would interfere with my main targets EricC and Nick. If they reject the steelman, then this becomes a tangent project of numbers, groups, and codes ... which is cool, but not what I intended [†].

[†] I'd love to sit in on a read of Gentry's paper, though it'd all be over my head.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

... [show rest of quote]

--
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

... [show rest of quote]

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

gepr

May 20, 2020; 5:33pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Well, I think it was EricS who suggested things like this can be examples of themselves (?). The message you *hide* in your expression can seem independent of the message I decode from the expression. The same goes for me. You decode a different person from my text than you decode from my image/sound in the Zoom meetings.

I couldn't ask for a better demonstration of privacy via obscurity. Your *choice* of decoder is your choice and your choice alone. But your choice of decoder does feed back on the structure of your next expression because the hidden message you encode inside that expression subtly affects the expression [†].

You can choose to extrapolate from my expressions that I "feel" differently inside my text expressions than I "feel" inside my image/sound expressions. But I can tell you that you'd be wrong. My feelings are pretty much the same in either state. And my inference of your authoritarianism has no effect on my ability to be friends with you.

I think you'd be *shocked* at some of the people I call friends. ... Seriously.

[†] I've tee'd up someone like SteveS or Dave to mention "political correctness" and trigger warnings, here. >8^D How loopy can we go, here?

On 5/20/20 10:23 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I apologize that I come across to you as aggressively authoritarian. I admit that I'm wrong frequently. Do you remember when I said that NPD is almost psychotic and then took it back? There are many other examples. If learn that I am like Trumpian will withdraw from all human activity.
>
> There does seem to be some frequent misinterpretation and misperception of feelings going on between us. You seem like a different person in the Zoom Friam meetings.
>
> I offer the hand of friendship (if I could),

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

May 20, 2020; 5:43pm

Re: hidden

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen, Frank,

Certainly Glen's account is consistent with the facts. Dreams are stories we tell ourselves as we awake that are cast backwards into time. They are like the strange sounds the engine makes when you are trying to get it started on a cold morning.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:14 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hidden

You're so aggressively authoritarian. Sheesh. Do you ever admit you might be wrong? Or am I simply "rubbed the wrong way"?

You seem to minimize the importance of the *additional* measures I mention over and over again like para- and endocrine signalling, hormones, fMRI, etc.

I am *not* minimizing the content of the dreams. I'm claiming that the content of the *stories* about dreams are not the same as the content of the dreams. I'm further hypothesizing that there may be NO CONTENT to the dreams, only content to the stories told using the dreams as content.

On 5/20/20 10:07 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> You seem to minimize the importance of the content of dreams which is what most people are interested in. By the way, some people do have recurring dreams especially bad dreams. There can be variations but they are essentially the same dream.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

May 20, 2020; 5:47pm

Re: hidden

Last night I woke up at 4:00 am and had to take a medication. I was very much asleep but also awake enough to think, "If I remember my current dream it will help me go back to sleep" or some similar thought without words. I thought, "Ah, I am dreaming about X". I got up, walked into the bathroom. By the time I raised the cup of water to my lips I had forgotten what "X" was.

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:43 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen, Frank,

Certainly Glen's account is consistent with the facts. Dreams are stories we tell ourselves as we awake that are cast backwards into time. They are like the strange sounds the engine makes when you are trying to get it started on a cold morning.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:14 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] hidden

You're so aggressively authoritarian. Sheesh. Do you ever admit you might be wrong? Or am I simply "rubbed the wrong way"?

You seem to minimize the importance of the *additional* measures I mention over and over again like para- and endocrine signalling, hormones, fMRI, etc.

I am *not* minimizing the content of the dreams. I'm claiming that the content of the *stories* about dreams are not the same as the content of the dreams. I'm further hypothesizing that there may be NO CONTENT to the dreams, only content to the stories told using the dreams as content.

On 5/20/20 10:07 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> You seem to minimize the importance of the content of dreams which is what most people are interested in. By the way, some people do have recurring dreams especially bad dreams. There can be variations but they are essentially the same dream.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

... [show rest of quote]

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

gepr

May 20, 2020; 8:27pm

Re: hidden

A Waking Nightmare for COVID-19 Patients
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_AKe07J7tE

Awhile back my mom passed out and fell because of a "heart block", which is an electrical problem. During her stay in critical care, me and my sister watched her playing cards with her dreamt friends, including my dad (who'd been dead for awhile by then). Her eyes were open, hands up as if holding a dealt hand, etc. She'd pull cards out and lay them down on the "table". Her eyes would dart back and forth. She'd even complain under her breath about how long "someone" was taking to play their turn. This went on for hours ... literally I think about 2.5 hours in one stint. I interrupted her during one "game" after which she started talking about there being a man in the bathroom. She wasn't afraid. She just wanted to know who that man was in the bathroom. There was no bathroom and, obviously, no man. There was a mirror where she kept looking, though.

On 5/20/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Last night I woke up at 4:00 am and had to take a medication. I was very much asleep but also awake enough to think, "If I remember my current dream it will help me go back to sleep" or some similar thought without words. I thought, "Ah, I am dreaming about X". I got up, walked into the bathroom. By the time I raised the cup of water to my lips I had forgotten what "X" was.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Dean Gerber

May 21, 2020; 4:52am

Re: hidden

Glen--

Thank you for the link to the video. Harrowing to watch, but a greatly needed dose of unvarnished reality. Tables of numbers, then graphs of the tables, then statistical analysis of the data are poor a story. Closer to home are those poor souls in the video, recovered but damaged. Even closer to home, the Covid-19 explosion on our reservations and among our tribes.

--Dean

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 02:28:05 PM MDT, uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 5/20/20 10:47 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Last night I woke up at 4:00 am and had to take a medication. I was very much asleep but also awake enough to think, "If I remember my current dream it will help me go back to sleep" or some similar thought without words. I thought, "Ah, I am dreaming about X". I got up, walked into the bathroom. By the time I raised the cup of water to my lips I had forgotten what "X" was.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

123