Emergence Seminar, IV; Bedau on weak emergence.
Locked
12
12
Emergence Seminar, IV; Bedau on weak emergence.
 
|
Dear All,
We had a good meeting, at least 8 of us, even tho we lost Michel, who went back to Paris. The first time it didnt actually RAIN duirng the meeting, so we were able to sit outside.
For next week we will be reading the Mark Bedau chapter on weak emergence. I think I have already established that Bedau has a pdf of a version of this article on his website. Ping me if you need a better reference.
At least one person has promised to join us from the diaspora.
Please put discussion of this chapter -- and ONLY discussion of this chapter -- in this thread.
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 |
|
|
Greetings,
This morning, I saw an interesting emergence problem on a children's television show, and thought I would send a query to the group. As is prone to happen, a character received a knitted sweater, which promptly caught on something and began to unravel. By the time they noticed it was just one long string. They then followed the string back, ending up with a large ball of string. They had the string, which is all the sweater was; but of course, they did not in any reasonable sense have "the sweater". I was wondering how the different authors in the book would describe this situation. In particular, it would seem natural to say that the string isn't the sweater BECAUSE the sweater is "emergent". Hopefully that example is of interest to more than just me, Eric P.S. Look Nick, I maintained your thread dominance request! ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Inquiry to Emergence Group
|
|
Groan.
What possible gain will come of trying to add yet more baggage to that already overloaded, mythical, magical "emergence" word by trying to force-fit the process of knitting a sweater on to it? --Doug On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:08 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Eric,
I like the example. Thank you.
Doug
I stipulate that you don't like this topic. But wait a minute! You responded to the thread!? That's odd!
If interested, the reading this week is the aforementioned Bedau.
Best,
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 |
|
|
Eric,
I think it's a fine example. It's an example of static emergence--the same sort of thing that happens when one puts sodium and chlorine together to get salt; the same sort of thing that happens when one puts carbon atoms together to get a diamond; the same sort of thing that happens when one puts lumber, nails, drywall, copper piping, etc. together to get a house, etc. In all those cases emergence is the result of building a static structure of separate elements. Emergence is static when the structure is at an energy equilibrium within an energy well--i.e., the structure doesn't require the continual importation of energy to persist. Deconstruction of the emergent entity does require the addition of energy. In the case of the sweater, for example, energy is needed to unravel the string. The sweater is well enough knit together that it won't fall apart on its own but must be pulled apart. -- Russ A On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Inquiry to Emergence Group
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Call it a morbid fascination with how other seem to really seem to enjoy word games, Nick.
But the question was genuine: what possible gain (in your opinion, of course) will come out of this? Where's the added value? What's the benefit about attempting to talk about emergence in the context of unraveling a sweater? --Doug On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Inquiry to Emergence Group
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Thus spake ERIC P. CHARLES circa 09/25/2009 06:08 AM:
> I was wondering how the different authors in the book would describe this > situation. In particular, it would seem natural to say that the string isn't > the sweater BECAUSE the sweater is "emergent". 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. If so, I can't respond until I've a) read the book at least once and b) modeled each author at least to the extent that I'd be willing to simulate them. That's a tall order! I doubt I'll ever be motivated or incentivized to do that. But if you ask again in, say, a month, maybe I'll have a different answer. ;-) 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). -- 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 |
Re: Inquiry to Emergence Group
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 09/25/2009 07:57 AM:
> But the question was genuine: what possible gain (in your opinion, of > course) will come out of this? Where's the added value? What's the benefit > about attempting to talk about emergence in the context of unraveling a > sweater? I don't think there is any value of us expressing our own opinions, here. But I do think there is value in us trying to simulate what _others_ might say. In fact, I think it would have been _very_ easy to predict Douglas Roberts' response. ;-) I vacillate between thinking it's good to be easily simulable vs. bad to be easily simulable. Those who value consistency would obviously _like_ others to be able to simulate them. But those who value creativity would probably not like to be easily simulable. So, I'd be interested to know if others could simulate me to an extent which was validatable. (Not validatable against my own perception of myself, of course, but against others' "data" about me.) I think there's plenty of practical value to being able to simulate what others would say in response to a given question, if for no other reason than it would help us design better models that we could then sell to executives in, say, pharmaceutical companies. [grin] -- 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 |
Re: Inquiry to Emergence Group
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
<groan>
Knot to needle you put I think you are throwing pearls before twine. </groan> Robert Nicholas Thompson wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Inquiry to Emergence Group
|
|
Oh, thanks. Just when I had begun to lose the thread of this conversation.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Robert Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Inquiry to Emergence Group
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
Demonstrating predictability in the presence of one's enemies would be a bad thing. Fortunately, we're all friends here.
--Doug On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:06 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote: Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 09/25/2009 07:57 AM: ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Responding genuinely to your question:
1) It seemed like a more mundane and familiar example than most examples discussed on the list. That is, while it takes considerable schooling to teach people that salt is composed of sodium and chloride arranged in a particular way, everyone easily recognizes that the sweater is composed of yarn arranged in a particular way. 2) I too agree that the word "emergence" has a bit of voodoo to it, especially in normal usage. However, it seems useful (if not necessary) to have SOME way of talking about how the sweater is more than just the yarn it is composed of. It would be a very sad world if we could not readily refer to phenomenon except by way of their constituent elements. It would be a sad world if we did not have some way of making sense of that referring. The currently fashionable language may indeed not be ideal, but that can only be determined (I naively assert) by discussing it critically. 3) Personally, like you, I am not terribly interested in having a normative discussion of emergence (i.e., how, based on deep philosophical grounds SHOULD we be using the term, technically speaking). I've had them before, I know how they go, little excitement left for me. However, I am quite interested in discussing what we do naturally, figuring out how to describe what we naturally do, and figuring out the costs and benefits both of what we do and different methods of describing what we do. The term "emergence" is one in a long line of ways of trying to "get at" a certain set of obvious empirical phenomenon (i.e., things we experience). To pick a few older examples, surely "emergence" holds some advantage over terms like "vital energy" or "spirit". No? Satisfactory answer? Remotely? Eric On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 10:57 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
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. " ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Emergence Seminar, IV; Bedau on weak emergence.
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
[Note: the thread got broken so I'm deliberately starting a new one
that hopefully keeps both its new thread ID header and its old subject line. Anyone not understanding thread breaking and thread highjacking can ask and I'd describe the technical details.] I'd like to take the thread back for its original purpose, OK? The idea of the seminar is simple: we're trying to *understand* the various authors in the book. Not to belittle them or the concept. I started out quite skeptical .. I really think there is a good definition of Emergence but that these guys hadn't a change in hell of stating it. And yes, I believe it to lie within the domain of mathematics. But, mainly due to good will of the participants and skillful management by Nick who's done this for ages, I find I'm enjoying the seminar very much. Better yet, we're getting some traction how *we'd* like to define Emergence, at least in the much less limited domain of "complexity". If Friamers would like to read along, we have a digital version you can use to see if you'd like to plunge in, get the book, and discuss the week's reading. Our last week's reading was two chapters, Searle and Wimsatt: Ch 3 Reductionism and the Irreducibility of Consciousness John Searle Ch 5 Aggregativity: Reductive Heuristics for Finding Emergence William C. Wimsatt Frank W read/presented the first, I did the second. Next week is: Ch 8 Downward Causation and Autonomy in Weak Emergence Mark A. Bedau ..presented by Chip Garner. -- Owen On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > Dear All, > > We had a good meeting, at least 8 of us, even tho we lost Michel, > who went back to Paris. The first time it didnt actually RAIN > duirng the meeting, so we were able to sit outside. > > For next week we will be reading the Mark Bedau chapter on weak > emergence. I think I have already established that Bedau has a pdf > of a version of this article on his website. Ping me if you need a > better reference. > > At least one person has promised to join us from the diaspora. > > Please put discussion of this chapter -- and ONLY discussion of this > chapter -- in this thread. > > Nick ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
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 Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
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:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick/Eric - I think that while the sweater example points to a necessary property of a system to be considered to have emergent properties, but it is not sufficient. I think "Felt" is a better example in the same domain. Hairs have tiny "sawtooth" ridges that cause them to "ratchet" past each other and "lock" when matted tightly. By heating, lubricating and manipulating mats of hair, the "weave" gets tighter and tighter. (think Yak hair matted tightly onto an existing mother-blanket and then rolled tightly, soaked in Yak and Horse Piss, then tied behind a horse while riding wildly (or gently) over the steppes). The resulting property of a "tightly sprung" set of layers of hair that is useful in many ways (ask the inhabitants of the Eurasian Steppes) including being simultaneously waterproof, tear-resistant, and insulative, might be considered "emergent". I would contend that the results of weaving, knitting, crocheting, macrame-ing are merely "highly structured". I can see the reasons for wanting to think of this as "emergent", but I think it falls short of that mystical line... I might defer to an arguement about the *process* of developing knitting as having been emergent... that a series of simpler processes (see knots, macrame, even felting) with a different purpose, yielding a new process (knitting) might be above the mystical line. I do often wonder if "emergence", however is not strictly in the "eye of the beholder"? Is it possible that any complex conformational state which has properties (especially ones we find useful or threatening) we can't link back to the lower level elements or organization directly we want to call "emergent"? And once we understand how a process or complex conformational state leads to this, we are tempted to demote it? Sorry I'm not in the Emergent Club you are holding... but glad to be exposed to the discussion and have the opportunity to toss my $.02 in. As for Doug... *everything* about Doug is odd. That is what we like about him (along with his fine taste in Parrots, Scotch and home-roasted coffees) I enjoy his curmudgeonly way of wanting to make fun of most of our sacred cows while still showing a morbid fascination with them! Maybe it is merely my own morbid fascination! - Steve
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Emergence Seminar, IV; Bedau on weak emergence.
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Owen Densmore wrote:
> [Note: the thread got broken so I'm deliberately starting a new one > that hopefully keeps both its new thread ID header and its old subject > line. Anyone not understanding thread breaking and thread highjacking > can ask and I'd describe the technical details.] Yes, but can you weave a sweater out of these threads? And if we wake up one day and realize that the FRIAM list has actually spontaneously *become* a sweater, would we call it Emergence? > I'd like to take the thread back for its original purpose, OK? I think I'm channeling Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams here... sorry. Carry on! - Steve ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Glenn,
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 ? Nick 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. n PS: 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 9:00:30 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Inquiry to Emergence Group > > Thus spake ERIC P. CHARLES circa 09/25/2009 06:08 AM: > > I was wondering how the different authors in the book would describe this > > situation. In particular, it would seem natural to say that the string isn't > > the sweater BECAUSE the sweater is "emergent". > > 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. > > If so, I can't respond until I've a) read the book at least once and b) > modeled each author at least to the extent that I'd be willing to > simulate them. That's a tall order! I doubt I'll ever be motivated or > incentivized to do that. But if you ask again in, say, a month, maybe > I'll have a different answer. ;-) > > 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). > > -- > 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 ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |