Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:55:33.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computational and Conceptual Emergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Paul Humphreys
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A twofold taxonomy for emergence is presented into which a variety of contemporary accounts of emergence fit. The first taxonomy consists of inferential, conceptual, and ontological emergence; the second of diachronic and synchronic emergence. The adequacy of weak emergence, a computational form of inferential emergence, is then examined and its relationship to conceptual emergence and ontological emergence is detailed.

Type
Computational Emergence and Its Applications
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 584 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Conversations and correspondence with Mark Bedau, Philippe Huneman, and Cyrille Imbert have much improved this paper.

References

Anderson, P. W. (1972), “More Is Different”, More Is Different 177:393–396.Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, P. W. (1995), “Historical Overview of the Twentieth Century Physics”, in Brown, L. M., Pais, A., and Pippard, B. (eds.), Twentieth Century Physics. New York: American Institute of Physics Press, 2017–2032.Google Scholar
Bedau, Mark (1997), “Weak Emergence”, in Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives: Mind, Causation, and World, Vol. 11. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 375–399.Google Scholar
Bedau, Mark (2003), “Downward Causation and the Autonomy of Weak Emergence”, Downward Causation and the Autonomy of Weak Emergence 6:5–50.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1925), The Mind and Its Place in Nature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Castellani, Elena (2002), “Reductionism, Emergence, and Effective Field Theories”, Reductionism, Emergence, and Effective Field Theories 33:251–267.Google Scholar
Darley, Vince (1994), “Emergent Phenomena and Complexity”, in Brooks, R. and Maes, P. (eds.), Artificial Life IV: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 411–416.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul (1997a), “Emergence, Not Supervenience”, Emergence, Not Supervenience 64:S337–S345.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul (1997b), “How Properties Emerge”, How Properties Emerge 64:1–17.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul (2004), Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Paul (2008), “Synchronic and Diachronic Emergence”, Synchronic and Diachronic Emergence 18:431–442.Google Scholar
Imbert, Cyrille (2006), “Why Diachronically Emergent Properties Must Also Be Salient”, in Gershenson, Carlos, Aerts, Diederik, and Edmonds, Bruce (eds.), Philosophy and Complexity: Essays on Epistemology, Evolution, and Emergence. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (1999), “Making Sense of Emergence”, Making Sense of Emergence 95:3–36.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Brian (1997), “Emergence and Supervenience,” Intellectica 25:25–43.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernest (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Steen, and Barrett, Chris (1995), “Elements of a Theory of Simulation”, in European Conference on Artificial Life, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rueger, Alexander (2000), “Physical Emergence, Diachronic and Synchronic”, Physical Emergence, Diachronic and Synchronic 124:297–322.Google Scholar
van Cleve, James (1990), “Mind-Dust or Magic? Panpsychism versus Emergentism”, Mind-Dust or Magic? Panpsychism versus Emergentism 4:215–226.Google Scholar