> Colin Hales wrote:
> > Here is another possible confusion: ‘emergence’ as a descriptive artefact vs
> > ‘emergence’ as real layered behaviour in a real system. The wording
> > initially looks as if you think emergence is not real. The emergence is real
> > (whatever we consider real is!). Example: There are at least 6 fundamental
> > layers of emergence from quantum froth to mind. The agreed view appears to
> > be that any formal mathematics of each layer stops at each layer whereas an
> > algorithmic approach generates/spans the layers, which are delineated by an
> > appropriately sensitised observer. Both styles of description seem
> > appropriate and able to coexist provided their character is understood.
I presented a general systems model of complexity~emergence
at the first Complexity conference held in Nashua, New Hampsire
USA by NECSI in 1997 in which I stipulated a very specific
relationship involved in inter-tier production of emergent
complexity. The layers do couple in very specific ways -
at any level of layering~tiering identifiable.
Info~energy which recursively loops between
the state-nodes of two or more agents in a reference
frame binds the agents into a narrower behavior
mode. I.e., increased distribution of
information~energy in one tier of organization can
cause behavior localization in an adjacent tier.
Rephrased: natural or induced entropy increases in
one tier can effectively produce negentropic
complexity formation in the next higher tier of
organixation (Rose, 1973).
Designing the algorithm involved is the key
to human survival and evolution.