Emergent properties: fact? fiction? fickle?

Phil writes:
>Metaphysically it is often the case in reality that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". The properties of a whole are not the same as summing up the properties of its parts.

Hi Phil

I *think* I agree, but from your examples I'm not quite clear on what you mean.

>As an example, any chemical compound. Hydrogen + Oxygen -> Water. Sodium + Chlorine -> Table Salt.

These appear to be fairly deterministic comparisons. Do you mean to say that, say, consciousness is the result of a similar process to chemistry? That it is analogous to table salt, in that a certain reaction occurs between elements to produce a certain physical product?

My preference for the use of 'emergent properties' is, as I said above, to reserve it for events that are the very opposite of predictable or commonplace, like the emergence of life from dead matter - things that are as *unlikely* as possible. So we don't become pretentious, and use fancy terms for ordinary phenomena.

- Daniel

Post 21

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:03am

Mr Coates,-

Metaphysically it is often the case in reality that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

No, that's never the case. Synergy is an illusion, the sum of the parts cannot be greater than the whole.

As an example, any chemical compound. Hydrogen + Oxygen -> Water

The only way to explain this seeming discrepency is that you are evaluating the parts by a different unit of measure. You're not keeping context, you're not comparing apples with apples.
Niether of two men can lift a piano unless together, no more than one hand can clap. One man in failure has the same measure of attribute as he has in success, it's only that in failure his potential is wasted but with a second man the dynamic granted by leverage means success in lifting. Same with chemical compounds, same with all things.

So EP's exist. In fact they're everywhere. You can't walk five feet (or look inward) without tripping over one.
QED.
Case closed

Hah, says you and Plato and John Scotus.
Aristotle, on the other hand, has all sorts of things to say to sink Plato's boat in this phase of their ongoing duel. This issue is the biggest thing in metaphysics, the consequences are huge! For me it's not over, I've got Robert Malcom's book and I think it's going to help.

Daniel,-
My preference for the use of 'emergent properties' is, as I said above, to reserve it for events that are the very opposite of predictable or commonplace, like the emergence of life from dead matter - things that are as *unlikely* as possible.

I first heard the term in reference to, I think, machines comming to life. Data used the term in Star Trek TNG. I think it's right to hold it in reserve as you suggest but it it does apply to the commonplace. "Unlikely" and "commonplace" are subjective descriptors, so they're unfit for use as metaphysical categories.
Ice used to be far from commonplace. There's a story from the ancient world about someone who was killed or mocked for theorising about ice as being an emergent property of water. These days we know it is, but we can't stop saying so because the knowledge has ceased to be commonplace.

Post 22

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 3:33am

Rick writes
> think it's right to hold it in reserve as you suggest but it it does apply to the commonplace.

Yes it's funny, for example consciousness is both rare and commonplace depending on your context. Every day there are billions of consciousnesses in various states on earth.

But on the other hand, they may also be very much the exception to the rest of the universe. Anyway, that's what i'd be looking to communicate with the term.

>Ice used to be far from commonplace.

Ditto fire.

- Daniel

Post 23

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:07am

"These appear to be fairly deterministic comparisons. Do you mean to say that, say, consciousness is the result of a similar process to chemistry?" [Daniel]

No. I already had enough examples to prove my point and included fresh ones to show how wide is the range of "emergence". (You and others have already mentioned biological examples.)

"My preference for the use of 'emergent properties' is, as I said above, to reserve it for events that are the very opposite of predictable or commonplace" [Daniel]... "I first heard the term in reference to, I think, machines coming to life." [Rick]

You can't do that. That's not how definitions work.

By the way, I withdraw my comment that the phrase "emergent properties" is entirely unhelpful or unneeded. The idea of "emergence" elaborates what happens in "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts":

Something new -emerges- in the interaction or the relationship when the parts are brought together - in the worlds of physics, biology, and chemistry - as anyone who studies those subjects can see.

Phil

Post 24

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:41pm

Phil writes:
>You can't do that. That's not how definitions work.

Not in the Aristotelian method, true, where the formula leads from the term on the left to the defining formula on the right. But the scientific method of definition leads from *right to left* - from the defining formula to the label. So rather than get stuck in an argument over the 'true' meaning of 'emergent property', which is where the Aristotelian method leads, we can simply ask "what shall we call something which is almost impossible to predict the appearance of?" and decide to call them 'emergent properties'.

Of course, you don't want to speak confusingly, so it is a good idea to stick to agreed conventions in conversation where possible. As 'emergent' is a very vague term, as the diverse examples you've provided show, I thought it would help to tighten it up for the purpose of this particular topic.

- Daniel

Post 25

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 9:59pm

I recently finished Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin's book "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down" (Synopsis here: http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=nmsi7ebjjeu402lhjrlke4ae7wxpakvx). It is about emergence and self-organization in the physical world. In fact, I read most of it twice.

My understanding of the nature of emergent phenomena is that while reductionist thinking may be able to dig ever deeper into a subject, at some point, due to emergent principles, the findings have no tangible impact on the outcomes in the marco-world.

For example, at the sub-atomic level, the rules of quantum mechanics are in effect, but once you start accumulating atoms to make molecules and bigger things, rules of general relativity and even newtonian physics apply very well to our every day human existence. So, you can say that the laws of netwonian physics are emergent as they apply very well to plodding macroscopic things like cars, planets and humans, even though those laws fall apart once we start looking too deeply or start moving too fast.

The book really got me thinking about metaphysics as well, as I have been debating naturalism vs. positivism with a philosopher friend of mine. My background is in economics, not philosophy, and I am having a difficult time trying to argue some of these things in his court. From my limited observation, the academic world surrounding philosophy is even more screwed up that of economics, which is really saying something.

Adam, if you do a paper on the ontology of emergence, I would really like to read it.

Post 26

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:45pm

William,

I have, and it is in the SOLOHQ article queue.

Post 27

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 5:12pm

Sorry to be a rube, but I just found this site yesterday.

I don't see that article. Is there somewhere I should be looking?

Post 28

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 7:28pm

William,

"In the queue" means awaiting publication.

Post 29

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 7:42pm

Emergence is not an easy topic. On one level, it's as Phil said: emergence is a matter of the whole being more than the sum of the parts, because the parts are organized or interrelated in a certain way.

But what does the whole need to be like? What do the parts need to be like? What kinds of organization lead to emergent properties? If there are levels of emergence, how many are there? And so on.

I am eagerly awaiting Adam's contribution on the subject. In the meantime, here are some essays that might be of interest:

Physicalism, Emergence, and Downward Causation.
Richard J. Campbell, Mark H. Bickhard

The Dynamic Emergence of Representation.
Mark H. Bickhard

The Process Dynamics of Normative Function.
Wayne D. Christensen, Mark H. Bickhard

Process and Emergence: Normative Function and Representation.
Mark H. Bickhard

These can all be accessed at http://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/pubspage.html. You'll need to scroll about halfway down the page to find the individual titles.

I've written about emergence in a less detailed and technical fashion in my review of Owen Flanagan's book, The Science of the Mind:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/rcampbell_science-mind.asp

It isn't just free will that emerges; there are many lower levels of emergence, according to the views presented in these essays. Anything of a psychological nature (such as knowledge of the environment, or goals) is emergent out of biological processes, which in turn are emergent out of chemical processes, and so on. Indeed, some proponents of emergence reject incompatibilist free will, so you could successfully argue for an emergentist position, as opposed to a reductionist one, and you would still have more work to do, as far as free will is concerned.

Robert Campbell

Post 30

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 9:55pm

Hi Robert! Good to hear from you.

I guess one implication of my post [#19] listing the fact that emergence occurs across the sciences and in the areas of life and consciousness is that it is hard to see that one could discuss emergence -as such- across all these disciplines.

In fact it seems as if emergent properties or the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is true of all or almost every "whole"!

In other words, I'm open to being proved wrong and I have not read an entire literature on the subject, but the wholes differ so radically in all these different disciplines that it is hard to see that the nature of the emergence is particular to that particular discipline.

If so, it would be rationalistic to try to write a treatise on 'emergence' as some kind of metaphysical phenomenon... or talk about how many levels it has, which can differ depending on the wholes being studied.

It would seem to be a form of reductionism.

Or if one has such an insight and writes such a treatise, one would have to not skip any of the five examples I gave from chemistry, physics, engineering, logic [and which no one has addressed - I would have thought it would be important to address *concrete examples* when they are offered]..as well as the examples from biology and psychology.

Phil

PS, you said "Emergence is not an easy topic". My view is that sometimes philosophical topics -are- easy and simple.

And that when I have proposed an easy and simple answer, people are obligated to deal with it fairly and carefully before assuming that it is "simple" and therefore it must be wrong because philosophy and reality have to be complex.

What is striking is that I gave a very brief and simple answer to the question of what ARE emergent properties complete with a range of simple and clear examples...

..AND NOBODY HAS BOTHERED TO ANSWER MY FUCKING POINTS!!
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/20, 10:03pm)

Post 31

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:05pm

Phil:
>AND NOBODY HAS BOTHERED TO ANSWER MY FUCKING POINTS!!

All right then. Phil's points were:

1)Hydrogen + Oxygen -> Water.
2)Sodium + Chlorine -> Table Salt.
3)Kindling + Heat + Oxygen -> Fire.
4)Wood+Concrete+Metal-> House
5)a syllogism as opposed to the propositions which make it up.

Phil concludes:
>So (emergent properties) exist. In fact they're everywhere. You can't walk five feet (or look inward) without tripping over one.

Now let's look back at the original question:

Kate:
>are genetic processes emergent, or determined by their chemical structures and properties? Is everything tracable and predictable from the sub-atomic level? What about consciousness?...Perhaps, given enough time and knowledge, we will be able to predict these phenomena from their parts. I just have trouble swallowing the idea..

These are, of course, intelligent and perennial philosophic questions. It seems Kate is asking about properties such as life (is it reducible to genetics and chemistry?), and consciousness (is it reducible to physics?) which are sometimes referred to as 'emergent', for want of a better word.

To which Phil replies that to him, 'emergent' refers to: a building/a chemical compound/a syllogism/a chemical reaction - in fact, by the sound of it, to any damn thing. Well, I agree, duck shit is an emergent property of a duck, but so what? What do these examples have to do with the problem we're discussing? Who cares about the manifold possible meanings of a vague term like 'emergent'? It's pretty clear what Kate's on about. Are you saying that life and consciousness are like chemical reactions - and compounds - and houses - and syllogisms!? Really? Do you mean they are deterministic reactions like compounds and reactions? Or the result of conscious intention, like a house or a syllogism? Abstract like logic? Concrete like a house? What exactly *are* you trying to say?

So perhaps it's not so much that no-one bothered to answer your points, it's you did not appear to have a very clear FUCKING point in the first place.

- Daniel

Post 32

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 9:24am

Robert,

Spectacular! That is exactly the type of material I have been looking for.

This started for me a couple months ago when the subject of inalienable rights came up in a debate with a friend. His contention was that inalienable rights required a creator to grant them, and that if there is no creator, rights can only come through social contract. Seeing as we are both militant atheists I was forced to respond, which I did to the best of my abilities, but didn't have a lot of research to back it up.

I've never thought rights required a creator or a social contract, and frankly never gave it too much thought, not really being a student of philosophy. From an economic standpoint there is an extensive body of empirical evidence that if rights are exclusively via social contract, eventually you get bad results. In fact, I kind of view natural rights as those rights that exist in the absence of a social contract.

I was familiar with the work of Murray Gell-Mann et. al. at the Santa Fe Institute, and then came across Laughlin's book about emergence in the physical world. As I was reading that book I was constantly pondering emergence in the metaphysical world, and the debate we were having over inalienable rights.

I'm extremely happy that I found this place, and that there is a body of work on this very subject.

Post 33

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 1:57pm

"you did not appear to have a very clear FUCKING point" [Daniel]

1. Kate asked whether "emergent properties" exist, which was what I originally addressed.

2. "Who cares about the manifold possible meanings of a vague term like 'emergent'?" Surveying a broad range of contexts in which a term might be used is a first step toward any further discussion. See Aristotle.

3. Whether emergent properties in biology and chemistry are "intelligent and perennial philosophic questions" as you claim...or -scientific- questions in the special sciences, is a separate issue.

You ought to be able to see further that my two posts raise the question of a category error in regard to what field the detailed analysis of emergence falls.

Phil

PS, Unlike the unpleasantness of dealing with your hostile* and dismissive post, I always find it pleasurable to discuss things with Robert Campbell (even though I disagree with him on aspects of this topic). He is always scholarly, thorough, and civil.

*and no, my profanity in #30 was not uncivil or inappropriate or personal in the same way.

Post 34

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 2:08pm

Phil,

Don't emergent properties have to be unpredictable? All the examples you provided are perfectly understandable/predictable within physics.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/21, 2:08pm)

Post 35

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 4:04pm

Phil:
>*and no, my profanity in #30 was not uncivil or inappropriate or personal in the same way.

Phil, I'm sorry, but you did seem to be having a bit of a temper tanty about being ignored. You didn't relate it back to the main point. As far as I can see, you still haven't.

As to the rest, what Sarah said.

- Daniel

Post 36

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:20pm

Daniel,

You are wasting my time.

You repeat yourself adding no new intellectual content. You seem to view intellectual discussion as a game, as one-upmanship. You don't answer my points. You post in an abbreviated, lazy, arrogant, and supercilious style. And as if to prove how macho you are you repeat and even redouble your hostility (which I had already pointed out to you)with the slanted phrase, "temper tantrum".

This will be my last exchange with you, whoever you are: You aren't worth the powder and shot to blow you to hell. (And besides an eagle does not hunt fleas.)

---------

Hi Sarah. Here is a typical definition I got by googling emergent properties: "emergence- Properties of a complex physical system are emergent just in case they are neither (i) properties had by any parts of the system taken in isolation nor (ii) resultant of a mere summation of properties of parts of the system."

Nothing in those definitions about upredictability [Wikipedia does say "unpredictable from a lower level description" but that's just bad English, I think. The correct word would be "underivable".]

And my examples, mostly from the sciences, [Post 19] all fit the definition.

Phil

Post 37

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:34pm

Dictionary.com's definition is:
any unique property that "emerges" when component objects are joined together in constraining relations to "construct" a higher-level aggregate object, a novel property that unpredictably comes from a combination of two simpler constituents

Are you right by majority vote then?

Sarah

Post 38

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:36pm

"See Aristotle."

Haha...I wonder if it would be possible to replace that useless little "check engine" light on the dash with a "see aristotle" light.

Post 39

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:43pm