emergence again ... again.
Locked
 
|
Dear Russ,
You write:
"Unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, I will continue to claim that I've solved the problems of emergence and reductionism in "The reductionist blind spot." (Yes, it's an audacious claim.) "
As an avid falsificationist, I enjoy audacious claims..... "bold conjectures" as Popper used to say. I enjoyed reading the paper and learned alot from it. But, although audacious claims are the most fun, I am increasingly resigned to the proposition that "In philosophy, if we are moving too fast, we are not moving" and ultimately, I guess I care more about making progress. This essay had two parts: a beginning where you offered up the relation between a specification and an implementation as a model for understanding emergence, and a conclusion where you argued for the poverty of reductionism. I thought the specification-implementation distinction was very promising. I agreed with your conclusion and was pulling for you every step of the way. However, even to this friendly reader, you did not make the case that the introduction demonstrated the conclusion.
I am grateful for your sending this paper to the list. I wish we would share less blather and more careful critique on this list, and wish I had time to meet head on your challenge that I show you that your paper does not answer the problem of emergence. Unfortunately, a new week is beginning and I am afraid that if I dont send you something tonight, I never will. The best I can do is forward the paper back to you with the 40 plus marginal comments I have added to it. Marginal comments ARE NOT the same as a considered critical review .... they are not distilled, have not been revised and may not be coherent. The best they can do is give you an idea of the kinds of worries a reader might have as s/he encounters your thoughts for the first time. Some may be useful; most may be ill considered. I would be grateful if you feel free to favor me with any equally illconsidered responses you might have.
You can find the markup at
In the few moments I have left this evening, I have some points I would like to stress. When I run out of time, I will just stop, if necessary, in midsentence.
First -- the only point on which I have any firm opinion -- I think the paper confuses evolution (a historical changes in taxonomies over time) with natural selection (the explainer of those changes). I am not sure that confusion makes any difference to your argument other than perhaps offending some of your readers. You may simply be able to change out the words and leave the text otherwise undisturbed. If there is a problem, it has to do with the hypothetical character of natural selection and the more factual character of evolution. Here are two papers that might make clear why the distinction is so important to me.
Second, I'm not sure you were consistent about the distinctions between the higher/lower level relation, the type/token relation, the whole/part and the category/instantiation relation. It seems to me that the only relation where the question of emergence is surely relevant is the part/whole relation: how do wholes come to have properties that are not aggregations of the properties of their parts.
Third, I 'm not sure where you stand on the distinction between synchronic and diachronic "structures". I assume that the distinction between higher and lower works for both but does the specification/implementation distinction work? Yet, some of the most amazing examples of emergence are provided by diachronic structures, processes like the Krebs cycle.
Fourth, I HAVE to go to bed.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |