Robert,
(Building a bit off of Roger
and
Owen...) Not to be trite, but the answer is obviously that different
people have different reasons for wanting to discuss "emergence". Some of the
reasons would match your criterion
for usefulness, others wouldn't. One reason for doing this, that receives right
criticism on this list, is a sort of pure nominalism - "we just want to name
things so we can pretend we understand them".
Only a slight step
away from this is a desire to define and name the thing and then stop (with no
pretense of understanding). I don't think anyone on this list is
doing either of those things, but there seems to be a lot of suspicion that
some (or all) might
be. Other goals may be deemed more laudatory depending on your
disposition.
That said, I suspect few have a goal as concrete in its
usefulness as what you are looking for. I suspect that most people's goals can
be divided into two kinds:
1) Those who wish to define "emergence"
because they suspect we will be able to determine which of those things we care
about are
emergent and which are not. These people presume that a good definition will
allow us to continue as usual
with most things we care about, while identifying better ways to analyze and
discuss those few things that are emergent. That is, we will know from the
start that
certain ways of treating those things (mathematically, scientifically,
metaphorically, etc.) will be insufficient, and we might even be able to
identify ways of treating those things that are acceptable for all emergent
phenomenon. Think of this maybe like the legal distinction between a tort and
or a crime... it's nice to know which you are accusing something of, because
the best way to proceed differs by type. This is very useful to know, even if
you don't have in mind yet any particular things you are accusing someone
of.
2) Those who wish to define "emergence" because they suspect we will
find that everything we care about is emergent. That is, there are people who
suspect that our ways of analyzing most everything is too simplistic and based
on false assumptions, and that we globally need more sophisticated ways to
discuss and analyze topics of interest. The situations I am most familiar with
that are in dire need of revision are simplistic notions about perception,
cognition, and development. The ideas that you can reasonably talk about "genes
for" single phenotypes, that perception can be reduced to sensation, or that
cognition can be
separated from physiological processes on the one hand and social processes on
the other, are all surely silly. I can't think of a good metaphor for this one,
sorry.
Certainly there are people on the list with other goals (at the
least,
more specific goals), but hopefully will be a satisfactory answer to your
question nonetheless.
Eric
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 09:58 AM,
Robert Holmes
<[hidden email]> wrote:
What's the point of
determining whether a phenomenon is emergent or not? What useful stuff can I
actually do with that knowledge?
In other areas of my life, classification can have actionable
consequences. For example, I can use the sophisticated pattern-matching
algorithms and heuristics embedded in my brain to work out that the three
animals wandering through my house can be categorized as "cats" and not "dogs".
And that is useful, because it tells me that I should buy cat food and not dog
food when I go to PetCo.
So what is an equivalent example with emergence? Once I've attached the
"emergent" label to a phenomenon, then what?
-- Robert
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org