Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley
From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: emergence
Message-ID: <1990Oct5.170535.15023@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <3531@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <JSP.90Oct3123040@milton.u.washington.edu> <1990Oct4.152527.28413@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1990Oct4.173933.7319@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 90 17:05:35 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <1990Oct4.173933.7319@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> r-reinke@uiuc.edu (Robert Reinke) writes:
>>In article <JSP.90Oct3123040@milton.u.washington.edu> jsp@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeff Prothero) writes:
>>>Perhaps the key characteristic of an 'emergent phenomenon' is that it
>>>has interesting characteristics which it possesses *independently* of
>>>the underlying (implementation) system? ...
>
>and cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) responds:
>>  I wish to differ with this, if only in a small detail.  A 'program'
>>is a conceptual entity only, what you are talking about here seems
>>to be a process.  The behaviour of the program+machine (process) will
>>differ quite a bit over various machines and possibly even on same
>>machine when run at different times...
>
>I have followed the discussion about emergent properties with interest, and
>I think things are getting off track.  Though we are naturally interested
>in emergent properties in computer programs/systems, I believe there
>is a definition of emergence that need not refer to computers per se, namely:
> 
>     An emergent property is a property of a system as a whole that is
>     not possessed by any of its components.
>

  Yes, I guess the discussion is wandering.  Your definition here is, I
believe open to alot of abuse, ie. trivial observations.  For instance,
the keys I am hitting to produce this wondrous followup are part of the
computer system as a whole (or just my terminal - whatever).  The fact
that the computer does not just behave like a big key, or switch etc...
is trivial, but then implies that its capability of adding and so forth
is emergent.  Of course we would want to exclude such "observations"
from consideration, so the idea of emergent should be strengthened so
that the property of a system as a whole is also not an *obvious* 
consequence of the properties of its components.

>An example of this (from an introductory Neurobiology course) is a system of 
>neurons in the crayfish (lobster? -- some crustacean in any case) which has 
>an output that is cyclic over time.  None of the neurons in the system have a
>cyclic output behavior independently, nor can the cyclicity be attributed to
>any individual relationships; only the system has a whole has cyclic behavior.
>
>Under this definition, "mind" or "intelligence" may be called an emergent 
>property of the brain, not becaused it has no relationship to the brain or 
>its components, but because it is a property of the brain (and body?) as a 
>whole.
>
Well, I can't speak for the crustaceans of the world, but I think 
"intelligence" would qualify as emergent - for now.

>I don't doubt that there are problems with this definition, but I can't think
>of any offhand.  Anyone?
>

Well... refinement perhaps? :>

--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Armor, n.  The kind of clothing worn by a man
cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu|  whose tailor is a blacksmith."
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |				Ambrose Bierce