From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 21 23:25:04 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3491 ; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:25:00 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jun 95 08:10:23 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa25331; 21 Jun 95 9:09 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0593; Wed, 21 Jun 95 03:25:35 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1197; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:25:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:26:00 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: emergent properties and masses - from sci.lang X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506210910.aa25331@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >From another posting on sci.lang, i saw this, which seems highly relevant to the nature of Lojban masses. >1: Sandpile emergence: self-organising systems, from - well - sandpiles to > crystals, spontaneously form ordered structures of which it is necessary > to take account when describing the system. The model used - as Aaron > points out - transcends the model needed to describe the parts; although > this 'lower' model may well (and usually does) allow one to explain how > the 'higher' order system came to be. Going beyond models, however, the > crystal (or sandpile) has properties which effect photons and pinpong balls > in ways which the unemerged shambles of sand and atoms does not. It is not > a matter of our explaining it, it is what it does that changes what is. > Emergence does stuff. > > 2: Dynamic emergence: Prigogine turf. I forget the derivation, but a number of > equilibrium equations take the form of a second order polynomial, having > two roots. Thus such systems are capable of resolving themselves into two > equilibria, with appropriate surfaces connecting such poles. Hence > Belouzov-Zhabotinski (sp?) waves in chemical systems. Taps drip; reeds > oscillate in streams; periodic and quasiperiodic phenomena dissect the > natural world and prevent the smooth approach to equilibrium. Attractors > attract, chaos spirals; dynamic systems emit complex properties which both > require complex models for them to be understood and which change things > in complex ways. Prigogine shows how closed, far from equilibrium systems > can temporarily and locally reverse Thermodynamics II; life as we know it, > Captain. > > 3: Information-based emergence: nice Mr Darwin. Differing from the other > forms, information-based emergent systems have a storage medium and a > transcription system. This is a critical distinction: one can (vaguely) > think about a wave of chemical disequilibrium - depletion, saturation - > as being 'memory' or 'data', but it is easier to view it in chemical terms. > The point is that the choice is one of viewpoint; whereas in information > based emergence, no such ambiguity exists. There is storage - genes, > habituated neurons, resonant loops - and there is a distinctive and > seperate mechanism of transcription; neither work alone, both together have > properties which are transcendent of the component parts. The data stored > is usually only interpretable in terms of what it does: that is to say, it > has a unique role which is "called" in an algorithmic way. It is not a > "language". Turing rules, ko. > > 4: Syntactical emergence, to coin a phrase. Emergent structures have, as > indicated, properties of which they are the unique suppliers. Nothing else > has these properties. Two such entities, brought together and allowed to > interact, may generate another emergent structure, having its own unique > properties. (We can see this in designed things - telescopes and teacups - > but here, the Designer gets in the way of the concept.) Focusing on the > natural world, therefore, we find that trees - together - make something > which trees, separately do not: a forest, an entity with its own > properties, structures, niches and opportunities. Trees adapt themselves > for the forest environment. Forests are thereby changed; making new niches, > new properties. A species of grammar emerges, with chunks that have > properties capable of being arranged by chance and adaptation to fal into > new patterns of mutual interaction. > > 5: Intentional emergence: Brentano's baby. Systems built up from the various > flavours of emergence have distinct boundaries. It may be tautological to > say that within these, the entities are primarily driven by internal > processes and that beyond them, they are responsive to and effective upon > exogenous events. What makes it more than tautological in some specific > cases is that these systems show signs of recognising this boundary and > acting to police it. Where this occurs unambiguously, it is helpful to > refer to the entity concerned as intentional, as recognising the other. One > can, of course, suggest that a chemotactic bacterium is intentional: it > wiggles its little flagellae in order to drive itself up desirable chemical > gradients. Close examination of what actually happens in such a system, > however, suggests a purely push-button 'informational' emergence: what > distinguishes intentional emergence is the processing of abstractions. A Lojban mass may have emergent properties that are not properties of the components of the mass. We use Lojban masses to represent combinations of components in such a way that the reference simulataneously recognizes emerging qualities of the mass, while preserving recognition of the existence of components and their distinct properties that explain the emerging properties. I would presume that any reference to a Lojban mass invokes some aspect of the emergent properties. I'm not sure whether all five of the above can be represented as Lojban masses (indeed, I am pretty sure I don't *understand* all 5 of them), but I am pretty sure that I have used masses to discuss emergent properties related to 1. and 4. lojbab