Since you have decided to not just disagree but call me silly, I will return the volley. Your objection is stupid. With your stance, one might as well say that no words have meaning, all of them are just labels. Trivially true, but not germane.
My objection was the author claiming that all there was was a label (no matter which label is happens to be). Instead, there are man-millenia of investigation that go beyond just lumping it under the label "emergent property." It is like complaining that "the theory of evolution" is just a bunch of words that is just a hand wave that papers over the fact that science knows nothing, when in fact evolutionary theory is incomparably most vast than that single phrase.
> Since you have decided to not just disagree but call me silly, I will return the volley. Your objection is stupid
I wasn't calling your objection silly, I was calling the article's objection to the terms silly. Complex topics that aren't fully understood are given labels all the time, like the very topic of this whole debate, "consciousness". "Idealism" is also a "magic word" the author wants to wave to solve all the problems.
My objection was the author claiming that all there was was a label (no matter which label is happens to be). Instead, there are man-millenia of investigation that go beyond just lumping it under the label "emergent property." It is like complaining that "the theory of evolution" is just a bunch of words that is just a hand wave that papers over the fact that science knows nothing, when in fact evolutionary theory is incomparably most vast than that single phrase.