Emergence as the existence of properties of a system that are not possessed by any of its parts.
That sounds true to me, but he says it’s too ubiquitous “so this is surely not what we mean.” Uh, why discredit something because it explains a lot of things??
Oddly, he systematically discredits each idea because they don’t suit his tastes.
Here is David Chalmer’s short philosophical stab at what emergence is and ain’t.
Thanks. But why does he dismiss each idea?
That sounds true to me, but he says it’s too ubiquitous “so this is surely not what we mean.” Uh, why discredit something because it explains a lot of things??
Oddly, he systematically discredits each idea because they don’t suit his tastes.