284 Chapter 11
a timewhentherewasno life on Earth.Nowthereis life on Earth.Finally,therewasonce
a timewhenno mammalswereon Earth.Nowthereare.Thatnaturalprocessescan
occasionallybringforthunprecedentedeventsdoesnot beliethe Lawof Identity.Nor
doesit contradictmy argumentthat metaphysicallygivenfactscouldnot haveturnedout
any differentlythantheydid turnout. Thata set of naturalprocesses,L, can bringforthan
unprecedentednaturalevent,M, doesnot meanthat eitherLorMcontradictsitself—that
eitherLorMis bothitselfand not-itselfat the sametimeand in the samerespect.No, it
merelymeansthatL, behavingas itselfandactingaccordingto its nature,at one point
eventuallybringsforthan unprecedentedevent,M, whichalsohas its ownset of discern-
ible attributesand acts accordingto its ownnature.Thattherewas onceno mammals,and
that nowthereare, in no mannermeansthat mammalsclashagainstthe Lawof Identity—
mammalshavetheirownnatureand behaveaccordingly.Moreover,thatmetaphysically
givenfacts,not beingableto haveturnedout anydifferentlythantheydid,doesnot
precludesuchmetaphysicallygivenfactsfrombeingemergentresultsthat at one timedid
not exist.
To repeata pointfromBookTwo,eachof the followingis an exampleof emergence.
(A).The timewhenthe chemicalreactionsof inorganicmatteron Earthformedthe first
self-replicatingstrandsof proteinsthatwouldevolveintothe earliestprimitiveorgan-
isms.(B). Theevolutionof fish intoamphibians.(C). Thebottom-upemergenceof nor-
malizedcustomsthatgovernthe communicativeintercoursescarriedout everydayin
StandardAmericanEnglish.(D). The similarlynormalizedcustomsof commercialtrans-
actionsresulting,bottomup, as the sumof variouscompromisesmadebetweenconsu-
mersandvendors.“Emergence,” definesGazzaniga,“is whenmicro-levelcomplexsys-
temsthat are far fromequilibrium(thusallowingfor the amplificationof randomevents)
self-organize(creative,self-generated,adaptability-seekingbehavior)into newstructures,
withnewpropertiesthatpreviouslydid not exist,to forma newlevelof organizationon
the macrolevel.”^94
CompareGazzaniga’s definitionof emergencewithHerbertSpencer’s implicitprocla-
mationthatpreviouslyunprecedentedphenomenaare emergentwithinnature:“The
advancefromthe simpleto the complex,througha processof successivedifferentiations,
is seenalike... in the... evolution... of everysingleorganism.. .; it is seenin the
evolutionof Humanity,whethercontemplatedin the civilizedindividual,or in the aggre-
gationof races;it is seenin the evolutionof Societyin respectalikeof its political,its
religious,andits economicalorganisation;andit is seenin the evolutionof all those
endlessconcreteandabstractproductsof humanactivitywhichconstitutethe environ-
mentof ourdailylife.Fromthe remotestpastwhichSciencecan fathom,up to the
noveltiesof yesterday,that in whichprogressessentiallyconsists,is the transformationof
the homogenousintothe heterogeneous.”^95 ObservethatSpencerappliesthe termevolu-
tionto just aboutany emergent“transformationfromthe homogeneousto the heterogene-
ous,” not merelyto the transmutationof species.It was actuallyreadersof Spencer’s, such
as CharlesDarwin,whotookthe termevolutionuponseeingit in Spencer’s worksand
thenappliedit specificallyin the contextof emergentnewspecies.Anyhow,withrespect
to Spencer’s viewson howcomplexsystemsemergefromsimplersystems,it shouldbe
evidentthat J. DoyneFarmeris rightto creditSpenceras a pioneerin this discipline.
Withrespectto provingthe existenceof emergentcomplexity,Gazzanigapointsout
that the rulesapplicableto Newtonianmechanics—the physicalpropertiesof the realmof
objectsreadilyperceivableto humans—are not alwaysapplicableto the realmof quan-
tummechanics,whichinvolvesthe physicalpropertiesof objectson the atomiclevel.The
lawsof Newtonianmechanicsare contextuallyabsolute,meaningthattheyare merely
absolutein theirowncontextand do not inexorablyapply“to all levelsof organization;it
dependswhichlevelof organizationyouare describing,andnewrulesapplywhen