Glen, Thou sayst:
I tend to think emergence is a fiction or, > at best, an illusion borne out of each person's self-centeredness. Gradually, finally, I feel I am getting enough of a grip on "emergence" to try work with this assertion. It applies to only some of the concepts of emergence that we have so far been able to explicate. These are (1)Logical or nominal emergence: An emergent property of an aggregate is just one that is logically incompatible with the properties of the elements of the aggregate. Like "aggregate", for instance. "Aggregativity" is a nominally emergent property. (2) Surprisogenic Emergence: A property of an aggregate is emergent if we don't understand how it arises from the elements of the aggregate. Somebody in the seminar today called this property Surprisivity. I think the term is a keeper. 3. Wimsattian. A property of an aggregate is emergent if it depends on the order of appearance or position of the elements within the aggregate. (On this account, most aggregates have at least some emergent properties.) 4. Computational Emergence: A result is emergent if there is no way to compute it except by running the program. 5. Crutchfieldian Emergence: A system is emergent if the best way to model it is to attribute to the system a model of itself. I.e, the best model of the system is a model- model. An example of this type of model is the socalled theory-theory of infant cognition. I think your rejection of emergence applies only to (2) above.... and possibly (4), if we understand "no way" to mean "no way we have thought of yet". But I bet you disagree. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe] > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[email protected]> > To: Owen Densmore <[email protected]> > Cc: Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]>; Charles Wesley Demarco <[email protected]>; Chip Garner <[email protected]>; Frank Wimberly <[email protected]>; Jim Gattiker <[email protected]>; maryl <[email protected]>; Merle Lefkoff <[email protected]>; Michel Bloch <[email protected]>; nthompson Thompson <[email protected]>; Roger Critchlow <[email protected]>; Russ Abbott <[email protected]> > Date: 11/5/2009 4:16:52 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?" > > Thus spake Owen Densmore circa 09-11-05 12:23 PM: > > 1 - The language used by Crutchfield is specific to his peers and > > domain. Thus "closure" is a very important concept, but easily > > misunderstood by non-peer readers. I tried to point most out .. > > including closure .. but there are so many as to make the task difficult. > > Yes, it's always seemed to me that Jim's a bit of a "job security" type > of guy. Every one of our "science lunches" that he was at ended up > filled with hermeneutics and word redefinitions. So, decoding his > writing is always a deep effort for me. In the end, though, it's rewarding. > > > 2 - I actually held a brief "tutorial" on automata. I printed out a 1 > > page (2 sided) set of passages from Sipser's book on the three main > > types, and made the point that Languages are sets of Strings comprised > > of Symbols, and that each level of automata had an equivalence to a > > language. I.e. Deterministic Finite Automata have an equivalence to > > Regular Expressions. We even included the n-tuple definition, simply to > > show that the simple machines are easily formalized. No homework was > > given! :) > > Ugh! I'm jealous of the community you guys live in. To get a group of > people to sit around talking about automata is damned near impossible here. > > > I really hope we are not yet again creating silos. I'm trying to get my > > head around the philosophic approach comfortable to non-technologists, > > and even like some of it. But there does seem to be a gap hard to > > bridge when discussing things as formal as e-machines. > > Specialization is required. It can't be avoided. The trick is how > _snarky_ we are to each other when approached by a deme-hopper. ;-) > Even in scientific and technical papers, you can detect the snarky > people who actively obfuscate their meaning with fancy words, inside > jokes, and overly complicated concepts. So, we'll always have this > balance between the necessary specialization and the 2 types of people, > those who think secrecy and hermeneutics are power and those who think > openness and bluntness are power. (I'm in the latter category, fwiw.) > An anti-philosophy bias is part of the requisite specialization. But > it's possible that philosophers don't evenly distribute across the > secret-open spectrum, making the bias easer to adopt. > > > I'm getting a bad reputation as a "formalist" .. which I'm not, IMHO. > > Its just that I'd like to include it when appropriate. Understanding > > Emergence is just such a place. > > I'm not so sure, actually. I tend to think emergence is a fiction or, > at best, an illusion borne out of each person's self-centeredness. > Formalizing it just makes it seem real.... like setting a plate at the > dinner table for an imaginary friend. ;-) But I'm willing to play along > anyway. Worst case, I'm proven wrong and eat crow. Best case, I learn > lots on the way. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ 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
