>From the text below, it is apparent that British emergence is not the same beast as what we call emergence today. Those very "configurational forces" you mention are precisely what I mean by emergent phenomena, which is entirely consistent with how the term is used in the complex systems literature that I have been reading my whole professional life.
It would seem that "British emergence" is something akin to the widely rejected notion of vitalism, and as Russ Abbott states - why, as complexity researchers, would we be interested in that? Cheers On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:48:55PM -0600, Roger Critchlow wrote: > As I read it, the issue isn't whether structures and/or configurations > are/aren't important, the question is whether they operate according > to emergent or resultant rule sets. > > The Emergentists were betting heavily on the emergent rule set. They > believed that the variety of chemistry couldn't possibly be the result > of protons and electrons operating according to physics as they knew > it. They were right, it wasn't physics as they knew it, but the > answer turned out to be the result of configurational physics rather > than emergent principles of chemistry. They also bet that the variety > of biology couldn't be the result of chemical molecules operating > according to the chemistry they knew. And they were right again, it > wasn't chemistry as they knew it, but the answer turned out to be the > result of configurational chemistry rather than emergent priniciples > of biology. > > Chemistry and biology turn out to be ever more complicated > configurations of protons and electrons, with some neutron ballast, > operating according to the principles of quantum mechanics and > statistical mechanics. It's all physics, same particles, same forces, > same laws, no emergent forces. There are configuration forces, but > they're not emergent forces, they're subtle results of electrons > packing themselves into quantized energy levels in increasingly > complicated configurations of nuclei. > > The structure of DNA and the elaboration of molecular biology was the > last straw because it provided a purely physical mechanism for > inheritance. > > But you're right to see it as a bit of a conundrum. The Emergentists, > as McLaughlin summarizes them, were substantially correct: > configurations of atoms in molecules are the key to understanding > chemistry, there are all sorts of chemically distinctive things that > happen because of those configurations, none of those chemically > distinctive things are obvious when you play around with protons and > electrons in the physics lab. But it all turned out to be part of the > resultant of quantum mechanics, not emergent in the sense the > Emergentists had painted themselves into, so they were wrong in the > one sense they really cared about. > > -- rec -- > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > All, > > > > I would like to appeal for some help from The List with the chapter we are > > reading this week in the Emergence Seminar. One of the central assertions > > of the author is that quantum mechanics put the British Emergentists out of > > business by making "configurational" forces seem unlikely. He goes on to > > say that "the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA ... make[s] the > > main doctrines of Britsh emergentism, so far as ...the biological [is] > > concerned, seem enormously implausible." (McLaughlin, 2009, p. 23). > > > > Now here is my problem: everything that I understand about contemporary > > Evo/devo seems to make the structure of biological molecules (DNA, RNA, and > > proteins) central to our understanding of biological development. Thus, to > > me, these discoveries make emergentism (if not the British kind) seem > > dramatically MORE plausible. If all the consequences of the folding and > > unfolding of proteins, etc., do not constitute effects of "configurational > > forces" then what the dickens are they? > > > > Can anybody help me with this paradox???? > > > > I have forwarded this comment to the Author and, if he doesn't object, will > > forward any remarks he may have back to you. > > > > Nick > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([email protected]) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > ============================================================ > 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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
