Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley
From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on emergence
Message-ID: <1990Oct7.012523.3828@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <62500@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 01:25:23 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <62500@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>Here are some thoughts on "emergence".  Nothing definitive, but an attempt
>to get at the psychological core (or cores) of the notion.  Thanks are due to
>others for providing a stimulating discussion.
>
[much stuff deleted...]

>(6) Emergence is the phenomenon wherein a system is designed according to
>certain principles, but interesting properties arise that are not included
>in the goals of the designer.
>

[a little more...]
>
>We can view evolution as teleological at the level of the gene -- as in
>Dawkins' theory, for instance.  Then the appearance of complex,
>interesting high-level properties such as intelligence is quite
>emergent.  We also can reconstrue evolution as teleological at the level
>of the organism (this is perhaps a more straightforward Darwinian view of
>things).  On this construal, the most salient adaptive phenomena like
>intelligence are no longer emergent, but the goal of the design process.

So far this is a laudible attempt at synthesis of the various contributions
but I'd like to insert a comment here.  I think the use of the term
"designer" is misleading.  While intelligence might not be considered
emergent at the "Darwinian" level synchronically, it must still be so
diachronically.  Unlike a 'designer', natural selection can only 
passively enforce changes and so must wait until the random process
of mutation gives it the proper opportunity.  Therefore, at the time
when a significant enough increase in intelligence occurs, it must
be emergent.  So intelligence should still be considered emergent in the
diachronic sense you mentioned earlier (and I cut out :).  The real
difference is that the perceiver of emergence and the "designer" need
not be the same, us the former, nature (in the past) the latter.  Perhaps
the defintion could be rewritten:

(6a) Emergence is the phenomenon wherein a system is designed according to
certain principles, but interesting properties arise that are not *inferable*
or directly implied in the goals of the designer.

I think this weakens the connection between 'designer' and "system" enough
to allow for passive manipulation and separation between 'designer' and
'perceiver' which I would like to see included.

[a bit more off here...]
>
>It's probably foolish to search for a definitive construal of "emergence":
>like most psychological concepts, it probably is best construed as a
>"family resemblance" -- each of the "definitions" outlined above might
>play some role.  Personally, I'm happiest with a combination of (5) and (6) --
>with (5) being the "core" variety of emergence, and (6) being a more general
>variety of which (5) is a special case.
>
>--
--
      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