Only responding to a tiny piece of your very good comment.
In the Maier/Rechtin book on system design, they spend a few pages talking about the word “Emergent”, and how “weak” it is. They says that we use the word to denote things that are almost certainly explainable, but for which we do not yet understand the mechanism of its behavior.
They use (iirc) the example of a black box system that produces a whistle noise at seemingly random moments, which observers interpret as “emergent” when reality reveals itself on closer inspection. Their point is essentially that the description “emergent” is a cop-out, and that so far nothing we’ve described as “emergent” has actually turned out to be inexplicable.
I often hear smart people saying things like “consciousness is just an emergent feature of our brains”, in a way that seems to imply “that’s that”, when in fact it’s not an explanation but rather an admission of ignorance. Admitting ignorance is fine, but ignorance is not an explanation.
I personally don’t think we’ll understand the mechanisms that underpin consciousness within our lifetimes, but I certainly don’t think consciousness is inexplicable.
"Emergence" can certainly be abused in this way, but it is nevertheless a real, useful and important concept.
Take Darwin's theory of evolution, for example. Evolution is an emergent theory in that a purely reductivist approach to biology will not find a particle or field of evolution. This does not mean either that biology is inexplicable by physics, or that evolution is pseudo-science.
In your example, I don't think that "Evolution" matches the popular definition of "emergent properties" (i.e. properties that lack concrete explanations).
Evolution is natural selection (a well-understood mechanism) applied over time. The divergence of species, families, and genuses "emerges" over time, but I think we're agreeing that this is a different use of the word.
To be clear, I'm not saying that words like "emergence" have no use, I'm just recommending that we be careful using them, lest we devolve to being satisfied by increasingly hand-wavy ideas.
In situations where we're aware of our own ignorance, we should own up to the ignorance directly, instead of describing the systems as having "emergent" (i.e. tautological) properties.
> In your example, I don't think that "Evolution" matches the popular definition of "emergent properties" (i.e. properties that lack concrete explanations).
I do not know whether that is the popular definition, but whether it is or not, it is simply wrong.
My usage, with respect to evolution, is the usage that counts in discussions of consciousness. It is the valid response to naive misconceptions about what materialism entails, such as in Searle's dismissal of the systems reply to his Chinese Room argument.
I think we've been talking past each other a bit. If I'm continuing down that path, I'm sorry...
My point in responding to your point on evolution, is that we concretely understand the mechanisms by which evolution emerges. If you cut out the natural selection, you have no evolution.
We can use the word "emergent" to convey that the web of actions that leads to evolution is highly complex. But, for evolution, one can still isolate those actions into relatively orthogonal, self-contained narratives (mate selection, disease, symbiotic relations), that come together with the effect of evolution.
In contrast, we do not concretely understand the mechanisms by which consciousness emerges. We do not have a good methodology to break down consciousness into its constituent parts, such that you can union them iteratively and end up with consciousness.
To be clear, I'm not a materialist. I don't think you need to be a materialist to think that the phrase "emergent behavior" (as commonly applied to consciousness) is a cop-out explanation, that we shouldn't be satisfied with.
I do think it's possible to construct those orthogonal narratives, and union them to get consciousness. Again, I don't think it'll be accomplished in our lifetimes. I don't think we have the language to describe it currently. But I do think it's possible, and in the meantime, it's misleading to use phrases like "emergent behavior" to smuggle out that possibility.
To be clear, I'm not taking issue with your use of the word emergent (which is more nuanced), but with the OP's. And it's not the OP's fault, because I've seen it used identically elsewhere.
You are right; I see what you mean, and I agree that just saying, as some people do, that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, does not explain it, and does not avoid the fact that there is a big hole in our understanding here.
In the Maier/Rechtin book on system design, they spend a few pages talking about the word “Emergent”, and how “weak” it is. They says that we use the word to denote things that are almost certainly explainable, but for which we do not yet understand the mechanism of its behavior.
They use (iirc) the example of a black box system that produces a whistle noise at seemingly random moments, which observers interpret as “emergent” when reality reveals itself on closer inspection. Their point is essentially that the description “emergent” is a cop-out, and that so far nothing we’ve described as “emergent” has actually turned out to be inexplicable.
I often hear smart people saying things like “consciousness is just an emergent feature of our brains”, in a way that seems to imply “that’s that”, when in fact it’s not an explanation but rather an admission of ignorance. Admitting ignorance is fine, but ignorance is not an explanation.
I personally don’t think we’ll understand the mechanisms that underpin consciousness within our lifetimes, but I certainly don’t think consciousness is inexplicable.