Emergence claims that higher-level properties (consciousness, life) are not reducible to lower-level physics even though they depend on physics for their existence. Water's wetness emerges from H2O molecules but can't be found in any single molecule. Strong emergence claims higher properties have causal powers beyond their physical base. Critics argue this violates causal closure of physics; defenders argue it captures genuine novelty that reduction misses.
The passage suggests that
consciousness has no relationship to physical processes
debates about emergence involve questions about whether higher-level phenomena have distinctive causal powers
water's wetness can be found in individual H2O molecules
all philosophers accept strong emergence
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. The key dispute is about causal powers.
- Context clues: Strong emergence claims higher properties have "causal powers beyond their physical base."
- Meaning: Whether emergence has distinctive causal relevance is the core issue.
- Verify: Critics argue about "causal closure of physics" vs. defenders' "genuine novelty."
💡 Strategy: When a dispute centers on causal powers of a phenomenon, infer that's the core question.
Choice A is incorrect because emergent properties "depend on physics for their existence." Choice C is incorrect because wetness "can't be found in any single molecule." Choice D is incorrect because critics challenge strong emergence.