From: pacodegallo@attbi.com
Date: Sun Oct 27 2002 - 15:04:57 GMT
TO: Platt and also Glenn, Patrick, Scott and anyone
else ever involved in this old thread
FROM: Paco
Sorry this response took two months, but I couldn't
continue it without the archives. I have tried to
recreate the conversation, but in doing so, I cut out
dead ends in the conversation. If I cut out anything
material, please correct me as needed. It basically
started off with this commentary I wrote in suggesting
that evolution does NOT tend toward complexity, but it
has been known to find it just the same.
PACOs INITIAL POINTS:
1) Complexity relates to the variety of functions,
responses, behaviors and
thus experiences that an organism can, well....
experience. In a metaphysics
with no firm distinctions between value and experience,
greater range of
experience is almost synonymous with increased quality.
It is also strongly
related to increased knowledge.
2) Enhanced adaptability and responsiveness leads to
enhanced sustainability
(or at least to relatively consistent sustainability in
an increasingly
complex world). Again, if experience is value, then
life is better than
death.
3) Finally, one key complex experience or adaptation is
that of establishing
goals and purposes. Complex animals have developed this
quality. Purpose is
therefore not the cause of evolution, it is an emergent
complex quality
arising out of evolution.
Nature does seem to have the capacity to increase in
complexity and to
progress toward new qualities. Evolution may not tend
to lead to complexity
or progress, but it certainly has found them just the
same.
PATRICK THEN COUNTERED:
Hm... this is a very "scientific correct" answer. The
crucial, debatable
word on which this argument relies on, however,
is "emergent", to me
synonymous with the phrase "and then a miracle
occurs..."
PACO RESPONDED:
Emergence is in no way synonymous with "and then a
miracle occurs."
Emergence can actually be a simple concept. For
example, PRESSURE is an
emergent property of containing multiple entities in a
given area. ANT
COLONES exhibit emergent behavior out of large numbers
of simple responses
to stimuli at the individual ant level. Taffic jam
patterns are emergent
properties when there are too many cars on the road at
one time. I would be
glad to fill in the blanks on evolution to share
current ideas on how
purpose could have emerged.
PLATT THEN JUMPED IN WITH:
I have to go with Patrick on this one. "Emergent" as
you use it [Paco]
sounds suspiciously like rationalization. For example
(borrowing from
your examples):
WEIGHT is an emergent property of an accumulation of
multiple entities
in a given area. CONGRESS exhibits emergent behavior
out of a large
number of simple responses at the individual level.
FLOCK patterns are
emergent properties when there are many birds in one
space at one
time.
Which shows how it's easy to use higher verbal
abstractions to describe
what parts sometimes collectively do, then call that
abstraction an
"emergent," explaining nothing. (Same goes "self-
organizing," the all
purpose cop out phrase one often sees in science
literature.)
Sometimes scientific explanations remind me of how 5th
graders write
stories, like: "Suddenly, a ghost appeared on the
stairs." And that's just
for macro events, like evolution.
PACO NOW ADDS:
I don't see the spirits here. Do you disagree with the
explanations of science of such terms as pressure or
flocks? Do you disagree that individual votes and
procedures and rules and party affiliations can lead to
such complex emergent behavior as bills, majorities,
party characteristics, etc? Do you disagree with
economists that individual decisions of producers,
sellers, buyers and consumers along with regulatory and
legal frameworks leads to the complex economic trends?
I can gladly walk you through (at least a laymans
version) of each of these.
PACO PREVIOUSLY REPLIED TO THE ABOVE WITH:
> 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?
PLATT:
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.
PACO NOW ADDS:
This is the point of the initial topic... the emergence
of complex behavior (such as goal-oriented behavior) in
life. Here YOU even supply the mechanism. The
emergence of complex functions in life can be explained
via natural selection. Evolution IS an emergent
pattern that arises out of replicating organisms that
have heredity with variation in a world of limited
resources. The complexities, varieties (and
simplicities) of life are emergent characteristics of
these well documented simple interactions and
constraints.
PLATT:
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.
PACO NOW ADDS:
I cannot explain wetness or consciousness, and such
will not argue either. I can present arguments for the
emergence of everything that I gave "emergent"
explanations for. YOU provide the
cause/material/measurable/mechanism of the initial
point which you disagree with me on though... natural
selection.
PAT ALSO REPLIED:
A different reply now: If I stick with my 'form'-
argument, I think
purpose doesn't exist in the theory of evolution as
such.
PACO RESPONDED:
TEETH and WINGS aren't explicit in the theory of
evolution either. Their
development and emergence are explained by it though. I
could give a recap if
necessary. BTW, your argument seems to be that
complexity doesn't always lead
to goal-oriented behavior or something. I would
strongly agree, but this
point of course doesn't even begin to address the
explanation that complex
lower level interactions shaped by evolution CAN lead
to goals and purposes.
PLATT ANSWERED THAT HE DID NOT:
...detect anything in your response
that shows material and measurable causes for any so-
called emergent
or self-organizing properties including and most
especially goal directed
behavior in organisms.
PACO:
Actually we both gave the answer. Natural selection.
I can also show (fairly simple) material and measurable
causes of such self organizing and/or emergent
properties as:
Ant colonies
Flocks
Congress
Economics
Pressure
Society
Atomic and molecular structure
In all cases, I will use well established scientific
explanations that are totally compatable with the MOQ.
But I could very well be wrong,
Paco
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:05 GMT