Hi Mark, I think your description of emergentism is accurate. No problem there. But it's clear that your description is just that, a description of what happens, not how or why it happens. New levels are created for no reason at all. As you point out, the MOQ posits Quality, a "controlling force," as a reason for such changes. So I think to associate the term "emergence" as descriptive of the MOQ is misleading.
Not only that, "emergence" is sometimes associated with religion as the Wiki article says: "In religion, emergence grounds expressions of religious naturalism in which a sense of the sacred is perceived in the workings of entirely naturalistic processes by which more complex forms arise or evolve from simpler forms. Notable examples of a scientific understanding of emergent complexity that lead to a sense of the sacred include a 2006 essay titled 'The Sacred Emergence of Nature' by Ursula Goodenough and Terrence Deacon and a 2006 essay titled 'Beyond Reductionism: Reinventing the Sacred' by Stuart Kauffman." As Arlo, Marsha and others have exclaimed loudly and often, any association of religious belief with the MOQ would be blasphemy. So we ought to drop "emergence." The term "creation" has a similar problem since it is often associated with "creationism," a religious explanation of evolution. Even "evolution" itself has overtones of meaning inimical to the MOQ because of its close connection with Darwinism and SOM biological science. A more neutral term to use when talking about new level formation and other changes to greater complexity as explained by the MOQ would be the term, "produce" as in "Quality produces our reality." But maybe I'm being overly picky. Your observation about the MOQ being an explanation in hindsight and therefore of doubtful believability is legitimate if you feel predictability is essential to establish an valid explanation. Such is the view of science. But a theory that explains better than other theories about how and why past phenomena arise, especially one-time phenomena like the creation of life, seems to me to be worthwhile. At least I find theoretical explanations extremely interesting, even those proposed by science like "multiverses." Finally, the subjectivism of Quality is indeed a hurdle and not just semantically. It raises the whole question of Idealism, whether or not anything exists if there's no "subject" to know it. Personally I jump the hurdle by assuming a level above subjects and objects called "experience" which to my mind unites the two seemingly disparate entities. Further, I add "aesthetic" to "experience" to define it more accurately. In that way, Quality is accounted for. Anyway, thanks for a provocative post, Mark. If I've misinterpreted your views, please let me know. Regards, Platt On 17 Nov 2009 at 18:57, markhsmit wrote: > Hi Platt, > I haven't read the Wiki explanation. From the Stanford > Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I take that emergentism > (at least one school) purports that a new level is formed > that is more than the aggregate. That something new arrises > at that level. If we take the organic to the biological (human) > level, we can speculate that human consciousness is more > than just the aggregate of human cells. Each level has its form > of consciousness (if you will) which is somehow different. Thus > a new separate level arrises. The controlling force can be Quality, > but one cannot dismiss the nuts and bolts of level creation. > > I haven't got to the level of understanding yet where Quality > explains anything. It still appears to me to be explanation > in hindsight. The state of affairs of the universe is used > to deduce the presence of Quality. Also I still have difficulty > getting away from the subjectivism of Quality, but this may > just be a semantic barrier for me. > > Mark > > On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:52:13 AM, [email protected] wrote: > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] British Emergentism > Date: November 17, 2009 9:52:13 AM PST > To: [email protected] > Hi Steve. > > Right. But doesn't emergentism purport to be a scientific discipline? > >From Wikipedia: "In philosophy, systems theory and science, > emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a > multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the > theories of integrative levels and of complex systems." > > Sounds like good old SOM to me. So, I think to associate it with the > MOQ is misleading. And, as I pointed out before, unlike the MOQ it > doesn't explain anything. > > Best, > Platt > > > On 17 Nov 2009 at 10:40, Steven Peterson wrote: > > > Hi Platt, > > > > > > > Emergentism, whether British or Hungarian, suffers from a fatal flaw. It > > > is entirely bereft of scientific explanation because it fails to identify > > > deterministic causes or "mechanisms" for the phenomenon in question. > > > To say that this or that property "emerges" is to say nothing more than > > > from A comes B. It is a description, not an explanation. Or, if posited as > > > an explanation it amounts to "Oops." > > > > I agree that "emergence" does not explain evolution with mechanisms or > > deterministic causes, but neither does the MOQ. The idea of emergence > > is basically anti-reductionism. It says, stop insisting that a > > deterministic mechanism on a lower level must explain everything worth > > knowing on a higher level. It says advances in physics will never make > > biological science obsolete. The MOQ agrees. > > > > Best, > > Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
