Re: Emergence - the concept, and evolution

From: John Wilkins (wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU)
Date: Thu May 11 2000 - 03:59:46 BST

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA24382 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 May 2000 04:01:36 +0100
    Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:59:46 +1000
    From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU>
    Subject: Re: Emergence - the concept, and evolution
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    In-Reply-To: <391A150A.CF90B89E@pacbell.net>
    Message-ID: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000511125946@mac463.wehi.edu.au>
    X-Authenticated: <wilkins@wehiz.wehi.edu.au>
    Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Wed, 10 May 2000 19:03:54 -0700 bspight@pacbell.net (Bill Spight)
    wrote:

    >Dear John,
    >
    >> A better term is Kim's supervenience - any two identical physical
    >> systems (in all possible worlds) will have the same supervenient
    >> properties,
    >
    >How so? Supervenient properties are extraneous, so identical
    >systems in different worlds will normally have different
    >supervenient properties. No?

    I don't quite understand what you mean by "extraneous" here. Also,
    "different worlds" in metaphysics has more to do with possible outcomes
    than with physically different worlds.
    >
    >> Elliot
    >> Sober in his _Nature of Selection_ and his 1993 argued that "fitness"
    >is
    >> a supervenient property of organisms (hence also memes?) because the
    >> physical causes of fitness of genes and traits are different case by
    >> case but similar if the organisms are similar.
    >
    >Fitness is indeed a supervenient to organisms, relying upon the
    >relation between the organisms and their environment. It
    >shouldn't be considered as a property of the organisms.

    True enough, but one still wants to say that a phenotype is fitter than
    another (implicitly holding the environmental constraints constant for
    both). Relative to E, organisms have fitness, and it is a supervenient
    property. Or so Sober says.
    >
    >> but the same supervenient properties can be realised in
    >> different phsyical systems (identical brains have identical minds,
    >but
    >> identical minds might also arise in computers, for example).
    >
    >Or two different people might share the same sense of humor.

    Nobody else has mine, to the relief of the known universe.

    --
    

    John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Melbourne, Australia <mailto:wilkins@WEHI.EDU.AU> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html> Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 04:01:58 BST