Hi Ron This is central to the MOQ and the meaning of dynamic as far as I am concerned.
We live in a universe where simple elements like hydorgen and helium have the potential to produce naturally suns, planets, flowers, and life and artificially patterns like cars, computers, motorcycles, books, and works of art. This potential is magic, but it is a form of magic that science increasingly understands as it gets away from reductionism and starts to look at the full complexity of process and emergence. The reality of process, the ability of processes to select actual patterns from a vast range of possibilities, and the values on which such choices are made, are the very stuff of what used to be called spirit or geist and longer ago gods. Surely, here at MOQ world we can all get this?! Regards David Morey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:09 PM Subject: [MD] emergence and MOQ > > I thought this snip from "Emergent properties & processes" sounded a lot > like Pirsigs > description of the four levels. > > [edit] Emergent properties & processes > "An emergent behaviour or emergent property can appear when a number of > simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex > behaviours as a collective. If emergence happens over disparate size > scales, then the reason is usually a causal relation across different > scales. In other words there is often a form of top-down feedback in > systems with emergent properties. The processes from which emergent > properties result may occur in either the observed or observing system, > and can commonly be identified by their patterns of accumulating change, > most generally called 'growth'. Why emergent behaviours occur include: > intricate causal relations across different scales and feedback, known > as interconnectivity. The emergent property itself may be either very > predictable or unpredictable and unprecedented, and represent a new > level of the system's evolution. The complex behaviour or properties are > not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be > predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities: they > are irreducible. No physical property of an individual molecule of air > would lead one to think that a large collection of them will transmit > sound. The shape and behaviour of a flock of birds[1] or shoal of fish > are also good examples." > > [Ron] > Has anyone else connected/compared Emergence with MOQ? I do know there > are those who object > to the idea, I find it interesting though that Pirsigs levels can be > accepted although > the idea of emergence, particularly as it applies to consciousness is in > hot debate. > > > "Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes: > > "Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably > like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal > power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of > the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike > anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they > will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness > will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails > illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997) > > However, "the debate about whether or not the whole can be predicted > from the properties of the parts misses the point. Wholes produce unique > combined effects, but many of these effects may be co-determined by the > context and the interactions between the whole and its environment(s)." > (Corning 2002) Along that same thought, Arthur Koestler stated, "it is > the synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the very cause of > the evolution of complexity in nature" and used the metaphor of Janus to > illustrate how the two perspectives (strong or holistic vs. weak or > reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not exclusives, and > should work together to address the issues of emergence.(Koestler 1969) > Further, > > "The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not > imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the > universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted > with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of > complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied > biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole > becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its > parts."(Anderson 1972)-wiki > > [Ron] > All opinions welcome, I'm very interested in the contrasts/simularities > with MOQ and "Emergence" > > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
