From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties
Date: 5 Nov 1992 21:02:32 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu


From Larry Moran:
*****************
We have all agreed over the past few days that emergent properties are not
confined to biology. They are seen whenever we examine anything more complex
than an atom. Thus Gould's second premise applies equally to physics and
chemistry. It follows that the principles of physics and chemistry are not
sufficient to explain complex physical and chemical objects either!
***************
ME> While our knowledge of physics and chemistry are, in principle,
sufficient to explain complex physical and chemical objects, the
technical ability to do so is not in our grasp. As more complex tools
are created, properties that we now call emergent will be explained.
Someday, someone may be able to derive an exact quantum mechanical
solution for dihydrogen (or easier yet, the helium atom) or derive
Ohm's law from quantum principles.  These problems are miniscule compared
to explaining human behavior on the basis of organic chemistry.
No one in their right mind will attempt to explain anorexia in terms
of whether or not the C-terminal methionine of squalene monooxygenase
is cleaved after translation.


Larry>
*************
On the one hand Gould states without evidence that the laws of physics and
chemistry are not sufficient in biology while on the the hand he claims that
no mystical addition to these laws is required because that would be too much
like vitalism!
*************
ME> Add one more thing and I think this will be much easier to
understand.  That is:  Can you measure all the important
physicochemical values of a complex system at least to the extent that
even a simple approximation is possible?  Closer to home:  How 
well can one model the closed to open transition of transcriptional
complexes at a quantum level?  At a physical-chemical level?  How
well can this be done without precise knowledge of the actual 
configuration of the polymerase (multiple subunits) and the DNA?
How is one sure that what happens in vitro is the same as in vivo?
Buffer effects? Temperature effects?

Does this disability prevent us from studying tissue-specific
gene expression or are we capable of making some advances despite
our shortcomings?  Eventually, it is desired to tie these issues
but that's likely far into the future.  Meanwhile, we limp along
on empirically derived relationships.


Larry>
***********************
Gould's premises are vacuous statements and the "holistic" philosophy is a
thinly disguised attempt to avoid coming to grips with the implications of
"mechanism" (IMHO). It's also a convenient excuse for not learning about
biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, and genetics (these are evil
reductionist fields that are doomed to failure because they don't study whole,
living systems in their natural state)!
************
ME> My work covers all these fields and I use the term "emergent
properties" where needed to help students grasp the relationships
between various fields of study. It's a form of mental "pigeonholing"
or a toehold on the scientific continuum.  


Regards, 
Tim Ikeda

PS - The "New Age" appropriation of the term "emergent properties"
makes me gag as well.  But that's not my fault.

 
Newsgroups: talk.origins