Dear Russ II, One of the things I hope to find out by discussing actual texts is whether it IS the same as vitalism. I don't think so. Another reason to spend a week on the british emergentists is because of their partial ressemblence to Authors like Juarerro and Rosen whom some of us do take seriously.
It's hard to believe in top-down causality without endorsing many of the positions taken by these folks. And, remember, we are only spending a week on the B.E's; next week it's on to John Searle! Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: russell standish <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 9/15/2009 5:39:14 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar--British Emergence > > >From the text below, it is apparent that British emergence is not the > same beast as what we call emergence today. Those very > "configurational forces" you mention are precisely what I mean by > emergent phenomena, which is entirely consistent with how the term is > used in the complex systems literature that I have been reading my whole > professional life. > > It would seem that "British emergence" is something akin to the widely > rejected notion of vitalism, and as Russ Abbott states - why, as > complexity researchers, would we be interested in that? > > Cheers > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:48:55PM -0600, Roger Critchlow wrote: > > As I read it, the issue isn't whether structures and/or configurations > > are/aren't important, the question is whether they operate according > > to emergent or resultant rule sets. > > > > The Emergentists were betting heavily on the emergent rule set. They > > believed that the variety of chemistry couldn't possibly be the result > > of protons and electrons operating according to physics as they knew > > it. They were right, it wasn't physics as they knew it, but the > > answer turned out to be the result of configurational physics rather > > than emergent principles of chemistry. They also bet that the variety > > of biology couldn't be the result of chemical molecules operating > > according to the chemistry they knew. And they were right again, it > > wasn't chemistry as they knew it, but the answer turned out to be the > > result of configurational chemistry rather than emergent priniciples > > of biology. > > > > Chemistry and biology turn out to be ever more complicated > > configurations of protons and electrons, with some neutron ballast, > > operating according to the principles of quantum mechanics and > > statistical mechanics. It's all physics, same particles, same forces, > > same laws, no emergent forces. There are configuration forces, but > > they're not emergent forces, they're subtle results of electrons > > packing themselves into quantized energy levels in increasingly > > complicated configurations of nuclei. > > > > The structure of DNA and the elaboration of molecular biology was the > > last straw because it provided a purely physical mechanism for > > inheritance. > > > > But you're right to see it as a bit of a conundrum. The Emergentists, > > as McLaughlin summarizes them, were substantially correct: > > configurations of atoms in molecules are the key to understanding > > chemistry, there are all sorts of chemically distinctive things that > > happen because of those configurations, none of those chemically > > distinctive things are obvious when you play around with protons and > > electrons in the physics lab. But it all turned out to be part of the > > resultant of quantum mechanics, not emergent in the sense the > > Emergentists had painted themselves into, so they were wrong in the > > one sense they really cared about. > > > > -- rec -- > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > All, > > > > > > I would like to appeal for some help from The List with the chapter we are > > > reading this week in the Emergence Seminar. One of the central assertions > > > of the author is that quantum mechanics put the British Emergentists out of > > > business by making "configurational" forces seem unlikely. He goes on to > > > say that "the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA ... make[s] the > > > main doctrines of Britsh emergentism, so far as ...the biological [is] > > > concerned, seem enormously implausible." (McLaughlin, 2009, p. 23). > > > > > > Now here is my problem: everything that I understand about contemporary > > > Evo/devo seems to make the structure of biological molecules (DNA, RNA, and > > > proteins) central to our understanding of biological development. Thus, to > > > me, these discoveries make emergentism (if not the British kind) seem > > > dramatically MORE plausible. If all the consequences of the folding and > > > unfolding of proteins, etc., do not constitute effects of "configurational > > > forces" then what the dickens are they? > > > > > > Can anybody help me with this paradox???? > > > > > > I have forwarded this comment to the Author and, if he doesn't object, will > > > forward any remarks he may have back to you. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > > Clark University ([email protected]) > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > 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 > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ============================================================ > 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
