I'm skeptical of any argument which hinges on the word "emerge" or "emergent". Consider: "consciousness is an emergent property of brains" vs "consciousness is a magical property of brains".
Does ‘macroscopic property’ make you feel better? Like heat, or entropy or any of the many properties in nature that are a consequence of the combined actions of their constituent material.
Any other explanation would have to rely on the property being explained existing all the way down to electrons and quarks.
Atoms aren’t a liquid, but room temperature water is. At some point, the property of being a liquid emerges through the combined behavior of collections of atoms.
We know that people are intelligent, we know that atoms are not. At some point, the property of being intelligent must arise from the combined action of their constituent parts. We have theories about how that happens, but no way to reproduce it as of yet using computers — it may not be possible. But there is no reason in principle that just because computers are comprised of non intelligent components, that they cannot give rise to an intelligent system. Humans are one example where such a thing has happened— I don’t think anyone would suggest that neurons have intelligence and even if you believed that, one certainly can’t believe that electrons and quarks do.
Of course one could posit a non physical entity or force which somehow exists in people and does not in machines which gives rise to intelligence, but to say the least that requires a great deal more evidence than we currently have for that before I would accept that as an explanation.
Any other explanation would have to rely on the property being explained existing all the way down to electrons and quarks.
Atoms aren’t a liquid, but room temperature water is. At some point, the property of being a liquid emerges through the combined behavior of collections of atoms.
We know that people are intelligent, we know that atoms are not. At some point, the property of being intelligent must arise from the combined action of their constituent parts. We have theories about how that happens, but no way to reproduce it as of yet using computers — it may not be possible. But there is no reason in principle that just because computers are comprised of non intelligent components, that they cannot give rise to an intelligent system. Humans are one example where such a thing has happened— I don’t think anyone would suggest that neurons have intelligence and even if you believed that, one certainly can’t believe that electrons and quarks do.
Of course one could posit a non physical entity or force which somehow exists in people and does not in machines which gives rise to intelligence, but to say the least that requires a great deal more evidence than we currently have for that before I would accept that as an explanation.