ESR's comments on some EY:OB/LW posts

This somehow feels like it should be a comment on Armed and Dangerous, rather than a post on Less Wrong; it just doesn't seem to be making a significant point about rationality that wasn't already made in a salient place here. (Of course, this is highly subjective.)

Less Wrong seems to have developed a typical style of post different from, say, Overcoming Bias (where these sorts of blog interactions used to fit in very well); it's become less of a group blog and more of... well, something new, where posts are written to express a new idea, link something previously unknown to the group, synthesize several related ideas, or present a large argumentative piece within an ongoing debate. I think this is a good thing, and I'd prefer it to be the norm...

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.

Are we in a better position regarding the word "intelligence"? You have tried to explain what you mean by it, but I think most people still probably have quibbles with your definition.

There's strong emergence and weak emergence. Strong emergence is nonsense, weak emergence is uncontroversial. See Holland's book "Emergence" - which is pure reductionism, without a trace of idiotic new-age nonsense.

I usually take "emergence" to mean "weak emergence" - unless the context is one of ridicule, in which case "strong emergence" seems more appropriate.

"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..."

Actually I think it means something useful and that is exactly it :-)

I also think the other definitions that have been offered here, actually mean the same thing.

Of course the word can be abused, but so can lots of other useful words.

which is that there is no possible account of intelligence in which the only explanatory units are neurons or subsystems of neurons.

Now I thought that the word emergence meant

sometimes, something interesting can happen when you look at the bulk behaviour of a very large number of small, boring but interacting units

Like, say, an avalanche "emerges" from the individually boring behaviour of snow particles.

I use emergent as the opposite, in direction not meaning, of reductive. An emergent structure or behavior is built up of lower level structures or behaviors in complex and interesting ways. And can be reduced to those lower level objects, but because of the complexity of their interactions, it is hard to understand the emergent properties from the lower level objects' properties.

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...

...yeah, pretty much. Good point, well made.

Is it okay to comment here about some of the other posts he linked to?

It's nice to read something recent from ESR that's (mostly) not political. He's an interesting guy, but his political views are a depressing textbook example of the tragedy of a smart person going into a powerful affective death spiral.