Ugh! I looked it up. It's not Dennett's. It's Crutchfield's. [†] And it's not his definition of intrinsic emergence. [‡] It's his "operational definition of emergence" and, quoting now:
"A process undergoes emergence if at some time the architecture of information processing has changed in such a way that a distinct and more powerful level of intrinsic computation has appeared that was not present in earlier conditions." From Crutchfield's "Is Anything Ever New?" in "Emergence" Bedau and Humphreys eds. [†] Oh the irony of complaining about misattribution and then to go misattributing. 8^) [‡] But, Crutchfield's defn of intrinsic emergence *does* get at a point I think is critical. Again quoting: "In the emergence of coordinated behavior, though, there is a closure in which the patterns that emerge are important _within_ the system." (emphasis in the original) On 5/7/19 1:44 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > No, it's OK. I just don't understand. > > To be clear, I kinda like Dan Dennett's concept of "intrinsic emergence". I > may not remember it well. But it goes something like this: emergence exists > when the higher level language is more computationally expressive than the > lower level language. > > I only kinda like it because I would prefer something like: emergence exists > when the post-map language has a different expressibility than the pre-map > language. By removing "level", referring to the gen-phen map directly, and > not requiring the containership of more or less expressibility, it seems more > palatable to me. But I don't know if my re-phrasing even makes sense. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
