http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/EMERGENCE-SEMINAR-V-Dennett-et-al-WAS-emergence-seminar-what-s-next-tp3771294p3780081.html
conversation interesting. I happen to share your opinion, but if we are to
contact with that viewpoint. Which means that, at some point, we are going
off until we have read part II.
emergence and reduction is one of the great benefits to what we are doing.
else does. That works find if you are talking to yourself, but if one is
saying.
Our brief discussion of "ontology" was a great case in point.
formalization. In fact, it is not clear to me that Rosen's Life Itself was
not an attempt to create that very formalization. Have you ever looked at
Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> As much as I like the seminar, I find it frustrating due to the huge
> variation in scale under study of the authors. Mind, conscienceness,
> etc are just too remote. I appreciate it when brought into concrete
> ideas such as patterns, aggregativity, resultant properties, nominal
> emergence and so on, especially with specific examples.
>
> But I am not interested in the philosophic, other than Glen's great
> observation that they are in the wilds looking for the Next Big
> Thing. Fine, so we've read enough of that to be getting on with things.
>
> For the seminar, my goal is not simply understanding the broad,
> current, philosophic notions of emergence. Rather I am interested in
> emergence "in silico". I.e. models, computation, mathematics. For
> example, emergence may be related to a "no shortcuts" computational
> complexity class like P, NP and others.
>
> Now why is this? Because in science we typically isolate the minimal
> example of the phenomenon under study, and look for concrete
> properties that the phenomenon exhibits.
>
> In chaos, we look at the iterated logistic map, say. From it we are
> surprised that divergence, at a particular value of the logistic
> constant, becomes of interest. Bifurcation also is of interest in the
> less chaotic realm. We "get a grip" on the simple example and see if
> we can define the phenomenon within the simple.
>
> The book does not seem to be doing this. (I may be wrong, point me to
> where you see this happening.) Is it impossible? For example, could
> we use the Game of Life or other models just as chaos used the
> logistic map? Could we then look for emergence within these models?
> Then see if we can define a metric analogous to divergence for chaos?
>
> So concretely, I propose we go after the chapters in the book
> satisfying the above. Then possibly explore other papers that may be
> more along that line, especially in silico. Note that many of the
> papers are rather dated, and much has been done since.
>
> Seminars have goals. I'd like to nudge ours toward computation.
>
> -- Owen
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> > Glen,
> >
> > My colleagues have already told you what the assignment is, so what
> > follows
> > is little more than spin.
> >
> > In our attempts to understand what is going on in this tangled
> > literature,
> > we have come up with only one way to characterize the different
> > views of
> > emergence that seems to endure more than a week: that is the
> > epistemological vs ontological distinction. Hempel and Oppenheim fall
> > soundly on the epistemological side. For them, a characteristic of on
> > object is emergent relative to a theory and relative to a particular
> > list
> > of part attributes when that characteristic cannot be deduced from
> > the part
> > attributes using that theory. So, to say that a property is
> > emergent is
> > only to say something about the state of our theory with respect to
> > the
> > data we have already gathered.
> >
> > Dennett seems to come down in the middle of our distinction. His
> > argument
> > concerns what beliefs are REALLY. His answer -- that beliefs are
> > really
> > features of the world as seen from a point of view -- implies a
> > position on
> > the nature of emergence. Like Hemple and Oppenheim, Dennett would
> > concede
> > that seeing emergence requires one to take a point of view.... a
> > STANCE, if
> > you will. But taking that stance is like looking through
> > binoculars ... it
> > may limit your field of vision, but it also tells you something that
> > is
> > true of the world. In fact, every stance tells you something that
> > is true
> > of the world.
> >
> > A personal note: those who tried to follow my ravings concerning
> > Holt and
> > the New Realism this summer wont be surprized to hear me say that
> > Dennett
> > is sounding awfully like a New Realist.
> >
> > See you Thursday at 4pm.
> >
> > Sorry for duplicate posting.
> >
> > 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
> >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College