On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 08:57:08AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>
> Note that the above is about emergent phenomena, not emergent
> properties. I still think the concept of an emergent property is either
> useless, self-contradictory, or just confused.
>
Eh? What's the difference between a
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 10/12/2009 05:48 PM:
>1. *Operators.* What do you mean by an operator? Would you give a few
>examples.
It's nothing special. It's defined as: a mapping between two function
spaces.
1) The perception of a "glider" while watching the game of life.
2) Square ro
Glen, I have questions about your version of operators and properties.
1. *Operators.* What do you mean by an operator? Would you give a few
examples.
2. *Properties. *It seems to me that one of the most basic properties is
mass. Another is electric charge. Do you not see these as prop
Thus spake glen e. p. ropella circa 09-10-12 04:41 PM:
> By contrast, a property is inherent in the system and exists regardless
> of any perspective (a.k.a stance) from which it may appear, be
> perceived, or be observed.
Just to be clear, I get this (perhaps peculiar) definition of "property"
f
It's actually quite simple to me. Phenomena are the outputs of
operators. (Phenomenon means "to appear", it is perceived, observable.)
By contrast, a property is inherent in the system and exists regardless
of any perspective (a.k.a stance) from which it may appear, be
perceived, or be observed
Glen Wrote:
> Note that the above is about emergent phenomena, not emergent
properties. I still think the concept of an emergent property is either
useless, self-contradictory, or just confused.<
Nick replies
===> Funny. I have this exactly the opposite way. I think I know what an
emer
Many people on this list seems to have become enthralled by Wimsatt's
version of emergence. Although what he says is not very wrong -- perhaps
not wrong at all -- it seems to me that it doesn't provide as much insight
as his fans seem to think. The essence of his position is (as he says) that
"An
Hi Nick,
Actually, all the recent work on fights and triads is done on pigtail
macaques. The earlier work on subordination signals in relation to
the accumulation to form power structures was done -- I think --
mostly on pigtails, with perhaps stumptails and rhesus compared
because they
Actually I think the thread is heading into some interesting and (for me)
useful directions. Several contributors (Eric, Glen, Russell et al.) are
explicitly filling in the blank in the sentence "if a phenomenon is
identified as emergent then " (and thanks to Doug for the clear
statement of my ques
Thanks, Eric.
I will be interested to see if this higher order patterning exists for
monkeys as well as apes.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> [Original
Robert: Just to help untangle the discussion: Are you saying a
theoretical grounding for Complexity .. or even just Modeling ..
appears to have no concrete use for you?
To be even more specific: Chaos has at least one definition:
divergence. It uses the Lyapunov exponent to define chaotic
I will add that in this particular Kaffe Klatch, especially through the
Philosophy Wars and now the Emergentist Period that
even "Oh No, NOT AGAIN!" has become more good natured ribbing or the
extravagant eye-rolling of friends who have agreed to disagree about
the importance or relevance of a
Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 09-10-11 01:53 PM:
> What the hell? [...]
> If there is the possibility of
> additional insight, any insight, how about some applause when people spend
> their own resources to advance their understanding, and share it for free as
> they go!
Well, the thing you mig
Nice. That sort of turns Bedau on his head without rearranging his features
much. Where he is saying that an emergent process cannot be compressed into
a smaller computation than a full simulation, you're saying for given
computational resource the full simulation of an emergent process gives you
Thus spake ERIC P. CHARLES circa 10/11/2009 09:13 PM:
> "Once I've
> attached the 'emergent' label to a phenomenon, I now know that I CANNOT apply
> scientific methodologies to the problem that treat the phenomenon as
> if:
Excellent modification. I do have a (speculative) positive answer,
though
Nick, hi,
I can't really summon the energy to be part of the emergence thread,
but for this particular post, you may wish to keep an eye on
publications coming out from Flack, deWaal, Krakauer, and
collaborators including Ay and deDeo, on primate interactions. They
have some very strong analysis
No, and I cannot help you pick which Conway to read, either.
But, if you really want to know about Quaternions, there are several
digitized editions of Sir William Rowan Hamilton's Elements of Quaternions
available, both the original (1866) single volume prepared by his son and
the two volumes edit
17 matches
Mail list logo
