Posted by
Nick Thompson on
Sep 07, 2009; 6:01pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/emergence-tp3586728p3598693.html
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
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============================================================
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