upvoted! he ponders some really good imponderables, and it was worth my effort to go through a few times to understand. imponderosa's TL;DR summary of this video (and btw niche is pronounced "neesh", dude) :
EMERGENCE: that which is (big E) Emergence, arises (more than emerges, you'll soon see) from "selection pressure niche evolutionary feedback systems" (so-called Darwinian systems)
IS NOT SIMPLY WHAT EMERGES: is not like what (little e) emerges from random systems like the light bulbs lighting from a tangle of wires metaphorical spaghetti monster exeriment (and what imponderosa would interpret as how our cosmos emerged from the Big Bang according to QREDible laws of physics (quantum&relativistic electro-dynamics))
BUT RATHER WHAT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE (Logos? we don't know but it's a good guess) ARISES OUT OF SELECTIVE (almost like peer review) LEARNING SYSTEMS WITH FEEDBACK: or putting in another way, instead of emergence, Emergence is what emerges from Darwininan systems that create fittest survivors, the surviving fit who alter their own very environment (like swim bladders did for fish) which now becomes the playground/sandbox for the next generation of Emergence, lather rinse repeat, today's world we live love and procreate in, for now.
This statement of the Darwinian idea is completely in keeping with Dawkins Selfish Gene (and Memetics!) and also with Peterson's view of Truth changing with circumstances.
Doesn't get to "the complete answer" for star dot /r/jordanpeterson but certainly "informs" it, so I think it was an excellent exercise for a would-be philosopher like me.
My first memorable moment was actually a humorous one at exactly 7 minutes in, when he puts up his thumb and says "(A) we couldn't prestate it" and thereafter he puts up no more fingers and says "(B) we don't know how it happened and (B) it changed the course of evolution". ROFLfu (rolling on the floor laughing & filled with understanding) I think that he sums up the (still powerful and good) tautology underlying Darwinism, "who survives? fittest" and "who are the fittest? survivors" in a way that is like all the great philosophical questions (running the gamut from causal to casual, Chicken? Egg! Hesperous? Phosphorus! Potato? Potahto!) but paraphrasing the critic Dorothy Parker reviewing Katherine Hepburn, his idea ran the gamut of B to B, we aren't saying . <-- go ahead, reparse all that, it will all work, I guarantee it - imponderosa
rating: at least one thumb up (Siskel's thumb, I never cared what Ebert thought)