We dub this view “supervenience emergentism.”
British Emergentism reaches its zenith with C.D.
Let us now take a closer look at his case for Emergentism.
His discussion and defense of Emergentism features two chief elements.
There has been a surge lately of essay collections relating to emergentism.
According to emergentism, for example, mental and physical properties are metaphysically distinct, and yet are necessarily connected.
However, many panpsychists argue that panpsychist forms of emergentism are less radical than non-panpsychism forms of emergentism.
William Seager (2016) and Hedda Hassel Mørch (2014) have independently defended a non-layered form of panpsychist emergentism, which we can call “fusionism”.
If Leonard Bloomfield is the intellectual ancestor of Externalism, and Sapir the father of Emergentism, then Noam Chomsky is the intellectual ancestor of Essentialism.
And the claims of Van Valin and Tomlin to the effect that syntax is not independent of semantics and pragmatics might tempt some to think that Emergentism and Essentialism are logically incompatible.
Unlike (1), (11) does not have the consequence that the supervenience is sufficient for physicalism; hence it does not entail that physicalism is true if either emergentism is true or essentially non-physical necessary beings exist.
It has been argued that such a view is compatible with non-physicalist positions such as emergentism or certain forms of ethical non-naturalism (see Horgan 1993, 559-566; 2010, 311-314; Crane 2010; for discussion see Stoljar 2017, section 9).
In the sense that Alexander ascribes distinct new powers to souls as well as to the forms of non-animate composites such as chemical blends, Caston characterizes Alexander as one of the ancient thinkers who were committed to emergentism (1997).
David Papineau (2001) has argued that (i) neuroscience and cellular biology show no sign of the existence of distinctive causal powers associated with biological consciousness, and that (ii) this counts strongly against emergentism of any kind.
Given the intolerance of each other’s views, and the crosstalk present in these debates, it is tempting to think that Emergentism and Essentialism are fundamentally incompatible on what counts as linguistic data, since their differences are based on their different views of the subject matter of linguistics, and what the phenomena and goals of linguistic theorizing are.
This innovative feature of fusion emergentism — the destruction of the basal property instances once they are fused into the emergent property instance — is what enables the emergent property instances to escape worries about their being causally superfluous (the causal exclusion worry that we will discuss in 3.3.1), since the fused property instances, which are the emergence bases of the emergent property instance resulting from fusion, are no longer present to compete causally with the emergent property instance.
On this page, there are 16 sentence examples for emergentism. They are all from high-quality sources and constantly processed by lengusa's machine learning routines.
Just use the " " button to fragment sentence examples and start your learning flow.
Example output from one of your searches:
This innovative feature of fusion emergentism — the destruction of the basal property instances once they are fused into the emergent property instance — is what enables the emergent property instances to escape worries about their being causally superfluous the causal exclusion worry that we will discuss in 331 since the fused property instances which are the emergence bases of the emergent property instance resulting from fusion are no longer present to compete causally with the emergent property instance