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.
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.