Wednesday, 27 September 2017
The traffic paradigm for emergence puts paid to atomistic theories of consciousness, such as those which are quantum-based or panpsychist. Consciousness may emerge at a certain level or bounded set of levels in a hierarchy of mind which can be thought of as extending indefinitely far in both 'directions', above and below, but the explanation for the specific qualities, the phenomenology based on qualia say, that constitute what we recognise as consciousness, cannot be that they are made up out of the agglutination of kindred qualities of a finer grain existing at a lower level in the hierarchy - as if they were atoms of the consciousness that we, as subjects, identify in molecular form. What the traffic paradigm shows is that while there may be awareness of and some participation in the mind at the higher level by the consciousness at the lower level, there is no transfer of phenomenology between such levels. Thus you as the driver can experience your participation in the phenomenon of a flow of traffic, but your phenomenology gives you no access to the phenomenology that would be the natural expression of the behaviour at the higher level. Another example might be the relations of ants and an ant colony. The latter seems to be relatively more intelligent than the former in its response to its environment, but if either level of mind were presumed to possess phenomenology, there is no reason at all to infer that this could somehow be induced or transferred or sublated to the neighbouring level. Phenomenology might be thought of as embodying what is implicit and axiomatic for a mind relative to its possible actions in its environment. So if the environments are distinct, as they are in the two levels of an emergent mind, then the possible phenomenologies would be utterly disjunctive. This amounts to saying that while a hierarchy of emergents might be a correct explanation of the nature of what we know as mind, it offers no solution to the so-called hard problem, that is, why a certain level 'has' or does not 'have' phenomenology.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.