Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) Subject: Re: emergence Message-ID: <1990Oct21.035747.23756@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: Sun, 21 Oct 90 03:57:47 GMT Lines: 96 In article vinsci@soft.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes: >In-Reply-To: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca's message of 20 Oct 90 00:55:19 GMT > [much deleted] >I think the problem here is the usage of "designed". We design a >computer to behave predictably, it is at all times a predictable >system given that we know besides the internal states also what >external signals are fed to it. We call a computer that doesn't work >according to its specifications broken, it doesn't obey the design >anymore. > A broken computer has of course not changed the rules for how the >computer is to work (its "design"), but is a result of some external >force or a part that goes bad because of purely physical reasons. No >matter what, the computer system can't change its design nor the rules >that it must follow. "It" has to live with the logic design we give >it. > > In the same way the above fire can't change its design, ie. no >matter what, it must start burning given the three components are >present. We could view this as a consequnce of the design of natural >laws. And as above for the computer, the fire nor we can't (presently, >at least) change the laws of nature. "It" has to burn by following the >laws of nature. > > If consciousness now is an emergent property of the brain (or some >other physical entity), must it not obey the same laws of nature? I would like to point out that this is a tautology, you are asking me if I doubt that physical entities obey physical laws. The use of the term "emergent" is superfluous since you are refering to any property of anything. On the whole, this appears to be a non-question! >This >of course, is the divider of dualism and materialism. If we somehow >concludes that the answer is "no" then we use "emergent" to describe >something we do not understand, we make it a synonym to either >"magical" or "unknown pysics". This effectively makes the phrase >meaningless even if it turns out to be "unknown physics": we can not >understand what we do not know. You are using a rhetorical device as opposed to arguement to establish a point (don't debaters call it a "planted axiom"?). "Of course"? "Somehow"? If I disagree, am I just being stupid? The term emergent does not attempt to contradict physical laws (not in the way I'm applying it, I hope) but point out where human perception and human world models do not connect. This only produces a contradiction if you take the dualist position and assume that such things as physical laws have an existance outside of any observer - which I think is debatable at best. Then, if I insisted on emergence in the presence of a perfect knowledge of those immutable laws, I would indeed be talking about magic. Is your knowledge of the universe perfect? Is anyone's ever likely to be? Sorry for the heavy-handedness of my remarks, but I really think the tenor of this thread has concentrated on looking at emergence as an effect of our perspective and state of knowledge and not with reference to some ideal Weltanschauung. Is it your contention that if a certain body of knowledge cannot be relegated to physics, that we cannot claim to "understand" it? I have a model of language syntax which only refers to 'trees' for explanation: does that mean I understand nothing of syntax? > I think that the same argument would hold for emergent properties of >complex systems. Some thinkers might want to differ between >"emergence" in simple systems that we understand well and "emergence" >in complex systems that we understand only vaguely, if at all. I don't >think this can be done without giving the same word different >meanings, and if we do so, we loose our grip on possible connections >between the two meanings. Please refrain from setting up anonymous groups of "thinkers" as the fall guys. It only leads to the vagueness of communication which you deplore. To address your point, for better or worse the same word will often be used to refer to divergent concepts, and this certainly can clutter thinking. What difference of meanings are you implying? > > So are the natural laws designed? I do not think it matters what the >answer is (and maybe there is no answer), we can't change them and it >seems hard to disregard them. I hold that I'm conscious in either >case, just as the fire will start in either case. (This is not to ask >for flames, I hope ;-). The juxtaposition of fire and consciousness is very poetic, but I still maintain that your premise is out of synch with what this thread has by and large addressed so far. How would the 'design' of natural laws affect the idea of emergence? If you wish to say that the proposition of a relative emergence is not tenable, just say so and support your statement with some arguement, not appeals to oratorical devices or states of knowledge that don't exist. -- 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