Executive summary: This exploratory post critiques Eliezer Yudkowsky’s dismissal of “emergence” as a vague or mystical concept, proposing instead a structured model of emergence as a repeatable, quantifiable cycle—where systems adapt to friction, reach equilibrium, and become the substrate for further complexity—illustrated through examples from biology, infrastructure, history, and philosophy.
Key points:
Clarifying emergence: The author agrees with Yudkowsky that “emergence” can be misused, but argues that emergent phenomena are real and meaningful when a system becomes more aligned with a macroscopic structure or function than with its microscopic parts.
Convergence as a test for emergence: The post highlights examples like slime mold networks and the evolution of the eye to show how similar macroscopic structures emerge independently in different systems—suggesting that convergence across domains confirms genuine emergence.
The emergent spiral model: The author proposes a specific cycle—friction disrupts a system, prompting adaptation and a new equilibrium, which in turn becomes the substrate for further emergence. This spiral explains layered complexity across domains such as traffic systems, immune responses, and social evolution.
Distinguishing emergence from design or magic: The post cautions against Yudkowsky’s conflation of emergence with mystical explanation, arguing that macroscopic descriptions (like function or purpose) can coexist with reductionist mechanisms without invoking design or magic.
Cross-disciplinary echoes of emergence: Historical dialectics (Hegel), scientific progress (Popper), and evolutionary biology all reflect similar cyclical patterns of friction and transformation, supporting the universality of the emergent spiral as a tool for understanding complex systems.
Critique of Yudkowsky’s framing: The author contends that Yudkowsky critiques a straw-man version of emergence—as a hand-waving term—rather than the structured, cumulative process the author describes, which deepens rather than cheapens our understanding of intelligence and other complex phenomena.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory post critiques Eliezer Yudkowsky’s dismissal of “emergence” as a vague or mystical concept, proposing instead a structured model of emergence as a repeatable, quantifiable cycle—where systems adapt to friction, reach equilibrium, and become the substrate for further complexity—illustrated through examples from biology, infrastructure, history, and philosophy.
Key points:
Clarifying emergence: The author agrees with Yudkowsky that “emergence” can be misused, but argues that emergent phenomena are real and meaningful when a system becomes more aligned with a macroscopic structure or function than with its microscopic parts.
Convergence as a test for emergence: The post highlights examples like slime mold networks and the evolution of the eye to show how similar macroscopic structures emerge independently in different systems—suggesting that convergence across domains confirms genuine emergence.
The emergent spiral model: The author proposes a specific cycle—friction disrupts a system, prompting adaptation and a new equilibrium, which in turn becomes the substrate for further emergence. This spiral explains layered complexity across domains such as traffic systems, immune responses, and social evolution.
Distinguishing emergence from design or magic: The post cautions against Yudkowsky’s conflation of emergence with mystical explanation, arguing that macroscopic descriptions (like function or purpose) can coexist with reductionist mechanisms without invoking design or magic.
Cross-disciplinary echoes of emergence: Historical dialectics (Hegel), scientific progress (Popper), and evolutionary biology all reflect similar cyclical patterns of friction and transformation, supporting the universality of the emergent spiral as a tool for understanding complex systems.
Critique of Yudkowsky’s framing: The author contends that Yudkowsky critiques a straw-man version of emergence—as a hand-waving term—rather than the structured, cumulative process the author describes, which deepens rather than cheapens our understanding of intelligence and other complex phenomena.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.