From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 23:53:00 GMT
> Hi Jonathan:
>
> Great to hear from you and know you survive in a very dangerous
> environment that I'm afraid the U.S. is about to experience as a result of
> our shared commitment to the value of liberty. In the MOQ, freedom is
> the mother of all values, worth all risks to preserve. But I digress.
>
> You wrote:
>
>> Thanks for reviving an important topic. I think Patrick and Platt
>> understand "emergent property" in a very non-scientific way, which
>> rather kills the discussion.
>>
>> Let me try and explain it to them with the following dice throwing
>> exercise:
>>
>> 1. Take a single die, throw it several dozen times and record the result
>> each time. 2. Make a histogram of how many times each number came up.
>>
>> The histogram should be roughly flat (all columns about the same
>> height), because the dice throw is "random".
>>
>> 3. Now repeat the exercise with two dice, on each throw recording only the
>> total. 4. Make the histogram for all possible scores (2 to 12).
>>
>> If you did enough throws, you will see that the histogram has a very
>> definite shape to it. You should find that 7 comes up the most, and 2 or 12
>> the least. There is a very definite pattern that looks NON-random. (BTW, I
>> saw this exercise done very nicely by a third grader as a science project).
>
>> I would call the pattern that emerged in this example an EMERGENT
>> pattern.
>> What is interesting is that this is very mechanistic - it is easy to
>> understand WHY the pattern emerges, yet each die behaves in a "random",
>> "purposeless" way.
>
> If I presented your little experiment to third graders I would ask, "Now
> what's the difference between the histogram and a recipe your mother
> follows when making a birthday cake?" I would point out that the way to
> make a cake first "emerged" after a series of trials and errors over time
> until a successful "pattern" appeared. Afterwards, even though the
> ingredients of the cake behave in a random, purposeless way, not
> knowing why they are being mixed together, and even though the
> process is very mechanistic, the cake that "emerges" tastes wonderful.
>
> But seriously, I don't see how your example explains the "emergence"
> of goal-directed (purposeful) behavior in organisms, which was the
> original challenge. Throwing dice is one thing. Figuring out why inert
> material rose up and began to replicate is quite another.
>
> And speaking of challenges, as a biologist have you an answer to the
> following observation by Pirsig?
>
> "So today we have as a result a theory of evolution in which "man" is
> ruthlessly controlled by the cause-and-effect laws of the universe while
> the particles of his body are not. The absurdity of this seems to be
> neglected." (11)
>
> Seems to me he has a point there.
>
> Platt
Platt,
The cake making example is different because the cake is the intended
outcome while the pattern of the histogram emerges without intent. (I
couldn't tell if you thought there was an important difference or not.)
Is your position that there is a purpose to evolution? If so what is it?
To me, the mother of all morals is a possibility. I think I was sort of
arguing this when I tried to nail down an understanding of freedom beyond a
mere idea of unrestricted action. In fact one way I thought of defining
freedom is as the purpose of evolution.
Steve
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 - 10:38:06 GMT