Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley
From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: emergence
Message-ID: <1990Oct9.212700.9400@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <87759@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <271172B0.12370@orion.oac.uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 21:27:00 GMT
Lines: 38

In article <271172B0.12370@orion.oac.uci.edu> jhess@orion.oac.uci.edu (James Hess) writes:
>Help!  We now have at least three definitions of emergence running around, and 
>considerable verbiage generated by the confusion.
>
>1) My prefered definition:  Those properties which are not possessed by the 
>   components of a system but emerge as properties of the system as a whole.
>
>2) Those unanticipated or unpredictable properties which emerge only in the
>   system as a whole, which are not properties of its components or 
>   subsystems.
>
>   This is a special case of the definition above; the qualifiers speak to our
>   state of knowledge rather than some aspect of emergence or the system.
>
>3) Those functions which are not dependent on the implementation of the 
>   system (for computers, in a specific set of hardware or software).
>
   Quite!  I think they're all valid concepts.  1) and 3) are of practical
interest, while 2) is mostly of philosophical interest.  We might refer to
2) as "strong emergence" and 1) as "weak emergence" using the terms 'strong'
and 'weak' in their more formal senses.  Now we can divide into camps and
squabble over which is better! :>  

  I would say that three is a more general concept, since it really says
that a 'function' observed is a member of a set of 'functions' which are
too similar (for whatever purposes) to be profitably distinguished.  That
does not require that the 'function' be emergent in the senses of 1) or
2) however.  A better label for 3) might be "emic", as used in the 
formal sense of "phonemic", "tagmemic", etc.  Does anyone find validity
in these suggested terms?



--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Saw, n.  A trite popular saying, or proverb. 
cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu|  So called because it makes its way into a
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  wooden head."
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |				Ambrose Bierce