<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Eric Smith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:69269CDE-3FC8-4084-94AE-24BCC9FF692A@santafe.edu">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word"
class="" lang="EN-US">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div class="">
<div class="MsoNormal"><b class=""><i class=""> Dreams
are an epiphenomena of the waking brain catching the
sleeping brain at its work. I think I have just
created a dualist monster here. Oh, well.
<===nst] </i></b></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>I actually think this is fine. What I have seen about
the memory-reinforcement role believed to be served by
dreams works with it well.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I have always liked the "just so" story that dreams serve as a forum
for "untangling" the tangles left from the day's weaving of webs
that humans seem to do. Like braiding a set of cords and having to
pause every few dozen braidings to untangle the ends of the cords
(the counter-braid). In a more modern idiom, I think of it as a
refactoring process. Or following Piaget's structural theory of
learning convolved with CS201 topics, it is a rebalancing of "trees"
as we hang more and more stuff on them in our daily experiences.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:69269CDE-3FC8-4084-94AE-24BCC9FF692A@santafe.edu">
<div class="">
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>The point being, dreams are not creating narrative for
their own sake and within their own scope. They are
inheriting structures of narrative that are there in the
brain, and are part of a template as other work is being
done.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, like that.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:69269CDE-3FC8-4084-94AE-24BCC9FF692A@santafe.edu">
<div class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word"
class="" lang="EN-US">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div class="">
<div class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="MsoNormal">I prefer that kind of example,
where there are many inputs and a real thing (all
the organization of the brain) that they create,
which is then available to act “downwardly” on any
one thing, particularly one that the structure
probably wasn’t selected for. Like, dreaming may be
functional, but I’m not sure that whether dreams are
entertaining would matter that much to evolutionary
criteria.<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="MsoNormal"><o:p class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="MsoNormal">What I prefer those examples to
are the old trope of “magnetization downwardly
causes spins to align”, since there is no additional
thing that is “magnetization” than the aggregate
effect of all the other spins. So one hasn’t added
anything by claiming “downward causation” to just
saying “each spin affects all the others, and the
net effect excludes entropy to the environment”.<o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal"><b class=""><i class="">[NST===>So
am I right that the magnetization is not an
emergent; it is just the aggregate effect of the
spins?<===nst] </i></b></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>It is emergent, and it is exactly nothing more than an
aggregate effect. Both. Because in this use of the term
“emergent” there is no dependence on a notion of downward
causation.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>This was my life. I use emergence daily. I never find
myself needing to use downward causation.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Following DaveW's commentary, I suppose I think of "Emergence" as
being about ontological status. When a jizillion air molecules
(with suspended dust and water droplets) begin to (self?) organize
into a vortex, there is some point at which we want to call it a
whirlwind/funnel-cloud/tornado/tropical storm/hurricane. And in
fact, the collective action of those molecules/particles/droplets
is dominated by the vortex's properties with the components'
properties less important? But when/how does this transition
happen? Is it always a recognizable phase transition of some
sort? <br>
</p>
<p>I admit to finding "self-organization" "emergence" "ontological
status" "downward causation" and "auopoesis" to be very (but
wonderfully) mysterious... I think it was recently that someone
(SteveG) made the point that the central theme of any study is the
term which is most in contention (Consciousness, Art, Governance,
etc.). Perhaps by definition, the central object of study (or
constellation thereof) is the one thing left to be
under-specified... otherwise why would we be studying it?</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>