Friam

Emergence Seminar IV: Bedau on "Weak" Emergence

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
♦
♦
 3 messages Options
Nick Thompson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Emergence Seminar IV: Bedau on "Weak" Emergence

Nick Thompson

 This week's reading is Mark Bedau's "Downward Casaton and Autonomy in Weak Emergence"  "Weak" emrgence, Bedau makes clear in a footnote, is the only emergence worth having.  It stands betwqeen "nomical emergence" (emergence in name only), which arises because the terms by which tha whole is described are incommensurate with the terms by which its parts are described, and "strong emergence",  which is said to have irreducible causal powers but which Bedau thinks is "scientifically irrelevant".  A property of a whole is weakly emergent if it cannot be derived from the properties of the parts except by simulation.  For Friam list members, Bedau's chapter may be the most interesting so far because it makes extensive use of examples from the complexity literature.   One problem we readers will have is deciding whether the designation "weak" refers to some distinct kinds of events in the world (and is therefore ontological) or whether it refers to the state of our explanatory skills (in which case it is epistemological).   The distinction is important because we might expect ontological distinctions to survive indefinitely, whereas epistemological ones should be eliminated with the progress of science.  Bedau seems to think his distinction is ontological, but his argument for that position seems a bit shabby. 
 
As before, we invite Friam readers to read along with us and to comment on this thread only if they have done the reading mentioned in the subject heading.
 
Take care, everybody,
 
Nick
 
 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
 
 
 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Mikegolf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: Emergence Seminar IV: Bedau on "Weak" Emergence

Mikegolf
I am sorry not to have been more active with the reading group but my return trip (25 hours door to door from Santa Fe to Lancester Hotel House in the UK) added to the jetlag was difficult for me; in addition I had to take care of many details which were waiting for my return. I remotely follow your mails.
 

Cordialement

Michel Bloch

  33(0)1 46 37 01 93

http://www.mountvernon.fr/Sciences_complexite.htm

 

 

 

De : Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Envoyé : mardi 29 septembre 2009 06:16
À : Chip Garner; Frank Wimberly; Jim Gattiker; maryl; merle; michel bloch; nthompson; Owen Densmore; Roger E Critchlow Jr; [hidden email]
Objet : Emergence Seminar IV: Bedau on "Weak" Emergence

 This week's reading is Mark Bedau's "Downward Casaton and Autonomy in Weak Emergence"  "Weak" emrgence, Bedau makes clear in a footnote, is the only emergence worth having.  It stands betwqeen "nomical emergence" (emergence in name only), which arises because the terms by which tha whole is described are incommensurate with the terms by which its parts are described, and "strong emergence",  which is said to have irreducible causal powers but which Bedau thinks is "scientifically irrelevant".  A property of a whole is weakly emergent if it cannot be derived from the properties of the parts except by simulation.  For Friam list members, Bedau's chapter may be the most interesting so far because it makes extensive use of examples from the complexity literature.   One problem we readers will have is deciding whether the designation "weak" refers to some distinct kinds of events in the world (and is therefore ontological) or whether it refers to the state of our explanatory skills (in which case it is epistemological).   The distinction is important because we might expect ontological distinctions to survive indefinitely, whereas epistemological ones should be eliminated with the progress of science.  Bedau seems to think his distinction is ontological, but his argument for that position seems a bit shabby. 
 
As before, we invite Friam readers to read along with us and to comment on this thread only if they have done the reading mentioned in the subject heading.
 
Take care, everybody,
 
Nick
 
 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
 
 
 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.114/2402 - Release Date: 09/29/09 05:54:00


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Nick Thompson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
♦
♦
|

Re: Emergence Seminar IV: Bedau on "Weak" Emergence

Nick Thompson
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Just so long as you do the readings, Michel!  (;-})
 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 10/1/2009 10:07:57 AM
Subject: RE: Emergence Seminar IV: Bedau on "Weak" Emergence

I am sorry not to have been more active with the reading group but my return trip (25 hours door to door from Santa Fe to Lancester Hotel House in the UK) added to the jetlag was difficult for me; in addition I had to take care of many details which were waiting for my return. I remotely follow your mails.
 

Cordialement

Michel Bloch

  33(0)1 46 37 01 93

http://www.mountvernon.fr/Sciences_complexite.htm

 

 

 

De : Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Envoyé : mardi 29 septembre 2009 06:16
À : Chip Garner; Frank Wimberly; Jim Gattiker; maryl; merle; michel bloch; nthompson; Owen Densmore; Roger E Critchlow Jr; [hidden email]
Objet : Emergence Seminar IV: Bedau on "Weak" Emergence

 This week's reading is Mark Bedau's "Downward Casaton and Autonomy in Weak Emergence"  "Weak" emrgence, Bedau makes clear in a footnote, is the only emergence worth having.  It stands betwqeen "nomical emergence" (emergence in name only), which arises because the terms by which tha whole is described are incommensurate with the terms by which its parts are described, and "strong emergence",  which is said to have irreducible causal powers but which Bedau thinks is "scientifically irrelevant".  A property of a whole is weakly emergent if it cannot be derived from the properties of the parts except by simulation.  For Friam list members, Bedau's chapter may be the most interesting so far because it makes extensive use of examples from the complexity literature.   One problem we readers will have is deciding whether the designation "weak" refers to some distinct kinds of events in the world (and is therefore ontological) or whether it refers to the state of our explanatory skills (in which case it is epistemological).   The distinction is important because we might expect ontological distinctions to survive indefinitely, whereas epistemological ones should be eliminated with the progress of science.  Bedau seems to think his distinction is ontological, but his argument for that position seems a bit shabby. 
 
As before, we invite Friam readers to read along with us and to comment on this thread only if they have done the reading mentioned in the subject heading.
 
Take care, everybody,
 
Nick
 
 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
 
 
 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.114/2402 - Release Date: 09/29/09 05:54:00


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Free forum by Nabble Edit this page