emergence
Locked
123
123
 
|
I hoped to start a discussion group on emergence this fall. Michel Bloch is in town for the next three weeks and wants to join it, so I am moved to start earlier than I might otherwise. I suggest thursday afternoon at 4pm at Downtown Subscription. Our text is Bedau and Phillips, EMERGENCE. Alicia Juarrero also has a collection of readings we might get into later. At least three of us already have cc of the book, so if others are curious and want to flip through it, they should join us.
I just pulled the time and day out of my .... hat, so feel free to renegotiate it. I dont want to lose anybody just because of a time problem.
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 |
|
|
Do you mean Bedau and Humphreys? Also, I hope you read my paper, "The reductionist blind spot." As I said I've solved the problem of emergence. It's no longer the mystery Bedau and Humphreys make it out to be. Consequently the papers in their book are fairly obsolete. Of course you will make up your own minds about that. But at least give yourself the chance to reach that conclusion.
-- Russ On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Even if you have solved the problem of emergence
(was there any?) and all problems related to it, are you sure that people want it to be solved? 90% of papers on complexity and social simulation explicitly refer to emergence, i.e. emergent processes, properties, dynamics, and patterns. If you have indeed solved everything related to emergence, everyone else working in complexity science would become jobless immediately.. By the way did you notice that Libya's president Gaddafi proposed the UN to abolish and dismantle Switzerland? Somehow you have got to like this eccentric behavior.. http://is.gd/2VI3H -J. ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott To: [hidden email] ; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence Do you mean Bedau and Humphreys? Also, I hope you read my paper, "The reductionist blind spot." As I said I've solved the problem of emergence. It's no longer the mystery Bedau and Humphreys make it out to be. Consequently the papers in their book are fairly obsolete. Of course you will make up your own minds about that. But at least give yourself the chance to reach that conclusion. -- 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 |
|
|
I'm curious, Jochen: what do you mean by "solving the problem of" emergence? Understanding it? Will never happen -- everybody has their own 'correct' working definition of "emergence". Define it? Ditto. Recognizing it? Ditto.
On the other hand, though, the image of a bunch of unemployed complexity scientists is oddly compelling... --Doug On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote: Even if you have solved the problem of emergence ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Once upon a time, a long time ago, it seemed that there was something
important about writing software in ways that separated levels
of abstraction. But what that really meant and understanding how to do
it seemed like something one learned only by experience -- and perhaps
not even then.
Most people on this list are probably too young to remember those days. But there was a time when the concept of level of abstraction didn't exist or was at best something that one thought in a relatively informal way when evaluating how well some software was designed. The same is true of "coupling" and "cohesion." These terms were never well defined -- and still aren't. They were (are) at best somewhat vague pointers to some sense of what well designed software should look like. By the way, I would now say that loose coupling means that components are loosely coupled when the interact through specified interfaces only. But before the days of APIs and formal (or at least rigorous) specifications that were understood to be Independent of the implementation, one couldn't even say that very well. We now understand what levels of abstraction means, and we have tools that help us build libraries and applications in terms of them. That doesn't mean that people should stop writing software. The same is true of emergence. Knowing the mechanisms that bring it about doesn't mean that one should stop exploring the use of those mechanisms or the things one can build using them. -- Russ On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote: I'm curious, Jochen: what do you mean by "solving the problem of" emergence? Understanding it? Will never happen -- everybody has their own 'correct' working definition of "emergence". Define it? Ditto. Recognizing it? Ditto. ============================================================ 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
Yes I DO mean bedeau and Humphreys.
that is the second time I have made that mistake. I dont know who the hell Phillips is and why he has such a firm grip on my E-magination.
Oh, yes. You dissolved the problem entirely. there were just a few .... teensy little details I thought we might tidy up by reading the book.
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 |
|
|
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 On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:58 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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. ============================================================ 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
One would need to acknowledge all the lower-level elements involved in
the implementation for this to be accurate. Is the total range of elements knowable in complex systems involving humans? On Sep 6, 2009, at 9:28 AM, 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 |
|
|
Jochen is right that emergence is implementation. Sometimes it's
intentional; sometimes it's not. You may find that disappointing. I'm
sure a lot of people do. That's may be why so many people like to
continue thinking of emergence as mysterious.
Essentially all software is emergent; not none. Emergence doesn't imply unintended consequences. Jochen is also right that knowing that emergence is implementation doesn't tell you how to do it. Figuring out how to implement something is almost always a creative process -- and if you believe Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) all creative processes are fundamentally evolutionary. I think he's right. With respect to consciousness I suppose that it's emergent (implemented) from lower level elements. What's the alternative? Something like vitalism? That consciousness is a new force of nature? That's possible. Another non-emergent view of consciousness is Strawson's panpsychism. He may be right. Consciousness has not yielded much to our attempt to understand it. Chalmer's "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" is still the hard problem of consciousness. But whatever consciousness is, I consider the nature of consciousness a separate question (and still a mystery) from the nature of emergence (not a mystery). -- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote: One would need to acknowledge all the lower-level elements involved in the implementation for this to be accurate. ============================================================ 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
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])
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
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. "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]> 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
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 emergent 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 questions 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]> 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 |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Wikipedia appears to agree with you, Nick:
-- Owen On Sep 6, 2009, at 11:18 AM, 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 |
|
|
Really Owen, I'm surprised.
Quoting Wikipedia as an authoritative source seems risky. And quoting Wikipedia quoting work from 1875 as authoritative on a subject like this seems even riskier. All that notwithstanding, the very next paragraph says Professor Jeffrey Goldstein in the School of Business at Adelphi University provides a current definition of emergence in the journal, Emergence (Goldstein 1999).
For Goldstein, emergence can be defined as: "the arising of novel and
coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of
self-organization in complex systems" (Corning 2002). So if you believe that not only are properties emergent, so are structures and patterns. Certainly you can define a word any way you want. And one can then have dueling authorities with their dueling definitions. The papers in Bedau and Humphreys will have lots of definitions. Is the one that appears first in a Wikipedia article to be taken as authoritative? Besides all that, this ignores the question I asked Nick, namely what is your theory of entities? What is an entity? How do they arise? What is it that a property is a property of? What does it even mean for something to be a property of something? Can you have properties without having entities? -- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Owen Densmore <[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
Hmmm, I have not read the book in question, but... to vaguely support
Russ's position:
Conversations involving emergence do seem to be one of those contexts in which a sizable subset of the participants seem to be primarily interested in maintaining an aura of mystery. It often seems the case that when some purported instance of "emergence" is explained in a manner that a priori seemed satisfactory, it is declared either that said explanation is inherently insufficient in some way or that the instance in question was not actually "emergence" after all. At any rate, it seems that several instances of situations involving emergence are very well understood, or at least understood from many different angles. So, is the quest to "understand emergence" a quest for a general way of handling such situations, is it a quest to find a particular kind of explanation more satisfying than those offered previously, or is it an attempt to wonder at things we like to wonder at and would be sad if the wondering stopped? Of course those options are not exhaustive, but the first two options seem fairly noble, while the last option not so much (though it does seem enjoyable). Eric On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 04:59 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Is it possible to hold both a satisfactory definition of emergence, and an acceptance / appreciation of ineluctable mystery?
IE: is a paradox a possible solution set here? On Sep 6, 2009, at 4:13 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES 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
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])
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
One fundamental difference here is between those who see mystery as a place to be dwelt in and those who see it as a place to be traversed. I am of the latter school. If it's ineluctible, I got no interest in it. On the other hand, I cant think of anything that I believe is ineluctible.
such is the arrogance of behaviorism, I guess.
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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |