Hi Platt:
I am having trouble understanding what is controversial in (what is to me)
such a straight-forward concept. For a definition of emergence, let me quote
from Steve Grand's exceptional book CREATION:
Emergence is "when a relatively complex result arises out of simple
interactions between members of a population."
A classic example of emergence is in the ant colony example that I gave above
(though traffic patterns and your example of flock behavior are also commonly
used). In studying ants, they find that the critters follow very simple
patterns of behavior based upon their immediate environment and odors.
However, when you aggregate the net effects of thousands of simple ants
acting in simple ways, you get much more complex colony behavior in terms of
scouting, food gathering and storage, defense, waste removal and even
formation of ant graveyards. To say that such examples "explain nothing"
doesn't make any sense to me. It certainly explains how ant colonies operate
as well as how such simple minded entities can create much more complex and
purposive colonies (at least when combined with evolutionary pressure).
I have no idea why you disparage such models and why you compare them to
sudden appearances of ghosts. What am I missing?
Rog
PS -- I find "self-organizing" to be a great concept too, though. I believe
that it helps to explain the formation of atoms, molecules, cells, complex
creatures, colonies, societies and science. And again, it does it with no
sudden appearances of mystical events.
PPS -- I also find absolutely no contradiction between either of these
concepts and the MOQ. In fact, I think they both enrich it.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST