Toward a Naturalism of Intentionality and Consciousness Mark

Toward a Naturalism of Intentionality and Consciousness Mark H. Bickhard mark@bickhard. name http: //bickhard. ws/

Naturalism and Mind n n n Is naturalism consistent with the normativities of mind? If not, then mind cannot be naturalized If so, how?

What is Naturalism? n Naturalism understood in terms of what the natural sciences study carries with it a metaphysical barrier to naturalizing the mind n n It cannot address the ontologies of normativity This barrier is of ancient provenance

Naturalism as a Presupposition of Inquiry n It is always legitimate to ask further questions We live in one world — explanations lead to integration of phenomena n These can be in tension n n Empedoclean substances integrate many explanations, but also block further inquiry concerning those substances themselves n They are metaphysically basic, with no further explanations

Conceptual Barriers n n We live with a conceptual heritage that blocks understanding of intentionality This barrier puts us in a position that is akin to attempting to model fire with a better substance than phlogiston n n So long as fire was conceived of as a substance, no satisfactory model was possible Our conceptual situation with regard to mind is similar, but worse

The Western Substance Tradition n Parmenides argued that change cannot occur (arguing against Heraclitus) n For A to change into B, n n A would have to disappear into nothingness, and B emerge out of nothingness Nothingness is not possible, it cannot exist Therefore, change cannot occur n Lest you think that this is an odd argument, consider the difficulties that contemporary thought has with representing falsehoods or non-existents n Meinong, Russell, Wittgenstein, Fodor, etc.

In Response n n There is an underlying substratum — substance — that does not change Empedocles: divisible substance — stuff: n n Earth, Air, Fire, Water Democritus: indivisible substance n Atoms

This Frames Our World n n Plato and Aristotle both took the Parmenidean argument very seriously Aristotle’s substance model is much more sophisticated than Empedocles n n Perhaps prime matter as basic unchanging substratum, for example But descendents of substance and atom metaphysics frame thought today

Two Dirempted Realms n n Substance makes change require special explanation Substance makes emergence impossible n n n Substances can mix and remix, but there is no way to get a new substance Factual substance is split off from intentional, normative, modal mind Two fundamentally incompatible metaphysical realms are posited

Two Realms Still Dominant n Some have explicitly posited two realms n n n Aristotle: substance and form Descartes: two kinds of substance Kant: world and subject Analytic: factual science and normative language Some have tried to make do with just one side of the split n n n Green, Bradley: idealists — all is “mental” Hobbes, Hume, Quine: all is factual This “all is factual” (scientific) world assumption is our contemporary dominant framework

Process Metaphysics -integrates this Split n Change is default n n Stability requires explanation Emergence is ubiquitous n n Re Every new organization of process has emergent properties, though not all will be of interest or importance Emergence of normativity and intentionality within the natural world, thus the integration of the split, becomes possible

Stability of Process Organization n Energy Well Stability n n E. g. , Atoms Far-from-equilibrium Stability n n E. g. , Self-organization in a chemical bath Self-maintenant Stability n n E. g. , Candle Flame Recursively Self-maintenant Stability n E. g. , Bacterium

Emergence of Normative Function n Functional for X n n Function is specific to system n n Contributing to the maintenance of far from equilibrium conditions necessary for X Heart beat of parasite is functional for parasite, dysfunctional for host Compare: Etiological Models n E. g. , Millikan

Emergence of Representational Truth Value n Recursive Self-maintenance n n n Selection of interaction, or indication of appropriateness of interaction, will be functional in some environments, but not in others That is, the presuppositions of such selection or indication will sometimes be True and sometimes False This is the emergence of representational normativity out of functional normativity

Content n n n Indications of appropriateness presuppose that this environment has the conditions in which the functionality holds These presuppositions are representational content; they are predicated of the environment They are implicit, not explicit

Contrast: Encodingism n Encodingism: The assumption that (all) representation is encoding n Example: Morse code n n Representation constituted in some kind of encoding correspondence n n “. . . ” encodes “S” causal, nomological, informational, conventional Motivated by Substance Approach n n Signet Ring in Wax Transduction

Problems with Encodingism n Myriads of fatal problems: n n n n All such correspondences are logically external, thus require interpreter, which initiates a vicious regress Too many correspondences Possibility of error Possibility of system detectable error Skepticism/ idealism Piaget’s ‘copy’ problem Incoherence Possibility of emergence n Innatism is not a solution

Internal Relations n Green & Bradley: n n n Everything internally related to everything Including representation to represented change in representation entails change in represented Strongly rejected by Russell Rare since Quine

Interactive Representation n Interactive content is internally related to indications of interaction appropriateness Internally related to content, not to represented not subject to Russell’s complaints

Mentality in the Central Nervous System n n Evolutionary problem of interaction selection and guidance Requires anticipation of potential interactions available for selection n n Frog Requires timing in guidance of interaction n Turing machines, and equivalents, have sequence, but no timing

Anticipation and Timing n n How does the brain accomplish these? Not by way of passive threshold switch neurons n n Discrete computationalism does not suffice And, in any case, that is a false model of central nervous system microfunctioning

The Brain Doesn’t Work that Way n n The functioning of the brain cannot be understood in terms of neurons as threshold switches. Neurons don't work that way, and, in addition, neurons are not the only functional units in the brain.

Microgenesis n n When we look at how the brain actually functions, we find strong support for an alternative - microgenetic - model of central nervous system functioning. Microgenesis, in turn, has strong implications for the nature of representation and cognition. It forces an interactive, pragmatic model of representation.

Functional Processes in the Brain n Neurons as: n n n Threshold switches Connectionist nodes Frequency encoders All have in common the assumption that neurons are input processors And that neurons are the only functional units

Both Are Wrong n Neurons are endogenously active n n n In multiple ways They do not just process inputs And neurons are not the only functional units n Glia, for example, are also functional, not just supportive

Neurons n Oscillators n n Resonators Modulations of endogenous activity, not switches of otherwise inert units Turing machine power Timing

Neurons II n n Silent neurons Volume transmitters n n L-Dopa Graded release of transmitters Gap junctions Why multiple transmitters if all synapses are classical? n n Transmitters evolved from hormones Classical synapses evolved from volume transmitters

Astrocytes (Glia) n n n n Receive transmitters Emit transmitters Form functional “bubbles” Gap junction connections Calcium waves Modulate synaptogenesis Modulate synaptic functioning n Release, uptake, degree of volume diffusion, …

Multiple Scales n These are all modulatory influences at multiple scales n n Large and small spatial scales Slow and fast temporal scales n n There also variations in delay times Evolution has created a large tool box of multiple kinds and scales of modulatory influences

Microgenesis II n n Larger and slower processes set the context for smaller and faster processes They set the parameters for the faster and smaller processes n n n Ion and transmitter concentrations Modes of synaptic functioning They generate vast concurrent micro-modes of processing across the brain: Microgenesis

Dynamic Programming n n n Parameter setting for dynamic processes is the dynamic equivalent of programming in a discrete system Microgenesis sets and changes the programs across the brain Microgenesis is ongoing and occurs in real time

Functional Anticipation n n Microgenetic set-up may or may not be appropriate to the actual flow of interactive processing that occurs in the organism Microgenesis is functionally anticipatory n The anticipation is that the microgenetic set -up will be appropriate

Anticipation and Timing n Thus, microgenetic set up is anticipatory n n Generating emergent truth value and content Modulation of oscillatory processes has inherent timing n Controlling interaction in a real temporal world

Interactive Flow n n n Contentful Situated Embodied From a Point of View Experiential Flow n Primary Consciousness

Anticipative Visual Interaction n Visual experiencing n n Gibson Piaget: small object Straight line Red n O’Regan

Reflective Consciousness n Second Level Interaction n Age 3. 5 Some Macro-Functional Circuitry Properties of Experiencing n n Experienced in Reflection Qualities of Experiencing - Qualia

Qualia n n n Constitutive of Experiencing And Properties of Experiencing Ontological Circularity Very hard problem

Dissolve the Hard Problems of Consciousness n n n Zombies Inverted and other disordered qualia Assume externally related properties of experiencing Qualia problem is hard because of assumptions that entail an ontological circularity Both are dissolved by this model

Conclusions — Representation n n Interactive model of representation Accounts for Emergence of Representation Accounts for System Detectable Error Internally related content n Avoids Interpreter

Conclusions — Consciousness n Captures properties of experiencing n n n Accounts for Qualia n n Contentful, situated, point of view, … Renders zombies and disordered qualia impossible Dissolves ontological circularity in standard assumptions Makes consciousness as a part of the natural world much less mysterious

Conclusions — Naturalism n n Intentionality and consciousness are natural phenomena But can be understood so only within a process metaphysics n n n That makes change the default That makes emergence possible And that makes normative, intentional emergence (thermodynamically) natural