I try to understand the difference between holism and reductionism and I wonder whether the concept of emergence belongs to the first one or whether it is just "holism through the eyes of a reductionist".
As I understand, a holist is someone who thinks that systems should be considered as a whole, whereas a reductionist will try to reduce a system to its fundamental components to understand how the whole system works.
My question is the following : does a holist "believes" in the notion of emergence (from fundamental laws), or is emergence a concept coming from reductionism to explain complex system? In other words, can a holist accept the idea that a complex system behaviour is emerging from fundamental parts and their interaction or does it consider the whole system as indivisible (so the notion of emergence does not even exist)?
If emergence is a purely reductionist concept, then I think that holism if often misunderstood...
EDIT: To refine my question, let's take an example: the brain. Is the following true?
- According to a reductionist, if you reduce the brain to its fundamental components (neurons/cells) you will be able to understand the whole brain. A possibility to understand the whole brain, would be to take a supercomputer, to simulate billions of neurons/cells, and the macroscopic properties of the whole will emerge through the computation. So brain = neurons+emergence.
- According to a holistic approach, the brain can only be seen as the whole. It means that the brain is more than the sum of its parts and emergent properties. So if you simulate neurons/cells you will have emergent properties, but you will not find the behavior of the whole brain. So brain != neurons+emergence.