Dear Russ,
You write:
"Unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, I will continue to claim that I've
solved the problems of emergence and reductionism in "The reductionist blind
spot." (Yes, it's an audacious claim.) "
As an avid falsificationist, I enjoy audacious claims..... "bold conjectures"
as Popper used to say. I enjoyed reading the paper and learned alot from it.
But, although audacious claims are the most fun, I am increasingly resigned to
the proposition that "In philosophy, if we are moving too fast, we are not
moving" and ultimately, I guess I care more about making progress. This essay
had two parts: a beginning where you offered up the relation between a
specification and an implementation as a model for understanding emergence, and
a conclusion where you argued for the poverty of reductionism. I thought the
specification-implementation distinction was very promising. I agreed with
your conclusion and was pulling for you every step of the way. However, even
to this friendly reader, you did not make the case that the introduction
demonstrated the conclusion.
I am grateful for your sending this paper to the list. I wish we would
share less blather and more careful critique on this list, and wish I had time
to meet head on your challenge that I show you that your paper does not answer
the problem of emergence. Unfortunately, a new week is beginning and I am
afraid that if I dont send you something tonight, I never will. The best I can
do is forward the paper back to you with the 40 plus marginal comments I have
added to it. Marginal comments ARE NOT the same as a considered critical
review .... they are not distilled, have not been revised and may not be
coherent. The best they can do is give you an idea of the kinds of worries a
reader might have as s/he encounters your thoughts for the first time. Some
may be useful; most may be ill considered. I would be grateful if you feel
free to favor me with any equally illconsidered responses you might have.
You can find the markup at
http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/public_access/The_reductionist_blind_spot_nst.doc
In the few moments I have left this evening, I have some points I would
like to stress. When I run out of time, I will just stop, if necessary, in
midsentence.
First -- the only point on which I have any firm opinion -- I think the paper
confuses evolution (a historical changes in taxonomies over time) with natural
selection (the explainer of those changes). I am not sure that confusion makes
any difference to your argument other than perhaps offending some of your
readers. You may simply be able to change out the words and leave the text
otherwise undisturbed. If there is a problem, it has to do with the
hypothetical character of natural selection and the more factual character of
evolution. Here are two papers that might make clear why the distinction is so
important to me.
http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/1980-1984/Toward_a_falsifiable_theory_of_evolution.pdf
http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/2000-2005/Shifting_the_natural_selection_metaphor_to_the_group_level.pdf
Second, I'm not sure you were consistent about the distinctions between the
higher/lower level relation, the type/token relation, the whole/part and the
category/instantiation relation. It seems to me that the only relation where
the question of emergence is surely relevant is the part/whole relation: how do
wholes come to have properties that are not aggregations of the properties of
their parts.
Third, I 'm not sure where you stand on the distinction between synchronic and
diachronic "structures". I assume that the distinction between higher and
lower works for both but does the specification/implementation distinction
work? Yet, some of the most amazing examples of emergence are provided by
diachronic structures, processes like the Krebs cycle.
Fourth, I HAVE to go to bed.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ Abbott
To: [email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Sent: 4/28/2009 11:46:08 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again
Unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, I will continue to claim that I've solved
the problems of emergence and reductionism in "The reductionist blind spot."
(Yes, it's an audacious claim.) You are welcome to look elsewhere of course,
but that paper is a significant advance beyond anything in the literature
including Cartwright, Miller/Page, and Bedau and Humphrey's collection. If you
disagree, tell me why. Sometimes it seems to me that people prefer to think of
emergence as mysterious. It's not.
-- Russ
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]>
wrote:
I should have said that the properties of a, b, c and E are synchronic.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
> [Original Message]
> From: russell standish <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <[email protected]>
> Date: 4/29/2009 6:14:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence, again
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:33:42PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > Here
> > is the kind of problem that bothers philosophers: let a, b, and c
> > constitute macro-entity E and let the behavior of E. be controled by the
> > properties and intereactions of a, b and c. Now, let one of the
behaviors
> > of E to control the behavior of a, b, or c. Is there a problem here?
> >
> > Nick
> >
>
> No. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable way of building a control
> system. Should there be a problem?
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected]
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
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
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/============================================================
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
