I guess it's fine to ask how different people would define a particular word. But it seems to me that unless one's purpose is the study of history, the more important question is how best to define/use a word -- that is, what is the most useful way to frame a concept. It sometimes seems to me that many people prefer to think of emergence as some sort of mysterious concept rather than to try to come to a clear understanding of what the best way is to understand and use the term.
In his book on the Periodic Table<http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Chemistry/?view=usa&ci=9780195305739>Eric Scerri noted that people originally thought that atomic elements were characterized by their atomic weight. That was close, but what really characterizes elements are their atomic number, not their atomic weight. Once it became clear that atomic number was the right way to think about how elements are characterized, discussions of using atomic weight for that characterization may be of historical value, but they are not useful to understanding the concept -- and prolonging that discussion is counter-productive. -- Russ A On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:15 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]> wrote: > Good lord man, it is still morning! > > Russ, > Yours was a completely satisfying answer! At least in so much as it showed > how the sweater example would be treated within one system of dealing with > emergence. Yet, it cannot completely satisfy my inquiry, because the > original was not about any particular individual's way of thinking about > things, but about the breadth of established ways. I am hoping that > additional answers (such as that given by Glen) will appear, that I may > better understand (read, be able to describe in my own terms) how such a > mundane example is handled by different systems. In particular, I ask the > question publicly, because I am interested in other people's understanding > of the alternatives. > > Eric > > P.S. I feel guilty already. I'm trying hard not to post more than once a > day on any of my lists and already I am up to four on this one! Let no one > else feel slighted if their post does not receive a reply until some time > tomorrow, maybe even Sunday. Rest assured that I am reading them throughtout > the day and dwelling upon them. > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 12:03 PM, *Russ Abbott <[email protected]>*wrote: > > Eric, > > I took your initial question as having been asked in good faith. And I > answered in good faith. It seems to me that you owe me a response to my > answer. Did it satisfy your question? If not, why not? > > -- Russ A > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:58 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES > <[email protected]<#123f1fc484a13043_> > > wrote: > >> Thus spoke Glen: >> >> >> "Just to be clear, you're asking for (at least one of) us >> to simulate what >> (some or all of) the authors in Bedau & Humphreys would >> say about whether >> or not the sweater emerges from the thread? I.e. you are >> NOT asking for OUR >> opinions. " >> >> >> Yeah, that was the >> idea! >> Regarding Rosen: I am intrigued >> that the answer was entirely in >> terms of the cause, rather than the entity >> itself. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Eric >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 athttp://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
