This is not the subarea of consciousness research I am most expert in, and I am not a very good philosopher, but I have long had the suspicion that âemergentâ doesnât really mean anything precise at all, but is just a term used by scientists who want to (possibly sensibly) avoid thinking about metaphysics. I mean, Iâm sure you can find philosophers using it, but if I see a philosopher say it, I donât feel like I immediately know what they mean, whereas I do (at least roughly) with âphysicalismâ âdualismâ âpanpsychismâ âelminativismâ.
but is just a term used by scientists who want to (possibly sensibly) avoid thinking about metaphysics
Itâs certainly that, but I donât think itâs just that. Iâve seen at least one instance (though I canât remember where) of someone explicitly not-rejecting the possibility of natural laws that switch on, so to speak, above a certain scale.
Yeah, I know it is sometimes used by philosophers with specific precise meanings, itâs just Iâve never been sure that there is a standard precise(ish) meaning.
This is not the subarea of consciousness research I am most expert in, and I am not a very good philosopher, but I have long had the suspicion that âemergentâ doesnât really mean anything precise at all, but is just a term used by scientists who want to (possibly sensibly) avoid thinking about metaphysics. I mean, Iâm sure you can find philosophers using it, but if I see a philosopher say it, I donât feel like I immediately know what they mean, whereas I do (at least roughly) with âphysicalismâ âdualismâ âpanpsychismâ âelminativismâ.
Itâs certainly that, but I donât think itâs just that. Iâve seen at least one instance (though I canât remember where) of someone explicitly not-rejecting the possibility of natural laws that switch on, so to speak, above a certain scale.
Yeah, I know it is sometimes used by philosophers with specific precise meanings, itâs just Iâve never been sure that there is a standard precise(ish) meaning.