I read that article a while ago, and my memory is similar. I think that basically Bedau doesn't understand what emergence means. But then he says as much. The point of the article is to attempt to define categories as a way of beginning. It may have been useful at the time, but (in my opinion) it is now obsolete.
As I recall, strong emergence meant essentially the appearance of a new force of nature, something with objective causal powers like gravity or electromagnetic attraction/repulsion -- but absolutely new. Vitalism and its notiont of a "life force" is good examples. It appears only at a certain level of biochemical complexity. Once it appears it is able to do things (like being alive) that simply could not be done otherwise and could not be understood in terms of the pre-existing forces of nature. Weak emergence means that one can't understand the emergent phenomenon analytically (like adding the masses of a number of entities to get a total mass of the aggregate) but had to execute it to find out. This is like software for which one can't solve the halting problem but have to run it to see -- and one may never get the answer. -- Russ On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought that it was pretty simple: strong emergence would be > miraculous if it happened, which is why it is metaphysically > problematic; weak emergence is what we find, unexpected lawfulnesses, > which, in the end, turn out to be explicable, if not entirely > predictable. > > I followed the link in the wikipedia to the stanford encyc. of > philosophy article on supervenience which explained that the common > usage, which was at least once commonly used in philosophical > discussions of emergence, is not the philosophical usage, which is > technical and completely different from the common usage. > > -- rec -- > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nicholas > Thompson<[email protected]> wrote: > > Owen and Russ, > > > > I have spent some time trying to reread Bedau and have lost patience with > > him. With normal human effort, I have not been able to articulate his > > categories, weak and strong emergence. The reference to reduction in > the > > definition of strong emergence really gets us nowhere because reduction > > isnt nailed down in the article. > > > > I guess I would like to come to an understanding with you guys: Either we > > give up on the distinction between strong and weak emergence, or we agree > > to spend some time in Bedau's text explicating his meaning. My > suspicion > > is that Bedau's presentation is not coherent: i.e., while his > distinction > > between weak and strong is central to his argument, he does not go to the > > effort to articulate that distinction, i.e., to define weak and strong in > > the same terms so that we can see the contrast between them. If the > > distinction is foundation to either of you, then help me to understand it > > by pointing to some part of the text that you find particularly lucid. > > > > The "Bedau" I am referring to is that found in the Bedau and Humphreys > > collection. Another version of that article up on the web at > > > > http://people.reed.edu/~mab/publications/papers/principia.pdf<http://people.reed.edu/%7Emab/publications/papers/principia.pdf> > > > > Even tho one is cited as a reprint of the other, I think I have detected > > some important differences, so we would have to be careful. > > > > We could agree to have read the article by a particular time and "meet" > and > > open a thread on the article when we have all done so. A real webinar > or, > > better still, a WBB (Web Brown Bag). Each of us could be required to > have > > a bottle of beer open beside our computer. > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([email protected]) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Owen Densmore <[email protected]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Date: 9/8/2009 9:46:07 AM > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence > >> > >> The Truth Sez: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence > >> > >> It Must Be True. > >> > >> <strong-russian-accent> > >> I spit me of any other kinds! > >> </strong-russian-accent> > >> > >> -- Owen > >> > >> On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >> > >> > I think you have that wrong. He says that the halt of the growth of > >> > an > >> > R-pentomino is WEAKLY emergent because you cannot anticipate it from > >> > the > >> > early behavior of the automata. You just have to run the sucker. > >> > If you > >> > can calculate it, it's only nominally emergent or perhaps not > >> > emergent at > >> > all. Unfortunately that passage is not in the version of the ms > >> > that is in > >> > the pdf I sent. Merde. In short,I think what you are callling > >> > strongly > >> > emergent is what he is calling weakly emergent, and what you are > >> > calling > >> > weakly emergent is at best nominally so. > >> > > >> > N > >> > > >> > Nicholas S. Thompson > >> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > >> > Clark University ([email protected]) > >> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 >
============================================================ 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
