I read this as distinguishing between (on the one hand) an externally defined set of parameters and (on the other hand) a locally emergent pattern that may be too complex to be readily understood but which nonetheless produces behavior that conforms to our expectations for the concept. Consider Google’s surprising 2012 discovery of cats.
You can teach somebody about the moon by describing it very precisely, or you can teach them about the moon by pointing to the moon and saying ‘that thing.’ In the latter case, you have specified a concept without defining it.
I read this as distinguishing between (on the one hand) an externally defined set of parameters and (on the other hand) a locally emergent pattern that may be too complex to be readily understood but which nonetheless produces behavior that conforms to our expectations for the concept. Consider Google’s surprising 2012 discovery of cats.
You can teach somebody about the moon by describing it very precisely, or you can teach them about the moon by pointing to the moon and saying ‘that thing.’ In the latter case, you have specified a concept without defining it.
That’s a lot of meaning to be hanging on “defining” and “specifying”.
Could entirely be what he meant. I guessed something similar, but I wouldn’t want a reader having to guess at the meaning of an abstract.