Maybe I misunderstood the concept of "emergent properties." I'm trying to avoid reductionism. Macro cannot simply be explained by micro, as indicated by such phenomena as the "paradox of thrift." Lewontin & Levins' book THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST has good stuff on this: (1) parts make whole: the aggregate level is made up of and is to a large extent (but not totally) determined by the characteristics of the parts. Despite the paradox of thrift and similar examples of the fallacy of composition, we can't ignore the fact that capitalism has a large number of capitalists jockeying for power with each other via aggressive accumulation of advantage. (2) whole makes parts: the aggregate level, which cannot be reduced to its parts, feeds back to affect the character and behavior of the parts. When the aggregate average rate of profit is low, for example, that discourages accumulation by individual capitalists, just as a high aggregate unemployment rate affects the behavior of individual workers (as Rod points out). (3) The bidirectional causation does not settle down into the kind of equilibrium that neoclassical economists reify. Parts make whole and whole makes parts as part of a dynamic process (one that's path-dependent and hard to reverse, BTW). Rod wrote: >... The question of emergent properties is important, but the reductionist >approach hinted at by same suggests that even those emergent properties >can be explained by the underlying science. In economics that would mean >that all macroeconomic relations can be explained by microeconomics. It is >still an open question whether this is true or not. The sticking point at >present is when macroeconomic variables affect microeconomic decisions. >For instance if people in the labour market take the rate of unemployment >into consideration in decision making, you could have an indeterminant >system. I which case you could not explain the rate of unemployment by >means of individual decisions. > >With consciousness, it is true that many higher functions can be explained >by chemical changes in the brain, but it has also been shown that ideas, >behaviour, attitudes, etc., can affect the underlying chemistry. The most >common example is the plasticity of the brain in response to early >childhood experience. For instance, light stimulation or lack of it can >permanently affect sight. The two way relationship between the brain and >language experience has also be demonstrated. These would suggest that >thoughts, ideas, moods, perception cannot be completely explained by the >underlying chemistry. > >The best book I have read on this subject is Terrence Deacon's The >Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of the brain and language. Very highly >recommended. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
