emergence
Locked
123
123
 
|
That can happen too.
That's the point, there are no necessary boundaries. Although I am a bourbon woman, personally. On Sep 7, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote: > 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 > ============================================================ 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 |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
On Sep 7, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> I think I'll have a Martini, while contemplating this opportunity. > > --Doug Sounds good to me too! Er.. I'll drink to that? I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the difficulty with emergence. Wikipedia has an OK shot at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence I think it's simply the appearance within a time varying aggregate system of a feature not apparently derived from its components' interactions. -- Owen ============================================================ 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 Victoria Hughes
Bourbon is also good. Especially when made up into a Manhattan. Small squeeze of fresh orange, a decent sweet red vermouth, marsichino...
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote: That can happen too. -- 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 |
|
|
I'd need to try that in a test with a good single-distillery small-run bourbon like Elijah Graig. But I can sacrifice myself.
We are meant to be giddy when contemplating the soul. We aren't meant to be calvinists, I am sure of that. Major course correction was needed there. ( Great byline to prepare for such a chat- 'I'll have what she's having...') Notice that this is still subject: 'emergence'. So what are acceptable synonyms for 'emergence'? Anyone got any? Tory On Sep 7, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Bourbon is also good. Especially when made up into a Manhattan. Small squeeze of fresh orange, a decent sweet red vermouth, marsichino... ============================================================ 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 Owen Densmore
Owen,
You're surprised? Given this list's demonstrated history of having N definitions for any given buzz-term, where N == the subscribership of this list, X 2, X the day of the week. Further, given that EMERGENCE is the Holy Grail warm fuzzy of all buzz-terms to have ever been uttered here. Really. Consider: Murrey Gell-Man. SFI. On the Edge of Chaos. Flocking. The Stock Market. The Da Vinci Code. Ok, that last one was a stretch. But come on, really. Given the number pure academics who hang out here who have never really done anything (meaning real-world, actually running, in-use, producing results, was paid for by a client and is actually being used for its intended purpose-type application) that could be construed as actually being On The Edge of Complexity, I don't really think that it is all that surprising that such a big deal is being made about "What is the definition of EMERGENCE?" Imagine much smacking of lips at this point. The above, of course, as compared to having written a paper about some fuzzily-defined COMPLEXITY concept. Pause. I've determined to my own satisfaction that the CAPS LOCK key on this new keyboard is working. Please resume pontification. --Doug On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Owen Densmore <[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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Owen,
You wrote: I think it's simply the appearance within a time varying aggregate > system of a feature not apparently derived from its components' > interactions. A perfect example of a non-"out there" definition. "Apparently" implies that further understanding, information, knowledge will dispel the emergence. Many smart people hold that position,, but I am not one of them (;-}) Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 9/7/2009 5:35:02 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > On Sep 7, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > > I think I'll have a Martini, while contemplating this opportunity. > > > > --Doug > > Sounds good to me too! Er.. I'll drink to that? > > I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the difficulty with emergence. > Wikipedia has an OK shot at it: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence > > I think it's simply the appearance within a time varying aggregate > system of a feature not apparently derived from its components' > interactions. > > -- Owen > > > ============================================================ > 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 |
|
|
Sounds like we should move to 5pm at a bar.
-- rec -- ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
WORKSFORME.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: Sounds like we should move to 5pm at a bar. -- 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 |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On Sep 7, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Owen, > > You wrote: > > I think it's simply the appearance within a time varying aggregate >> system of a feature not apparently derived from its components' >> interactions. > > A perfect example of a non-"out there" definition. "Apparently" > implies > that further understanding, information, knowledge will dispel the > emergence. Many smart people hold that position,, but I am not one > of them > (;-}) Well, I was fudging a bit with "apparently". Formal emergence is divided into two domains, weak and strong. If I understand it correctly, irreversible phenomena are the strong emergence types, while reversible are the weak. In plan language, if the emergence is derived from ignorance, it is weak. If it is fundamental (chaos, for example), it is strong. -- Owen ============================================================ 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, Owen,
Very interesting. Where does your version of this distinction come from? Who has formalized it? I need to know. I think this version is different from the same distinction in Bedau, which is in the collection we will begin discussing in the "Seminar" on Thursday afternoon (4pm, DS), but frankly I found the Bedau article so tortured I cannot be sure. Bedau distinguishes three different "degrees" of emergence, if you will; nominal, weak, and strong. Something is nominally emergent if it displays properties that cannot be displayed by its parts. At the other extreme is strong emergence which "adds the requirement that emergent properties are supervenient properties with irreducible causal powers". Both supervenient and irreducible are difficult terms. Supervenient implies to me a causal ratchet in which knowing how the parts are arranged tells you how the whole will behave but knowing how the whole is behaving tells you only that the parts are arranged on one of a potentially infinite set of ways. Irreducible probably means that the whole can do stuff the parts cant. Neither term seem to suggest irreversibility, which is the criterion your guy suggests. Weak emergence is said to occur when the only way you can work out what the properties of the whole will be is by assembling the parts and seeing what happens, as in a simulation. What these two have to do with one another is a mystery to me, so if you have an author with a more lucid version of the distinction, I am all ears. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the Bedau article is available on the web at http://people.reed.edu/~mab/publications/papers/principia.pdf, so you can suffer without buying the book. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 9/7/2009 8:28:41 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > On Sep 7, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > Owen, > > > > You wrote: > > > > I think it's simply the appearance within a time varying aggregate > >> system of a feature not apparently derived from its components' > >> interactions. > > > > A perfect example of a non-"out there" definition. "Apparently" > > implies > > that further understanding, information, knowledge will dispel the > > emergence. Many smart people hold that position,, but I am not one > > of them > > (;-}) > > Well, I was fudging a bit with "apparently". Formal emergence is > divided into two domains, weak and strong. If I understand it > correctly, irreversible phenomena are the strong emergence types, > while reversible are the weak. > > In plan language, if the emergence is derived from ignorance, it is > weak. If it is fundamental (chaos, for example), it is strong. > > -- Owen > ============================================================ 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 |
|
Administrator
|
[Oops .. reply did not include friam]
On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Hi, Owen, > > Very interesting. Where does your version of this distinction come > from? > Who has formalized it? I need to know. Oops, I may have forgotten the wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Strong_vs._weak_emergence Note they quote Bedau. I've somewhat loosely paraphrased the weak/strong distinction, but it appears to be within scope. I'd say any features of a time dependent system that are directly calculable from the initial conditions, once you know how, are weakly emergent. But features that cannot be reverse engineered, so to speak, are strong. Thus systems with chaotic components (Lyapunov exponent > 0) are likely to exhibit strong emergent features. -- Owen > I think this version is different from the same distinction in Bedau, > which is in the collection we will begin discussing in the "Seminar" > on > Thursday afternoon (4pm, DS), but frankly I found the Bedau article so > tortured I cannot be sure. Bedau distinguishes three different > "degrees" > of emergence, if you will; nominal, weak, and strong. Something is > nominally emergent if it displays properties that cannot be > displayed by > its parts. At the other extreme is strong emergence which "adds the > requirement that emergent properties are supervenient properties with > irreducible causal powers". Both supervenient and irreducible are > difficult terms. Supervenient implies to me a causal ratchet in which > knowing how the parts are arranged tells you how the whole will > behave but > knowing how the whole is behaving tells you only that the parts are > arranged on one of a potentially infinite set of ways. Irreducible > probably means that the whole can do stuff the parts cant. Neither > term > seem to suggest irreversibility, which is the criterion your guy > suggests. > Weak emergence is said to occur when the only way you can work out > what the > properties of the whole will be is by assembling the parts and > seeing what > happens, as in a simulation. What these two have to do with one > another is > a mystery to me, so if you have an author with a more lucid version > of the > distinction, I am all ears. > > Fortunately (or unfortunately) the Bedau article is available on the > web at > http://people.reed.edu/~mab/publications/papers/principia.pdf, so > you can > suffer without buying the book. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> >> To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied >> Complexity > Coffee Group <[hidden email]> >> Date: 9/7/2009 8:28:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence >> >> On Sep 7, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> >>> Owen, >>> >>> You wrote: >>> >>> I think it's simply the appearance within a time varying aggregate >>>> system of a feature not apparently derived from its components' >>>> interactions. >>> >>> A perfect example of a non-"out there" definition. "Apparently" >>> implies >>> that further understanding, information, knowledge will dispel the >>> emergence. Many smart people hold that position,, but I am not one >>> of them >>> (;-}) >> >> Well, I was fudging a bit with "apparently". Formal emergence is >> divided into two domains, weak and strong. If I understand it >> correctly, irreversible phenomena are the strong emergence types, >> while reversible are the weak. >> >> In plan language, if the emergence is derived from ignorance, it is >> weak. If it is fundamental (chaos, for example), it is strong. >> >> -- Owen >> > > ============================================================ 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
Owen and Russ,
I have spent some time trying to reread Bedau and have lost patience with him. With normal human effort, I have not been able to articulate his categories, weak and strong emergence. The reference to reduction in the definition of strong emergence really gets us nowhere because reduction isnt nailed down in the article. I guess I would like to come to an understanding with you guys: Either we give up on the distinction between strong and weak emergence, or we agree to spend some time in Bedau's text explicating his meaning. My suspicion is that Bedau's presentation is not coherent: i.e., while his distinction between weak and strong is central to his argument, he does not go to the effort to articulate that distinction, i.e., to define weak and strong in the same terms so that we can see the contrast between them. If the distinction is foundation to either of you, then help me to understand it by pointing to some part of the text that you find particularly lucid. The "Bedau" I am referring to is that found in the Bedau and Humphreys collection. Another version of that article up on the web at http://people.reed.edu/~mab/publications/papers/principia.pdf Even tho one is cited as a reprint of the other, I think I have detected some important differences, so we would have to be careful. We could agree to have read the article by a particular time and "meet" and open a thread on the article when we have all done so. A real webinar or, better still, a WBB (Web Brown Bag). Each of us could be required to have a bottle of beer open beside our computer. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Date: 9/8/2009 9:46:07 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > > The Truth Sez: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence > > It Must Be True. > > <strong-russian-accent> > I spit me of any other kinds! > </strong-russian-accent> > > -- Owen > > On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > I think you have that wrong. He says that the halt of the growth of > > an > > R-pentomino is WEAKLY emergent because you cannot anticipate it from > > the > > early behavior of the automata. You just have to run the sucker. > > If you > > can calculate it, it's only nominally emergent or perhaps not > > emergent at > > all. Unfortunately that passage is not in the version of the ms > > that is in > > the pdf I sent. Merde. In short,I think what you are callling > > strongly > > emergent is what he is calling weakly emergent, and what you are > > calling > > weakly emergent is at best nominally so. > > > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([hidden email]) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ ============================================================ 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 thought that it was pretty simple: strong emergence would be
miraculous if it happened, which is why it is metaphysically problematic; weak emergence is what we find, unexpected lawfulnesses, which, in the end, turn out to be explicable, if not entirely predictable. I followed the link in the wikipedia to the stanford encyc. of philosophy article on supervenience which explained that the common usage, which was at least once commonly used in philosophical discussions of emergence, is not the philosophical usage, which is technical and completely different from the common usage. -- rec -- On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nicholas Thompson<[hidden email]> wrote: > Owen and Russ, > > I have spent some time trying to reread Bedau and have lost patience with > him. With normal human effort, I have not been able to articulate his > categories, weak and strong emergence. The reference to reduction in the > definition of strong emergence really gets us nowhere because reduction > isnt nailed down in the article. > > I guess I would like to come to an understanding with you guys: Either we > give up on the distinction between strong and weak emergence, or we agree > to spend some time in Bedau's text explicating his meaning. My suspicion > is that Bedau's presentation is not coherent: i.e., while his distinction > between weak and strong is central to his argument, he does not go to the > effort to articulate that distinction, i.e., to define weak and strong in > the same terms so that we can see the contrast between them. If the > distinction is foundation to either of you, then help me to understand it > by pointing to some part of the text that you find particularly lucid. > > The "Bedau" I am referring to is that found in the Bedau and Humphreys > collection. Another version of that article up on the web at > > http://people.reed.edu/~mab/publications/papers/principia.pdf > > Even tho one is cited as a reprint of the other, I think I have detected > some important differences, so we would have to be careful. > > We could agree to have read the article by a particular time and "meet" and > open a thread on the article when we have all done so. A real webinar or, > better still, a WBB (Web Brown Bag). Each of us could be required to have > a bottle of beer open beside our computer. > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> >> To: <[hidden email]> >> Date: 9/8/2009 9:46:07 AM >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence >> >> The Truth Sez: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence >> >> It Must Be True. >> >> <strong-russian-accent> >> I spit me of any other kinds! >> </strong-russian-accent> >> >> -- Owen >> >> On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> >> > I think you have that wrong. He says that the halt of the growth of >> > an >> > R-pentomino is WEAKLY emergent because you cannot anticipate it from >> > the >> > early behavior of the automata. You just have to run the sucker. >> > If you >> > can calculate it, it's only nominally emergent or perhaps not >> > emergent at >> > all. Unfortunately that passage is not in the version of the ms >> > that is in >> > the pdf I sent. Merde. In short,I think what you are callling >> > strongly >> > emergent is what he is calling weakly emergent, and what you are >> > calling >> > weakly emergent is at best nominally so. >> > >> > N >> > >> > Nicholas S. Thompson >> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> > Clark University ([hidden email]) >> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > ============================================================ > 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 read that article a while ago, and my memory is similar. I think that basically Bedau doesn't
understand what emergence means. But then he says as much. The point of the article is to attempt to define categories as a way of beginning. It may have been useful at
the time, but (in my opinion) it is now obsolete.
As I recall, strong emergence meant essentially the appearance of a new force of nature, something with objective causal powers like gravity or electromagnetic attraction/repulsion -- but absolutely new. Vitalism and its notiont of a "life force" is good examples. It appears only at a certain level of biochemical complexity. Once it appears it is able to do things (like being alive) that simply could not be done otherwise and could not be understood in terms of the pre-existing forces of nature. Weak emergence means that one can't understand the emergent phenomenon analytically (like adding the masses of a number of entities to get a total mass of the aggregate) but had to execute it to find out. This is like software for which one can't solve the halting problem but have to run it to see -- and one may never get the answer. -- Russ On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: I thought that it was pretty simple: strong emergence would be ============================================================ 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 with your characterization of his characterization of weak emergence, and while I am inclined to agree with your characterization of his characterization of strong emergence, I cannot for the life of me find it in his present text.
But we agree that the distinction is not worth pounding our head against.
Thanks, Russ,
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 |
|
|
Actually, I would say that the issue of strong emergence is important. If there is no strong emergence, it means that the only things in the Universe that make anything happen are the fundamental forces of physics. That may seem obvious, but it means that no matter what we build on top of them, that's all there is in terms of exploitable forces.
One way to understand this (which uses an example I find myself using all the time) is in terms of the Game of Life. Nothing (absolutely nothing) happens on a Game of Life Board other than that the Game of Life rules make cells go on and off. Gliders, for example, are not a force -- which is why I called them epiphenomenal in my "Emergence Explained" paper.. They don't make anything happen. It is not correct to say that when a glider reaches a cell it makes the cell go on (or off). Nothing makes cells go on or off other than the Game of Life rules. In other words, there is a sense in which strict reductionism is right! Now you already know that I think that a simple reductionist perspective produces what I've called a blind spot. But that doesn't mean that there are any forces in the universe other than the fundamental forces of physics. That's the challenge of understanding emergence. How can there be higher level things that act in some sense autonomously and are not reducible in a simple way to quarks, etc. if the only things in the universe that make anything happen are the fundamental forces of physics? That's the emergence quandary -- and it's an important thing to think through. The assertion that there is no strong emergence forces one into thinking about that. That's why it's an important idea. -- Russ On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:35 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |