82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Joe Norman has a great example of emergence and [[reductionism|irreducibility]] at [https://open.spotify.com/episode/4iX7DPthz47YdkPB7MWHJG? Risky Conversations]: If you try to break a [[Möbius loop]] into smaller parts, you lose its one-sidedness. Each of its segments has ''two'' sides. You can join any of its segments together, and they still have two sides. It is only when you twist the emerging structure and join it back on itself that the second side vanishes. | Joe Norman has a great example of emergence and [[reductionism|irreducibility]] at [https://open.spotify.com/episode/4iX7DPthz47YdkPB7MWHJG? Risky Conversations]: If you try to break a [[Möbius loop]] into smaller parts, you lose its one-sidedness. Each of its segments has ''two'' sides. You can join any of its segments together, and they still have two sides. It is only when you twist the emerging structure and join it back on itself that the second side vanishes. | ||
So, “wetness” is a property of water, but not of a molecule of H<sub>2</sub>0. “Consciousness” is a property of a brain, but not of the neural activity that ''comprises'' it.<ref>This [[paradox]] has derailed the philosophy of mind for hundred of years.</ref> “[[Bureaucracy]]” is an emergent property of a [[financial services]] organisation, not the individual communications within that organisation that make up the organisation. Well, not many of them, anyway. | So, “wetness” is a property of water, but not of a molecule of H<sub>2</sub>0. “Consciousness” is a property of a brain, but not of the neural activity that ''comprises'' it.<ref>This [[paradox]] has derailed the philosophy of mind for hundred of years.</ref> “Culture” is an emergent property, too: generated by, but not subsisting in, the behaviour of individuals interacting together within the organisation. | ||
“[[Bureaucracy]]” is an emergent property of a [[financial services]] organisation, not the individual communications within that organisation that make up the organisation. Well, not many of them, anyway. | |||
===Emergence of a property of components=== | ===Emergence of a property of components=== | ||
Nonetheless in each case emergence is a property of the whole system, but the '' | Nonetheless in each case emergence is a property of the whole system, but the what ''creates'' the emergence is not holistic system where it presents, but its individual components, ''where it does not''. | ||
So, ''changing ''an emergent property is tricky. It is a classic systems problem. | |||
Understanding emergence is a clue to why cultural change in an organisation is so hard, and why top-down attempts to change culture so frequently fail. | |||
You cannot ''command'' [[cnut|a tide to retreat]],<ref>Only a Cnut would do that.</ref> nor water not to be wet. | |||
Yet we all know of institutions who, with optimistic spirit, have instituted “bureaucracy hotlines” where staff could, in essence, denounce bureaucracy whenever they encounter it: “see it, say it, sort it”. We know in our bones these are doomed to fail. Oh, you can ''see'' it, sure. Everyone can ''see'' it. ''Saying'' it takes a bit more spleen, or disregard for one’s onward trajectory; ''sorting'' it falls foul of the [[pragmatist’s prayer]]. | |||
For every ''particular'' there is ''always'' some kind of [[special pleading]] that some other [[stakeholder]] can wheel out to justify the status quo, usually by reference to someone or something elsewhere in the hierarchy, or some hypothetical risk, [[precedent]] or [[policy|scar tissue]] sedimented so deeply into the fossil record of the organisation that excavation is impossible. In any case, these things are beyond any individual’s ability to fix, or even ''influence''. All the levers they can control recommend the same course: ''do what we have always done''. | |||
However tempting it may seem to an administrator, you cannot change the wider system, except by changing each of the individual interactions from which the property emerges. ''You can’t tell a cup of water to stop being wet''. You must change the conditions in which water molecules interact and which makes them combine to create wetness: make it colder, or hotter, or mix other molecules with H<sub>2</sub>0. | However tempting it may seem to an administrator, you cannot change the wider system, except by changing each of the individual interactions from which the property emerges. ''You can’t tell a cup of water to stop being wet''. You must change the conditions in which water molecules interact and which makes them combine to create wetness: make it colder, or hotter, or mix other molecules with H<sub>2</sub>0. | ||
Line 31: | Line 38: | ||
Likewise, a [[Reductionism|reducible]] phenomenon can be atomised into its fundamental components with no loss of essential qualities or properties; an ''irreducible'' one cannot — some of those properties emerge at a level of abstraction higher than the smallest components. | Likewise, a [[Reductionism|reducible]] phenomenon can be atomised into its fundamental components with no loss of essential qualities or properties; an ''irreducible'' one cannot — some of those properties emerge at a level of abstraction higher than the smallest components. | ||
===On John Connor and big data=== | ===On John Connor and big data=== | ||
Hence the irony in | Hence the irony in — paradox? — about the rapacious tech companies and their are use of your data. Go ahead; knock yourself out: ''use'' DuckDuckGo. ''Google won’t care''. It cares not about you and your data consumption, but the the pattern that emerges from the aggregate of billions of people's data consumption. ''No one cares about you''. Your habits are probably perfectly reflected in the corpus, with or without you.{{Sa}} | ||
{{Sa}} | |||
*[[Reductionism]] | *[[Reductionism]] | ||
*[[Möbius loop]] — one of the [[JC]]’s [[hermeneutics|hermeneutic]]ally sealed private jokes for one. Oh! There’s another one! | *[[Möbius loop]] — one of the [[JC]]’s [[hermeneutics|hermeneutic]]ally sealed private jokes for one. Oh! There’s another one! | ||
{{newsletter|12/2/2021}} | {{newsletter|12/2/2021}} | ||
{{Ref}} | {{Ref}} |