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 ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria Hughes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 9/6/2009 4:20:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence and mystery
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:
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
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 books 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 <[email protected]>
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 ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ Abbott
To: [email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
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. "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 <[email protected]>
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 ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria Hughes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
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, 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
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
============================================================
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
