I agree here too! Even though I'm not a behaviorist -- or at least not what I think of as a behaviorist.
I'm still(!) not sure what Nick thinks about subjective experience. But let's not go back to that. -- Russ On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > One fundamental difference here is between those who see mystery as a > place to be dwelt in and those who see it as a place to be traversed. I am > of the latter school. If it's ineluctible, I got no interest in it. On the > other hand, I cant think of anything that I believe is ineluctible. > > such is the arrogance of behaviorism, I guess. > > N > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Victoria Hughes <[email protected]> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[email protected]> > *Sent:* 9/6/2009 4:20:37 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] emergence and mystery > > Is it possible to hold both a satisfactory definition of emergence, and an > acceptance / appreciation of ineluctable mystery? IE: is a paradox a > possible solution set here? > > > > On Sep 6, 2009, at 4:13 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: > > Hmmm, I have not read the book in question, but... to vaguely support > Russ's position: > > Conversations involving emergence do seem to be one of those contexts in > which a sizable subset of the participants seem to be primarily interested > in maintaining an aura of mystery. It often seems the case that when some > purported instance of "emergence" is explained in a manner that a priori > seemed satisfactory, it is declared either that said explanation is > inherently insufficient in some way or that the instance in question was not > actually "emergence" after all. At any rate, it seems that several instances > of situations involving emergence are very well understood, or at least > understood from many different angles. So, is the quest to "understand > emergence" a quest for a general way of handling such situations, is it a > quest to find a particular kind of explanation more satisfying than those > offered previously, or is it an attempt to wonder at things we like to > wonder at and would be sad if the wondering stopped? Of course those options > are not exhaustive, but the first two options seem fairly noble, while the > last option not so much (though it does seem enjoyable). > > Eric > > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 04:59 PM, *Russ Abbott <[email protected]>* wrote: > > Come on Nick. Later on in the Introduction they write the following. > > When we finally understand what emergence truly is, we might see that many > of the examples are only apparent cases of emergence. Indeed, one of the > hotly contested issues is whether there are any genuine examples of > emergence. > > Here's how the Introduction finishes. > > The study of emergence is still in its infancy and currently is in a state > of considerable flux, so a large number of important questions still lack > clear answers. Surveying those questions is one of the best ways to > comprehend the nature and scope of the contemporary philosophical and > scientific debate about emergence. Grouped together here are some of the > interconnected questions about emergence that are particularly pressing, > > 1. How should emergence be defined? ... We should not presume that only one > type of emergence exists and needs definition. Instead, different kinds of > emergence may exist, so different that they fall under no unified account. > ... Given the high level of uncertainty about how to properly characterize > what emergence is, it should be no surprise that many other fundamental > questions remain unanswered. > > 2. What ontological categories of entities can be emergent: properties, > substances, processes,phenomena, patterns, laws, or something else? ... > > 3. What is the scope of actual emergent phenomena? ... > > 4. Is emergence an objective feature of the world, or is it merely in the > eye of the beholder? ... > > 5. Should emergence be viewed as static and synchronic, or as dynamic and > diachronic, or are both possible? ... > > 6. Does emergence imply or require the existence of new levels of > phenomena? ... > > 7. In what ways are emergent phenomena autonomous from their emergent > bases? ... Another important question about the autonomy of emergent > phenomena is whether that autonomy is merely epistemological or whether it > has ontological consequences. An extreme version of the merely > epistemological interpretation of emergence holds that emergence is simply a > sign of our ignorance. One final issue about the autonomy of emergent > phenomena concerns whether emergence necessarily involves novel causal > powers, especially powers that produce 荘downward causation,鋳 in which > emergent phenomena have novel effects on their own emergence base. One of > the questions in this context is what kind of downward causation is > involved, for the coherence of downward causation is debatable. > > Emergence ... is simultaneously palpable and confusing ... New advances in > contemporary philosophy and science ... now are converging to enable new > progress on these questions ... > This book痴 chapters illuminate these questions from many perspectives to > help readers > > with framing their own answers. > > If this isn't an attempt to grapple with an apparently mysterious > phenomenon what do you think it is? Or do you suppose they are simply > compiling a collection of philosophical papers for the sake of history? If > that were the case, I would think they would make the philosophical > landscape of emergence sound a lot more settled. Or perhaps they simply > believe that they can make some money selling books -- and writing the > introduction as if the topic of energence were so unsettled was just a way > to intice people to buy it. > > -- Russ > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected] <#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_>> wrote: > >> "seems" would seem to be the operative word. He is the editor of the >> book and he has to represent the range of opinion and SOME people think its >> mysterious. >> >> but i have to go buy fish. >> >> Nick >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University ([email protected] <#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_>) >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Russ Abbott <#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_> >> *To: *[email protected] <#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_>;The Friday >> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_> >> *Sent:* 9/6/2009 11:57:48 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] emergence >> >> If you make properties rather than entities emergent, what do you say >> about entities? What are they? Where do they come from? Put another way, >> what is a property a property of? >> >> I think you will find that Bedau and Humphreys find emergence mysterious. >> This is the second sentence from the >> Introduction<http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/026202621Xintro1.pdf>. >> "The topic of emergence is fascinating and controversial in part because >> emergence seems to be widespread and yet the very idea of emergence seems >> opaque, and perhaps even incoherent." The rest of the Introduction expands >> on the mystery of emergence. >> >> -- Russ >> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson < >> [email protected] <#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_>> wrote: >> >>> Try this: a property of an entity is emergent when it depends on the >>> arrangment or the order of presentation of the parts of the entity. (It's >>> *properties* that are emergent, not *entities* ... some properties of a >>> pile of sand are emergent, some aggregate.) Here, I believe, I am >>> channeling Wimsatt. >>> >>> The beauty of reading a collection such as Bedau and The Other Guy is >>> that you experience the whip-lash of moving from point of view to point of >>> view. Good exercise for the neck. >>> >>> By the way, Russ (was it?) was a ...leetle... unfair to Bedau. I dont >>> think Bedau thinks it's a mystery; i think he thinks others have thought it >>> a mystery. But it's been a few months since I read it. >>> >>> Implementation: Consider the expression, "there is more than one way to >>> skin a cat". Equivalent to: "there are several programs you can use to >>> implement a cat skinning." >>> >>> Consciousness: the big source of confusion in emergence discussions is >>> the attempt to attach emergence to such perennial mysteries as >>> consciousness. (Actually, I dont think consciousness is a mystery, but let >>> that go.) The strength of a triangle is an emergent property of the >>> arrangment of its legs and their attachments. There are lots of ways bang >>> together boards and still have a weak construction, which I learned when I >>> put together a grape arbor with no diagonal members. Worked fine until the >>> grapes grew on it. Emergent properties are everywhere in the simplest of >>> constructions. We dont need to talk about soul, or consciouness, or spirit >>> to have a useful conversation about emergence. >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>> Clark University ([email protected] <#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_>) >>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Victoria Hughes <#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_> >>> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<#12391b0d1ae8eeb0_> >>> *Sent:* 9/6/2009 10:32:59 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] emergence >>> >>> Consciousness / self-awareness? >>> Is this thus acceptable as an emergent phenomenon? >>> If so, how does this permit, or not, the definition of 'the self' as a >>> unique identity? >>> >>> >>> Emergence is what happens when components of the "emergent entity" act >>> in such a way as to bring about the existence and persistence of that >>> entity. >>> >>> When "boids" follow their local flying rules, they create (implement) a >>> flock. It's not mysterious. We know how it works. >>> >>> That's all emergence is: coordinated or consistent actions among a number >>> of elements that result in the formation and persistence of some aggregate >>> entity or phenomenon. >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 > > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
