I’m not sure that I disagree with you here, but I do feel like you largely missed the point of the original essay. A large part of what you’re saying seems to be that the word “emergence” doesn’t mean to you what Eliezer says it often means; it doesn’t function for you in the way that Eliezer says it often functions. Which… okay, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about it functioning that way for others.
“I disagree with The Futility of Emergence,” says ESR. Yea, many have said this to me. And they go on to say: Emergence has the useful meaning that… And it’s a different meaning every time. In ESR’s case it’s:
> “The word ‘emergent’ is a signal that we believe a very specific thing about the relationship between ‘neurons firing’ and ‘intelligence’, which is that there is no possible account of intelligence in which the only explanatory units are neurons or subsystems of neurons.”
Let me guess, you think the word “emergence” means something useful but that’s not exactly it, although ESR’s definition does aim in the rough general direction of what you think is the right definition...
So-called “words” like this should not be actually spoken from one human to another. It is tempting fate. It would be like trying to have a serious discussion between two theologians if both of them were allowed to say the word “God” directly, instead of always having to say whatever they meant by the word.
Indeed, your understanding of emergence seems not quite the same as ESR’s understanding of emergence.
It’s worth noting that in the past ten years, the wikipedia article seems to have been edited. The definition Eliezer quoted is no longer present; at a guess, it’s been replaced with the more specific definition that you quoted. It may be that the word now has a consistent, non-magical meaning in the popular imagination and the essay is out of date. But your own essay does nothing to convince me of that.
As a single data point: I think DragonGod’s definition of emergence is exactly what mine has been, and while I would have agreed with Eliezer’s assessment of ESR’s comment I think DragonGod’s sense that it’s the same would convince me the difference is just poor writing.
Indeed, your understanding of emergence seems not quite the same as ESR’s understanding of emergence.
Is this really true? I do not see the difference between my understanding of emergence and ESR’s. What is the difference between:
The word ‘emergent’ is a signal that we believe a very specific thing about the relationship between ‘neurons firing’ and ‘intelligence’, which is that there is no possible account of intelligence in which the only explanatory units are neurons or subsystems of neurons.”
and;
A is an emergent property of X, means that A arises from X in a way in which it is contingent on the interaction of the constituents of X (and not on those constituents themselves). If A is an emergent property of X, then the constituents of X do not possess A. A comes into existence as categorial novum at the inception of X. The difference between system X and its constituent components in regards to property A is a difference of kind and not of degree; X’s constituents do not possess A in some tiny magnitude—they do not possess A at all.
?
Do the two models of emergence cause us to anticipate differently? Are the predictions of the two models any different? Is there anything that ESR’s model predicts that my model fails to predict, or my model predicts and ESR’s model fails to predict?
As far as I can tell, functionally the two models are the same. They predict the same set of experimental results. They constrain anticipations in exactly the same manner. Even in their internal make up, the two models are not different.
ESR’s definition of emergence is isomorphic to mine.
Let me guess, you think the word “emergence” means something useful but that’s not exactly it, although ESR’s definition does aim in the rough general direction of what you think is the right definition...
Nope. There is no vagueness here. ESR and I agree on the meaning of emergence. I explicitly specified what I meant by emergence, and it agrees with what ESR says. There is a definition of emergence on Wikipedia, and I wholly agree with it.
Well, I actually think both definitions are kind of vague and hard to apply, and since they’re written somewhat differently my intuition is that they’re not describing the same thing by default, and if you think they are then you need to argue it.
Conditioned on “X possesses A”, the definitions seem to be “there is no possible account of A in which the only explanatory units are the constituents of X”, compared to “the constituents of X do not possess A”. I don’t think it’s obvious that these are the same.
I might guess that ant colonies have properties which are emergent by your definition but not ESR’s, but I’m not confident.
All that said, that was a fairly throwaway line, and if I was wrong about it then that doesn’t particularly change my feelings.
Well, I actually think both definitions are kind of vague and hard to apply, and since they’re written somewhat differently my intuition is that they’re not describing the same thing by default, and if you think they are then you need to argue it.
Sorry, but I don’t think that’s how burden of proof works. You’re the one claiming that the definitions are different, so you are the one who needs to defend that claim.
If you feel they are different, then provide an example.
I was wrong about it then that doesn’t particularly change my feelings.
I’m going to mostly disengage now, I expect continuing would be a waste of time. But it seems virtuous of me to answer this question, at least:
> What would change your feelings.
One thing that would change my feelings would be if someone (possibly you) looked at Eliezer’s original essay and summarized it in a way that seemed true to the spirit, and did the same with yours, and yours felt like it engaged with Eliezer’s. I’m aware that this is vague. I think that’s pretty inevitable.
I’m not sure that I disagree with you here, but I do feel like you largely missed the point of the original essay. A large part of what you’re saying seems to be that the word “emergence” doesn’t mean to you what Eliezer says it often means; it doesn’t function for you in the way that Eliezer says it often functions. Which… okay, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about it functioning that way for others.
In fact, I feel like Eliezer replied to this back in 2009: http://lesswrong.com/lw/113/esrs_comments_on_some_eyoblw_posts/
Indeed, your understanding of emergence seems not quite the same as ESR’s understanding of emergence.
It’s worth noting that in the past ten years, the wikipedia article seems to have been edited. The definition Eliezer quoted is no longer present; at a guess, it’s been replaced with the more specific definition that you quoted. It may be that the word now has a consistent, non-magical meaning in the popular imagination and the essay is out of date. But your own essay does nothing to convince me of that.
As a single data point: I think DragonGod’s definition of emergence is exactly what mine has been, and while I would have agreed with Eliezer’s assessment of ESR’s comment I think DragonGod’s sense that it’s the same would convince me the difference is just poor writing.
Is this really true? I do not see the difference between my understanding of emergence and ESR’s. What is the difference between:
and;
?
Do the two models of emergence cause us to anticipate differently? Are the predictions of the two models any different? Is there anything that ESR’s model predicts that my model fails to predict, or my model predicts and ESR’s model fails to predict?
As far as I can tell, functionally the two models are the same. They predict the same set of experimental results. They constrain anticipations in exactly the same manner. Even in their internal make up, the two models are not different.
ESR’s definition of emergence is isomorphic to mine.
Nope. There is no vagueness here. ESR and I agree on the meaning of emergence. I explicitly specified what I meant by emergence, and it agrees with what ESR says. There is a definition of emergence on Wikipedia, and I wholly agree with it.
Well, I actually think both definitions are kind of vague and hard to apply, and since they’re written somewhat differently my intuition is that they’re not describing the same thing by default, and if you think they are then you need to argue it.
Conditioned on “X possesses A”, the definitions seem to be “there is no possible account of A in which the only explanatory units are the constituents of X”, compared to “the constituents of X do not possess A”. I don’t think it’s obvious that these are the same.
I might guess that ant colonies have properties which are emergent by your definition but not ESR’s, but I’m not confident.
All that said, that was a fairly throwaway line, and if I was wrong about it then that doesn’t particularly change my feelings.
Sorry, but I don’t think that’s how burden of proof works. You’re the one claiming that the definitions are different, so you are the one who needs to defend that claim.
If you feel they are different, then provide an example.
What would change your feelings.
I’m going to mostly disengage now, I expect continuing would be a waste of time. But it seems virtuous of me to answer this question, at least:
> What would change your feelings.
One thing that would change my feelings would be if someone (possibly you) looked at Eliezer’s original essay and summarized it in a way that seemed true to the spirit, and did the same with yours, and yours felt like it engaged with Eliezer’s. I’m aware that this is vague. I think that’s pretty inevitable.
I think there is an obvious conflict of interest in me engaging in that particular exercise.