Steve, My understanding of the meaning of "strong" emergence is "inexplicable emergence".
Is there another meaning? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Steve Smith <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 6/11/2009 9:38:52 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > > Ted Carmichael wrote: > > I think the difficulty of the "triangle as emergence" problem is > > trying to imagine an situation where the "agents" (individual edges of > > a triangle) combine and re-combine in different configurations. But > > if they do, and if the environment selects structures based on > > strength, then I can see that the triangle (or pyramid, in 3 > > dimensions) is a "basin of attraction" that would emerge from this > > environment. > > > > In my mind, homogeneity is important ... although I prefer the phrase > > "self-similar," as the agents don't have to be completely the same ... > > they just have to be close to each other in their attributes that > > relate to the emergent property. > > > > It's a good thought experiment, though. Thanks. > I suspect this is where Buckminster Fullerenes come from. I don't know > the lore... but my guess is that somehow the carbon atoms they are > formed from are somehow under such wicked stresses that the only > "structures" that form are those whose integral strength exceeds that of > the forces they are under. > > This seems to be on the "lower" edge of emergence. Like the scale of > gravel in a streambed matching a size profile based on the conditions? > > I think that tensegrity structures have collective rather than emergent > properties, but again, this might qualify for being at the "lower" > boundary of emergence. > > Frankly I admit that it is hard for me to think of "emergence" without > activity. To the extent that a tensegrity structure is (conventionally) > designed and built, and its collective properties do not "show up" until > it is complete (or subunits are complete) seems to be an indication that > what we are seeing is *not* emergence. Somehow I think incrementality > is as important as serendipity. > > Going back to the Bucky Balls, I'm not sure, but I don't think that > there are any "incomplete" forms that have any of the interesting > properties of the complete form. Bucky Tubes, perhaps... which leads > me full-circle back to crystal growth. > > I believe Crystal Growth shows more emergence.... incremental change > which by itself does not show qualitatively new properties but once > above some threshold, DOES. > > I believe *all* of the discussion (Triangles, Fullerenes, Crystals) are > examples of *weak emergence*. I'd never really thought about whether > there were "degrees of emergence" within the loose categories of "weak" > vs "strong". Triangles vs Geodesic Domes are (perhaps) a good example. > > - Steve > > ============================================================ > 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
