From approximately the first half of Johnson’s Emergence, the subject matter in intellectually quite sitmulating . The begining of the book gives the reader an introduction into the idea of what emergence is. Which I found particularly interesting because in class the idea of emergence seemed vauge to me. Johnson’s discussion on how differenct fields were connected to emergence and the discussion from class allows me to contemplate whether all of life can be governed by the principles of emergence. This idea seems to reveribrate with the existence of a grand unification theory in physics. The idea that the complexity of life could be governed by a set simple rules that can create intelligence, forces me to contemplate how the laws of string theory could be rippling through my brain like the squares in Conway’s game of life do. Furthermore, I seem to find more and more examples of emergent behavior in life.
Johnson’s discussion of recognition also intrigued me because i came to comtemplate if recognition was different, comprable, or incomprable from species to species and inanitimate objects to antimate objects. The ants that Deborah Gordon study sense a change and then react similarly to the immune system within the human body. Furthermore, the way humans react to external stimuli can mimick ants and the immune system. This idea brings about the Johnson’s discussion of what conciousness really is. Despite, johson’s discussion on conciousness i am still left with a vauge idea about if an object has or can posess conciousness.
I wonder if conciousness can emerge from simple rules can iniantimate object gain conciousness through a small change in set up like DNA?
Your discussion of consciousness reminds me a bit about our discussion of what learning is, and whether it is conscious or not. It makes one think, are the ants making decisions, or are they learning? For example, Dr Gordon found that older ant colonies tended to react to changes the same way, whereas younger colonies reacted differently each time. It seems the older colonies have learned which reaction is best for them, and act on that experience rather than just reacting.
I wonder, what makes an inanimate object different from beings that seem to exhibit some sort of rudimentary consciousness? I think there must be some state of being where there is something dynamic, something moving, going on. Without that, this object will always and forever be the same. One moving, changing, property can change everything.