Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!se-sd!jim
From: jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: emergent properties
Message-ID: <4112@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 31 Oct 90 18:30:09 GMT
References: <1990Sep29.213139.2876@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct26.220658.11281@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3841@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct30.220248.20784@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Organization: NCR Corp., Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 22

In <1990Oct30.220248.20784@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary Fostel) writes:

>The trouble with this dismissal of the "emergence" of gravity is that 
>the dismissal is predicated upon a theory that has never been demonstrated.
>I thought we were discussing observed properties of systems.  Unless I am
>mistaken, there has never, ever, been a demonstration of the existence of
>a gravitational field due to a single particle.  Not only is this far beyond
>the sensitivity of current instrumentation, but in fact depending on the
>theory of gravitation you like, it might not be true anyway. 

True, but the point may have been that the physicist spoke of gravity
"emerging" from a complex system of particles (much as some cognitive
scientists claim "intelligence" emerges from a complex system of
neurons).  Minsky pointed out that this property exists for just two
particles.  The assuption is that two particles, like two neruons,
are not a complex enough system to provide "emergence" (just what is
complex enough is never addressed by the emergites).  Hence whatever
the property is, it's not emergent.

At least, that's how I read his argument as you posted it.

- Jim Ruehlin