Tim May wrote:
> 
> OK, the example.
> 
> Go.
> 
> Black and white stones, with rules for moves that can be written on a 
> small index card. Similar to a cellular automaton, though not as 
> general.
> 
> And yet from simple rules on a simple grid, emergent properties:
> 
> * "thickness" (a measure of strength or weakness, depending)
> 
> * "influence" (ability to influence direction of evolution)
> 
> * a host of other emergent behaviors named by the main countries 
> playing Go
> 
> (Anyone who has played Go has seen the "reality" of thickness, 
> influence, gote, sente, and other "properties." They were not obvious 
> from first principles in the simple, CA-like rules of Go, but they 
> emerge very quickly. Granted, the very concept of "influence" is partly 
> shaped by human (or predator) notions of what influence means, but it 
> seems clear to me that the ontology of Go (and by extension, other CAs) 
> involves higher-order emergent behavior descriptions.)
> 
> The moral is that even very simple CA-like systems have behaviors with 
> "apparently" higher-level behaviors, aka emergent behaviors.
> 
> 
> --Tim
> 

Fits in nicely with my definition of emergence. Mind you, I would
consider Go to be a complex system, not a simple one.

                                        Cheers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         Fax   9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Room 2075, Red Centre                    http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to