If conscious activity is organised participation, another question naturally follows.
Do all forms of participation organise themselves in the same way?
The answer seems almost certainly to be no.
A tree participates in sunlight.
An octopus participates in the sea.
A child participates in language.
A scientific community participates in generations of accumulated knowledge.
Each participates.
Yet the nature of that participation differs profoundly.
Participation, like consciousness, is not a single phenomenon.
This observation may prove surprisingly important.
When we ask whether an artificial system could become conscious, we often assume there are only two possibilities.
Either machines possess consciousness.
Or they do not.
Perhaps this opposition has inherited the very grammar we have spent this series unpacking.
It encourages us to imagine consciousness as a single property waiting to be acquired.
But what if participation itself comes in many forms?
Then the landscape becomes far richer.
Consider a bird learning to fly.
Its participation is bodily.
The movement of air, the changing position of its wings, the continual adjustment of muscles and balance all participate together.
Learning occurs through the organisation of those relationships.
Now consider a child learning a language.
The participation is different.
Sounds.
Gestures.
Faces.
Expectations.
Corrections.
Shared attention.
The activity extends through an entire social world.
The child is not merely learning words.
The child is learning how to participate in meaning.
Neither example can be reduced to information processing alone.
Information certainly matters.
But information never arrives independently of the relationships through which it becomes significant.
Meaning is always organised participation.
Now imagine an artificial language model.
Its participation is different again.
It develops through exposure to vast histories of human language.
Its responses are shaped by patterns distributed across countless conversations.
Its present activity depends upon developmental histories embedded within its organisation.
Already, this differs markedly from a calculator or a thermostat.
Yet it also differs from an organism.
Not because one is intelligent and the other is not.
But because the forms of participation are organised differently.
This distinction deserves careful attention.
It is tempting to ask whether an artificial system possesses what biological organisms possess.
Perhaps that is the wrong comparison.
The more illuminating question may be this:
What kinds of participation does this system make possible?
The answer may differ from one architecture to another.
Some systems participate only locally.
Others participate developmentally.
Still others may participate socially through sustained interaction with human communities.
The important point is that participation itself admits degrees, structures and histories.
Notice how this changes the discussion.
Instead of comparing brains with computers as though they were rival versions of the same object, we begin comparing different forms of organised participation.
The comparison becomes ecological rather than competitive.
We ask how each system enters into relationships.
How those relationships reorganise future activity.
How history becomes incorporated into present organisation.
The question shifts from resemblance to organisation.
This perspective also guards against a familiar mistake.
Whenever we discover a feature shared by organisms and machines, we are tempted to conclude that the two are therefore equivalent.
The opposite temptation is equally common.
Whenever we discover an important difference, we conclude that comparison itself is impossible.
Neither conclusion follows.
Shared organisational principles need not imply identical forms of existence.
Different forms of participation may instantiate related principles without becoming the same phenomenon.
History offers many examples.
Flight exists in insects.
Birds.
Bats.
Aircraft.
The underlying principles overlap.
The mechanisms differ profoundly.
No one expects feathers on an aeroplane.
Nor should we expect biological participation to provide the only possible route towards organised conscious activity.
General principles often survive while their embodiments diversify.
This possibility invites a different kind of humility.
Instead of asking whether artificial systems are becoming more like us, we might ask whether we have begun discovering a broader family of organisational possibilities than biology alone first revealed.
Biological consciousness would then become one remarkable member of that family.
Not the only conceivable one.
Nor necessarily the final one.
Simply the one through which we first encountered conscious activity.
None of this demonstrates that artificial systems are conscious.
That conclusion remains as premature as ever.
But it changes the standards by which future discussions might proceed.
The burden is no longer to show that silicon becomes biology.
Nor to insist that biology remains forever unique.
The task is more demanding.
We must understand the general principles through which organised participation continually reorganises itself across different kinds of systems.
Only then will comparisons become genuinely illuminating.
Perhaps this has been the quiet direction of the series from the very beginning.
We began by unpacking a word.
We arrived at participation.
Along the way, consciousness gradually ceased to resemble a mysterious substance hidden inside a mind.
Instead, it came to resemble a continually developing pattern of participation whose history reorganises its own future.
If that picture is even approximately correct, then biology and artificial intelligence are no longer enemies in a philosophical debate.
They become different opportunities for understanding the same deeper question.
Not,
Which system possesses consciousness?
But,
How do different forms of participation give rise to different forms of conscious activity?
That is a question worthy of both neuroscience and artificial intelligence.
And perhaps it is only now that we are finally in a position to ask it well.
No comments:
Post a Comment