So, Russ S, when you say,
"> I got lost at step 4 here. The obvious syllogism of (1), (2) & (3) is > that an emergent property is not a property of a micro entity. But > this doesn't surprise me, as its actually my definition of emergence." Does that mean that you are comfortable saying that emergence is actually a relationship between two different properties of the same object. I agree that the emergent property ... "being a copying device" has to be a property of the macro entity. But in this case, the CAUSE of the emergent property is also an emergent property, i.e., "being composed of parts arranged in a double helix". Is saying that a wooden construction is strong because its members are formed in triangles is like saying that a ball rolls because it is round? You wouldnt be the first Russ to say that I am getting my knickers unnecessarily twisted over this, but it does seem .... queer .... to me in someway. NIck Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: russell standish <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 9/26/2009 8:35:52 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar, III: Wimsatt and Searle > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 07:50:53PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > All, > > > > As you all may remember, I had decided on the basis of my first two > > readings of Wimsatt, that his was the final word on the definition of > > emergence: a property of a macro-entity is emergent when it depends on the > > arrangement of the micro entities [in time and/or in space]. > > Unfortunately, I read it a third time. > > > > I woke up in the middle of the night realizing what was wrong with his > > position. > > > > (1) Ineliminably, emergence has to do with the relation between macro and > > micro entities. (I suppose somebody might challange that statement, but I > > dont think anybody has so far.) > > > > (2) Emergent properties of a macro entity are those that are dependant on > > the arrangement of the micro entities. > > > > (3) But "An arrangement of X's" cannot be a property of any microentity > > (duh!). > > > > (4) There fore, whatever (2) IS a definition of, it cannot be a definition > > of emergence OR emergence does not have to do with relations among levels. > > > > > > Back to the old drawing board. > > > > n > > > > I got lost at step 4 here. The obvious syllogism of (1), (2) & (3) is > that an emergent property is not a property of a micro entity. But > this doesn't surprise me, as its actually my definition of emergence. > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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
