Posted by
John Kennison on
Sep 07, 2009; 7:02am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/emergence-tp3586728p3595833.html
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