T H E "E M E R G E N T"

conceptual/semantic gleaning about emergence in complexity

I N T R O D U C T I O N

In the quagmire of words used in the ongoing turmoil of the ideas

in recent cognitive natural sciences (consciousness, complexity,

the mind, holistic/chaotic evolution, nested hierarchy of infor-

mation assemblages, not to forget: emergent qualia and others) -I

chose a "noun" for the title of this essay. Samuel Alexander in

his book "Space, Time and Deity" (London 1920) used this noun,

incorporated into the doctrine of emergent evolution (cf: Lloyd

Morgan's 'continuous space-time', ie. in his 'universal matrix'

of the universe, whereupon an 'increasing qualitative level of

reality emerges'. A self-sustaining unitary system. Consequently:

the mind is an 'emergent' from life, while life is an 'emergent'

from a lower physical/chemical level of the existence. (An early

form of modern holistic view, indeed). -

"Emergent", as applied to life, expresses the 'novelty' of it in

nature, when in an "increased degree of complexity of organization"

the earlier unnoticed quality of life showed up. -

When "emergent" is applied to the mind: it expresses the novelty

of a complex ideation, when considered against the underlying,

less complex (neurological) physical-chemical processes.

(A remark to this 'historical' introduction: in view of the newer

development in the field, such discontinuous 'emergents' observed

in a (reductionistic) microcosm have to be placed within a universal

interconnection: into a holistic hierarchy of complexities, adaptively

'down' to the (hierarchical) line of components and 'up' to the line

of its assemblages as well: as the interactive *Complex Adaptive

System* in short: *CAS* - and respectively: *Complex Recursive

Systems* in short: *CRS* . All in interactive holisitc environment.

We will return to these concepts in more detail later on).

E M E R G E N C E

Triggered by the the topic of the Aug. 1998 Helsinki conference on

"Emergence", this more frequently used noun was a strong candidate

for a title to this essay. It is used in a variety of connotations.

Almost ubiquitous is the reference to an activity (within (or from?)

the substrate), resulting in an (unforeseen?) "emerging" feature,

one coming to existence or view, as 'from the inside of a liquid'.

In botany, however, 'emergence' indicates something that is in

addition to the expected, an addition-al, observable feature, like

a thorn on a rose-stem (usually called: 'AN emergent', as a noun).

We want to concentrate on emergences and emergents within the topical

field of complexity, within systems science, included the chaotic -

holistic view of nature and as part of the adaptive interconnection

in (self organizing? open? dissipative? tectological?) systems.

Emergence, the coming about of an emergent, will be considered in

a rather specified form of the mentioned botanical example: 'to

become noticed from being unnoticed'. We have two separate ways in

such a distinction: the emergence can be upon the substrate's own

activity (as: in resulting from a process - pertaining to, or by

the substrate), or by the observer's activity (in acknowledging a

state, or additional feature of the substrate). We prefer to use

the gerund "emerging" for the first variant, for the second the

adjective "emergent", (as e.g. in "emergent qualia" - see below),

although most dictionaries do not include such a sharp (formal?)

differentiation. The "emergence" of an Emergent Property (EP) as

pertinent with a Substrate System (SS) comes in quite a range

of different meanings. E.g. the appearance of (EP) from (SS) was

"surprising", meaning: one could not deduce by simply 'knowing'

(SS) what kind of (EP) to expect; or: if knowing only (SS), one

could not possibly have deduced that some (EP) would emerge at

all; nor would a process be tractable HOW the (EP) could appear,

from the data of the (SS); finally the hardest: if the 'laws',

governing (EP) differ from the laws governing the (SS): maybe

they are even logically independent of each other (pertaining

into different cognitive dimensions of our present cognition).

Wolfgang Kohler identified in the gestalt-theory an 'emergence'

as the >parallel< occurrence of (mental) phenomenological facts

with (physiologic) events (brain/neurologic reactions), when

arguing with Feigl, who considered them as >identical< or all

including (as do Patricia Churchland and the Francis Crick-line

nowadays). Kohler wrote this in 1955 and meant psychology only.

In today's 'systems science' we may choose to extend such origin-

ally only psychological gestalt(?) thinking to the entirety of

nature, including the ideation, matter, function and all.

Returning to the field of complexity: Benet Kutz in a post on the

internet Complex-M discussion-list (cf: http://www.ideatree.com),

called emergence "acausal" to which we could add: yes, maybe as

long as we cannot detect the circumstances/rules, under which the

emergent came about. Such circumstances involve the 'tectology'

(the word coined by A. Bogdanov, 1920), ie. the build-up of the

complexities in nature and their self-organization into their (as said)

"emergent qualia" (see more of that later).

These concepts deserve some further consideration.

C O M P L E X I T Y

From its etymological meaning, complexity is usually defined as an

interwoven, multi-component (big and complicated?) system with

interrelated components. 'Complexity theory' handles such systems

by intricate mathematical tools with ramifications towards the trends

of the 2nd part of the 20th century: game theory, the self-organizing

evolutionary pressures, open systems (running) equilibria, and mainly

the new aspects of mathematical chaology - bifurcations, attractors, the

fractal geometry and whatever the new mathematics carries in its active

arsenal. We want to emphasize another aspect of complexity (which is

also included in complexity-theory): the 'Complex Adaptive Systems'

(CAS), which respond to both self-organizational and incoming influences

into changing (modifying) their characteristics.

'Adaptation' occurs upon the influence of the components and of

outside environment. If the changed (new) characteristics 'feed

back' to the influencing agency to make them 'influenced' as well,

then the system is a recursive CAS. That, too, is included in the

mathematical Complexity-theory.

Missing is, however, the tectological aspect. For any assemblage,

to qualify for 'complexity', we require emergent *group* character-

istics, emergent in the sense of the above illustrated emergence-

features. In such cases they are qualitative features OF THE GROUP,

not directly sequenced from the characteristics of the components,

their material characteristics, functional behavior, or ideational

traits.

For a (simple?) material example we could look at the molecular

qualities of assemblages from atoms (e.g.C and H); - for a (higher

level?) complexity example: at the social qualities of groups of

people. Such 'group-qualities' reside with the complete assembled

group only, they are not traceable to the components, not to the

'process of assembling', not even to the physical aspects - so far.

So far, because this part of the study of nature is a brand new

substantial chapter in getting to know nature, her build-up the

circumstances into complexities, the evolution in both material-

and life-spaces: the tectology of nature. An extension of physical

inquiry into such fields was not possible during the course of the

past centuries: the epistemology level was not ready.

Now we already have a "crack" open on the door leading towards

tectological studies and we can hope to add a new build-up domain

to the so far only reductionistically studied analytical science

(which, however, so brilliantly DID establish our highly advanced

techniques). The attributes and/or properties of a unified assemblage

i.e. the (resident) group-characteristics, are frequently called the

(controversial):

E M E R G E N T - Q U A L I A

which are the resident group-behavior of a "unit", (meaning the

complex assemblage of the components - which components are

complexities themselves - into an intrinsic association. It is the

Aristotelian "more" above the sum of the parts in a 'total'. (This is

not a mathematical concept, something like "2+2 > 4", but is

conceptually (qualitatively) added. In the mathematical sense the

(19th c.) Georg Cantor called his (complex) units a 'set', with the

identification: "a set is a many, looking like a one". This "look as

a one" is the emergent, the group-characteristic). We may call the

"unit" a 'quantum' including the notion that even Planck's elementary

quantum may as well be a complex assemblage of its components,

below our (physical/epistemic) reach, leading to emergents which we

call energy, etc. (we have no reason to adjust nature's boundaries to

the limits of our observing skills). And even-though many physical

scientists define science as a measurable, calculable, observable, even

experimentally reproducible information (except for most of the recent

cosmology!), the new comprehension may exceed these limitations -

with the provision that they are. by speculative hypotheses, based on a

natural science-based thinking, so they may filter into the scientific

domain by proper scrutiny and understanding.

The emergent qualia of a complexity definitely belong into the scope

of natural sciences: beside the above mentioned chemical and soci-

ological examples, a wide range of observations of such properties

support this position, e.g. the observations on the physiology of a

cell-assembly (unexpectable from their protein-membrane-organelle

components), or the observable surface tension of water (unexpected

from the characteristics of the component H & O atoms/molecules, or

even of the sub-component neutrons, protons, electrons, for that

matter). Nor is the observed behavior of the stock-market composed

of individually different companies, etc. etc. These are all scien-

tifically observable features, in most cases measurable and even

calculable (up to their chaotic nature). However the 'emergence' of

such qualia is in general unpredictable, chaotic, so far considered

an emergent. Plainly as observed and taken by science as a given.

Applying the wisdom of Niels Bohr, let us not ask "what is the

occurrence of an emergence" or "how does it happen" - ask only:

"what can we say about it?". Nor can we make a scientific pre-

diction of an emergent, to be carried by a new (designed/model?)

assemblage. The unpredictability of such qualities introduces:

C H A O S

We want to lift the restrictions imposed on this old concept by

the recent mathematical chaology, identifying only a family of

dynamic processes transcending linearity, or the geometry of

fractals, transcending scales and the integer-dimensions. Chaos,

as folk-semantics has it, is the disorder: the unpredictability of

nature to the order of our 'linear' thinking, our quantitative and

qualitative logic. Chaos, due to minute differences somewhere in

the origins (down the hierarchy-line of the nested build-up of the

component complexities) is resulting in substantial (unproportional

quantitatively and unpredictable qualitative) differences along the

tectology. Its unpredictability is because of our ignorance about

nature's occurrences beyond that limited segment of our so far ob-

served material universe, the part, from which information is already

accessed and represented by our mind. Chaos is beyond our space/time

'order'. This is why we cannot predict, calculate, or explain chaos

in spite of the (quantitative) efforts of physical chaology (not even

within their select segment with limitations of space and/or time).

The formless, spaceless, timeless 'nature' resembles David Bohm's

"implicate", beyond the resolving capabilities of our mind - even

of our sensors. - For now -. Looking at the development of human

thinking, we can certainly detect a gradual widening of both our

(sensorial/instrumental) detectional and our understanding power,

penetrating into the non-linear knowledge, increasing both our

physical and cognitive dimensions we contemplate, even exceeding

the equational mathematical restrictions into the fuzzy/holistic

interpretation of varieties, into a 'probabilistic certainty' of

the uncertainty, of the unlimitable (hidden) variables and their

unlimited outcome. The idea "everything possible is realized" has

already surfaced in quantum physics (in the MWI, "Multiple Worlds

Interpretation"). We see it expanded into the unified systems

science of the new "implicate" order, the chaotic/holistic

interconnected wholeness.

E X P L I C A T E ?

Emergence is a feature of nature, both in the implicate order and

in our space-time material universe. The probabilities in the

chaotic holism do realize in the interconnection of information.

The information reaching our mind is represented in consciousness

as our view of nature. The incredible ordering power of the mind

created a system from such information: OUR world, the explicate

order. It grows (widens) by our epistemological evolution and our

speculative capabilities, resulting in an increase of complexity

of the perceived nature, both within our universe and hints about

'out there'. "Our Universe" may be the emergent of an imbalance

in the chaotic interconnectedness: a partial linearization of a

segment. We call that a Big Bang, one of innumerable others. The

'linear dissonance' (on top of the underlying chaos) evolved into

a system of - looked at from WITHIN - space, time, cause, mass,

quantities, physical existence and undergoes an evolutionary process

of increasing complexity, which we are part of. (Without diverting

into fictional speculations, it can be assumed that the increasing

complexity is the way to eliminate the simplicity of the "linear

disorder" and return the unruly segment into the chaotic holism.

This may be, why we experience a monotonous increase of complexity

during the course of the evolution.)

As we quoted Alexander in the Introduction, LIFE is an emergent of

the physical world, as is the MIND: one of life. Human mind reached

the level where certain aspects of nonlinear features are involved,

where a partial transcendence over the limitations of space and time

became feasible, where chaotic ideation is not excluded.

The explicate is approaching the boundaries of the implicate - at

least we 'feel' the underlying chaos. We are using the only tool,

available to us: the complexity of the neuronal brain-matter and our

ideation: the mind with its human logic (which is not necessarily

capable to completely understand the entirety of nature). And: its

scientifically developed "quantitative" language: mathematics. As

David Bohm observed "there are no numbers in nature, only in the

human mind". We would add: So we develop the methodology of explain-

ing the explicate order. Emergents (qualia, characteristics, proper-

ties, even processes) within the explicate are time-stable and

observable. Emergence is the essential part of nature's build-up;

in our world: it is part of our observation. The complexities carry

their emergents, as a (mostly chaotic) adage in 'complexification',

the interconnection into a recursive CAS. No direct observation do

we have about the implicate.

The answer to our 'Bohrian' question what can we say about the emergence:

"So far we have not much to say about it, but we can (and do) speak a lot about it."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**References:

Samuel Alexander: Space, Time, Deity [London, 1920]

Wolfgang Kohler: Select Papers of... [Liveright 1971]

A, Bogdanov: Tektologia [1920, Russ.]

English translation: P.Dudley: 'Bogdanov's Tektology'

[Centre for Systems Studies, Univ. of Hull UK, 1996]

David Bohm: Wholeness and the Implicate Order

[Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988]

Ian Stewart,Jack Cohen: The Figment of Reality [Cambridge U.1997]

Alwyn Scott: Stairway to the Mind [Springer, 1995]

John Mikes: [http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/Genre]

John Mikes: [http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John A. Mikes July 1998, Madison NJ USA