Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) Subject: Re: emergence Message-ID: <1990Oct20.005519.16055@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes) Organization: University of Waterloo References: <3531@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct4.152527.28413@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1990Oct4.173933.7319@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1990Oct5.170535.15023@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 00:55:19 GMT Lines: 46 In article vinsci@soft.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes: >You wrote: >>> 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. > >Actually, the computer system is emergent, given it is powered on and >all parts working as they should. Remove one part and it is no longer >a working computer, ie. the emergence is gone. > A simpler example: For a fire to start (and continue) you need three >things: 1) material to burn 2) oxygen 3) heat. Combine them and fire >emerges. Remove any one and it ends. The fire is not a property of any >of the components. Ouch! Your observation is an example of the very thing I was trying to avoid! The properties of a computer system are (for the most part) a direct result of design, so that most of its properties are simple compositions of the properties of its parts, and thus uninteresting in a discussion of emergence. The fact that removing a part causes the system to cease functioning (in the case of most parts) addresses the redundancy of the design and/or its robustness - but these are also the results of design and not unforseeable features of the whole! Indeed, fire is not a property of anything since it is a physical entity. If combustion is an inevitable result of the right material, oxygen, and heat, and flames are an inevitable result of combustion, then there is nothing 'emergent' here to discuss... I think perhaps you are using the term "emergent" in a colloquial sense that isn't generally meant when the subject of philosophy comes up. -- 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