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 ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > 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
