You're placing yourself on one side of a false dichotomy. Doing so for rhetorical sake is fine. Doing so as a serious attempt to categorize people and the way they think is a mistake.
There is no strict dichotomy between "in here" vs. "out there". However, some ways of looking at things (some operators) are defined in terms of "in here" and some are defined in terms of "out there". An operator that is defined using an assumption of a conscious observer, will, naturally require a conscious observer. One that isn't, doesn't. Emergent attributes come about as a result of operations. Some emergence is fundamentally dependent on a conscious observer. Some isn't. It's as simple as that. Alienating yourself or others from others or yourself based on this false dichotomy isn't good for you or anyone else. Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/07/2009 10:08 AM: > You can all safely ignore this note, but I need to write it in order to be > right with my own conscience. If you do read it, tho, please read through > to the bottom before you respond to avoid useless disputation. > > Eric Charles has been on to me "on the private line" to say that I have to > confess to some craziness, here. Do you remember all the conversations > this summer about E Holt and the New Realism? As a new realist I am > obligated to believe that, while there may be "out theres" that are not "in > here", there are no "in heres" that are not "out there", for a properly > situated observer. > > Russ and I went at this hammer and tongue this summer and agreed to > disagree. I dont think there is any value in picking up that argument > now. Having lived with this craziness for most of my life, I am pretty sure > that you all believe that there are "inheres" that are not in principle > "outthere" and that you wont be convinced otherwise The best I can hope > for is, occasionally, to find a person who is willing to toy with my > ontology in a playful spirit (eg, Steve Smith) and see where it might take > them. But no need for that now. > > Note that Russ and I AGREE that emergence is out there. This places us > together on the side opposite to those who believe that emergence is a > perception that is dissolved by understanding. When we read the EMERGENCE > book together, we will find that there are many smart people on both sides > of that argument, but that complexity scientists, on the whole, tend to > share the view that emergence is not a stage inunderstanding but a state of > the world. -- 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
