Today Robert Kuhn posted a discussion with Rodolfo Llinas about his take on consciousness. I do not see what is new in this approach and probably stems from incorrect or incomplete understanding of physicalism:
Here are my thoughts on the topic:
In the ongoing debate about consciousness, there seems to be a persistent misunderstanding around the concepts of reductionism and emergence. Some philosophers, like Robert and Rodolfo, are attempting to create a false dichotomy between the two, suggesting that they are fundamentally incompatible viewpoints. I argue that this is a misguided perspective; reductionism and (weak) emergence are simply two sides of the same coin.
Understanding Knowledge: The Internet Analogy
Consider the vast amount of knowledge stored on the internet. It's not just located in the interconnected network itself; individual computers and IoT devices contribute to this collective knowledge. Hyperlinks in documents connect and organize the information, allowing us to access and understand it in context. Similarly, when physicalists say that consciousness is nothing but physical brain and body, it's understood that individual cells and their interactions play a crucial role.
Extending Our Perception and Consciousness
Humans have developed tools that expand our perception and, by extension, our consciousness. Microscopes, telescopes, hearing aids, infrared cameras, and other instruments allow us to access information and experiences that would otherwise be impossible. This demonstrates the interconnectedness of our physical bodies and our consciousness, further supporting the idea that reductionism and emergence are complementary, not contradictory.
The Compositional Nature of Consciousness
The idea that physical sub-parts can combine to create larger notions of consciousness is not new. Even panpsychists, who believe that consciousness is fundamental to all matter, co-opt this concept. However, panpsychists deny the compositional claim of physicalism while simultaneously claiming that consciousness is composed of proto-conscious parts. This is a contradiction. They fail to define or explain what proto-consciousness is, making their arguments empty and unsubstantiated.
Michael Levin's Work on Expanding and Shrinking Self
Scientist Michael Levin's work on expanding and shrinking self provides a concrete example of how the compositional nature of consciousness operates. He shows how cancer cells can shrink their notion of self to themselves when gap junctions between cells break down. This can be reversed by applying electrical potential, integrating the cells back into the tissue. Levin's research provides a clear and compelling example of the compositional nature of consciousness and how it can be manipulated.
The Real Debate: Supernaturalism vs. Non-Supernaturalism
The real issue at hand is not between subdivisions of physicalism. It's about the divide between supernaturalism and non-supernaturalism, particularly the claim that it's inherently impossible to understand how consciousness arises. It's important to note that I'm not focusing solely on physicalism because physics is not a finished project. Physicalism, to some extent, has an open-ended aspect, leaving room for further exploration and discovery.
In conclusion, reductionism and emergence are not opposing forces; they are two sides of the same coin. The real debate lies in whether consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon or a natural one that we can eventually understand through scientific inquiry. The evidence increasingly points to the latter.
Comments