emergence
Locked
123
123
 
|
To my shame? When I find us in agreement that always makes me feel better -- sometimes surprised but always better!
-- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
I agree here too! Even though I'm not a behaviorist -- or at least not what I think of as a behaviorist.
I'm still(!) not sure what Nick thinks about subjective experience. But let's not go back to that. -- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:26 PM, 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Is is possible that there is a measure of Complexity that can be used in the same sort of way? As this measure of Complexity increases Emergence happens (like turbulence) above a certain value? And it is so because we say so. Robert C. Russ Abbott wrote: <snipped> ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
David Wolpert has actually proposed such a measure. But I don't think it has much if anything to do with emergence.
-- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Robert Cordingley <[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
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
For those Cat Lovers out there: > Implementation: Consider the expression, "there is more than one way > to skin a cat". Equivalent to: "there are several programs you can > use to implement a cat skinning." Let me offer in return: There are many ways to skin a cat, not all of which involve a Lear Jet. ============================================================ 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
I respectfully but firmly disagree. To see emergence, one may have to observe the phenomenon from a particular angle, emergence itself is out there. Properties of aggregates often depend on the arrangement or order of arrangement of their parts.
N
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 |
|
|
We agree again! It's out there. (Beware.)
-- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:06 PM, 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Isn't it possible that an emergent phenomenon might be mysterious to an observer who didn't know how it was implemented? For example, how might lodestones(?) (I mean magnetized rocks) appear to someone who observed them before the theory of magnetism had been formulated? ________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]] Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 7:20 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence OK. On the question of what Bedau believes, I leave the field in a rout! However, I want to look at Bedau's own article in the book, where he seems mostly to treat emergence quite casually, before I decide whether I want to try to reinfiltrate the field in the night. But you do realize, Russ, to your shame, that we agree on one important point. Whatever Bedau might believe, you and I believe that emergence is ubiquitous and non-mysterious. Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott<mailto:[hidden email]> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: 9/6/2009 3:00:12 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence Come on Nick. Later on in the Introduction they write the following. When we finally understand what emergence truly is, we might see that many of the examples are only apparent cases of emergence. Indeed, one of the hotly contested issues is whether there are any genuine examples of emergence. Here's how the Introduction finishes. The study of emergence is still in its infancy and currently is in a state of considerable flux, so a large number of important questions still lack clear answers. Surveying those questions is one of the best ways to comprehend the nature and scope of the contemporary philosophical and scientific debate about emergence. Grouped together here are some of the interconnected questions about emergence that are particularly pressing, 1. How should emergence be defined? ... We should not presume that only one type of emergence exists and needs definition. Instead, different kinds of emergence may exist, so different that they fall under no unified account. ... Given the high level of uncertainty about how to properly characterize what emergence is, it should be no surprise that many other fundamental questions remain unanswered. 2. What ontological categories of entities can be emergent: properties, substances, processes,phenomena, patterns, laws, or something else? ... 3. What is the scope of actual emergent phenomena? ... 4. Is emergence an objective feature of the world, or is it merely in the eye of the beholder? ... 5. Should emergence be viewed as static and synchronic, or as dynamic and diachronic, or are both possible? ... 6. Does emergence imply or require the existence of new levels of phenomena? ... 7. In what ways are e mergent phenomena autonomous from their emergent bases? ... Another important question about the autonomy of emergent phenomena is whether that autonomy is merely epistemological or whether it has ontological consequences. An extreme version of the merely epistemological interpretation of emergence holds that emergence is simply a sign of our ignorance. One final issue about the autonomy of emergent phenomena concerns whether emergence necessarily involves novel causal powers, especially powers that produce ??downward causation,?? in which emergent phenomena have novel effects on their own emergence base. One of the questions in this context is what kind of downward causation is involved, for the coherence of downward causation is debatable. Emergence ... is simultaneously palpable and confusing ... New advances in contemporary philosophy and science ... now are converging to enable new progress on these questions ... This book?s chapters illuminate these que stions from many perspectives to help readers with framing their own answers. If this isn't an attempt to grapple with an apparently mysterious phenomenon what do you think it is? Or do you suppose they are simply compiling a collection of philosophical papers for the sake of history? If that were the case, I would think they would make the philosophical landscape of emergence sound a lot more settled. Or perhaps they simply believe that they can make some money selling books -- and writing the introduction as if the topic of energence were so unsettled was just a way to intice people to buy it. -- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: "seems" would seem to be the operative word. He is the editor of the book and he has to represent the range of opinion and SOME people think its mysterious. but i have to go buy fish. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott<mailto:[hidden email]> To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: 9/6/2009 11:57:48 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence If you make properties rather than entities emergent, what do you say about entities? What are they? Where do they come from? Put another way, what is a property a property of? I think you will find that Bedau and Humphreys find emergence mysterious. This is the second sentence from the Introduction<http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/026202621Xintro1.pdf>. "The topic of emergence is fascinating and controversial in part because emergence seems to be widespread and yet the very idea of emergence seems opaque, and perhaps even incoherent." The rest of the Introduction expands on the mystery of emergence. -- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: Try this: a property of an entity is emergent when it depends on the arrangment or the order of presentation of the parts of the entity. (It's properties that are emergent, not entities ... some properties of a pile of sand are emergent, some aggregate.) Here, I believe, I am channeling Wimsatt. The beauty of reading a collection such as Bedau and The Other Guy is that you experience the whip-lash of moving from point of view to point of view. Good exercise for the neck. By the way, Russ (was it?) was a ...leetle... unfair to Bedau. I dont think Bedau thinks it's a mystery; i think he thinks others have thought it a mystery. But it's been a few months since I read it. Implementation: Consider the expression, "there is more than one way to skin a cat". Equivalent to: "there are several programs you can use to implement a cat skinning." Consciousness: the big source of confusion in emergence discussions is the attempt to attach emergence to such perennial mysteries as consciousness. (Actually, I dont think consciousness is a mystery, but let that go.) The strength of a triangle is an emergent property of the arrangment of its legs and their attachments. There are lots of ways bang together boards and still have a weak construction, which I learned when I put together a grape arbor with no diagonal members. Worked fine until the grapes grew on it. Emergent properties are everywhere in the simplest of constructions. We dont need to talk about soul, or consciouness, or spirit to have a useful conversation about emergence. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> ----- Original Message ----- From: Victoria Hughes<mailto:[hidden email]> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<mailto:[hidden email]> Sent: 9/6/2009 10:32:59 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence Consciousness / self-awareness? Is this thus acceptable as an emergent phenomenon? If so, how does this permit, or not, the definition of 'the self' as a unique identity? Emergence is what happens when components of the "emergent entity" act in such a way as to bring about the existence and persistence of that entity. When "boids" follow their local flying rules, they create (implement) a flock. It's not mysterious. We know how it works. That's all emergence is: coordinated or consistent actions among a number of elements that result in the formation and persistence of some aggregate entity or phenomenon. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, a rchives, 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
IMHO, I thought 'to see', 'observations', 'arrangements' and 'order' were also largely 'in the eye of the beholder'! If emergence is ever to become a (part of) science, repeatable measurements (from verifiable observations) leading to one or more calculated parameters is the only way to bring 'emergence' in from the cold/limbo/twilight zone, where it appears to be right now. Statistical and/or structural pattern recognition seem to be good places to start. (See also descriptive statistics) I don't know if this has yet been attempted/done but hope to hear otherwise. Perhaps it's just too hard. Robert C. 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Hi, John,
I thought the argument was about whether mystery was a defining feature of emergence. I said I thought not. I agree with you emergent phenomena can appear mysterious, but they don't cease to be so when we figure them out. Once we have agreed on the "objective" (forgive me, eric) nature of emergence, we might playfully explore the folloing question: Has there ever been any thing that appears mysterious that has not been emergent. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: John Kennison <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>; The FridayMorning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 9/7/2009 1:05:02 AM > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] emergence > > > Isn't it possible that an emergent phenomenon might be mysterious to an observer who didn't know how it was implemented? For example, how might lodestones(?) (I mean magnetized rocks) appear to someone who observed them before the theory of magnetism had been formulated? > ________________________________________ > From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 7:20 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > OK. On the question of what Bedau believes, I leave the field in a rout! However, I want to look at Bedau's own article in the book, where he seems mostly to treat emergence quite casually, before I decide whether I want to try to reinfiltrate the field in the night. > > But you do realize, Russ, to your shame, that we agree on one important point. Whatever Bedau might believe, you and I believe that emergence is ubiquitous and non-mysterious. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Russ Abbott<mailto:[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>;The > Sent: 9/6/2009 3:00:12 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > Come on Nick. Later on in the Introduction they write the following. > > When we finally understand what emergence truly is, we might see that many of the examples are only apparent cases of emergence. Indeed, one of the hotly contested issues is whether there are any genuine examples of emergence. > > Here's how the Introduction finishes. > > The study of emergence is still in its infancy and currently is in a state of considerable flux, so a large number of important questions still lack clear answers. Surveying those questions is one of the best ways to comprehend the nature and scope of the contemporary philosophical and scientific debate about emergence. Grouped together here are some of the interconnected questions about emergence that are particularly pressing, > > 1. How should emergence be defined? ... We should not presume that only one type of emergence exists and needs definition. Instead, different kinds of emergence may exist, so different that they fall under no unified account. ... Given the high level of uncertainty about how to properly characterize what emergence is, it should be no surprise that many other fundamental questions remain unanswered. > > 2. What ontological categories of entities can be emergent: properties, substances, processes,phenomena, patterns, laws, or something else? ... > > 3. What is the scope of actual emergent phenomena? ... > > 4. Is emergence an objective feature of the world, or is it merely in the eye of the beholder? ... > > 5. Should emergence be viewed as static and synchronic, or as dynamic and diachronic, or are both possible? ... > > 6. Does emergence imply or require the existence of new levels of phenomena? ... > > 7. In what ways are e mergent phenomena autonomous from their emergent bases? ... Another important question about the autonomy of emergent phenomena is whether that autonomy is merely epistemological or whether it has ontological consequences. An extreme version of the merely epistemological interpretation of emergence holds that emergence is simply a sign of our ignorance. One final issue about the autonomy of emergent phenomena concerns whether emergence necessarily involves novel causal powers, especially powers that produce ??downward causation,?? in which emergent phenomena have novel effects on their own emergence base. One of the questions in this context is what kind of downward causation is involved, for the coherence of downward causation is debatable. > > Emergence ... is simultaneously palpable and confusing ... New advances in contemporary philosophy and science ... now are converging to enable new progress on these questions ... > This book?s chapters illuminate these que stions from many perspectives to help readers > with framing their own answers. > > If this isn't an attempt to grapple with an apparently mysterious phenomenon what do you think it is? Or do you suppose they are simply compiling a collection of philosophical papers for the sake of history? If that were the case, I would think they would make the philosophical landscape of emergence sound a lot more settled. Or perhaps they simply believe that they can make some money selling books -- and writing the introduction as if the topic of energence were so unsettled was just a way to intice people to buy it. > > -- Russ > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > "seems" would seem to be the operative word. He is the editor of the book and he has to represent the range of opinion and SOME people think its mysterious. > > but i have to go buy fish. > > Nick > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>) > k.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Russ Abbott<mailto:[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<mailto:[hidden email]> > Sent: 9/6/2009 11:57:48 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > If you make properties rather than entities emergent, what do you say about entities? What are they? Where do they come from? Put another way, what is a property a property of? > > I think you will find that Bedau and Humphreys find emergence mysterious. This is the second sentence from the Introduction<http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/026202621Xintro1.pdf>. "The topic of emergence is fascinating and controversial in part because emergence seems to be widespread and yet the very idea of emergence seems opaque, and perhaps even incoherent." The rest of the Introduction expands on the mystery of emergence. > > -- Russ > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > Try this: a property of an entity is emergent when it depends on the arrangment or the order of presentation of the parts of the entity. (It's properties that are emergent, not entities ... some properties of a pile of sand are emergent, some aggregate.) Here, I believe, I am channeling Wimsatt. > > The beauty of reading a collection such as Bedau and The Other Guy is that you experience the whip-lash of moving from point of view to point of view. Good exercise for the neck. > > By the way, Russ (was it?) was a ...leetle... unfair to Bedau. I dont think Bedau thinks it's a mystery; i think he thinks others have thought it a mystery. But it's been a few months since I read it. > > Implementation: Consider the expression, "there is more than one way to skin a cat". Equivalent to: "there are several programs you can use to implement a cat skinning." > > Consciousness: the big source of confusion in emergence discussions is the attempt to attach emergence to such perennial mysteries as consciousness. (Actually, I dont think consciousness is a mystery, but let that go.) The strength of a triangle is an emergent property of the arrangment of its legs and their attachments. There are lots of ways bang together boards and still have a weak construction, which I learned when I put together a grape arbor with no diagonal members. Worked fine until the grapes grew on it. Emergent properties are everywhere in the simplest of constructions. We dont need to talk about soul, or consciouness, or spirit to have a useful conversation about emergence. > > Nick > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlin k.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Victoria Hughes<mailto:[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<mailto:[hidden email]> > Sent: 9/6/2009 10:32:59 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > Consciousness / self-awareness? > Is this thus acceptable as an emergent phenomenon? > If so, how does this permit, or not, the definition of 'the self' as a unique identity? > > > Emergence is what happens when components of the "emergent entity" act in such a way as to bring about the existence and persistence of that entity. > > When "boids" follow their local flying rules, they create (implement) a flock. It's not mysterious. We know how it works. > > That's all emergence is: coordinated or consistent actions among a number of elements that result in the formation and persistence of some aggregate entity or phenomenon. > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, a rchives, 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Cordingley
Yes, Robert's right. What seems to be missing from Russ' (arrogantly named) "solution" is that there _are_ no interfaces that "get implemented" and there _are_ no "entities" that emerge. Subjectively, sure, we observe or measure patterns of interaction (often stable over cosmological time scales) and we measure various coherent blobs behaving in such a way that preserves identity for the blobs. But, ontologically, such things are transient approximations... idealizations... abstractions arrived at by the observer. Even in his paper, Russ claims that emergence is fundamentally abstraction (though "levels" is an irresponsible misnomer). And abstraction is an attribute arrived at via measurement, not a property that exists objectively. In fact, we don't even need the observer/observed dichotomy for this to be true. Any operation will be dependent on some and independent of other aspects of its operand. I.e. any process will ignore some stuff and be totally dependent on other stuff. So, for example, an avalanche depends on type of snow but not on, say, whether my cat scratches me. (There's not much snow where me and my cat live. ;-) The range of an operator, as applied, is a measurement. Emergence depends on the characteristics of the domain and range of some (set of) operator(s). In some cases, the operator is defined by a conscious observer and in some cases, it isn't. Hence, Robert is right that (some) emergence is (solely) in the eye of the observer. But in some cases, emergence is "out there", particularly when the operator isn't defined by a conscious observer, meaning Nick and Russ are right that (some) emergence exists objectively. It's important to note, however, that this CAN be orthogonal to implementation. It is primarily a function of the domains and ranges of the various operators being applied. In software, these are called "aspects". And although aspect-oriented methods tend to take Russ' approach and try to build a simple map between aspect and mechanism, that's not necessary for any software. Aspects are defined by the _usage_ patterns of the users, not the mechanisms that implement the aspects. Yes, the two can be engineered to correspond; but they need not be. A piece of software can exhibit aspects that are not (easily) traceable to the organization of the mechanisms that implement them. In fact, a piece of software can exhibit aspects that forever cease to obtain when the users stop using the software in that way... and in some cases, it only takes a tiny, invisible tweak in the way people use it... hence the script-kiddie exploits and the blossoming domain of software security. That leads to a question: is an aspect _implemented_ if the software is never used in a way that exhibits that aspect? Yes, it is implemented. Does it emerge? No, because an aspect only shows up if the mechanism is _used_ in a particular way. No usage pattern, no aspect, no emergence. Hence, emergence is distinct from implementation, at least in some identifiable cases. (This existence proof, disproves Russ' claim, absent lots of semantic gymnastics surrounding the vague and useless term "emergence".) If the operator isn't applied, there is no emergent attribute. Hence, emergence is not the dual of implementation. Emergence is the result of applying particular operators to the mechanism. I.e. emergence is in the eye of the beholder, even where the beholder is another mechanism. (This extension allows one to hypothesize that there are many other cases where implementation is distinct from emergence.) Thus spake Robert Cordingley circa 09/07/2009 06:57 AM: > IMHO, I thought 'to see', 'observations', 'arrangements' and 'order' > were also largely 'in the eye of the beholder'! If emergence is ever to > become a (part of) science, repeatable measurements (from verifiable > observations) leading to one or more calculated parameters is the only > way to bring 'emergence' in from the cold/limbo/twilight zone, where it > appears to be right now. Statistical and/or structural pattern > recognition <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition> seem to > be good places to start. (See also descriptive statistics) > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_statistics> I don't know if > this has yet been attempted/done but hope to hear otherwise. Perhaps > it's just too hard. -- 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
All, You can all safely ignore this note, but I need to write it in order to be right with my own conscience. If you do read it, tho, please read through to the bottom before you respond to avoid useless disputation. Eric Charles has been on to me "on the private line" to say that I have to confess to some craziness, here. Do you remember all the conversations this summer about E Holt and the New Realism? As a new realist I am obligated to believe that, while there may be "out theres" that are not "in here", there are no "in heres" that are not "out there", for a properly situated observer. Russ and I went at this hammer and tongue this summer and agreed to disagree. I dont think there is any value in picking up that argument now. Having lived with this craziness for most of my life, I am pretty sure that you all believe that there are "inheres" that are not in principle "outthere" and that you wont be convinced otherwise The best I can hope for is, occasionally, to find a person who is willing to toy with my ontology in a playful spirit (eg, Steve Smith) and see where it might take them. But no need for that now. Note that Russ and I AGREE that emergence is out there. This places us together on the side opposite to those who believe that emergence is a perception that is dissolved by understanding. When we read the EMERGENCE book together, we will find that there are many smart people on both sides of that argument, but that complexity scientists, on the whole, tend to share the view that emergence is not a stage inunderstanding but a state of the world. 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: 9/7/2009 10:12:41 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > > Yes, Robert's right. What seems to be missing from Russ' (arrogantly > named) "solution" is that there _are_ no interfaces that "get > implemented" and there _are_ no "entities" that emerge. Subjectively, > sure, we observe or measure patterns of interaction (often stable over > cosmological time scales) and we measure various coherent blobs behaving > in such a way that preserves identity for the blobs. But, > ontologically, such things are transient approximations... > idealizations... abstractions arrived at by the observer. > > Even in his paper, Russ claims that emergence is fundamentally > abstraction (though "levels" is an irresponsible misnomer). And > abstraction is an attribute arrived at via measurement, not a property > that exists objectively. > > In fact, we don't even need the observer/observed dichotomy for this to > be true. Any operation will be dependent on some and independent of > other aspects of its operand. I.e. any process will ignore some stuff > and be totally dependent on other stuff. > > So, for example, an avalanche depends on type of snow but not on, say, > whether my cat scratches me. (There's not much snow where me and my cat > live. ;-) The range of an operator, as applied, is a measurement. > Emergence depends on the characteristics of the domain and range of some > (set of) operator(s). > > In some cases, the operator is defined by a conscious observer and in > some cases, it isn't. Hence, Robert is right that (some) emergence is > (solely) in the eye of the observer. But in some cases, emergence is > "out there", particularly when the operator isn't defined by a conscious > observer, meaning Nick and Russ are right that (some) emergence exists > objectively. > > It's important to note, however, that this CAN be orthogonal to > implementation. It is primarily a function of the domains and ranges of > the various operators being applied. In software, these are called > "aspects". And although aspect-oriented methods tend to take Russ' > approach and try to build a simple map between aspect and mechanism, > that's not necessary for any software. Aspects are defined by the > _usage_ patterns of the users, not the mechanisms that implement the > aspects. Yes, the two can be engineered to correspond; but they need > not be. A piece of software can exhibit aspects that are not (easily) > traceable to the organization of the mechanisms that implement them. In > fact, a piece of software can exhibit aspects that forever cease to > obtain when the users stop using the software in that way... and in some > cases, it only takes a tiny, invisible tweak in the way people use it... > hence the script-kiddie exploits and the blossoming domain of software > security. > > That leads to a question: is an aspect _implemented_ if the software is > never used in a way that exhibits that aspect? Yes, it is implemented. > Does it emerge? No, because an aspect only shows up if the mechanism > is _used_ in a particular way. No usage pattern, no aspect, no > emergence. Hence, emergence is distinct from implementation, at least > in some identifiable cases. (This existence proof, disproves Russ' > claim, absent lots of semantic gymnastics surrounding the vague and > useless term "emergence".) > > If the operator isn't applied, there is no emergent attribute. Hence, > emergence is not the dual of implementation. Emergence is the result of > applying particular operators to the mechanism. I.e. emergence is in > the eye of the beholder, even where the beholder is another mechanism. > (This extension allows one to hypothesize that there are many other > cases where implementation is distinct from emergence.) > > Thus spake Robert Cordingley circa 09/07/2009 06:57 AM: > > IMHO, I thought 'to see', 'observations', 'arrangements' and 'order' > > were also largely 'in the eye of the beholder'! If emergence is ever to > > become a (part of) science, repeatable measurements (from verifiable > > observations) leading to one or more calculated parameters is the only > > way to bring 'emergence' in from the cold/limbo/twilight zone, where it > > appears to be right now. Statistical and/or structural pattern > > recognition <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition> seem to > > be good places to start. (See also descriptive statistics) > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_statistics> I don't know if > > this has yet been attempted/done but hope to hear otherwise. Perhaps > > it's just too hard. > > -- > 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 |
|
|
You're placing yourself on one side of a false dichotomy. Doing so for rhetorical sake is fine. Doing so as a serious attempt to categorize people and the way they think is a mistake. There is no strict dichotomy between "in here" vs. "out there". However, some ways of looking at things (some operators) are defined in terms of "in here" and some are defined in terms of "out there". An operator that is defined using an assumption of a conscious observer, will, naturally require a conscious observer. One that isn't, doesn't. Emergent attributes come about as a result of operations. Some emergence is fundamentally dependent on a conscious observer. Some isn't. It's as simple as that. Alienating yourself or others from others or yourself based on this false dichotomy isn't good for you or anyone else. Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/07/2009 10:08 AM: > You can all safely ignore this note, but I need to write it in order to be > right with my own conscience. If you do read it, tho, please read through > to the bottom before you respond to avoid useless disputation. > > Eric Charles has been on to me "on the private line" to say that I have to > confess to some craziness, here. Do you remember all the conversations > this summer about E Holt and the New Realism? As a new realist I am > obligated to believe that, while there may be "out theres" that are not "in > here", there are no "in heres" that are not "out there", for a properly > situated observer. > > Russ and I went at this hammer and tongue this summer and agreed to > disagree. I dont think there is any value in picking up that argument > now. Having lived with this craziness for most of my life, I am pretty sure > that you all believe that there are "inheres" that are not in principle > "outthere" and that you wont be convinced otherwise The best I can hope > for is, occasionally, to find a person who is willing to toy with my > ontology in a playful spirit (eg, Steve Smith) and see where it might take > them. But no need for that now. > > Note that Russ and I AGREE that emergence is out there. This places us > together on the side opposite to those who believe that emergence is a > perception that is dissolved by understanding. When we read the EMERGENCE > book together, we will find that there are many smart people on both sides > of that argument, but that complexity scientists, on the whole, tend to > share the view that emergence is not a stage inunderstanding but a state of > the world. -- 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-4
Oh, dear, and I thought I was working with programmers who cleverly
write code to allow space for emergence to HAPPEN! And Nick, count me in--when I'm in town. Merle Lefkoff Jochen Fromm wrote: > So the insight you have brought to the world is > that the best way to understand emergence is through > the lens of implementation - emergent properties can > be described as a high level abstraction which is > implemented by low level elements. Right? > > It seems to me that you have just invented a new > word for emergence: instead of saying a flock emerges > from a number of birds you say the birds implement > a flock, and instead of saying foraging trails > emerge from an ant colony you say an ant colony > implements a foraging trail. > > For engineers it is in fact useful to understand > emergence as an implementation, because if they > want to produce an emergent property, they must > implement it somehow. Is this revolutionary? > To implement a behavior for a group of agents > means to implement a distributed alogithm. You > know how difficult this is. The "implementation" > insight is not very useful if we don't know how > to implement a particular emergent property, > or how to find the right distributed algorithm for > the problem at hand. > > The interesting question is more how to implement > emergence (how do we organize a system which > organizes itself, the ESOA and ESOS problem). > There are methods to do it, for example genetic > algorithms or "Synthetic Microanalysis" (i.e. > the scientifc method for the engineer which > means rapid prototyping and agile development) > http://wiki.cas-group.net/index.php?title=ESOS > > Another interesting question is why it is so > hard to find "emergence" in computer science. > Implementation means writing code, and code is > the foundation of everything in software development. > Therefore if you ask where emergence is used > in computer science, you have to say "nowhere" > - programmers hate unintended consequences > and try to avoid them - and "everywhere" - > it is just code which we use all the time. > > -J. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott > To: [hidden email] ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 11:18 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > I don't want to leave the impression that I think that emergence is a > difficult concept to understand and that I but hardly anyone else > understands it. Emergence is what happens when components of the > "emergent entity" act in such a way as to bring about the existence > and persistence of that entity. > > When "boids" follow their local flying rules, they create (implement) > a flock. It's not mysterious. We know how it works. > > That's all emergence is: coordinated or consistent actions among a > number of elements that result in the formation and persistence of > some aggregate entity or phenomenon. The "coordination" doesn't have > to be top-down. In flocking, for example, there is coordination. The > flying rules depend on the boids seeing neighboring boids. One can > even say that there is some overall coordination: namely that all the > boids follow those same rules. Emergence is the term we have come to > use for that process/effect. > > In the introduction to Bedau and Humphreys they speak of emergence as > some mysterious, perhaps even incoherent phenomenon. It's not. It > happens all the time all around us. Our bodies are the emergent result > of the actinos of our cells. A country is the emergent result of the > actinos of its citizens. This group is the emergent result of the > actions of its participants. > > It's worth pointing out that in biological and social emergent > entities, the comonents may come and go while the entity persists. > What emerges is a pattern of activities, not a physical thing. That's > one of the reasons people get confused. (And that's why subvenience is > not particularly useful in these cases.) > > But if you just think about emergence as a persistent pattern of > activities, that pretty much takes care of it. It's the fact that the > pattern persists that matters, not the elements that are acting to > produce the pattern. > > -- Russ > > ============================================================ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Funny, glen, I dont feel it as an alienation. When somebody acknowledges a
difference in point of view, when we share a common view on our different points of view, if you will, I feel embraced, not alienated. But I take your point. n 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: 9/7/2009 11:28:28 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > > You're placing yourself on one side of a false dichotomy. Doing so for > rhetorical sake is fine. Doing so as a serious attempt to categorize > people and the way they think is a mistake. > > There is no strict dichotomy between "in here" vs. "out there". > However, some ways of looking at things (some operators) are defined in > terms of "in here" and some are defined in terms of "out there". An > operator that is defined using an assumption of a conscious observer, > will, naturally require a conscious observer. One that isn't, doesn't. > > Emergent attributes come about as a result of operations. Some > emergence is fundamentally dependent on a conscious observer. Some > isn't. It's as simple as that. > > Alienating yourself or others from others or yourself based on this > false dichotomy isn't good for you or anyone else. > > > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/07/2009 10:08 AM: > > You can all safely ignore this note, but I need to write it in order to > > right with my own conscience. If you do read it, tho, please read through > > to the bottom before you respond to avoid useless disputation. > > > > Eric Charles has been on to me "on the private line" to say that I have to > > confess to some craziness, here. Do you remember all the conversations > > this summer about E Holt and the New Realism? As a new realist I am > > obligated to believe that, while there may be "out theres" that are not "in > > here", there are no "in heres" that are not "out there", for a properly > > situated observer. > > > > Russ and I went at this hammer and tongue this summer and agreed to > > disagree. I dont think there is any value in picking up that argument > > now. Having lived with this craziness for most of my life, I am pretty sure > > that you all believe that there are "inheres" that are not in principle > > "outthere" and that you wont be convinced otherwise The best I can hope > > for is, occasionally, to find a person who is willing to toy with my > > ontology in a playful spirit (eg, Steve Smith) and see where it might take > > them. But no need for that now. > > > > Note that Russ and I AGREE that emergence is out there. This places us > > together on the side opposite to those who believe that emergence is a > > perception that is dissolved by understanding. When we read the EMERGENCE > > book together, we will find that there are many smart people on both sides > > of that argument, but that complexity scientists, on the whole, tend to > > share the view that emergence is not a stage inunderstanding but a state of > > the world. > > -- > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
But we may have to have a useful conversation about emergence in order
to talk about soul, consciousness, or spirit. Merle Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Try this: a property of an entity is emergent when it depends on the > arrangment or the order of presentation of the parts of the entity. > (It's /properties/ that are emergent, not /entities/ ... some > properties of a pile of sand are emergent, some aggregate.) Here, I > believe, I am channeling Wimsatt. > > The beauty of reading a collection such as Bedau and The Other Guy is > that you experience the whip-lash of moving from point of view to > point of view. Good exercise for the neck. > > By the way, Russ (was it?) was a ...leetle... unfair to Bedau. I dont > think Bedau thinks it's a mystery; i think he thinks others have > thought it a mystery. But it's been a few months since I read it. > > Implementation: Consider the expression, "there is more than one way > to skin a cat". Equivalent to: "there are several programs you can > use to implement a cat skinning." > > Consciousness: the big source of confusion in emergence discussions > is the attempt to attach emergence to such perennial mysteries as > consciousness. (Actually, I dont think consciousness is a mystery, but > let that go.) The strength of a triangle is an emergent property of > the arrangment of its legs and their attachments. There are lots of > ways bang together boards and still have a weak construction, which I > learned when I put together a grape arbor with no diagonal members. > Worked fine until the grapes grew on it. Emergent properties are > everywhere in the simplest of constructions. We dont need to talk > about soul, or consciouness, or spirit to have a useful conversation > about emergence. > > Nick > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Victoria Hughes <mailto:[hidden email]> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <mailto:[hidden email]> > *Sent:* 9/6/2009 10:32:59 AM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > Consciousness / self-awareness? > Is this thus acceptable as an emergent phenomenon? > If so, how does this permit, or not, the definition of 'the self' > as a unique identity? > > >> Emergence is what happens when components of the "emergent >> entity" act in such a way as to bring about the existence and >> persistence of that entity. >> >> When "boids" follow their local flying rules, they create >> (implement) a flock. It's not mysterious. We know how it works. >> >> That's all emergence is: coordinated or consistent actions among >> a number of elements that result in the formation and persistence >> of some aggregate entity or phenomenon. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > 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 |
word soup (was Re: emergence)
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/07/2009 11:01 AM:
> Funny, glen, I dont feel it as an alienation. When somebody acknowledges a > difference in point of view, when we share a common view on our different > points of view, if you will, I feel embraced, not alienated. OK, well, the vernacular for "alienate" may not be what I mean. I really mean something like "to make alien", in essence, to distinguish oneself deeply. If we were talking about something trivial like the type of hat you prefer to wear or the way you wear your hair, then the right word would be "distinguish". But since we're talking about a very deep paradigm or way in which one views the world, I pine for a stronger word like "alienate." Basically, placing yourself on one side of the false "in here" vs. "out there" dichotomy, and disallowing the fuzzy areas in between, is tantamount to claiming there is a very wide gap between you and the others. _We_ who think this way are very different from _they_ who think that way. The way _they_ think is alien, strange, foreign, other, not-us. In reality, of course, every last one of us sometimes thinks in terms of "in here" and other times thinks in terms of "out there". It's only within the weird (philosophical, overly abstracted, idealistic) context of making false distinctions do we convict ourselves to one side or the other.... like while trying to make indefensible generalizations about our selves and others. Abstraction, objectification, and alienation are the root of all evil. [grin] ... though evil is not always a Bad Thing(tm). By saying you feel "embraced", I suspect what you mean is you feel you've widened the scope... by explaining a distinction, one has to rise up outside of the myopic context into a more synoptic context. Paradoxically, by explaining the difference, you've found a larger category into which both paradigms fit. And although that _sounds_ nice, since the original distinction is a false one, the larger category (as well as the 2 smaller categories) is also false. The classification, though perhaps useful, is only good up to whatever rhetorical construct you're using at the time. For all other rhetoric, it's suspect, or at least needs to be re-established as appropriate. ... OK. I'll stop. I promise. Waiting for my simulation to finish has placed me in a weird state and I've run out of comments to make on Facebook. -- 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: word soup (was Re: emergence)
|
|
I was believing you until I got to that last bit.
-- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote: Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/07/2009 11:01 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 Merle Lefkoff
I am up for this one, Merle-
Tory On Sep 7, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote: > But we may have to have a useful conversation about emergence in > order to talk about soul, consciousness, or spirit. > > Merle > > > > > Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> Try this: a property of an entity is emergent when it depends on >> the arrangment or the order of presentation of the parts of the >> entity. (It's /properties/ that are emergent, not /entities/ ... >> some properties of a pile of sand are emergent, some aggregate.) >> Here, I believe, I am channeling Wimsatt. The beauty of reading a >> collection such as Bedau and The Other Guy is that you experience >> the whip-lash of moving from point of view to point of view. Good >> exercise for the neck. By the way, Russ (was it?) was >> a ...leetle... unfair to Bedau. I dont think Bedau thinks it's a >> mystery; i think he thinks others have thought it a mystery. But >> it's been a few months since I read it. Implementation: Consider >> the expression, "there is more than one way to skin a cat". >> Equivalent to: "there are several programs you can use to implement >> a cat skinning." Consciousness: the big source of confusion in >> emergence discussions is the attempt to attach emergence to such >> perennial mysteries as consciousness. (Actually, I dont think >> consciousness is a mystery, but let that go.) The strength of a >> triangle is an emergent property of the arrangment of its legs and >> their attachments. There are lots of ways bang together boards >> and still have a weak construction, which I learned when I put >> together a grape arbor with no diagonal members. Worked fine until >> the grapes grew on it. Emergent properties are everywhere in the >> simplest of constructions. We dont need to talk about soul, or >> consciouness, or spirit to have a useful conversation about >> emergence. >> Nick >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University ([hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>) >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Victoria Hughes <mailto:[hidden email]> >> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <mailto:[hidden email]> >> *Sent:* 9/6/2009 10:32:59 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] emergence >> >> Consciousness / self-awareness? >> Is this thus acceptable as an emergent phenomenon? >> If so, how does this permit, or not, the definition of 'the self' >> as a unique identity? >> >>> Emergence is what happens when components of the "emergent >>> entity" act in such a way as to bring about the existence and >>> persistence of that entity. >>> >>> When "boids" follow their local flying rules, they create >>> (implement) a flock. It's not mysterious. We know how it works. >>> >>> That's all emergence is: coordinated or consistent actions among >>> a number of elements that result in the formation and persistence >>> of some aggregate entity or phenomenon. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 > ============================================================ 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 think I'll have a Martini, while contemplating this opportunity.
--Doug On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote: I am up for this one, Merle- -- 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |