[FRIAM] emergence as stop gap

[Merle Lefkoff]

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> -----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
>> something could get.  At that point, we would still not be skunked, because
>>     
>
> Was that conversation on this list?  I'd like to go back and read it.  A
> Gmane search turned up nothing.
>
> It's odd that one would think of water as emerging from hydrogen and
> oxygen.  A question for those who believe that is:  "Then does that make
> all molecules emergent?"  There are plenty of complicated processes that
> go into the construction of any molecule, many of those are more
> complicated than water.
>
> I suspect the question above will seem to miss the point with many
> Emergentists (Emergentites?  Emergencies? ... hmmm).  The point being
> that emergence and perception are intertwined.  Water is perceived in a
> very different way than masses of hydrogen or oxygen are perceived by
> humans.  Many people who try to categorize "emergence" will attribute
> this to some fundamental role of human expectations.  But, I suspect a
> worm, ant, or tree (were we able to communicate with them) would also
> grok the difference between water and hydrogen, even without our
> neocortex.  This leads many others who like to categorize "emergence" to
> talk of physical states of matter.  Water, in massive aggregation, acts
> one way.  Water, in isolated molecules, acts another.  Hence "emergence"
> is defined in terms of some sort of composition operator (e.g. summation).
>
> In the end, it all boils down to whether or not a thing ("water" can be
> a thing) acts or is acted upon as a unit, distinct from the actions (or
> reactions) of the things around it or its constituents (water
> molecules).  Likewise, the water molecule acts different from the other
> molecules around it and from its constituents.  So, when considering
> water, there are at least two levels of emergence.
>
> 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 at the top in a kind of ourboros.  And that makes the word
> "emergent" completely useless.
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGeU/rZeB+vOTnLkoRAhNTAKCcqrSzOEzUiqcE3gaukqcw6HEA4gCfQOdg
> off7M1XNCmRaWnxMOBtnZuE=
> =KWrT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
> What's all the fuss about?  Emergence is a property of a system - any system- resulting from interactions of the constituents following a set of local rules.
>   

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Santa Fe, N.M.