Emergence

I only have one quibble with your post.

quote:

---

The only thing I would add is that it's not only the interactions of the components of the particular system internally, but also the interactions of the system as a whole with other systems - "up", "down" and "laterally" that create the conditions we term emergent behavior or emergence.

---

Ok, if by "up," "down," and "laterally" you are referring to a hierarchy, then you seem to have the view which Hofstadter was espousing.But, if the hierarchy is just a "term of convenience" then how can it be used as an explanation for emergent behavior? Unless "emergence" is also just a term of convenience?I think one of my main problems with authors who speak of emergence is that they seem to think that just because the properties of the system cannot be predicted from the components means that the system has a seperate reality from the components.

Hi Justin. As to your first point here, simply because something can be characterized as a "term of convenience" doesn't mean it isn't incredibly useful. Often terms (or analogies) such as "code" for DNA or "hierarchy" for the properties/components of systems allow us to perform very useful manipulations and create descriptions that would otherwise be impossible. We can use these concepts to isolate elements of a system, for example, in order to perform calculations or design experiments or play with variables even though the divisions may be somewhat arbitrary. To refer you back to my weak water analogy - although we can set realistic bounds (the point where the water turns from solid to liquid and from liquid to gas at a specific atmospheric pressure, for instance), the other "internal" divisions between these bounds are essentially arbitrary. Nonetheless, they may be useful for some cases (depends on what we're trying to do). This isn't just semantics - it's the heart of the reductio approach to science.As for the term "emergent", I'm honestly not sure where this falls. Is it a description of an actual property? Or is it merely a "term of convenience" that we use simply because we have been unable to accurately determine all of the factors invovled in producing the phenomena we call emergent. In other words, is it conceivable that if we had a completely accurate description of the initial state, and a completely accurate description of all the factors and variables that impinge on the system (including all of the external and internal factors), could the phenomena we call emergent actually be deterministic, and hence predictable? I shy away from pronouncing on this because I have a sneaking suspicion that it would require mathematics, which for a lowly field ecologist is a frightening thing to contemplate . I agree. As I said, I'm not convinced that if we could have perfect knowledge of a system and all its components we wouldn't find that the "emergent properties" of the system wouldn't be predictable.

Carter, in a book written for Darwin's centential in 1959,
A Hundred Years of Evolution
speaks against creationism but does so by differentiating French and what Ican only say is "British" biology. This text is a good example of "pre-emergence" style biology via evolution.This "internationalization" of the "history" of biology was argued at the expense of "equilibrium"(not creation vs evolution) but is really cognized later by Gould, for sure, as a difference of national style with respect to concepts (such as Formalism and Functionalism) rather than disrespect for Creationism.Since the 70s there has become a general argumentation that NON-equilibrium and non-linearity reigns.In this "context" the notion of "emergence" emerged as organicist biologists (hence either Darwinian individualists or to be hierarchicalists) needed some term and and strigently defendable philosophical backup for "traits" that can not be "reduced" ,no matter the taxonomy, to physics and chemistry.To me there is a huge realm of biology that can be done, but is not, wholly in terms of linear restraints on the functions involved. The move towards emergence is done from a defensive position rather than an offensive one. There is no question even to me as a reader of Carter before the ideas of emergence took on extensive dispersal that one should DEFEND evolutionary theory against those 'against' "the evidence" as presented then in 1959 at Carter's declination (which is really only the difference of physiological vs. taxonomic biology then and now) and that it is simple to "invoke" emergence as a defense but I think that these defensive "players", who are the ones that understand how important the organism OR higher levles are to biological praxis should have developed purely MORE workable theories through linearity(this would have resulted in a better position aka creation biology)They did not.They appear to have taken the expediant way out, instead. Now, if one is committed to MULTIPLE LEVLES beyond the organism (as for instance Wright was) then the use of emergence does provide a conceptual place that is needed in such a hierarchy(although I think Wright did not use the concept. I am not 100% on THAT, however. Quetzal has mentioned that to him "this" multiple level observationally is fuzzy. Wright spoke of "blurring" (in this third volume on population genetics) when the equilibrium place is passed intellectually or academically. I would not disagree with that statment in general. I think the boundaries are a little clearer than Al Goreish, but again, that is only "my view" and not the science talking.Emergence is not simply a term of convience if one insists that "organization" trumps "composition." Darwinian individuality however(as an organization) needs (for logical purposes alike to Carter and Gould) to be convincing rather than simply pursuasive and this since Carter (it) has not achieved (the jury is still out on Gould it seems to me) in public even though most or many biologists in private feel that way, that it has so achieved achiements enough.There is an issue of mendelization that is elided by moving to a non-equilibrium position before all linearization is exhausted that it seems to me is cause of the fusion an mergence such that many top notch biologists are or were unwilling to make offensive. To me this is, thus is wrong. They have a double remove which accomplishes the goal of popularization nonetheless.

Goulduses the term "emergence" other times in his book cited below but just to make things as clear as the single word “emergence” is, I do not feel that Gould has the proper set of concepts to co-opt the word as used by Lamarck (below),

quote:

---

The rapid motion of fluids will etch canals between delicate tissues. Soon their flow will begin to vary, leading to the emergence of distinct organs(italics added)

---

assuming this word is the proper translation from “the French.”I suspect that Gould intends the term to become part of the parcel of hierarchicalization he seems to think that he can argue beyond Darwin’s failure in going via a single”” level against the two level causes of Lamarck. Gould also feels that Lamarckism will remain as my Grandfather and his teachers taught it (antiquated and not relevant to anything but the HISTORY of BIOLOGY), but on this think Gould is mistaken.I do not think I, personally, can present my position in a clearer manner however at the present time that finds EVCers less enamoured with hierarchicalization itself than I am.

quote:

---

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by SJ GOULD p 181

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : wrong shift key