Again, Glen, what appears below is beautifully done. And, although you don't point it out, you have caught me in an important inconsistency. In a sense, you have demonstrated yourself to be a more faithful New Realist (cf EBHolt) than I. I have been wanting to argue with you that the kinds of properties we are talking about are "out there", and I have been warding off what I saw as your implication that emergence is [merely] in the eye of the beholder. Ditto organization. In thus polarizing the argument, I have missed the possibility that something can be BOTH in the eye of the beholder (i.e. the result of how one looks at something )AND in the thing itself. This is the New Realist position and you articulate it beautifully below.
Some further comments below. Thanks, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <g...@agent-based-modeling.com> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Date: 7/10/2009 9:31:10 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence and explanation > > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 07/09/2009 07:28 PM: > > I would say that, contra Atkins Physical Chemistry and many other experts, > > a system is more than just any old thing we happen to be talking about. > > To be a system, the thing we are talking about must be *organized*. > > I don't intend to argue about the meaning of the word "system". It's OK > if you (and others) fixate on that; but it's not my intent. Having said > that, let me try to get the point I actually want to make formulated in > your terms. NST===>But don't you agree that confusion could reign in any discussion in which the discussants carried two such radically different definitions of the term? <===NST > > Organization is merely another characteristic of the goo/stuff we > perceive (identify, carve out) of the ambience. Organization is no > different from any other characteristic that obtains when we apply a > predicate or measure to the ambience. > > To see this, think of any system you want, then think about the > different predicates/measures/perspectives/hats you might adopt in order > to get at the organization of the system. E.g. when analyzing a > corporation, an accountant sees one organization and an entrepreneur > sees something else. E.g. when analyzing a condensed gas a string > theorist sees one organization and a traditional quantum physicist sees > another. > > What you're doing when you say a system must be organized is this: You > are _imputing_ an ontological property (organization) into a perceived > slice of the goo/stuff. You're saying, assuming objectivity, that > particular bucket of goo/stuff has, regardless of observer, property X. > > > those parts are not internal. I don't think your critique is specific in > > any way to the problem of defining the emergent properties of things It > > relates generally to the definition of the primitive, "any old thing". Is a > > lens cloud an object? Is an ocean wave an object? A sand dune? An > > organism, for that matter? It comes up any time we try to justify the > > use of any concrete noun. I believe that "Thing" can be a primitive and we > > can still have a useful discussion of what the emergent properties of a > > thing are, or are not. An insistence on rigorous closure would be the end > > of all conversation, because we never would be able to meet the standard. > > Which, come to think of it, may be your point. You are arguing that the > > conversation we are trying to have is impossible? > > Excellent! But not quite what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that such > conversation is impossible. I'm arguing that it is _vague_ and cannot > be completely resolved. And the reason it is vague is because it > depends fundamentally on well-formulating 2 things: 1) the presumed > objective system and 2) the measures used to observe the system. NST===> EB Holt would be jumping up and down with delight at this point!<===NST > > You guys have been leaving (2) off and assuming that "emergence" is or > can be somehow independent of the perspective the observer takes. It > can't. (Note that I'm not claiming emergence is a purely subjective > thing. I'm claiming that the concept requires _both_ the objective and > the subjective.) NST===>Precisely! But I would warn you away from the subjective/objective distinction here because your way of putting it does not correspond to the way most people use this distinction. Most people (I would guess) think of subjective as fallible and objective as infallible. On your view, truth about the world is conjured up by the interaction of an observer (subject) with the world. <===NST > > However, if you explicitly lay out your assumptions about the system > (with no hidden secret meanings to the word "system") then lay out how > you intend to _measure_ the system, then and only then can you have a > (less vague) conversation about emergence. > > > Oh by the way: do you have the Bedau and Phillips book? NST===>Sorry. I always get the second author's name wrong. It is Paul Humphreys. Bedau and HUMPHREYS. <===NST Do you think it > > might be possible to have an international webSeminar on it? Colloquium? > > What would that look like? > > No, I don't have the book. It's possible to have a seminar about it; > but unless it were about concrete things, particular systems, particular > methods for measuring those systems, then I don't think its of much use. > If you chose a family of systems (perhaps your statics example of > triangular trusses) and a family of measures (perhaps robustness to > harmonic oscillation), _then_ it would be interesting to talk about > emergent characteristics of such systems as measured in that way. NST===>Right! Thanks. I will ponder on it. <===NST > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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 ============================================================ 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
