I'm not sure I get your point. First of all, it's not a very deeply thought out definition. As given, the example depends on subjective experience! (Tastes salty) But even so, everything in the definition typically applies to levels of abstraction as well as to the relational formalism I suggested. I explicitly required that the B elements be composed of A elements. So there's part-whole right there.
Your comment that " the emergentist tradition has a commitment to ontological levels." is more to the point. But it has little to do with the definition you cite as far as I can see. You had asked about a relation between levels. So I defined one. Implicit in the definition is the notion that each level exists, i.e., is ontologically real. So I don't understand what you see as missing. In one of the messages to your smaller group I noted that the term *emergence *itself adds to the confusion. It seems to imply that the emergent phenomenon just happens, i.e., that there is no explanation for how it came to be, how it came to emerge. If you want to include such a "no explanation" property explicitly in the notion of emergence, then emergence does indeed become more mysterious -- by definition. But in fact there are well understood mechanisms that lead to the creation of emergent phenomena. Salt didn't just happen to come into existence. Salt exists for reasons explained by physics and chemistry. (Furthermore salt "tastes" salty is better understood to mean that a salt molecule fits the salt receptors in tongue. Then there is no subjective experience aspect to it.) So I would watch out for smuggling in (and wanting to retain) a mystery about how emergent phenomena come to be. I don't think you are going this far, but it almost sounds like you are saying (or at least hoping) that if it can be explained how an emergent phenomenon came about then it should no longer be considered emergent. Do you want emergence to include in its meaning that the emergent phenomenon just appeared (just emerged) with no way to explain it? -- Russ A On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Russ, > > this lead's us into the kind of territory that Owen Densmore would like to > take us to.... formalism, mathematical formalism. I hope he responds. > > It will require some careful study on my part, so I wont try a response > now. > > But, in the spirit of duelling definitions, let me just site the > philosphical dictionary's definition of emergence. > > *emergent property* > > An irreducible <http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/r.htm#reduc> feature > (now commonly called > supervenient<http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s9.htm#supv>) > of a complex whole that cannot be inferred directly from the features of its > simpler parts. Thus, for example, the familiar taste of salt is an emergent > property with respect to the sodium and chlorine of which it is composed. > http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e.htm#emrg with a nod to Garth Kemerling > > Note the explicit reference to the part/whole relation. In general, the > emergentist tradition has a committment to ontological levels. In fact, it > is meant to be an explanation of the existence of such levels. that, of > course, doesnt cover the emergence of a bean plant from its seed. I > guess. > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> > *To: *nickthomp...@earthlink.net;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> *Cc: *Russell > Standish<r.stand...@unsw.edu.au> > *Sent:* 9/27/2009 1:26:51 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar, III: Wimsatt and Searle > > Why is it important to assume "that emergence involves a relationship > between levels, of some sort"? > > Wordnet defines "emergence" as "the gradual beginning or coming > forth<http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=emergence>." > That doesn't necessarily imply a relatioship between levels. > > Admittedly I haven't read the Wimsett article. Does he defined emergence as > a relationship between levels? > > All that notwithstanding, here is an attempt to characterize emergence as a > relationship between levels. > > Mathematically a relation is a set of pairs. So if emergence is a > relation(ship) it would be the set of pairs (of levels) that reflect > emergence. For example, one element in that set of pairs might be (the level > of) sticks paired with (the level of) triangles constructed out of sticks. > (This second level is defined deliberately narrowly. Is that a problem?) > Then it seems to make sense that that pair > > (level of sticks, level of stick triangles) > > is one element of the emergence relation. > > With that in mind, here's a possible definition of emergence as a relation. > > > Emergence (as a relation) is defined to be: > > {(A, B) | A and B are levels, where a level is (at least) a set of elements > & > the elements in B have properties that the elements in A don't > & > the elements in B are composed of elements of A} > > Is that a fair partial formalization of emergence as a relation(ship) > between levels? > > I'm not absolutely committed to it. I submit it as a draft definition. Does > it work? It seems to work for sticks and stick triangles. > > > -- Russ A > > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Nick Thompson wrote >> >> > I agree that the emergent property ... "being a copying device" has to >> be >> a >> > property of the macro entity. But in this case, the CAUSE of the >> emergent >> > property is also an emergent property, i.e., "being composed of parts >> > arranged in a double helix". >> > >> > Is saying that a wooden construction is strong because its members are >> > formed in triangles like saying that a ball rolls because it is round? >> > >> > You wouldn't be the first Russ to say that I am getting my knickers >> > unnecessarily twisted over this, but it does seem .... queer .... to me >> in >> > someway. >> > >> To which Russ Standish replied: >> >> Um, well, maybe you are getting your knickers in a twist. I don't >> really get your point, queer or no :(. >> >> To which Nick Thompson Replies: >> >> NST-->I apologize for using irrelevantly evocative language. I meant >> "queer" literally: "odd, unsettling", and by "knickers in a twist" I just >> meant that I was "unsettled, confused." Try to read around it. >> >> NST-->However, please could you look at the substance of what I wrote >> again? ASSUMING that one believes that emergence involves a relationship >> between levels, of some sort, doesn't saying that "a wooden construction >> is strong because its members are formed in triangles" fail as an example? >> Since "formed in triangles" is at the same level as "strong". >> >> NST-->Or is the concept of level cracking under the weight, here? For >> instance, notice that BOTH "strong" and "formed in triangles" are arguably >> "interlevel properties", since to talk about "formed in triangles" you >> have >> to talk about the level of components and to talk about "strong" you have >> to talk about the relationship between the whole and its context. (To >> demonstrate that something is strong, something outside of it has to >> stress >> it.) So "strong because triangles" is actually a relationship between >> two >> interlevel relationships. >> >> NST-->Your comments focus our attention on Bedau's concept of nominal >> emergence, which is in this week's reading? Are you reading along with >> us? >> Wimsatt? Searle? >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> >> >> >> >> > [Original Message] >> > From: russell standish <r.stand...@unsw.edu.au> >> > To: <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >> Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> >> > Date: 9/27/2009 10:44:58 PM >> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar, III: Wimsatt and Searle >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 01:24:47AM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> > > So, Russ S, >> > > >> > > when you say, >> > > >> > > "> I got lost at step 4 here. The obvious syllogism of (1), (2) & (3) >> is >> > > > that an emergent property is not a property of a micro entity. But >> > > > this doesn't surprise me, as its actually my definition of >> emergence." >> > > >> > > Does that mean that you are comfortable saying that emergence is >> actually a >> > > relationship between two different properties of the same object. >> > > >> > >> > Not exactly. It is more a relationship between languages. It is the >> > presence of a property (the emergent one) expressed in one language >> > that is impossible to express in the other language. We would normally >> > say the languages are incommensurate, although Glen used a neat term >> > for it the other day starting with "lexical" that raised the other >> > Russ's eyebrows. >> > >> > > I agree that the emergent property ... "being a copying device" has to >> be a >> > > property of the macro entity. But in this case, the CAUSE of the >> emergent >> > > property is also an emergent property, i.e., "being composed of parts >> > > arranged in a double helix". >> > > >> > > Is saying that a wooden construction is strong because its members >> are >> > > formed in triangles is like saying that a ball rolls because it is >> round? >> > > >> > > You wouldnt be the first Russ to say that I am getting my knickers >> > > unnecessarily twisted over this, but it does seem .... queer .... to >> me >> in >> > > someway. >> > > >> > >> > Um, well, maybe you are getting your knickers in a twist. I don't >> > really get your point, queer or no :(. >> > >> > > NIck >> > > Nicholas S. Thompson >> > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> > > Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) >> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > [Original Message] >> > > > From: russell standish <r.stand...@unsw.edu.au> >> > > > To: <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied >> Complexity >> > > Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> >> > > > Date: 9/26/2009 8:35:52 PM >> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar, III: Wimsatt and Searle >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 07:50:53PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> > > > > All, >> > > > > >> > > > > As you all may remember, I had decided on the basis of my first >> two >> > > > > readings of Wimsatt, that his was the final word on the definition >> of >> > > > > emergence: a property of a macro-entity is emergent when it >> depends >> on >> > > the >> > > > > arrangement of the micro entities [in time and/or in space]. >> > > > > Unfortunately, I read it a third time. >> > > > > >> > > > > I woke up in the middle of the night realizing what was wrong with >> his >> > > > > position. >> > > > > >> > > > > (1) Ineliminably, emergence has to do with the relation between >> macro >> > > and >> > > > > micro entities. (I suppose somebody might challange that >> statement, >> > > but I >> > > > > dont think anybody has so far.) >> > > > > >> > > > > (2) Emergent properties of a macro entity are those that are >> dependant >> > > on >> > > > > the arrangement of the micro entities. >> > > > > >> > > > > (3) But "An arrangement of X's" cannot be a property of any >> microentity >> > > > > (duh!). >> > > > > >> > > > > (4) There fore, whatever (2) IS a definition of, it cannot be a >> > > definition >> > > > > of emergence OR emergence does not have to do with relations among >> > > levels. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Back to the old drawing board. >> > > > > >> > > > > n >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I got lost at step 4 here. The obvious syllogism of (1), (2) & (3) >> is >> > > > that an emergent property is not a property of a micro entity. But >> > > > this doesn't surprise me, as its actually my definition of >> emergence. >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >> > > > Mathematics >> > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au >> > > > 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 >> > >> > -- >> > >> > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >> > Mathematics >> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au >> > 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
