Name: Anand Rangarajan
Email: anandr@ufl.edu
Abstract Title: Using category and constructor theories to build a solution to the hard problem
Abstract:
Philosophers often take for granted that fundamental physics is a story of initial conditions and dynamics on a set of particles and fields. The past 100 years of development in theoretical physics has belied that notion. In response, constructor theory begins from the ground up and casts physical systems as enacting constraints on sets of possibilities. This foundational move therefore allows for further restrictions on possibility spaces by mid level beings such as us and is therefore highly relevant to the hard problem of consciousness. Despite this, we have not seen theories of consciousness embrace constructor theory. Similarly, category theory has emerged as a story of mappings (or functors) between foundational categories (whatever they may be) and derived categories (such as particles etc.). As in the case of constructor theory, we have not seen consciousness studies embrace category theory as a way to formalize relations between mental and physical categories. In this work, we attempt to utilize both approaches to build a solution to the hard problem. We argue that a promising strategy is to draw upon the work of Strawson and Zahavi and cast the set of thin or minimal subjects of experience, henceforth referred to as selfons, as categories which are related to (unknown at present) physical categories. (Thin subjects are momentary excitations in nature, are always accompanied by experience and dissipate or decay after coming into being.) If this program can be successfully carried out, it would lend tools to sharpen a hypothetical debate between neutral monism and holistic physicalism. Neutral monism can be seen as a story wherein the categories corresponding to selfons and matter are derived from a more fundamental (or neutral) category. In contrast, holistic physicalism is a picture of selfons arising from foundational physical categories and dissipating into material categories. Experiences are properties of selfons and the use of constructor theory can make explicit, restrictions on sets of possibilities carried out by selfons. Armed with these two powerful frameworks, we further argue that panpsychism and emergence are therefore not the only viable solutions to the hard problem. In fact, both panpsychism and emergence exhibit tacit commitments to dynamical systems approaches in physics and therefore do not seem to appreciate the contributions of constructor theory. Furthermore, panpsychism and emergence do not attempt to use the ignorance of the true physical (following Stoljar) and set up relations or functors using category theory to thin or minimal selfon subjects. To summarize, we follow Strawson and Zahavi and assert that experience is always accompanied by a (thin or minimal) subject of experience. These selfons form a category which is related to foundational (unknown) physical categories. The selfon category enacts constraints on the set of possibilities as spelled out by constructor theory. In this way, holistic physicalism offers a solution to the hard problem setting up a contrast with neutral monism. With theoretical physics in crisis, we think the time is right to consider category and constructor theories as twin fundamental frameworks of consciousness studies.