From: "Greg Hall" <gregoryjayhall-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Emergent explanations 
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:31:53 -0700




Hans wrote:

>We don't understand any of these examples of emergence very
>well, and if it is real emergence, then there will always be
>something we don't understand about it.  But there is always
>the possibility that, as our knowledge progresses, it will
>turn out that certain things which we thought are emergent
>really aren't.

When we are talking about emergence, is it necessary that we can't explain 
the emergent property from the parts?  Or, can emergence be a new or 
different property that the parts don't have indvidually?  I am struggling 
with why it would be important for us not to be able to explain the new 
property for it to qualify as emergence.



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



     --- from list seminar-14-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---