Hi,
Russell Standish was right, the definitions in the wiki contradict the
definitions of Mark A. Bedau. They are more like Chalmers, and less like
Bedau. Obviously I have not read Bedau carefully enough. I know the paper
from Alex Ryan, but I haven't read it carefully enough, either.. I found it
a bit boring. I added you as an "Author" to the blog (I will send the login
and password separately). Anyone else from the FRIAM list is of course
invited, too. The CAS-Group wiki has a different login, it is possible to
register yourself.
Best regards,
Jochen
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Carmichael
To: Jochen Fromm
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The reductionist blind spot
Hey, Jochen.
Yeah, I struggle with these definitions myself. I tend to think best with
examples and anecdotes, as opposed to abstractions. That is, I usually
understand an abstraction in terms of an example that I use to conceptualize
the idea. If I can't come up with a good example, that usually means I
don't understand the concept.
So the idea of strong emergence I don't worry about too much. I agree with
you when you say, "The point here is that it is not possible to incorporate
the behavior of biological organisms (which are based on genes and proteins)
somehow into the laws of atomic physics," so I simply don't try to connect
the two. I only work on emergent properties that I can try to understand.
And, if I'm reading you (and others) correctly, strong emergence is simply
too great a leap to be deducible.
Well, you may have already read it, but I thought you'd like an article I
came across recently. Maybe it can help you come up with an alternative to
"levels of abstraction."
Yes, I would be glad to take part in the CAS-Group. [..] How would you like
me to participate?
Cheers,
Ted
============================================================
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
