[FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"

[Russ Abbott]

And I would add:

6. A property of a class of entities is emergent if it is defined for
entities of that class (and their subclasses) but not for entities of other
classes.

-- Russ


On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Glen,
>
> Thou sayst:
>
>  I tend to think emergence is a fiction or,
> > at best, an illusion borne out of each person's self-centeredness.
>
> Gradually, finally, I feel I am getting enough of a grip on "emergence"  to
> try work with  this  assertion.
>
> It applies to only some  of the concepts of emergence that we have so far
> been able to explicate.  These are
>
> (1)Logical or nominal emergence:   An emergent property of an aggregate is
> just one that is logically incompatible with the properties of the elements
> of the aggregate.  Like "aggregate", for instance.   "Aggregativity" is a
> nominally emergent property.
>
> (2) Surprisogenic Emergence:   A property of an aggregate is emergent if we
> don't understand how it arises from the elements of the aggregate.
> Somebody in the seminar today called this property Surprisivity.  I think
> the term is a keeper.
>
> 3. Wimsattian.  A property of an aggregate is emergent if it depends on the
> order of appearance or position of the elements within the aggregate.  (On
> this account, most aggregates have at least some emergent properties.)
>
> 4. Computational Emergence:  A result is emergent if there is no way to
> compute it except by running the program.
>
> 5. Crutchfieldian Emergence:  A system is emergent if the best way to model
> it is to attribute to the system a model of itself.  I.e, the best model of
> the system is a model- model.  An example of this type of model is the
> socalled theory-theory of infant cognition.
>
> I think your rejection of emergence applies only to (2) above.... and
> possibly (4), if we understand "no way" to mean "no way we have thought of
> yet".   But I bet you disagree.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa fe]
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: glen e. p. ropella <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > To: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
> > Cc: Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; Charles Wesley
> Demarco <Cdemarco at clarku.edu>; Chip Garner <chip at garnertotalenergy.com>;
> Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>; Jim Gattiker
> <j.gattiker at googlemail.com>; maryl <maryl at cnsp.com>; Merle Lefkoff
> <merle at arspublica.org>; Michel Bloch <mbloch at mountvernon.fr>; nthompson
> Thompson <nthompson at clarku.edu>; Roger Critchlow <rec at elf.org>; Russ
> Abbott
> <russ.abbott at gmail.com>
> > Date: 11/5/2009 4:16:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Crutchfield 's "Is anything ever new?"
> >
> > Thus spake Owen Densmore circa 09-11-05 12:23 PM:
> > > 1 - The language used by Crutchfield is specific to his peers and
> > > domain.  Thus "closure" is a very important concept, but easily
> > > misunderstood by non-peer readers.  I tried to point most out ..
> > > including closure .. but there are so many as to make the task
> difficult.
> >
> > Yes, it's always seemed to me that Jim's a bit of a "job security" type
> > of guy.  Every one of our "science lunches" that he was at ended up
> > filled with hermeneutics and word redefinitions.  So, decoding his
> > writing is always a deep effort for me.  In the end, though, it's
> rewarding.
> >
> > > 2 - I actually held a brief "tutorial" on automata.  I printed out a 1
> > > page (2 sided) set of passages from Sipser's book on the three main
> > > types, and made the point that Languages are sets of Strings comprised
> > > of Symbols, and that each level of automata had an equivalence to a
> > > language.  I.e. Deterministic Finite Automata have an equivalence to
> > > Regular Expressions.  We even included the n-tuple definition, simply
> to
> > > show that the simple machines are easily formalized.  No homework was
> > > given!  :)
> >
> > Ugh!  I'm jealous of the community you guys live in.  To get a group of
> > people to sit around talking about automata is damned near impossible
> here.
> >
> > > I really hope we are not yet again creating silos.  I'm trying to get
> my
> > > head around the philosophic approach comfortable to non-technologists,
> > > and even like some of it.  But there does seem to be a gap hard to
> > > bridge when discussing things as formal as e-machines.
> >
> > Specialization is required.  It can't be avoided.  The trick is how
> > _snarky_ we are to each other when approached by a deme-hopper. ;-)
> > Even in scientific and technical papers, you can detect the snarky
> > people who actively obfuscate their meaning with fancy words, inside
> > jokes, and overly complicated concepts.  So, we'll always have this
> > balance between the necessary specialization and the 2 types of people,
> > those who think secrecy and hermeneutics are power and those who think
> > openness and bluntness are power.  (I'm in the latter category, fwiw.)
> >  An anti-philosophy bias is part of the requisite specialization.  But
> > it's possible that philosophers don't evenly distribute across the
> > secret-open spectrum, making the bias easer to adopt.
> >
> > > I'm getting a bad reputation as a "formalist" .. which I'm not, IMHO.
> > > Its just that I'd like to include it when appropriate.  Understanding
> > > Emergence is just such a place.
> >
> > I'm not so sure, actually.  I tend to think emergence is a fiction or,
> > at best, an illusion borne out of each person's self-centeredness.
> > Formalizing it just makes it seem real.... like setting a plate at the
> > dinner table for an imaginary friend. ;-)  But I'm willing to play along
> > anyway.  Worst case, I'm proven wrong and eat crow.  Best case, I learn
> > lots on the way.
> >
> > --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20091105/5667f291/attachment.html>