Guy Hoelzer  wrote:

> in article c73noi$27v2$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Jim Menegay at
> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/2/04 2:04 PM:
> 
> > Guy Hoelzer  wrote in message
> > news:...
> [snip]
> >> [regarding "emergence" and "emergent properties"]
> >> Examples that I would use of quality emergence, the category in which I
> >> would put your example, include the observation that pressure cannot be
> >> defined for a single particle.  It is a quality that can only be
> >> defined for a population of particles.  In my view, the term
> >> "emergence" should not be used to describe this
observation.  It is a
> >> consequence of the way we conceptualize "pressure",
rather than
> >> something that happens in a natural system.  This confusion comes about
> >> in part from the fact that new qualities also emerge coincidentally
> >> with new structures/processes.
> > 
> > Your suggestion that "emergence" should not be used in
an epistemological
> > sense, but only in a physical sense, is understandable.  After all, the
> > nontechnical uses of the word convey the notion of a physical process
> > occuring in time.  However, you should be aware that the epistemological
> > technical use of the word has a long history:
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
> > But more relevant to the present discussion is the use of the word as
> > a slogan by "General Systems Theory".  This was an
interesting intellectual
> > movement, better known in the past generation, from which the modern
> > "complexity" movement has inherited terminology, aura,
and stigma.  The
> > main gurus were von Bertalanfy, Boulding, and Koestler.  These authors
> > based much of their anti-reductionist stance on the observation that,
> > as a system is synthesized in a "bottom-up" direction,
new properties
> > "emerge" at the higher levels.  The whole is more than
the sum of its
> > parts.  A "holistic" viewpoint is needed.  Or, saying
the same thing,
> > as a system is analyzed in a "top-down" direction,
something is lost.
> > Hence, reductionism is suspect, according to GST.
> 
> It seems we agree.  In fact, I have toyed with the idea of writing a book on
> complexity and some of the chapters I have outlined deal specifically with
> emergent properties (qualities), emergent structures, and emergent
> functions, respectively.  I don't know whether I will ever take a serious
> shot at finishing this book, but a central conclusion I would reach regards
> the fundamental importance of emergent entities (coherent agents of action
> and effect).  My goal would be in part to disentangle the physical aspects
> of emergence from our mere perceptions of emergence (e.g., surprise at the
> possibility of new qualities as population size changes).
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Guy

I strongly recommend this book:

Blitz, David. 1992. Emergent evolution: qualitative novelty and the
levels of reality. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

and the *term* is, I believe, due to this one:

Morgan, Conwy Lloyd. 1923. Emergent evolution : the Gifford lectures
delivered in the University of St. Andrews in the year 1922, Gifford
Lectures. St. Andrews University ; 1922. London: Williams And Norgate.

although the *idea* goes back to Mill.
-- 
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
 children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 5/4/04 5:59:42 AM