IUBio

getting past emergentism

R McPherson neuron at u.washington.edu
Thu May 10 17:08:29 EST 2001


Re: getting past emergentism"Richard L. Hall" <rhall at webmail.uvi.edu> wrote in message 
[snipping]

  Emergent properties are real, just as evolution is real.

Agreed, but change the "real" to "plausible" as any empiricist must (ie real until demonstrated false).


  The suggestion that "emergent properties" is a scientifically useless term is intellectually bankrupt.  Emergent properties are a fundamental characteristic of any complex natural system.  [snip]

[some systems] 

  Another is the effect of caffeine on clarity of thought (up to a point).  Eureka!        :-)
[no]

  Emergent properties are clearly evident in the structure function relationships of the brain.  
  [snip auditory circuit example]
  Clearly information processing is stratified and each "higher" layer confers new value to 
  sensory information collected in the inner ear. 

[this is heirarchical processing, not emergence]

  Regardless of semantics, there is general agreement that "conscious" processing of 

Not true.  The problem is not semantics, it is definitions.  We cannot even define consciousness in a manner that lends itself to empirical measurement.  We cannot define it so there is certainly no general agreement as to its nature.  What is consciousness? What are the characteristics?  What are the properties? Self-awareness? Language capacity? Sense of humor? Capacity for play? Abstraction?  All of the above?  

And even if we "agree" upon a definition of the mental phenomenon, what tool do we have to objectively measure the mental phenomenon?  As discussed earlier, a tool cannot operate on itself, a paradox exists that invalidates logical operation or analysis.  A circular logical error is ever-present either denying the antecedent or reaffirming the consequent.  Take your pick.

And definition is what this whole discussion is missing.  Emergent properties are commonly defined as those characteristic phenomena within a system that would not be predicted based upon an understanding of the individual characteristics of the component parts.  One fine example to use is the hydrogen bonding of neighboring water molecules.  Hydrogen bonding would not be predicted based upon analysis of the water molecule or its component atoms.  Nevertheless, hydrogen bonding occurs and has a significant function because it permits evaporation to draw water up the vessels within very tall trees, thus enabling trees to grow taller than gravity would permit otherwise. [that could be explained better, but I hope you get the point].  

However, heirarchical processing in neuronal systems does not necessarily equal emergent function.  The empirical criticism of the emergent property invocation is that the underlying mechanisms may simply not yet be identified that would permit the prediction of the phenomenon.  Restated, an emergent theorist says "the phenomenon would not be predicted based upon the components", while the skeptical empiricists responds "we may not know all the component parts yet and, therefore, cannot yet draw a conclusion about the mechanisms underlying the phenomenon".  

This leads me to pose an evolution of consciousness dilemma question: 
What evolutionary pressures have occurred that would make it adaptively significant for an animal to even develop the capacity to understand the nature of its own mental processing?  We may not have the capacity to understand the nature of all phenomena, hence everything will always appear as "emergent" because the empiricists will forever be unable to reveal the underlying components.  

>From this perspective, while it is already a logical paradox to try to use mental processing to understand the nature of mental processing, it may also be a paradox that the mind lacks the capacity to ever understand the nature of mind.  I certainly don't know.

R. McPherson
UW Neonatology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20010510/a50e1580/attachment.html


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net