I handle the 'what' problem two ways, 1) what's useful to call emergent for the consideration at hand (since there are way too many interlocking emergent processes to consider them all at once anyway) and 2) what about them act and interact as wholes is the 'process of emergence', not the 'state of being emergent'. The process of emergence always, as far as I can tell, is a continuous identifiable local complex developmental cellular accumulative process, an evolving individual network. A 'state of being emergent' is much more often a fragile definitional construct.
Is everything 'emergent', making the word useless and meaningless? I don't think the fact that you can consider the process by which anything meaningful emerges makes considering it meaningless. You need the word to distinguish between the plastic/evolving aspect of things and the framework/fixture aspect of things. It's one of the distinctions needed in exploring a world that is more complicated than we'll ever quite understand. When I need to, or prefer to, consider things as fixed, I just remember that each coin has those two sides, all the coins. Isn't that simpler, just sometimes checking to see if there are any coins you don't allow to turned over and seen the other way, as evolving, or fixed, and why, otherwise see them all as both? Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:04 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence as stop gap > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > any phenomena that we all agreed were cases of emergence. > I began to > > think we might fail in this way when one of us objected to > the example > > of Hydrogen, Oxygen making water, which seemed to me about > as emergent > > as something could get. At that point, we would still not > be skunked, > > because > > Was that conversation on this list? I'd like to go back and > read it. A Gmane search turned up nothing. > > It's odd that one would think of water as emerging from > hydrogen and oxygen. A question for those who believe that > is: "Then does that make all molecules emergent?" There are > plenty of complicated processes that go into the construction > of any molecule, many of those are more complicated than water. > > I suspect the question above will seem to miss the point with > many Emergentists (Emergentites? Emergencies? ... hmmm). > The point being that emergence and perception are > intertwined. Water is perceived in a very different way than > masses of hydrogen or oxygen are perceived by humans. Many > people who try to categorize "emergence" will attribute this > to some fundamental role of human expectations. But, I > suspect a worm, ant, or tree (were we able to communicate > with them) would also grok the difference between water and > hydrogen, even without our neocortex. This leads many others > who like to categorize "emergence" to talk of physical states > of matter. Water, in massive aggregation, acts one way. > Water, in isolated molecules, acts another. Hence > "emergence" is defined in terms of some sort of composition > operator (e.g. summation). > > In the end, it all boils down to whether or not a thing > ("water" can be a thing) acts or is acted upon as a unit, > distinct from the actions (or > reactions) of the things around it or its constituents (water > molecules). Likewise, the water molecule acts different from > the other molecules around it and from its constituents. So, > when considering water, there are at least two levels of emergence. > > But, so what? Taken this way _everything_ is emergent. I > even heard a guy named Terry Bristol claim that the universe > is a kind of emergent cycle where the emergent things at the > bottom emerge from the emergent things at the top in a kind > of ourboros. And that makes the word "emergent" completely useless. > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a > little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. > -- Benjamin Franklin > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGeU/rZeB+vOTnLkoRAhNTAKCcqrSzOEzUiqcE3gaukqcw6HEA4gCfQOdg > off7M1XNCmRaWnxMOBtnZuE= > =KWrT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ============================================================ > 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
