Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!hookup!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!lugb!latcs1!latcs1.lat.oz.au!agapow
From: agapow@ipc6.lat.oz.au (p-m agapow)
Subject: Re: What's going on?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ipc6.lat.oz.au
Message-ID: <agapow.805709518@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
Sender: news@latcs1.lat.oz.au (news)
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
References: <3r6klu$jnk@seralph9.essex.ac.uk> <agapow.803362346@latcs1.lat.oz.au> <3s1nkf$3eg@decaxp.harvard.edu> <agapow.804132037@latcs1.lat.oz.au> <3t8otu$5k0@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 08:11:58 GMT
Lines: 30

A.R.Diller@cs.bham.ac.uk (Antoni Diller) writes:

>In article <agapow.804132037@latcs1.lat.oz.au>,
>p-m agapow <agapow@latcs1.lat.oz.au> wrote:

>>Emergence is behaviour on one level that cannot
>>be anticipated or reduced to behaviour on a lower level.

>It's not just that; there's also the phenomenon known as `downwards
>causality' (by Donald Campbell in the 1960s and 1970s), ie, the
>objects at a higher level can causally affect objects
>at a lower level. Eg, if the mind is an emergent entity, then
>what is important is whether or not it can causally affect, say,
>the behaviour of brain cells and neurons---out of which it
>is ``made''.  I think that downwards causality is what is
>really important in anti-reductionism.

Yup, and thanks for that nice clarification Antoni. i did mention way back
when that there were many takes on what emergence was, but this
clarification was abandoned (my mistake) later in the discussion. My main
point is that for a lot of cases one can argue cogently for and against
emergence.

BTW, what's the best entry point for Campbells work?

p-m

paul-michael agapow (agapow@latcs1.oz.au), LaTrobe Uni

"There is no adventure, there is no romance, there is just trouble and desire"
