A

m

u

s

t

w

a

t

c

h

c

o

u

r

s

e

f

o

r

a

n

y

o

n

e

i

n

t

e

r

e

s

t

e

d

i

n

p

h

i

l

o

s

p

h

y

o

f sciences.

I'm currently on the second module.

The first module, taught by Michael Dennin was great and got me really excited about this course.

The second module, taught by Donald Saari, is really bad. He takes a subject I find very interesting (Chaos), and makes it boring, prattling on in a very disorganized manner while mostly staring at his toes.

I hoping that subsequent modules are more like Michael Dennin's, which was very well done.

This course could have delved in more depth in the respective subject. What was presented was good but I felt that more could have been presented.

nice course

The course itself is a good, 'popular science' introduction to a number of emergent phenomena, if that is what you are looking for. The different modules are covered by different professors, who do not seem to have agreed in advanced on the level and goals of the course. Hence, some modules are extremely well done (notably the one on foams), others are almost off-topic (consciousness, with little to do with explaining emergence in that context). The one on chaos one requires some mathematical knowledge which is little more than high-school level, yet it's at odds with the overall non-technical approach of most of the rest. The biological pattern one is even split between two professors, each one offering but a quick intro to interesting subjects. The physics one tries to convene the notion of effective degrees of freedom, quasi-particles, etc. but the example chosen (fractional charges in condensed matter physics) requires so much abstraction that it only speaks to those who already know what the professor is talking about. The interviews and some links to extra material are perhaps the best part of the course. Worst of all, however: There is no forum and thus no way to interact with mentors, professors or other learners (the few that are around!), despite the fact that most assignments are peer-graded, which makes getting the certificate almost impossible. I do not think this is up to the standards of Coursera. Unless this big problem is fixed, I suggest you to go for an audit option, but not to pay to enroll. To the UCI team: Please do not let such a great opportunity to introduce fascinating phenomena to a large audience die! I strongly encourage you to follow up with your promise (in the videos) to propose more elaborate modules. Actually, each of the topics introduced would make a great course, especially for an audience which is not afraid of some calculus, basic physics, and biology.

Unsatisfying hodgepodge of examples without any formalism of a very exciting modern subject. Often too superficial and short (3h over 6 week?) for university level. Many lecturer's interview betray their misunderstanding of the course's intended central themes. The student is left wondering in each module what really makes these phenomena emergent beyond being macroscopic properties of complex systems of many agents. The module on consciousness barely attempts a satisfying definition, rather listing a bunch of functions associated with consciousness, and ends frustratingly with a perfect case study without exploring so many of the relevant questions. I'll expand a bit more on that last point: the lecturer says a person with separated brain hemispheres may have two answers to a question: "the left brain thinks yes, the right brain thinks no", and ends there. But what does the person actually think? Do they have 2 personalities, 2 consciousnesses? Or do they maintain a single consciousness, a single awareness? So many questions are raised, but again, the actual interesting topic of what consciousness is and how it may emerge from the brain is not really addressed.

In conclusion, this course gives the impression that emergence is just a vague idea that applies to many domains, but has not really been developed or researched yet. Disappointing.

I was disappointed with this course. It was unclear to whom it was intended because in parts it assumed a very limited knowledge of science yet quite a detailed understanding of mathematics, including Newton's method for finding roots, and Fourier series. In most of the sections I was left wanting to learn more. For example, in the module on consciousness, the key issue of how consciousness emerges from the coordinated activity of neurons wasn't touched on, yet there are several theories on how this might come about - I would have loved to have heard about these theories. Overall, I felt each of the modules was too short and too shallow. Perhaps if they were doubled in length then this might address the shortcomings that I experienced.

I also wasn't enamoured with the idea of peer-graded assignments, so I didn't attempt those. But what would have been useful would have been a discussion forum which is a feature of most Coursera courses.

The course is too basic and does not provide much insights. It is also a pity that there is not a forum to discuss with the other students. Overall the course seems managed in a very lazy manner as compared to other coursera courses.

It is a basic course, I was expecting to be more immersed in the mathematical details. There are a few recommendations, however, it was not what I was looking for.

Reductionism versus emergence: merely a short-sighted and fashionable point of view. Nothing to learn here and no way to check that you learned anything.

too simple