Emergence and the Problem of Downward Causation

[merjet]

The title is from an appendix in the book Mind In Life. I thought it was a good presention of the topic and closely related ones. Most of the appendix can be read here.

An article by OL regular Robert Campbell (co-written with Bickhard) is referenced 4 times. Said article is here.

Some key parts of the appendix are:

- Opposition between reductionism and emergentism (p. 417)

- Definition of an emergent network (p. 418)

- Distinction between nonlinear and linear interactions (p. 419)

- Decomposable versus nondecomposable (p. 421)

- Traditional versus dynamicist view of sensory processing (p. 421)

- Downward causation (p.424-6)

- Determinism (p. 430)

- Reduction and quantum mechanics (p. 440)

[BaalChatzaf]

The title is from an appendix in the book Mind In Life. I thought it was a good presention of the topic and closely related ones. Most of the appendix can be read here.

An article by OL regular Robert Campbell (co-written with Bickhard) is referenced 4 times. Said article is here.

Some key parts of the appendix are:

- Opposition between reductionism and emergentism (p. 417)

- Definition of an emergent network (p. 418)

- Distinction between nonlinear and linear interactions (p. 419)

- Decomposable versus nondecomposable (p. 421)

- Traditional versus dynamicist view of sensory processing (p. 421)

- Downward causation (p.424-6)

- Determinism (p. 430)

- Reduction and quantum mechanics (p. 440)

Emergence is an intellectually sophisticated way of saying --- Holy Sh*t, Its a miracle!

Anything that emerges, emerges from something or other. One finds that something by reduction from the observed phenomenon to the underlying causes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Emergence is an intellectually sophisticated way of saying --- Holy Sh*t, Its a miracle!

Anything that emerges, emerges from something or other. One finds that something by reduction from the observed phenomenon to the underlying causes.

Your bias shows.

Please reduce the "miracle" of classical physics to quantum mechanics for us.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Merlin Jetton

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know why I keep thinking about including "overlying" causes in the "underlying" causes explanation...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Emergence is an intellectually sophisticated way of saying --- Holy Sh*t, Its a miracle!

Anything that emerges, emerges from something or other. One finds that something by reduction from the observed phenomenon to the underlying causes.

Your bias shows.

Please reduce the "miracle" of classical physics to quantum mechanics for us.

quantum mechanics was fact driven from the git-go. Physicists were dragged kicking and screaming because classical physics was a total failure at explaining basic things like --- why were atoms stable at all. According to the Lamor formula and classical electrodynamics an atom should last about 10^-10 seconds. Planck's and Bohr's initial approaches were very empirical. The fancy theory came later with Dirac, in the late 1920's. Dirac was a mathematician before he was a physicist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 13, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[merjet]

quantum mechanics was fact driven from the git-go. Physicists were dragged kicking and screaming because classical physics was a total failure at explaining basic things like --- why were atoms stable at all. According to the Lamor formula and classical electrodynamics an atom should last about 10^-10 seconds. Planck's and Bohr's initial approaches were very empirical. The fancy theory came later with Dirac, in the late 1920's. Dirac was a mathematician before he was a physicist.

You ignored what I said. Here it is again: Please reduce the "miracle" of classical physics to quantum mechanics for us.

[BaalChatzaf]

quantum mechanics was fact driven from the git-go. Physicists were dragged kicking and screaming because classical physics was a total failure at explaining basic things like --- why were atoms stable at all. According to the Lamor formula and classical electrodynamics an atom should last about 10^-10 seconds. Planck's and Bohr's initial approaches were very empirical. The fancy theory came later with Dirac, in the late 1920's. Dirac was a mathematician before he was a physicist.

You ignored what I said. Here it is again: Please reduce the "miracle" of classical physics to quantum mechanics for us.

The observed facts. Next question? From Planck on, quantum theory was fact driven.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Grames]

...

An article by OL regular Robert Campbell (co-written with Bickhard) is referenced 4 times. Said article is here.

The article's author is a Richard J. Campbell. The names Richard and Robert are different and I infer that the persons referred to are different.

It is a good article though, thanks for the link.

[Selene]

Grames:

Welcome to OL.

Inferring so quickly! Have you read much of Ayn's works?

Adam

[merjet]

...

An article by OL regular Robert Campbell (co-written with Bickhard) is referenced 4 times. Said article is here.

The article's author is a Richard J. Campbell. The names Richard and Robert are different and I infer that the persons referred to are different.

It is a good article though, thanks for the link.

You are correct. I knew that Robert L. had co-authored with Bickhard at other times -- see here -- and failed to notice it was Richard this time.