Teorema Vol. XVIII/1, 1999, pp. 139-53 Consciousness, Emergence and Naturalism* Marcelo H. Sabatés RESUMEN En este artículo examino algunos aspectos de la posición emergentista desarro- llada por Searle con respecto a la conciencia. En primer lugar discuto las razones de Searle para considerar la relación de emergencia como una relación causal, y argu- mento que su propia posición se beneficiaría con una noción de dependencia no- causal. En segundo lugar analizo la plausibilidad de la estrategia de Searle para man- tener la irreductibilidad ontológica de la conciencia en un marco naturalista, critican- do en particular su posición de acuerdo a la cual la subjetividad de la conciencia es solamente el resultado de “la pragmática de nuestras practicas definicionales”. ABSTRACT In this paper I examine some aspects of Searle’s emergentist position regarding consciousness. First, I discuss Searle’s reasons for considering the emergence relation a causal relation and argue that his own view might benefit from a notion of non- causal dependence. Second, I analyze the plausibility of Searle’s strategy for keeping the irreducibility of consciousness within a naturalistic framework. In this respect I criticize in particular his view according to which the subjectivity of consciousness is just the result of “the pragmatics of our definitional practices”. I take Professor Searle’s emergentist view on consciousness as the most desirable stance on this issue. It seems to me that emergentism is, prima fa- cie, much more plausible than its rivals. Moreover, I believe his account sheds new light towards the understanding of the problem of consciousness. Still, some uncertainties result from the position and urge us to tackle them. In this paper I shall briefly present Searle’s approach to the problem of con- sciousness (section I), raise some difficulties for such an approach (sections II and IV) and explore some answers to these difficulties (sections III and V). Although some of the answers to be explored might go beyond Searle’s emergentism, the central purpose of the paper is to point out some areas of his account that seem to need more articulation. 139 140 Marcelo H. Sabatés I. CONSCIOUSNESS, SUBJECTIVITY AND NATURALISM For many, consciousness is what makes the study of the mind recalcitrant to the naturalistic approaches that dominate contemporary philosophy of mind. The problem of consciousness can be seen as a particularly complex instance of a kind of philosophical problem masterfully illustrated by Roderick Chisholm as follows: One kind of philosophical puzzlement arises when we have an apparent conflict of intuitions. If we are philosophers, we then try to show that the apparent con- flict of intuitions is only an apparent conflict and not a real one. If we fail, we may have to say that what we took to be an apparent conflict of intuitions was in fact a conflict of apparent intuitions, and then we must decide which of the conflicting apparent intuitions is only an apparent intuition. But if we succeed, then both of the intuitions will be preserved. Since there was an apparent con- flict, we will have to conclude that the formulation of at least one of the intui- tions was defective [Chisholm (1989), p. 65]. Here are the intuitions generating the puzzle of consciousness: On the one hand, there is probably nothing as deeply embedded in our image of our- selves as the intuition that we are conscious beings and that our conscious life is essentially and ineliminably subjective. On the other hand, we have a more recent, but perhaps equally strong, naturalistic intuition that comes with “our overall ‘scientific’ conception of the world” [Searle (1992), p. 85]. But how can we incorporate an irreducibly subjective phenomenon in a compre- hensive, objective account of the world? There are strategies that deal with the problem by treating (at least) one of the intuitions as an apparent intui- tion. These constitute, so to speak, strategies of resignation. Since the conflict involves two intuitions, we have two different families of strategies of resig- nation. The first just “quines” consciousness (Dennett) or reduces it to repre- sentational components (Dretske, Tye). The second rejects naturalism (Thomas Nagel) or drastically limits its power to deal with “mysteries” such as consciousness (McGinn). Searle’s more heroic emergentist account is a compatibilist account1. It is the conflict, rather than the intuitions, that is ap- parent. And, as it is usually the case with compatibilist strategies, it is much more attractive than its rivals. Searle not only provides a framework in which the conflict becomes apparent but also offers a reformulation of the intuitions that aims to correct their defective traditional formulations. Thus, we can re- discover the mind without moving away from naturalism. Let’s see how Searle goes about it. The naturalistic view includes, according to Searle, all accepted scien- tific theories, but there are two theories that are particularly pervasive when it comes to explain the world, including consciousness. He writes: Consciousness, Emergence and Naturalism 141 At least two features of [the scientific] world view are so fundamental and so well established as to be no longer optional for well-educated citizens of the present era; indeed they are in large part constitutive of the modern world view. These are the atomic theory of matter and the evolutionary theory in biology. Of course, like any other theory, they can be refuted by further investigation; but at present the evidence is so overwhelming that they are not simply up for grabs. To situate consciousness within our understanding of the world we have to situate it with respect to these two theories [Searle (1992), p. 86]. The atomic theory of matter can be seen as a stratified theory of reality reconstructed as follows: A. Reality is constituted by a hierarchy of layers or levels. B. Each level consists of objects and properties which are characteristic of that level. C. There is a basic level constituted by (i) those objects that physics recognizes as basic (Searle uses “particle” as an “umbrella” term) and (ii) those properties that physics recognizes as basic (spin, position or whatever). D. Objects or systems belonging to each non-basic level depend on, in the sense of being constituted by the part-whole relation, objects be- longing to lower levels and ultimately on objects belonging to the basic level. E. Properties or features belonging to each non-basic level depend on, in the sense of being emergent upon, properties belonging to lower lev- els and ultimately on properties belonging to the basic level. Claim D is of course essential for naturalism since it precludes the in- sertion of “alien entities” into the material or natural world (recall, for in- stance, the emergentist’s rejection of élan vital). But the claim that is most interesting, and the one that requires careful attention, is E. Searle provides some clarification on how to understand the notion of emergence in this pic- ture, and he does this, for the most part, keeping with the emergentist tradi- tion. When we look at properties or features of a whole or system, we need to distinguish between mere “additive” properties like weight and velocity, which can be deduced or calculated from the properties of the parts, and “emergent” features like solidity and transparency that cannot be deduced or calculated from them2. Such features, however, can be explained in terms of the causal interaction of the features upon which it emerges. Unlike additive 142 Marcelo H. Sabatés properties, emergent properties characterize the different layers or levels of the atomic view. However, we have to be careful to distinguish a naturalist notion of emergence (Searle calls it “emergence1”) from a more radical no- tion (“emergence2”). A property of a system or whole is emergent2 just in case it is emergent1 and it “has causal powers that cannot be explained by the causal interactions” of the properties of the parts of that system. Needless to say, emergence2 is not the kind of property that a naturalist should be willing to accept. Searle’s use of evolutionary theory seems uncontroversial and all we need to say for our purposes is that it naturally adds to the atomic view of matter: it helps to explain how, diachronically speaking, some systems have developed emergent biological and mental properties. Of first importance for the coherence of the compatibilist claim is the reinterpretation of the intuition involving subjectivity. Searle distinguishes between an epistemic sense of “subjectivity” according to which a judgment is subjective just in case its truth or falsity cannot be settled objectively, and an ontological sense which do not refer to an epistemic mode. Consider, for example, the statement ‘I now have a pain in my lower back’. That statement is completely objective in the sense that it is made true by an actual fact and is not dependent on any stance, attitudes or opinions of observers. However, the phenomenon itself, the actual pain itself, has a subjective mode of existence, and it is in this sense which I am saying that consciousness is subjective [Searle (1992) p. 94]. Searle also reinterprets the typical naturalistic intuition. The reductive theses that naturalists can accept are very diverse in kind. What is particu- larly relevant here, is the distinction between ontological and causal reduc- tion. Reduction, Searle says, is a “nothing-but” relation. Applied to properties, P ontologically reduces to Q just in case P is nothing but Q. Causal reduction, on the other hand, is a claim that relates causal powers of the emergent property to the ones of its emergence basis. Searle discusses the relation between these two kinds of reduction and his view is the following.