> SA wrote:
>> Miles Jackson wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's possible to formulate a definition of "independent effect" so
>> that genes have no "independent effect" on eye color. But to do that,
>> your definition of "independent effect" has to be such that nothing
>> ever has an independent effect on anything else.
>
> No, I'm not saying that things cannot have an independent effect on
> other things. I'm trying to highlight a category error, as Ryle used
> to say. One element that contributes to the emergent property of an
> entity cannot have an independent effect on that entity.
I think this is a misuse of the concept of an emergent property. Genes are not "one element" that "contributes" to determining the color of a child's eyes at birth. They're the *only* element that determines eye color. Eye color is not an emergent property determined through the interaction of genes and many other underlying factors. It's determined solely by genes. Of course, a particular individual's genotype - like everything else that is not the Uncaused Cause - is itself the result of a chain of historical causation going back to the beginning of the universe. But that does not make it an emergent property, otherwise everything would be an emergent property.
SA