Gunther very wisely wrote: I used to throw around the word "emergence" around until I noticed that I used it there where I did not understand what was really going on, like in: "consciousness? - simple - an emergent process" Since then I have stopped using the word - it is, in fact, vacuous to call something emergent - whereas ie. nonlinear has definite meaning. The problem is that emergence seems to be the opposite of a mechanistic or an algorithmic process; or an analytical one. So it becomes a stop-gap concept for all processes which elude our common problem solution techniques.
Nick Replies: I don't think the problem is with STOP GAP concepts. They have great importance in science. The problem is with confusing what they are. Whatever "emergence" is, it certainly isn't "the cause of emergence." So we have TWO problems here: the first is a descriptive problem -- what is it that puzzles us? and the explanatory problem, "how does that puzzling thing or event come about?" There is a LONG history of confusing these two functions of words in the history of science. Think of the word "adaptation" which is variously defined as the property of organisms that sets them apart from rocks AND the selection process that explains that property, leaving us with the odd belief that adaptation(D) (whatever that is) is caused by adaptation (E), whatever THAT is? Now one solution to the problem would be to strictly separate the two questions: Identify some phenomena that we all agree are emergent, and THEN try to discover the dynamics underlying them. One might come up with Emergent (D) = a sudden transformation in the properties of an aggregate such that the parts act to maintain the identity of the whole and Emergence (E) =non-linearity in the dynamics amongst the parts. I don't claim the problem would be solved, but at least when would know when we were getting somewhere, no? But what IF we discovered, as an empirical matter, that we could not find 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 we could inquire what exactly is that state of human understanding with respect to phenomena that leads people to attribute emergence. At that point, "emergence" becomes a behavioral state in human observers whose properties can still be examined materialistically, if we cared to. Gotta stop now. I have to go dandle. Nick ============================================================ 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
