I don't think Eric's point goes very far. A page with letters on it has letters as elements. According to the proposed definition of emergence that page--with its component letters--is emergent. Also, it doesn't matter whether the letters are arranged to have a meaning--in English or any other language. Any random collection of letters is emergent according to the proposed definition. It doesn't seem particularly useful to me to say that.
-- Russ A On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Yeah. Like Eric Said! > > 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:* ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]> > *To: *Russ Abbott <[email protected]> > *Cc: *[email protected]; [email protected] > *Sent:* 11/7/2009 7:09:10 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" > > In an attempt to defend Nick's definition (though I liked it better when he > offered the categories of definitions than when he tried to pick one as > proper): > > I suspect the statement "the series of letters in this sentence depends on > the series of letters in this sentence", doesn't work, because the letters > are not an element of the letters. That is, the definition offered requires > a statement about something and its elements, not something and itself. > Thus, you would need to say that "the sentence depends on the series of > letters in the sentence", which is not terribly interesting to me, but is > certainly not a tautology or otherwise trivial. > > The only way I can see for you to try to argue back is to place especial > emphasis on "the series" is the first phrase and "the letters" in the > second. However, as soon as you are willing to consider "the sequence" as a > real entity existing on a higher level, you are admitting emergence, and so > the claim is not trivial (i.e., you have implicitly admitted from the start > that "a sequence" is a variety of emergent). > > Eric > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 08:35 PM, *Russ Abbott <[email protected]>* wrote: > > 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] <#124d1984927905d8_>> 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] <#124d1984927905d8_>) >> 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 <#124d1984927905d8_> >> *To: *[email protected] <#124d1984927905d8_>;The Friday Morning >> Applied Complexity Coffee Group <#124d1984927905d8_> >> *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] <#124d1984927905d8_>> 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] <#124d1984927905d8_>) >>> 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 <#124d1984927905d8_> >>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<#124d1984927905d8_> >>> *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] <#124d1984927905d8_> >>> [email protected] <#124d1984927905d8_> >>> 505-455-7333 - Office >>> 505-670-8195 - Cell >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:15 AM, glen e. p. ropella < >>> [email protected] <#124d1984927905d8_>> 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 > > 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
