Responding genuinely to your question: 1) It seemed like a more mundane and familiar example than most examples discussed on the list. That is, while it takes considerable schooling to teach people that salt is composed of sodium and chloride arranged in a particular way, everyone easily recognizes that the sweater is composed of yarn arranged in a particular way.
2) I too agree that the word "emergence" has a bit of voodoo to it, especially in normal usage. However, it seems useful (if not necessary) to have SOME way of talking about how the sweater is more than just the yarn it is composed of. It would be a very sad world if we could not readily refer to phenomenon except by way of their constituent elements. It would be a sad world if we did not have some way of making sense of that referring. The currently fashionable language may indeed not be ideal, but that can only be determined (I naively assert) by discussing it critically. 3) Personally, like you, I am not terribly interested in having a normative discussion of emergence (i.e., how, based on deep philosophical grounds SHOULD we be using the term, technically speaking). I've had them before, I know how they go, little excitement left for me. However, I am quite interested in discussing what we do naturally, figuring out how to describe what we naturally do, and figuring out the costs and benefits both of what we do and different methods of describing what we do. The term "emergence" is one in a long line of ways of trying to "get at" a certain set of obvious empirical phenomenon (i.e., things we experience). To pick a few older examples, surely "emergence" holds some advantage over terms like "vital energy" or "spirit". No? Satisfactory answer? Remotely? Eric On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 10:57 AM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Call it a morbid fascination with how other seem to really seem to enjoy word games, Nick. > >But the question was genuine: what possible gain (in your opinion, of course) will come out of this? Where's the added value? What's the benefit about attempting to talk about emergence in the context of unraveling a sweater? > >--Doug > > >>On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Nicholas Thompson <<#>> wrote: > > > >> >> >>Eric, >> > >>I like the example. Thank you. >> > >>Doug >> > >>I stipulate that you don't like this topic. But wait a minute! You responded to the thread!? That's odd! >> > >>If interested, the reading this week is the aforementioned Bedau. >> > >>Best, >> > >>Nick >> >> >>Nicholas S. Thompson >>Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>Clark University (<#>) >><http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> >From: <a title="" href="#" target="">Douglas Roberts</a> >> >To: <a title="" href="#" target="">The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group</a> > > >> >Sent: 9/25/2009 8:22:04 AM > >> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Inquiry to Emergence Group > >> > >Groan. > >What possible gain will come of trying to add yet more baggage to that already overloaded, mythical, magical "emergence" word by trying to force-fit the process of knitting a sweater on to it? > >--Doug > >>On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:08 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <<#>> wrote: > > >> >Greetings, >This morning, I saw an interesting emergence problem on a children's television show, and thought I would send a query to the group. > >As is prone to happen, a character received a knitted sweater, which promptly caught on something and began to unravel. By the time they noticed it was just one long string. They then followed the string back, ending up with a large ball of string. They had the string, which is all the sweater was; but of course, they did not in any reasonable sense have "the sweater". > >I was wondering how the different authors in the book would describe this situation. In particular, it would seem natural to say that the string isn't the sweater BECAUSE the sweater is "emergent". > > >Hopefully that example is of interest to more than just me, > >Eric > >P.S. Look Nick, I maintained your thread dominance request! > > > >= > > > > > > > > >============================================================ > >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> > > > > > > >-- >Doug Roberts ><#> ><#> >505-455-7333 - Office >505-670-8195 - Cell > ============================================================ >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
