Emergence, Week 1

Class discussion: I agree that many systems are probably hybrid and reflect both design and emergence. From the evolutionary perspective it is true that the human system has not been designed for specifically, but we can view nature as influencing design by selecting for the outcomes best suited to the environment.  Also there is the case of computers we discussed in class where the computer programs themselves are designed but some outcome such as bugs can be considered emergent because they were not intended and have emergent properties.  Also the “ripple patterns” Professor Grobstein discussed reminded me of fractal patterns and made me wonder whether they could also be seen as examples of emergence. While in some cases fractal patterns are human designed or computer generated there are also example of fractal patterns in nature such as in the case of snowflakes.  So perhaps they are also a representation of both design and emergence?

From Complexity to Emergence and Beyond: I like the idea that a broader scope in inquiry across different disciplines is beneficial and that you can “see possibilities less visible from more closely defined perspectives.” I think that by approaching inquiry from this perspective it will offer more opportunity to recognize and appreciate patterns across disciplines and help in understanding emergent processes as the example of the “ripple effect” demonstrates.

I was struck by the idea that emergence “isn’t exactly the same for each person”.  I think our discussion in class on Wednesday showed the accuracy of that observation pretty clearly.  I’ve started thinking of emergence less as a phenomenon and more of a tool for identifying patterns across different disciplines.  The challenge to overcome now is to adequately define or communicate a concept of emergence that is useful as a standard to call upon when talking about observable patterns.  We debated the idea that emergence is exclusively a product of humans and therefore did not exist before humans.  I agree that the concept of emergence is a product of humans, but the phenomena it describes are not.  I also think that the idea that “organization can exist without either a conductor or an architect” is another way of approaching that debate.  Just because organization can exist because of a creator, like in the case of a car or computer, doesn’t mean it necessarily has to.  Similarly, the concept of emergence exists because humans came up with it, but it could have existed if we hadn’t come up with it.  

I was thinking about our discussion from last class and how I said I believed that specialness was a property of an emergent system.   I guess specialness implies a human observer which raises the question of whether something can be an emergent system without a human observer to describe it as special. Paul says that the problem with something emergent necessitating a human observer is that it implies that there were no emergent phenomena prior to the appearance of humans in the universe.  Well I believe that there were indeed no emergent phenomena before humans were present.  To consider something as an emergent system requires a human to describe it as such. Yes, we can say that there were emergent systems before we existed like weather phenomena for instance.  But a meteorological phenomenon is only that because we say it is....kind of like the tree falling in the woods with no one there to see or hear it.  In other words, emergence is a product of the human mind much like any other idea or abstract.  We can still talk about and learn about it because doing so can still be useful.  But without us here to describe ideas and phenomena, then they wouldn't exist.