Emergence Seminar, IV; Bedau on weak emergence.

[Nick Thompson]

Eric,

 

Those of us who are concerned for your career development (e.g., tenure) are NOT reassured to learn you have broken your vow to limit your postings to one a day. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

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

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Cc: [hidden email]

Sent: 9/25/2009 10:16:18 AM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Inquiry to Emergence Group

Good lord man, it is still morning!

Russ,
Yours was a completely satisfying answer! At least in so much as it showed how the sweater example would be treated within one system of dealing with emergence. Yet, it cannot completely satisfy my inquiry, because the original was not about any particular individual's way of thinking about things, but about the breadth of established ways. I am hoping that additional answers (such as that given by Glen) will appear, that I may better understand (read, be able to describe in my own terms) how such a mundane example is handled by different systems. In particular, I ask the question publicly, because I am interested in other people's understanding of the alternatives.

Eric

P.S. I feel guilty already. I'm trying hard not to post more than once a day on any of my lists and already I am up to four on this one! Let no one else feel slighted if their post does not receive a reply until some time tomorrow, maybe even Sunday. Rest assured that I am reading them throughtout the day and dwelling upon them.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 12:03 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eric,

I took your initial question as having been asked in good faith. And I answered in good faith. It seems to me that you owe me a response to my answer. Did it satisfy your question? If not, why not?

-- Russ A

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2@...> wrote:

Thus spoke Glen:

"Just to be clear, you're asking for (at least one of) us
to simulate what
(some or all of) the authors in Bedau & Humphreys would
say about whether
or not the sweater emerges from the thread?  I.e. you are
NOT asking for OUR
opinions. "


Yeah, that was the
idea!
Regarding Rosen: I am intrigued
that the answer was entirely in
terms of the cause, rather than the entity
itself.


Thanks!

Eric

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <A onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return&#13;&#10;false;" href="http://www.friam.org" target="">http://www.friam.org

... [show rest of quote]

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

... [show rest of quote]

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

... [show rest of quote]

============================================================
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]

Russ,

 

I have been looking for a book for many years that does the same kind of presentation of chemistry for the general reader that many  mathematics and biology books do.  Is The Periodic Table that book?

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

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

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Cc: [hidden email]

Sent: 9/25/2009 10:53:51 AM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Inquiry to Emergence Group

I guess it's fine to ask how different people would define a particular word. But it seems to me that unless one's purpose is the study of history, the more important question is how best to define/use a word -- that is, what is the most useful way to frame a concept.  It sometimes seems to me that many people prefer to think of emergence as some sort of mysterious concept rather than to try to come to a clear understanding of what the best way is to understand and use the term.

In his book on the Periodic Table Eric Scerri noted that people originally thought that atomic elements were characterized by their atomic weight. That was close, but what really characterizes elements are their atomic number, not their atomic weight. Once it became clear that atomic number was the right way to think about how elements are characterized, discussions of using atomic weight for that characterization may be of historical value, but they are not useful to understanding the concept -- and prolonging that discussion is counter-productive.

-- Russ A

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:15 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:

Good lord man, it is still morning!

Russ,
Yours was a completely satisfying answer! At least in so much as it showed how the sweater example would be treated within one system of dealing with emergence. Yet, it cannot completely satisfy my inquiry, because the original was not about any particular individual's way of thinking about things, but about the breadth of established ways. I am hoping that additional answers (such as that given by Glen) will appear, that I may better understand (read, be able to describe in my own terms) how such a mundane example is handled by different systems. In particular, I ask the question publicly, because I am interested in other people's understanding of the alternatives.

Eric

P.S. I feel guilty already. I'm trying hard not to post more than once a day on any of my lists and already I am up to four on this one! Let no one else feel slighted if their post does not receive a reply until some time tomorrow, maybe even Sunday. Rest assured that I am reading them throughtout the day and dwelling upon them.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 12:03 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eric,

I took your initial question as having been asked in good faith. And I answered in good faith. It seems to me that you owe me a response to my answer. Did it satisfy your question? If not, why not?

-- Russ A

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2@...> wrote:

Thus spoke Glen:

"Just to be clear, you're asking for (at least one of) us
to simulate what
(some or all of) the authors in Bedau & Humphreys would
say about whether
or not the sweater emerges from the thread?  I.e. you are
NOT asking for OUR
opinions. "


Yeah, that was the
idea!
Regarding Rosen: I am intrigued
that the answer was entirely in
terms of the cause, rather than the entity
itself.


Thanks!

Eric

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

... [show rest of quote]

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

... [show rest of quote]

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

... [show rest of quote]

... [show rest of quote]

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

[Russ Abbott]

Eric Scerri is a good guy. His interests are in the philosophy of chemistry. I don't know if his book is what you are looking for though. Probably not. It's goal is not to make chemistry intelligible to the general public. It's a history of the periodic table. But it's self-consciously a history of ideas. It isn't wondering what it is that distinguishes one element from another. It knows that we already have the answer to that, and it simply traces how we got there.

-- Russ A

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ,

 

I have been looking for a book for many years that does the same kind of presentation of chemistry for the general reader that many  mathematics and biology books do.  Is The Periodic Table that book?

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

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

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Cc: [hidden email]

Sent: 9/25/2009 10:53:51 AM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Inquiry to Emergence Group

I guess it's fine to ask how different people would define a particular word. But it seems to me that unless one's purpose is the study of history, the more important question is how best to define/use a word -- that is, what is the most useful way to frame a concept.  It sometimes seems to me that many people prefer to think of emergence as some sort of mysterious concept rather than to try to come to a clear understanding of what the best way is to understand and use the term.

In his book on the Periodic Table Eric Scerri noted that people originally thought that atomic elements were characterized by their atomic weight. That was close, but what really characterizes elements are their atomic number, not their atomic weight. Once it became clear that atomic number was the right way to think about how elements are characterized, discussions of using atomic weight for that characterization may be of historical value, but they are not useful to understanding the concept -- and prolonging that discussion is counter-productive.

-- Russ A

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:15 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:

Good lord man, it is still morning!

Russ,
Yours was a completely satisfying answer! At least in so much as it showed how the sweater example would be treated within one system of dealing with emergence. Yet, it cannot completely satisfy my inquiry, because the original was not about any particular individual's way of thinking about things, but about the breadth of established ways. I am hoping that additional answers (such as that given by Glen) will appear, that I may better understand (read, be able to describe in my own terms) how such a mundane example is handled by different systems. In particular, I ask the question publicly, because I am interested in other people's understanding of the alternatives.

Eric

P.S. I feel guilty already. I'm trying hard not to post more than once a day on any of my lists and already I am up to four on this one! Let no one else feel slighted if their post does not receive a reply until some time tomorrow, maybe even Sunday. Rest assured that I am reading them throughtout the day and dwelling upon them.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 12:03 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eric,

I took your initial question as having been asked in good faith. And I answered in good faith. It seems to me that you owe me a response to my answer. Did it satisfy your question? If not, why not?

-- Russ A

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2@...> wrote:

Thus spoke Glen:

"Just to be clear, you're asking for (at least one of) us
to simulate what
(some or all of) the authors in Bedau & Humphreys would
say about whether
or not the sweater emerges from the thread?  I.e. you are
NOT asking for OUR
opinions. "


Yeah, that was the
idea!
Regarding Rosen: I am intrigued
that the answer was entirely in
terms of the cause, rather than the entity
itself.


Thanks!

Eric

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

... [show rest of quote]

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

... [show rest of quote]

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

... [show rest of quote]

... [show rest of quote]

... [show rest of quote]

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

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09-09-25 01:09 PM:
> Glenn,

OK.  Shirley you're just messing with me, Nik. ;-)

> is THIS:
>
>> I _may_, however, be able to simulate what Robert Rosen might say. The
>> knitter is the efficient cause of the sweater. And, hence, the sweater
>> is NOT closed to efficient cause. Hence, the sweater is not a complex
>> system. And, if we assume all complex systems exhibit emergence, then
>> he would say the sweater is NOT emergent (except perhaps if we expand
>> the "system" to include the actors which constitute the efficient cause,
>> of course).
>
> of the form:
>
> All swans are white
> This bird is white
> This bird is a swan
>
> ?  

... [show rest of quote]

Yes, except that I misspoke (surprise surprise).  I meant to say "if we
assume that _only_ complex systems exhibit emergence, then RR would say
the sweater is NOT emergent."

So, it would be of the form:

Only swans are white.
This object is white.
.: This object is a swan.

I think this is just the contrapositive.  But remember that my
simulation added that last part.  RR didn't talk about "emergence" as
far as I'm aware.

> ps: Re Rosen;  were you around two summers ago when I was beating my gums
> into plough shares trying to understand Rosen's Life Itself?  I am hoping
> to get back to Rosen as one of the people who has a highly restricted view
> of emergence and who is also highly enthusiastic about downward causation.
> Who, in fact, is trying to create a formalism -- DENSMORE ALERT-- to
> describe such.

Yes.  I was here.  I'm not an expert on Rosen.... I'm probably not even
a competent pseudo-expert.  But I enjoy yapping uselessly about how we
might make his work useful.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
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]

Glen,

(sorry I fell for the double n on my previous message).

 GLEN HATH WROTH:

Yes.  I was here.  I'm not an expert on Rosen.... I'm probably not even
> a competent pseudo-expert.  But I enjoy yapping uselessly about how we
> might make his work useful.


 END WROTHING BY GLEN

There are two kinds of people on this list.  Those who think that the
Emperor's New Clothes is a children's story and those who think that it is
Parable Direct from God concerning the important role that  non-experts can
play in scientific discourse.  

I am in the latter category. Besides, can you imagine how long it would
take to collect a passell of  Rosen experts to talk about Rosen?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 9/25/2009 4:49:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Inquiry to Emergence Group
>
> Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09-09-25 01:09 PM:
> > Glenn,
>
> OK.  Shirley you're just messing with me, Nik. ;-)
>
> > is THIS:
> >
> >> I _may_, however, be able to simulate what Robert Rosen might say. The
> >> knitter is the efficient cause of the sweater. And, hence, the sweater
> >> is NOT closed to efficient cause. Hence, the sweater is not a complex
> >> system. And, if we assume all complex systems exhibit emergence, then
> >> he would say the sweater is NOT emergent (except perhaps if we expand
> >> the "system" to include the actors which constitute the efficient

... [show rest of quote]

cause,

> >> of course).
> >
> > of the form:
> >
> > All swans are white
> > This bird is white
> > This bird is a swan
> >
> > ?  
>
> Yes, except that I misspoke (surprise surprise).  I meant to say "if we
> assume that _only_ complex systems exhibit emergence, then RR would say
> the sweater is NOT emergent."
>
> So, it would be of the form:
>
> Only swans are white.
> This object is white.
> .: This object is a swan.
>
> I think this is just the contrapositive.  But remember that my
> simulation added that last part.  RR didn't talk about "emergence" as
> far as I'm aware.
>
> > ps: Re Rosen;  were you around two summers ago when I was beating my

... [show rest of quote]

gums
> > into plough shares trying to understand Rosen's Life Itself?  I am
hoping
> > to get back to Rosen as one of the people who has a highly restricted
view
> > of emergence and who is also highly enthusiastic about downward
causation.

> > Who, in fact, is trying to create a formalism -- DENSMORE ALERT-- to
> > describe such.
>
> Yes.  I was here.  I'm not an expert on Rosen.... I'm probably not even
> a competent pseudo-expert.  But I enjoy yapping uselessly about how we
> might make his work useful.
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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

... [show rest of quote]

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