There is no emergence

[wtf]

You're working overtime

No, I posted this during my normal day shift.

to negate something that is self-evident.

I didn't negate anything, I pointed out that the concept of emergence is either trivial or explains nothing.

When something new arises out of the sum of the parts yet it is not a quality of any given part, that is emergence, the most obvious case, of course, is chemistry. Nothing new has arisen in the clenched fist, it's simply a function of the hand and it's a part not the totality of a system. I think quality proceeds function and it is the collect of the qualities of the part both for what they are in and of themselves and for what new quality arises out of the collective. Part to part, part to the whole and the whole to each of its parts.

Yes. And what is explained? When you say a phenomenon is due to "emergence," what do you know, what do you understand, that you didn't before?

Nothing. Like the fool who was surprised to learn that he had been speaking prose all his life. Emergence is a word that adds no information yet seems deep, until you think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Bourgeois_gentilhomme

Give me an example of emergence in which labeling it emergence adds information or provides insight. Hydrogen's not wet and oxygen is not wet but H2O is wet. Emergence. Ooooh, deep. See my point? You'd learn something if you studied chemical bonds, for example. But you learn nothing if you just call it "emergence."

Emergence is the word you use when you don't understand something and don't feel like thinking about it.

[popeye1945]

You're working overtime

No, I posted this during my normal day shift.

to negate something that is self-evident.

I didn't negate anything, I pointed out that the concept of emergence is either trivial or explains nothing.

When something new arises out of the sum of the parts yet it is not a quality of any given part, that is emergence, the most obvious case, of course, is chemistry. Nothing new has arisen in the clenched fist, it's simply a function of the hand and it's a part not the totality of a system. I think quality proceeds function and it is the collect of the qualities of the part both for what they are in and of themselves and for what new quality arises out of the collective. Part to part, part to the whole and the whole to each of its parts.

Yes. And what is explained? When you say a phenomenon is due to "emergence," what do you know, what do you understand, that you didn't before?

Nothing. Like the fool who was surprised to learn that he had been speaking prose all his life. Emergence is a word that adds no information yet seems deep, until you think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Bourgeois_gentilhomme

Give me an example of emergence in which labeling it emergence adds information or provides insight. Hydrogen's not wet and oxygen is not wet but H2O is wet. Emergence. Ooooh, deep. See my point? You'd learn something if you studied chemical bonds, for example. But you learn nothing if you just call it "emergence."

Emergence is the word you use when you don't understand something and don't feel like thinking about it.

Interesting, I'll get back to you on it. Going to do a little research, thanks for sparking my curiosity!!

[Flannel Jesus]

Emergence is the word you use when you don't understand something and don't feel like thinking about it.

I don't think that has to be the case. 'Emergence' CAN be used that way, it CAN be used in a very hand-wavy way that is basically indistinguishable from calling something 'magic', but there's nothing tying the word to a lack of understanding. You can understand something fully and call it emergent - in fact, I would argue that understanding something fully (like chemical bonds, for example) MEANS understanding how it emerges from the lower level phenomena.

[wtf]

I don't think that has to be the case. 'Emergence' CAN be used that way, it CAN be used in a very hand-wavy way that is basically indistinguishable from calling something 'magic',

Ok, then at the very least I'm pushing back on this type of usage.

but there's nothing tying the word to a lack of understanding. You can understand something fully and call it emergent - in fact, I would argue that understanding something fully (like chemical bonds, for example) MEANS understanding how it emerges from the lower level phenomena.

But what does calling something emergent tell us that we didn't already know? It's a descriptive label that adds no insight. If we build a table from a pile of wood, the table is emergent, because there's no table-ness in the wood. But what have we learned that we didn't know before we used that label?

Again, it's like the guy who discovered that he'd been speaking prose all his life. That information adds nothing to anyone's understanding.

There are always two cases. One, we already understand how wood becomes tables. In that case, calling it emergence adds no information.

Or two, we don't understand how, say, the nervous system becomes conscious. In that case too, calling it emergence adds no information.

I realize that emergence is extremely popular among a lot of smart people. Count me an unmoved contrarian.

ps -- Can you provide an example of when calling some phenomenon emergent would add insight or understanding? As in, "Oh, it's emergent! Now I understand!"

Just one example.

[Flannel Jesus]

I would say for one thing, it's not necessarily about gaining insight into the phenomenon as it is about gaining insight into the person talking about the phenomenon, and their world view.

A person who describes chemistry as emergent from quantum interactions, for example, probably has a physical reductionist world view. Complex things don't happen by magic, there is nothing special in their universe defining "what it means to be human", their dog probably doesn't have a magic soul - they think almost everything they interact with is the physical consequence of physical laws.

So when someone describes a phenomenon as emergent, consider not only what that tells you about the phenomenon, but what it tells you about the overall world view of the person saying it. And ask for clarification if you're not sure.

[Ypan1944]

There is an error in your reasoning: an emergent phenomenon is indeed a function of its parts (mostly there are many other environmental factors that play a role) . But the FORM of that function is not a property of any part. In fact, there are countless different functions with the same parts possible.
Take, for example, a set of LEGO bricks. There are countless ways to combine them: every invention or discovery is emergent here. But none of those combinations are contained in the properties of the used LEGO bricks. The emergent phenomenon is a property of the whole, but not of its parts. The parts are essential, but they are not sufficient to explain the emergent property of the whole system.