Diachronic emergence has recently been characterised as transformation. This aims to capture the thought that the entities that emerge are radically new or different. Transformation is hence closely linked with a central (but rarely raised) challenge for all emergentists: how to account for the identity and individuation of entities involved in emergence. With this challenge in view, I develop and probe four interpretations of transformation: addition, replacement, fusion, and transubstantiation. Of those, transubstantiation provides the most plausible response to the challenge (...) about identity. Accordingly, diachronic emergence is a transformative process whereby an individual passes from one primary kind to another. (shrink)

As part of his defence of panpsychism, Strawson introduces the notion of 'brute' emergence, and hints at a contrasting notion of 'true' emergence. Panpsychism is true not least because brute emergence is incoherent. The alternative relation of true emergence is coherent and congruent with panpsychism. Strawson's distinction suggests that panpsychists endorse true emergence, while emergentists endorse brute emergence. I show that this yields a false dichotomy, which wrongly associates traditional emergentism with an implausible notion of emergence. I clarify the nature (...) and purpose of true and brute emergence, and I argue that traditional emergentists should reject both of them. (shrink)