response to: Friam Digest, Vol 140, Issue 12

[HighlandWindsLLC Miller]

Steve Smith and Marcus wrote of GMO's and their concerns related to how we seem to construct only worse disasters as we endeavor through unnatural means to address ones we have already created. I agree and add to their views with this:

 "natural" is a term bandied about easily, but it is a very important concept. Cells in our body and their entire method of working well and keeping us healthy is based on natural design. Each time we use unnatural designs for purposes of consumption, or for medicine, or even placed in the air in which we live and breath,  we contribute to the destruction and alteration of billions of years of carefully developed mechanisms. It is easy to work within natural systems to feed and cloth ourselves, and these natural methods also protect the rest of the animal population as well
. It just isn't quite as profitable.

Peggy Miller

medical herbalist/writer/artist

--

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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Peggy Miller wrote:

>  "natural" is a term bandied about easily, but it is a very important
> concept. Cells in our body and their entire method of working well and
> keeping us healthy is based on natural design. Each time we use
> unnatural designs for purposes of consumption, or for medicine, or
> even placed in the air in which we live and breath,  we contribute to
> the destruction and alteration of billions of years of carefully
> developed mechanisms. It is easy to work within natural systems to
> feed and cloth ourselves, and these natural methods also protect the
> rest of the animal population as well. It just isn't quite as
> profitable.

Most species that have ever existed are extinct, and it isn't because of
our short stay on this planet.  Nature is a violent thing, and we are a
part of it -- the distinction between "us" and "it" seems arbitrary to
me.  Yes, we have accelerated some extinctions and other physical
processes, but the there is nothing sacred about these things.   We live
in World = X and then we live in World = F(X) and then we live in World
= F(F(X)).  Do we want understand the functional form of F and be honest
about what we know and what we do not?  If one works within natural
systems, how does one confirm that delta is near zero?  Do we just
decide to believe that?   Is that any better than industrialists that
may lie about their contributions to delta?

There's always the possibility that an asteroid will hurdle toward the
planet, or other some biological disaster will occur and we will all die
as we otherwise were peacefully co-existing.  Had we known a lot of
about F, then we could deflect the asteroid or stop the plague.  To know
a lot of about F means doing experiments on X to see what it is
sensitive to and what it is not sensitive to.  Genetic engineering acts
on a part of X, thus is of interest to the sustainable formulations of
F.

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

[Victoria Hughes]

IN the long run it is more profitable, and much less arrogant.

Tory Hughes

[hidden email]

505-301-9142

On Feb 15, 2015, at 10:39 AM, peggy miller <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve Smith and Marcus wrote of GMO's and their concerns related to how we seem to construct only worse disasters as we endeavor through unnatural means to address ones we have already created. I agree and add to their views with this:

 "natural" is a term bandied about easily, but it is a very important concept. Cells in our body and their entire method of working well and keeping us healthy is based on natural design. Each time we use unnatural designs for purposes of consumption, or for medicine, or even placed in the air in which we live and breath,  we contribute to the destruction and alteration of billions of years of carefully developed mechanisms. It is easy to work within natural systems to feed and cloth ourselves, and these natural methods also protect the rest of the animal population as well
. It just isn't quite as profitable.

Peggy Miller

medical herbalist/writer/artist

--

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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Victoria writes:

 

“IN the long run it is more profitable, and much less arrogant.”

 

If I were sick with one of these conditions, I’d be extra special mad if it approval of these treatments were hung up on the politics of fear…

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519071/when-will-gene-therapy-come-to-the-us/

 

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2014/03/june/

 

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

[Steve Smith]

Victoria writes:

 

“IN the long run it is more profitable, and much less arrogant.”

 

If I were sick with one of these conditions, I’d be extra special mad if it approval of these treatments were hung up on the politics of fear…

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519071/when-will-gene-therapy-come-to-the-us/

 

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2014/03/june/

 

Marcus

This also could be considered another salvo *in* the politics of fear.   "If you *don't* approve on my schedule, the unregulated use of any given promising technology to relieve my specific life-threatening condition, you are harming me". 

I'm pretty much LIbertarian in my views on such things, so tend to prefer erring on the "permissive" side...   but that doesn't mean I think progress is all it is cracked up to be, or that we are not repeatedly victims of our own wishful thinking and the Con Men of all stripes (e.g. business suits, lab coats, church frocks) that prey on it..

What is the middle way if there is one?  

Homo Faber creates, Homo Sapiens is wise.   We are clearly the former and aspire to the latter.

My point is that being very clever at the former does not equate to being mature in the latter.   Many who are clever at the former tend to ignore this.

It has certainly become fashionable to embrace retro/primitive as "better".  I think my words here show my sympathies with that position pretty clearly.   But my challenge is not simply to throw our wooden shoes into the machinery because we fear it is changing our lives in horrific but unspecified ways, it is to encourage seeking deeper understanding than is often "convenient" for those promoting a given technology or policy about technology...  

Oddly I believe most Libertarians are also rabid Technophiles...   I am simultaneously Technophilic and Technophobic, I *really do* want to have it both ways.

Marcus' point earlier in this thread that anytime we are not operating out of (partial?) ignorance, we are dealing with an oversimplified system is well taken.   Life, and ultimately intelligence, is at least partly, though I contend not exclusively, about developing predictive abilities regarding the future state of our environment.  It is also about developing manipulative capabilities to manipulate that future state as much as possible.   Thus Sapiens, thus Faber.  I contend that to be human, we must do both, remember, think, predict, enlighten ourselves *and* extend our phenotype through direct augmentation (e.g. lithics, ceramics, levers, clothing, glasses, hearing aids and bussard ramjets) and through collective identity/organization/action (e.g. tribe/pack/herd/hive, religion/politics/society).

For what it is worth, we also have Homo Ludens, the "playing" human.  Perhaps this is what is required to keep a sufficiently complex mind engaged in "enlightened problem solving" rather than in various pathological applications of one's intellect and brawn.   Art engages Sapiens, Faber *and* Ludens.   In light of other disparaging implications that Technophiles are "just playing", I would claim that Technologists (formerly known as Craftsmen?)  are seeking the same:  to engage Faber, Sapiens *and* Ludens but I understand why it would seem that oftentimes we are simply "playing".

What represents a responsible, enlightened balance between Faber, Sapiens and Ludens ?   As both Glen and Marcus have pointed out (I hope I'm not taking too many liberties in interpreting them) the only way to find out answers to questions like this is to proceed, and I have to agree... I just don't want to see any of the three thrown out/ignored/marginalized at the expense of the others.  

I believe that would be, using Tory's terms "arrogant and ultimately unprofitable"

- Steve    (who clearly doesn't have something better to do on a lovely Sunday afternoon, WTF?)



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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 2/15/2015 4:05 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

This also could be considered another salvo *in* the politics of fear.   "If you *don't* approve on my schedule, the unregulated use of any given promising technology to relieve my specific life-threatening condition, you are harming me". 

What I would hope is that regulators would stick to their testing.  If the safety protocols are met, then approve the treatments (like any other treatment).   But don't slow the scheduling of the testing because people conflate germline and non-germline gene therapy, or just object because it offends them in some way. 

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

[Steve Smith]

This also could be considered another salvo *in* the politics of fear.   "If you *don't* approve on my schedule, the unregulated use of any given promising technology to relieve my specific life-threatening condition, you are harming me". 

What I would hope is that regulators would stick to their testing.  If the safety protocols are met, then approve the treatments (like any other treatment).   But don't slow the scheduling of the testing because people conflate germline and non-germline gene therapy, or just object because it offends them in some way. 

I would hope the same, I have no idea what the current practice is.  I have an instinctual distrust of bureaucrats to actually become familiar enough with that which they administer to develop and practice good policy.   This could be a mostly unfounded bias.

At the same time, I don't trust us, the unwashed masses, to be informed and astute enough to make the kinds of distinctions required to have a properly informed opinion (when we sign petitions, carry signs, write our congresspeople, or vote).   We constantly exercise the tyranny of the masses when allowed.  But I also defer to Winston Churchill's famous "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the rest".

I know the difference between germline and non and appreciate generally the acute difference and understand that the latter has significantly less (obvious) intrinsic risks.  On the other hand, like so many of us, I can admit to a bias *against* rapid technology deployment  (not necessarily against rapid scientific development.  ) I believe that a lot of "conflation errors"  are based more in a "camel's nose" or "slippery slope" concern more than anything.   I tend to forgive others' their own "conflation errors" based on these kinds of worries, even while I might try to disabuse them of their misunderstandings.  I suspect your own concerns have an overtone of this nature as well, that you recognize that one semi-righteous win for the opposition will fuel them on to a dozen un-righteous wins.   I feel the same way on every topic under public scrutiny/opinion...  I don't want "them" to start a landslide in favor of "their" particular brand of ignorance, whether it be sheepish or wolfish.

My daughter is researching West Nile and Dingue Fever mechanisms, she is more worried that her work will languish on a shelf at the NIH or megaPharmaCorp, waiting until the threat of these diseases is on the first world economy before the therapies implied by her work will be implemented and made available those already under extreme threat (third world equatorial population) by  these diseases than that one of "us" will be exposed to same, contract it, and not have a quick, easy, affordable remedy.   I think I fully appreciate the economics and politics that drive these things, but that doesn't stop me from being sympathetic with her frustration.   She ditched becoming a third world doctor to do this work, her heart still seeks to help those whose circumstances are not as fortunate as our own (or perhaps are deliberately suppressed to elevate our own?).  She has much stronger opinions about this than I do, but hers may be informed by my own and then in recursion, mine informed by my loyalty to her. 

I'm not personally terribly worried about advanced medical development because for the most part, I prefer to avoid traditional medicine... but the same logic that demands obligatory vaccination of babies for a wide spectrum of "public health threats" and criminalizes assisted suicide makes me uncomfortable about empowering the medical bureaucracy any more than it already is?   More of my "slippery slope down the camel's nose" fears I guess.


- Steve

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 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

[Victoria Hughes]

This is an excellent question. Thanks, Steve. 

First, do you truly think it is possible or useful to have a balance between Faber, Sapiens, and Ludens?

Then what would it be? 

My vote would be for a Taoist approach, responding to the needs of the moment with the appropriate way of being. 

Rather than to create a hierarchy of use that says one approach is always better than the others- which may seem psychologically tidy but doesn’t work. 

Years ago in ANALOG science fiction/science fact (dating myself, it was the only magazine I read as a teenager) the editor wrote “The only problem with flawless logic is that it’s completely irrational”. Even Spock got a girlfriend….. 

Tory

On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

What represents a responsible, enlightened balance between Faber, Sapiens and Ludens ?   As both Glen and Marcus have pointed out (I hope I'm not taking too many liberties in interpreting them) the only way to find out answers to questions like this is to proceed, and I have to agree... I just don't want to see any of the three thrown out/ignored/marginalized at the expense of the others. 

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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 2/15/2015 5:35 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

On the other hand, like so many of us, I can admit to a bias *against* rapid technology deployment  (not necessarily against rapid scientific development.  )

One treatment for relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis is dimethyl fumarate.   This goes for about $50k a year as a prescription (with various inactive chemicals), but the chemical itself can be purchased for about $25 a kilogram from Alibaba (no I'm not suggesting anyone do that).   The cost is not the synthesis of the chemical, or even the theoretical development.   It's large scale human testing of this use case.   The testing is appropriate: Patients who aren't that sick shouldn't get more sick from the chemical.  

There are more pressing conditions like MRSA super bugs or Ebola where treatment is urgent.  (Incidentally, ZMapp for Ebola is another genetically engineered treatment.)  It seems to me in these cases that rapid technology deployment is needed.   The experimental designs won't be ideal, but is it better to just let people die if there is reason to think a treatment might help?   This is not to diminish the importance of investing in basic biology, but shotgun testing of compounds is not unheard of in the big business of pharmaceuticals.   Let's be clear on how the sausage and statistics  are made...

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

[Carl Tollander]

Steve, when the Dengue Fever looked to get out of control in downtown Tokyo last fall they became very interested indeed.   West Nile outbreaks occur in the US every year.  What do people do?  They do what is widely perceived to be the right thing: they spray.  A lot.   It may not be the best solution (it may not actually work very well at all, depending on the situation, but even "astute" folks seize on what they think is logical and will work when it hits the fan  ).

I'm not quite sure that there will turn out to be a clean line between germline and non-germline gene therapy.   Many genes (most?) are regulatory, they make new capabilities (a gene is something you can do with your genome) by turning other genes and/or gene products on and off depending on situations encountered.  Some combinations will turn out to be useful or deleterious depending on, well, what happens to the environment or other genes sometime in the future.   So, I don't think it will be possible to judge safe or non-safe outcomes based solely on observed effects.   Yet we have to get better at regulation (the cat has left the bag, if not the building), which doesn't mean abjuring that activity because we currently believe we suck at it.

Victoria, I have boxes of Analogs that are looking for some possibly fortunate young adult to infect.  Any ideas? 

All, where do musicians fall on the Faber, Sapiens, Ludens continua?   Do we need to redefine any of the 3 to accommodate them?

C.

On 2/15/15 5:35 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

This also could be considered another salvo *in* the politics of fear.   "If you *don't* approve on my schedule, the unregulated use of any given promising technology to relieve my specific life-threatening condition, you are harming me". 

What I would hope is that regulators would stick to their testing.  If the safety protocols are met, then approve the treatments (like any other treatment).   But don't slow the scheduling of the testing because people conflate germline and non-germline gene therapy, or just object because it offends them in some way. 

I would hope the same, I have no idea what the current practice is.  I have an instinctual distrust of bureaucrats to actually become familiar enough with that which they administer to develop and practice good policy.   This could be a mostly unfounded bias.

At the same time, I don't trust us, the unwashed masses, to be informed and astute enough to make the kinds of distinctions required to have a properly informed opinion (when we sign petitions, carry signs, write our congresspeople, or vote).   We constantly exercise the tyranny of the masses when allowed.  But I also defer to Winston Churchill's famous "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the rest".

I know the difference between germline and non and appreciate generally the acute difference and understand that the latter has significantly less (obvious) intrinsic risks.  On the other hand, like so many of us, I can admit to a bias *against* rapid technology deployment  (not necessarily against rapid scientific development.  ) I believe that a lot of "conflation errors"  are based more in a "camel's nose" or "slippery slope" concern more than anything.   I tend to forgive others' their own "conflation errors" based on these kinds of worries, even while I might try to disabuse them of their misunderstandings.  I suspect your own concerns have an overtone of this nature as well, that you recognize that one semi-righteous win for the opposition will fuel them on to a dozen un-righteous wins.   I feel the same way on every topic under public scrutiny/opinion...  I don't want "them" to start a landslide in favor of "their" particular brand of ignorance, whether it be sheepish or wolfish.

My daughter is researching West Nile and Dingue Fever mechanisms, she is more worried that her work will languish on a shelf at the NIH or megaPharmaCorp, waiting until the threat of these diseases is on the first world economy before the therapies implied by her work will be implemented and made available those already under extreme threat (third world equatorial population) by  these diseases than that one of "us" will be exposed to same, contract it, and not have a quick, easy, affordable remedy.   I think I fully appreciate the economics and politics that drive these things, but that doesn't stop me from being sympathetic with her frustration.   She ditched becoming a third world doctor to do this work, her heart still seeks to help those whose circumstances are not as fortunate as our own (or perhaps are deliberately suppressed to elevate our own?).  She has much stronger opinions about this than I do, but hers may be informed by my own and then in recursion, mine informed by my loyalty to her. 

I'm not personally terribly worried about advanced medical development because for the most part, I prefer to avoid traditional medicine... but the same logic that demands obligatory vaccination of babies for a wide spectrum of "public health threats" and criminalizes assisted suicide makes me uncomfortable about empowering the medical bureaucracy any more than it already is?   More of my "slippery slope down the camel's nose" fears I guess.


- Steve

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 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 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

[glen ropella]

Wow.  Either staring at flat screens is _fun_ for you people, or you need to learn to take the weekend off. 8^)

On 02/15/2015 04:51 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> What represents a responsible, enlightened balance between Faber, Sapiens and Ludens ?
>
> This is an excellent question. Thanks, Steve.
> First, do you truly think it is possible or useful to have a balance between Faber, Sapiens, and Ludens?
> Then what would it be?
> My vote would be for a Taoist approach, responding to the needs of the moment with the appropriate way of being.

Of all the cool things said, this is the only thing I might have something useful to say about ... though it amounts to a "me too".  I think you've hit it right, Tory.  Steve's setup is a _false_ trichotomy ... (? Hm, maybe it's better to say the axiom of choice is fake ... or at least an oversimplified discretization?)  Invoking the Tao is the right response, as it's both indivisible and infinitely differentiable.

The real answer is that to play is to make is to understand (and its permutations -- to make is to understand is to play...).  I think the artificial classifications we impose are more about how we learned to talk over our ontogeny than it is a true classification.  Various languages are more natural for various tasks.  And while it can be useful to use a language in which an act/concept is difficult to express (e.g. describing music from an engineering perspective), it is less common for a reason (or set of reasons), namely the "natural" language for some act/concept usually is terse, condensed.  So, e.g. when a player talks to another player, they tend to speak a language that's dense and compressed, allowing them to communicate more, faster.

Of course, I tend toward the opposite.  I enjoy describing things in unnatural languages, which makes me an enemy of all 3 types.

p.s. That also means, that I am maximally offensive to Nick ... All Dionysians should claim their works are Apollonian and vice versa ... it's good to use unnatural languages.
--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Kiss the sun to be alive


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

[Steve Smith]

Great throwdown on all points Glen -

Of course, I tend toward the opposite. I enjoy describing things in unnatural languages, which makes me an enemy of all 3 types. p.s. That also means, that I am maximally offensive to Nick ... All Dionysians should claim their works are Apollonian and vice versa ... it's good to use unnatural languages.

Speaking of unnatural languages, this just in, in response from someone off-list but maybe apropos to some if not many in this group:

What represents a responsible, enlightened balance between

​​

Faber, Sapiens and Ludens ? 

​Hmmmm ... will take these cranky neurons a while to cogicate (as in masticate) this.

But I think I may have stumbled on a perfect intersection of ​

​

Faber, Sapiens and Ludens:

What would a Turing-complete programming language with only 8 commands look like?

Here is the mandatory "Hello World!" code for one such folly aptly named Brainfuck:

++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.

Lest you smirk, here is

the game of life
&
a Brainfuck interpreter written in Brainfuck

if you are still curious here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

and a source archive  http://esoteric.sange.fi/brainfuck/bf-source/prog/
​r.​
(which can be written  +++++++[>+++++[>+++>+<<-]>+>+[<]<-]>>.>. )  -- I think

And  a minor correction... I don't do any of this on a "flat screen", I am fully embodied in a synthetic sensorium where all of this is just part of a huge and wonderful landscape I inhabit... as I was "writing" those words, I was simultaneously wobbling down the dirt road to my house on my 30 year old mountain bike, jamming gears and cursing the goathead-encrusted tires slowly sinking into the earth... why just live one life when you can superpose many at once?   It makes for runon sentences and fragmented thinking, but otherwise quite enjoyable.  And what is this thing you refer to as a "weekend"?   Strange concept... must investigate it! <grin>

Now to see if I can translate that all into "Brainfuck"

++++-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.++++-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+>++.++[>-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++>+++>++++-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.++++>+<<<<-]++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]-------.>>+.>++-------.&g! t;>+.&g t;++++++++---+>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+----.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+++-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[&g! t;++>++ +[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..++++..++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.++++++>+<<<<-]>+>+>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.--+>+<<! ;<<- ]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+----.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..++>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.++++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---! .+++++++.. +++.><-.<.+++.--+>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+----.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++++..+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]&g! t;+>+&g t;->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..++.><-.<.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.++++++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+.................................................................................................................................................................................! .......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
============================================================
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

[glen ropella]

On 02/16/2015 01:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Speaking of unnatural languages, this just in, in response from someone off-list
> but maybe apropos to some if not many in this group:

>> ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.

Well, what's fascinating is that this language is more natural to the
computer than it is to us humans.  And it is more natural for expressing
logic than is, say, English.  It's my fault for failing to mention the
fact that whether a language is natural to an act/concept depends
fundamentally on the act/concept.  I'd even argue that it depends less
on the constitution of the observer than we might otherwise think.
Languages like the above probably come fairly natural to, say, a
logician (as much a bag of chemicals as, say, a musician or sausage
maker) primarily because a logician spends a lot of time and energy
committing the _act_ of logic.

--
⇔ 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

"It's my fault for failing to mention the fact that whether a language is natural to an act/concept depends fundamentally on the act/concept."

A popular language like JavaScript (or even more so PostScript) is not great fun to read either when the structure is obscured (see jquery implementation file URL below).     I think programmers generally depend on some structure to be revealed by formatting.   Languages like Haskell or Python even dictate constraints on formatting as part of the syntax.   (If it is so important to have coding conventions might as well make them mandatory in order to even compile.)

http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.2.min.js

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

[Carl Tollander]

I thought it was a high-level dance notation at first.

On 2/16/15 2:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Great throwdown on all points Glen -

Of course, I tend toward the opposite. I enjoy describing things in unnatural languages, which makes me an enemy of all 3 types. p.s. That also means, that I am maximally offensive to Nick ... All Dionysians should claim their works are Apollonian and vice versa ... it's good to use unnatural languages.

Speaking of unnatural languages, this just in, in response from someone off-list but maybe apropos to some if not many in this group:

What represents a responsible, enlightened balance between

​​

Faber, Sapiens and Ludens ? 

​Hmmmm ... will take these cranky neurons a while to cogicate (as in masticate) this.

But I think I may have stumbled on a perfect intersection of ​

​

Faber, Sapiens and Ludens:

What would a Turing-complete programming language with only 8 commands look like?

Here is the mandatory "Hello World!" code for one such folly aptly named Brainfuck:

++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.

Lest you smirk, here is

the game of life
&
a Brainfuck interpreter written in Brainfuck

if you are still curious here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

and a source archive  http://esoteric.sange.fi/brainfuck/bf-source/prog/
​r.​
(which can be written  +++++++[>+++++[>+++>+<<-]>+>+[<]<-]>>.>. )  -- I think

And  a minor correction... I don't do any of this on a "flat screen", I am fully embodied in a synthetic sensorium where all of this is just part of a huge and wonderful landscape I inhabit... as I was "writing" those words, I was simultaneously wobbling down the dirt road to my house on my 30 year old mountain bike, jamming gears and cursing the goathead-encrusted tires slowly sinking into the earth... why just live one life when you can superpose many at once?   It makes for runon sentences and fragmented thinking, but otherwise quite enjoyable.  And what is this thing you refer to as a "weekend"?   Strange concept... must investigate it! <grin>

Now to see if I can translate that all into "Brainfuck"

++++-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.++++-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+>++.++[>-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++>+++>++++-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.++++>+<<<<-]++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]-------.>>+.>++-------.&g! t;>+.&g t;++++++++---+>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+----.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+++-------.>>+.>++.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[&a mp;g! t;++>++ +[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..++++..++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.++++++>+<<<<-]>+>+>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.--+>+<<! ;<<- ]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+----.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..++>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.++++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---! .+++++++.. +++.><-.<.+++.--+>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+----.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++++..+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<&l t;-]&g! t;+>+&g t;->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..++.><-.<.++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.++++++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.><-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.+.++[>++>++.++[>++>+++[>++>++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+................................................................................................................................................................................. ! .......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................

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

[Steve Smith]

Glen

>> Speaking of unnatural languages, this just in, in response from
>> someone off-list
>> but maybe apropos to some if not many in this group:
>
>>> ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
>>>
>
> Well, what's fascinating is that this language is more natural to the
> computer than it is to us humans.  And it is more natural for
> expressing logic than is, say, English.  It's my fault for failing to
> mention the fact that whether a language is natural to an act/concept
> depends fundamentally on the act/concept.  I'd even argue that it
> depends less on the constitution of the observer than we might
> otherwise think.

I'd love to have you unpack this a little more for me, but not sure
about the "room"...   I'm very interested in the underpinnings of your
assertions, not just the assertions...  your ideas usually have a
compelling quality for me, even when they are obscured in your
unconventional (use of) language....   I'm starting to worry that this
is a recursive meta-conversation...???
> Languages like the above probably come fairly natural to, say, a
> logician (as much a bag of chemicals as, say, a musician or sausage
> maker) primarily because a logician spends a lot of time and energy
> committing the _act_ of logic.
I have refrained from diving down the rabbit hole of trying to suss out
the language, not because I'm afraid it will live up to it's name, but
because the details of it are irrelevant to using it as a flip response
to you...

- Sieve


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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Carl wrote:

“I thought it was a high-level dance notation at first.”

http://esolangs.org/wiki/Befunge would probably be better for that. 

One might conclude these folks are clearly from the Homo Ludens camp, given the apparent uselessness of the activity.   Nonetheless, a programming model that takes into account location of information in space may become relevant as memory systems get deeper and more complex.  “Move the compute to the data” takes on a more direct meaning with Befunge.   Looking to biology for inspiration, cells have spatial extent too.   I seem to remember not so long ago folks in this community were actually excited by cellular automata..  Ya know, complexity and all that..

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

[Owen Densmore]

This is definitely worth a Fuck.  Given my recent research on Conservation Of Fucks, that's saying a great deal.  Basically, if you Give A Fuck about something, you decrease your supply of them by one, but give one to the topic to which you gave it.  There are those saying this closely follows the BitCoin conservation principle.

The research is stimulated by my earlier post on the topic, in which the author of the original paper clearly agrees:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

This is one of those things you need to read now and again.  The Truth and nothing but the Truth.

​    ​

http://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck

​See grab of tweet below.  ​It is definitely not for those who find Fuck offensive as a word.

On the other hand, late breaking news on JavaScript and its WTFs:

    https://speakerdeck.com/getify/what-the-javascript

I laughed 'til I cried with these. Note he's the author of You Don't Know JS we discussed today at Redfish.

   -- Owen​

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

[glen ropella]

On 02/16/2015 08:22 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

>On 02/16/2015 04:05 PM, glen wrote:
>>
>> Well, what's fascinating is that this language is more natural to the
>> computer than it is to us humans.  And it is more natural for
>> expressing logic than is, say, English.  It's my fault for failing to
>> mention the fact that whether a language is natural to an act/concept
>> depends fundamentally on the act/concept.  I'd even argue that it
>> depends less on the constitution of the observer than we might
>> otherwise think.
>
> I'd love to have you unpack this a little more for me, but not sure
> about the "room"...   I'm very interested in the underpinnings of your
> assertions, not just the assertions...  your ideas usually have a
> compelling quality for me, even when they are obscured in your
> unconventional (use of) language....   I'm starting to worry that this
> is a recursive meta-conversation...???

Bah!  That's what threading mail clients and kill files are for. (I've
racked up quite a presence in kill files across the globe... or so I'm
told.)  In some situations, we have to assume a competence even if we
know our assumption is false.  It would simply take too much effort to
avoid the assumption.

Unfortunately, I don't know what, which part, to unpack.  We've beaten
the concept of thought vs action quite to death.  But that's the
difference between an observer and a participant.  The old philosophical
saw that there exist no perfect observers is important, of course.  (You
can't really observe music without participating in it... or more
recently on this list, you can't really watch True Blood without
participating in it.)  But for the most part, passive observation won't
lead one as directly to a natural language.  You kinda have to embed
yourself in there with the natives in order to appreciate the language
spoken by them.

> I have refrained from diving down the rabbit hole of trying to suss out
> the language, not because I'm afraid it will live up to it's name, but
> because the details of it are irrelevant to using it as a flip response
> to you...

I'm all flip and no substance.  So I can't tell the difference anyway.

--
⇔ 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

[Steve Smith]

+Fuck to that!

This is definitely worth a Fuck.  Given my recent research on Conservation Of Fucks, that's saying a great deal.  Basically, if you Give A Fuck about something, you decrease your supply of them by one, but give one to the topic to which you gave it.  There are those saying this closely follows the BitCoin conservation principle.

The research is stimulated by my earlier post on the topic, in which the author of the original paper clearly agrees:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck
To: Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

This is one of those things you need to read now and again.  The Truth and nothing but the Truth.

​    ​

http://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck

​ See grab of tweet below.  ​It is definitely not for those who find Fuck offensive as a word.

On the other hand, late breaking news on JavaScript and its WTFs:

    https://speakerdeck.com/getify/what-the-javascript

I laughed 'til I cried with these. Note he's the author of You Don't Know JS we discussed today at Redfish.

   -- Owen​

<img moz-do-not-send="true" src="imap://[e-mail]:993/fetch%3EUID%3E.INBOX%3E91462?header=quotebody/;section=1.2?part=1.1.2&amp;filename=Google%20Chrome059.jpg" alt="Inline image 1" style="margin-right: 0px;">

This body part will be downloaded on demand.

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