Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!tamuts!n025fc
From: n025fc@tamuts.tamu.edu (Kevin Weller)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Emergent properties (was: What AI is exactly)
Summary: not quite
Message-ID: <8746@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 3 Oct 90 05:20:24 GMT
References: <3918@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <8581@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1990Oct1.002909.21899@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: usenet@helios.TAMU.EDU
Organization: Texas A&M University
Lines: 51

In article <1990Oct1.002909.21899@eng.umd.edu> smeagol@eng.umd.edu (Kenneth A. Hennacy) writes:
>In article <8581@helios.TAMU.EDU> n025fc@tamuts.tamu.edu (Kevin Weller) writes:
>The human brain could be likened to the book, 
>i.e. it is nothing more than a collection of such 
>and such.  To say that its the most complex system means 
>something only when there is something that attaches a
>meaning to it. Just the same as the book, it doesn't have
>any meaning or complexity to it until one associates a 
>meaning or complexity with it. 
>
>So, we are the measure of our own complexity, i.e. some
>other creature may not attach any significance at all to
>what we do, "think", etc.  This creature does not have to
>be a rabbit, it could be one that attaches complexity to
>things which we have yet to be aware of, or appreciate.  
>
>So, is it us or our society that creates this complexity?  I
>mean, I could scribble a whole bunch of stuff like 
>
>#$^%@$*!@#$()@#%(&#$^T@#($#()##@$!@#$(!#!@#
>
>which to me, could mean alot, but to you means nothing,        
>therefore, it would be devoid of complexity.
>
>Ken Hennacy

I don't quite agree with your definition of complexity.

Firstly, different levels of complexity are relative to EACH OTHER.
If something (brain, language, whatever) lacks enough components
("bits" in computer terminology) to represent much information
relative to a predetermined "standard" (decided on relative to the
question asked), then it is simply not complex enough to hold the
information we are looking for in it.  On the other hand, complex
objects have the potential to represent many different messages in
many different contexts depending on who is "reading" them.
Complexity is independent of whatever it may represent.  If a
relatively simple object "represents" too much for itself, then the
excess information must be contained within the perceiver's more
complex "brain."  In other words, you can't randomly "attach" greater
complexity to objects relative to other objects.

Secondly, you are confusing complexity with specific organization,
both of which should be present in some degree for a given level of
intelligence.  Of course, our scales need not be absolute to be
useful.

I have modified my original definition of emergence somewhat.  See my
response to Jonathan Buss for a better discussion of that.

-- Kev