-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> I handle the 'what' problem two ways, 1) what's useful to call emergent
> for the consideration at hand (since there are way too many interlocking
> emergent processes to consider them all at once anyway) and 2) what
> about them
CTED] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:04 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence as stop gap
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> >
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 09:03:55AM -0700, Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
>
> But, so what? Taken this way _everything_ is emergent. I even heard a
> guy named Terry Bristol claim that the universe is a kind of emergent
> cycle where the emergent things at the bottom emerge from the emergent
> things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> any phenomena that we all agreed were cases of emergence. I began to think
> we might fail in this way when one of us objected to the example of
> Hydrogen, Oxygen making water, which seemed to me about as emergent as
> som
Gunther very wisely wrote:
I used to throw around the word "emergence" around until I noticed
that I used it there where I did not understand what was really going
on, like in: "consciousness? - simple - an emergent process"
Since then I have stopped using the word - it is, in fact, vacuous to
cal
