If something satisfies a definition (X is emergent if the elements of x are dependent on their arrangement ...) then what sense does it make to say that the definition doesn't apply to if it's satisfied trivially? It's still satisfied.
(Of course the dirt in your garden is also emergent under this criterion.) It would seem that every property that doesn't abstract away arrangement and time becomes emergent. The mass of an aggregation is not emergent because mass abstracts away arrangement and time. -- Russ A On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > The arrangement is indeed dependent on the arrangement, but that's a > tautology, and I dont think I am committed to tautologies because of my > allegiance to Wimsattian emergence. The MEANING of the words of this > sentence is indeed emergent since it is dependent on the arrangement of the > letters. I am happy with the implication that a great many properties > become emergent under the defintion. Contra Searle and a bunch of other > people, I think emergence is as common as dirt .... well perhaps not quite > that common. > > 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/> > http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 11/7/2009 5:54:45 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" > > One problem with Nick's proposed definition is that it will label as > emergent all sorts of uninteresting properties -- such as the sequence of > characters in this message. I'm not talking about the semantics of the > message or anything at all interesting, just the sequence of characters. > That satisfies both of Nick's criteria. > > So does the arrangement of molecules of air in your kitchen at exactly > 3:00pm tomorrow. That satisfies the criterion of depending on the > arrangement of elements. > > -- Russ Abbott > _____________________________________________ > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > Cell phone: 310-621-3805 > o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree that defitions, like everything else in science, should be >> heuristic. >> >> So, I suggest we define an emergent property as one that depends on the >> arrangement or timing of the elements that make up the whole. In so >> defining emergence, we are led to ask, in every case of putative emergence, >> what is the particular arrangment or timing of presentation of the parts >> that makes this property possible. >> >> Now, the tricky bit comes when we SUSPECT that a property is emergent but >> have not yet discovered (or think perhaps we may NEVER discover) the >> arrangments of parts that makes it possible. I gather that some properties >> of CA's fall into that category. Not sure what to do. We could, I >> suppose, define a loose category of "putative emergence" using surprise as a >> criterion, but reserve the term "emergent" itself for a property whose >> dependence on arrangment and/or timeing has been demonstrated. >> >> It's heuristic because it leads to research. >> >> Nick >> >> 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/> >> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe] >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Douglas Roberts <[email protected]> >> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[email protected]> >> *Sent:* 11/7/2009 10:02:05 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" >> >> 100%, complete, total unequivocal agreement w/Glen. >> >> --Doug >> >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts >> [email protected] >> [email protected] >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell >> >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:15 AM, glen e. p. ropella < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 11/05/2009 05:04 PM: >>> > I think your rejection of emergence applies only to (2) above.... and >>> > possibly (4), if we understand "no way" to mean "no way we have thought >>> of >>> > yet". But I bet you disagree. >>> >>> Naaa. I don't really disagree. I said I TEND to think that emergence >>> is fictitious. Until I see a definition or construction of it that I >>> can _use_ to get my work done, it's a useless concept, regardless of >>> whether it exists or not. I don't frankly care if it exists. What >>> matters is whether it can be used for some purpose (other than passing >>> the time arguing with bright people on e-mail lists ;-). >>> >>> -- >>> 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
