The problem with the label “emergence” isn’t that the phenomena does not occur. The problem is when people use the label “emergence” as a semantic stop sign, ending attempts at further explanation.
Airplanes flying through the air are an emergent property of quantum mechanics. That sentence standing alone tells you nothing useful about airplanes or quantum mechanics.
Also, discussion posts don’t use Markdown. (I think they use HTML, but don’t quote me).
The sentence is fixed by replacing “quantum mechanics” with “elementary particles and fundamental fields”. There isn’t a good explanation yet as to how gravity is related to quantum mechanics, but we’re pretty sure that they are related.
The problem is when people use the label “emergence” as a semantic stop sign, ending attempts at further explanation.
But there is nothing about “emergence” that makes it uniquely misusable that way.
What someone who says intelligence is an emergent property might mean is that there is not one “weird trick” to it. That is a reasonable thing to assert, even if it is not an explanation. It also not an explanation to say (only) that intelligence is reductionistic, computational,etc. There is a reductionistic style of explanation, but “is reductionistic” is not an explanation.
There might be a problem that some concepts are used as semantic stop signs, but that problem is not restricted to “emergence”. There might be a problem that emergence is not applicable to our universe, but that is not a problem with the concept of emergence: one has to at least consider possible ways the universe might be in order to rule out the incorrect ones. There might be a problem with seeking emergentist explanations after they have been definitevely ruled out … but there is still ongoing debate about that.
The problem with the label “emergence” isn’t that the phenomena does not occur. The problem is when people use the label “emergence” as a semantic stop sign, ending attempts at further explanation.
Airplanes flying through the air are an emergent property of quantum mechanics. That sentence standing alone tells you nothing useful about airplanes or quantum mechanics.
Also, discussion posts don’t use Markdown. (I think they use HTML, but don’t quote me).
Not entirely. The gravity plays its part here. The gravity is not inside the QM.
The sentence is fixed by replacing “quantum mechanics” with “elementary particles and fundamental fields”. There isn’t a good explanation yet as to how gravity is related to quantum mechanics, but we’re pretty sure that they are related.
They do indeed use HTML.
But there is nothing about “emergence” that makes it uniquely misusable that way.
What someone who says intelligence is an emergent property might mean is that there is not one “weird trick” to it. That is a reasonable thing to assert, even if it is not an explanation. It also not an explanation to say (only) that intelligence is reductionistic, computational,etc. There is a reductionistic style of explanation, but “is reductionistic” is not an explanation.
There might be a problem that some concepts are used as semantic stop signs, but that problem is not restricted to “emergence”. There might be a problem that emergence is not applicable to our universe, but that is not a problem with the concept of emergence: one has to at least consider possible ways the universe might be in order to rule out the incorrect ones. There might be a problem with seeking emergentist explanations after they have been definitevely ruled out … but there is still ongoing debate about that.
Agreed, which is why I was trying to replace it by a “proceed with caution” sign with some specific directions.
One lives & learns—thanks.