Among the many questions that philosophy has inherited, few seem more obvious than this.
Who acts?
The answer appears almost self-evident.
People act.
Animals act.
Perhaps machines may one day act.
Action seems to belong to agents.
The agent comes first.
The action follows.
Book II has quietly invited us to become suspicious of such intuitions.
Not because agents are unreal.
But because we have repeatedly found ourselves asking a different kind of question.
Not,
Who acts?
but,
How does organised activity become possible?
The distinction is subtle.
Its consequences are profound.
Imagine a flock of birds turning in flight.
The movement appears almost intentional.
The flock changes direction as though it possessed a single mind.
Yet no individual bird directs the whole.
Each bird responds to its neighbours.
The organisation emerges through participation.
The agency seems to belong to the flock.
And yet the flock possesses no separate body beyond the birds themselves.
Where, then, is the agent?
The same question arises within an orchestra.
During a performance, the music acquires a direction.
Phrases gather momentum.
Tension accumulates.
Resolution finally arrives.
No single musician creates the performance alone.
Each participates in a larger organisation.
The agency belongs neither exclusively to the conductor nor exclusively to the players.
It emerges through their organised participation.
Even an ordinary conversation behaves in this way.
Have we not all experienced discussions that seem somehow to take on a life of their own?
A question unexpectedly changes the subject.
A forgotten memory suddenly becomes relevant.
An idea appears that neither participant anticipated.
Later we naturally say,
The conversation led us there.
The grammar is revealing.
We instinctively attribute agency to the unfolding organisation itself.
Not because the organisation is secretly an independent being.
But because the participation has become sufficiently organised to exhibit its own direction.
Perhaps agency often emerges in this manner.
Not as a mysterious force hidden inside an isolated individual.
But as an organisational achievement.
The more richly organised the participation becomes, the more coherent its activity appears.
Agency is not added afterwards.
It emerges with the organisation.
This perspective also changes how we understand living organisms.
An organism does not merely contain countless independent processes.
Those processes continually participate in maintaining one another.
Metabolism supports perception.
Perception guides movement.
Movement reshapes experience.
Experience reorganises future perception.
Gradually, the organism exhibits increasingly coherent activity across many different timescales.
We naturally recognise this coherence as agency.
Perhaps what we are recognising is organised participation becoming sufficiently integrated to sustain its own direction.
Notice that nothing mystical has been introduced.
Agency has not been reduced.
Nor has it been elevated beyond explanation.
Instead, it has become developmental.
Some organisations exhibit very little agency.
Others exhibit a great deal.
Agency itself admits of degrees.
It grows.
It stabilises.
It sometimes diminishes.
Like every phenomenon we have encountered, it possesses a history.
This observation may help explain why questions about artificial intelligence have proved so difficult.
People often ask,
Does the AI have agency?
The question sounds straightforward.
Yet our earlier discussions suggest another possibility.
Perhaps we should instead ask,
What forms of organised participation allow increasingly coherent agency to emerge?
Immediately the investigation changes.
Instead of searching for a hidden property inside a machine, we begin examining the organisation through which its activity continually develops.
Agency becomes something to understand rather than something merely to locate.
Here another familiar distinction begins to soften.
We often oppose behaviour and agency.
Behaviour appears mechanical.
Agency appears intentional.
Yet perhaps both belong to a developmental continuum.
As participation becomes increasingly organised across longer histories and wider ranges of interaction, behaviour gradually acquires the coherence we recognise as agency.
The boundary becomes less abrupt than we once imagined.
This does not mean that every organised system is an agent.
A whirlpool exhibits organised stability.
It does not deliberate.
A crystal possesses remarkable order.
It does not learn.
Organisation alone is insufficient.
The question is always organisational richness.
How many forms of participation are being coordinated?
Across what histories?
With what capacity for ongoing reorganisation?
Agency is not a binary category.
It is an achievement.
Book I encouraged us to replace static concepts with organised activities.
Book II now invites another reversal.
Perhaps agents are not the starting points of activity.
Perhaps activity is the developmental landscape within which agents gradually emerge.
If so, then the question,
Who acts?
already arrives rather late.
A prior question has been quietly waiting beneath it all along.
How did this organisation become capable of acting in the first place?
The answer, if the previous essays are any guide, will not be found inside an isolated entity.
It will be found within the long history of participations through which coherent agency slowly comes into being.
Agency, like stability.
Agency, like novelty.
Agency, like consciousness itself.
May prove to be not a substance we possess.
But one of the most remarkable achievements of organised participation.
No comments:
Post a Comment