Hi Rog, Scott:
ROG:
> 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?
> 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.
I find "emergence" and "self-organization" entirely bereft of scientific
explanation because both concepts fail to identify deterministic causes
or "mechanisms" for the phenomena in question. Darwinian theory, for
example, is accepted because "natural selection" can be show to be a
mechanism (cause) for changes in organisms. But, no such mechanism
has been found to explain why a certain combination of hydrogen and
oxygen produces wetness. So, wetness just "emerges." Duh. Or to look
at it another way. Would you accept as an explanation of crop circles
that they are emergent properties of the aggregate behavior of certain
wheat plants? No? Well, like Scott, I don't accept that consciousness is
"just a complex result arising from non-conscious interactions." Nor do I
accept a host of other phenomena attributed by science to non-causal
emergence, self-organization, or chance. If your going to call your
explanation "scientific," you should, as the judicial system demands,
"show cause," and be sure to base it on something "natural," meaning
material and measurable.
As I've said many times, don't get me wrong. I love science. I wouldn't
be here without science. But philosophically and metaphysically, there
are holes in the scientific worldview large enough to drive a truck through
which I'll be glad to elaborate if anyone cares.
Finally, the only contradiction of emergence and self-organization with
the MOQ is that those concepts as used by science omit a cause while
the MOQ provides one. A good reason for science to take a hard look at
the MOQ I'd say. (-:
Platt
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 - 16:06:23 BST