Emergent Phenomena Only Belong to Biology

This rather philosophical paper discusses the necessary three ingredients which together allow a collective phenomenon to be described as "emergent". First the phenomenon, as usual, requires a group of agents entering in a non-linear relationship and entailing the existence of two semantic descriptions depending on the scale of observation. Second this phenomenon has to be observed by a mechanical observer instead of a human one, which has the natural capacity for temporal and/or spatial integration. Finally, for this natural observer to detect and select the collective phenomenon, it needs to do so in rewards of the adaptive value this phenomenon is responsible for. The presence of natural selection drives us to defend, with many authors, the idea that emergent phenomena can only belong to biology. After a brief philosophical plea, we present a simple and illustrative computer thought experiment in which a society of agents evolves a stigmergic collective behavior as an outcome of its greater adaptive value. The three ingredients are illustrated and discussed within this experimental context.

[1]  P. Cariani.  Emergence of new signal-primitives in neural systems , 1997 .

[2]  Yaneer Bar-Yam,et al.  A mathematical theory of strong emergence using multiscale variety , 2004, Complex..

[3]  J. Urry.  Complexity , 2006, Interpreting Art.

[4]  William Poundstone.  Recursive Universe: Cosmic Consequences and the Limits of Scientific Knowledge , 1985 .

[5]  Hugues Bersini,et al.  A gestalt genetic algorithm: less details for better search , 2007, GECCO '07.

[6]  William F. Loomis,et al.  Life as It Is: Biology for the Public Sphere , 2008 .

[7]  Eörs Szathmáry,et al.  The Major Transitions in Evolution , 1997 .

[8]  W. Calvin.  The brain as a Darwin Machine , 1987, Nature.

[9]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Web science: an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the web , 2008, CACM.

[10]  A. Leggett.  A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down , 2005 .

[11]  S. Kauffman.  At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity , 1995 .

[12]  Craig W. Reynolds.  Flocks, herds, and schools: a distributed behavioral model , 1987, SIGGRAPH.

[13]  Joseph M. Whitmeyer,et al.  Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems , 2006 .

[14]  Ales Kubík,et al.  Toward a Formalization of Emergence , 2002, Artif. Life.

[15]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  Revision History , 2003 .

[16]  John R. Searle,et al.  The Rediscovery of the Mind , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[17]  B. Palsson.  Systems Biology: Properties of Reconstructed Networks , 2006 .

[18]  Phil Husbands,et al.  Whatever Emerges should be Intrinsically Useful , 2004 .

[19]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[20]  P. Anderson.  More is different. , 1972, Science.

[21]  A. Rosenfeld,et al.  IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS , MAN , AND CYBERNETICS , 2022 .

[22]  J. Crutchfield.  Is anything ever new?: considering emergence , 1999 .

[23]  M. Bedau.  Weak Emergence * , 1997 .

[24]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents , 1996, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[25]  Peter A. Corning,et al.  The re-emergence of "emergence": A venerable concept in search of a theory , 2002, Complex..

[26]  B. Goodwin.  How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity , 1995 .

[27]  Jeffrey Goldstein,et al.  Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion , 2008 .

[28]  M Mitchell,et al.  The evolution of emergent computation. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Hugues Bersini.  Whatever emerges should be intrinsically useful , 2004 .