From: jimruttshow8596
Terrence Deacon’s work, particularly in his book Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter, offers a profound re-evaluation of how consciousness and emergent complexity arise from physical processes, fundamentally challenging traditional reductionist views [00:03:32]. His theories integrate concepts from evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and information theory, proposing a hierarchical framework of dynamic processes [00:03:02].
The Significance of Absence
A foundational concept in Deacon’s argument is “absence” [00:06:05]. He posits that absences are not merely voids but active components in the universe, shaping phenomena from the meaning of words to the very nature of existence [00:07:12]. The meaning of words, for instance, isn’t inherent in their sound but refers to something not physically present [00:07:17]. This “constitutive absence” is central to understanding purposes, meanings, and values—concepts often difficult to integrate into physical theories [00:06:51].
Deacon likens this challenge to the historical difficulty Western mathematics faced with the concept of zero. Just as zero marks a value for nothing that enables recursive number systems and calculus, understanding absence is key to grasping how complex phenomena like mind emerge [00:09:03]. The ability to work with infinitely small divisions in calculus, akin to dealing with absence and infinity, provided a path forward for problems like Zeno’s paradox [00:10:54].
For living systems, “absence” is fundamental because their existence requires constant work to defy the tendency towards breakdown (entropy increase) [00:13:34]. Living processes are always directed towards “something that doesn’t yet exist”—maintaining their existence or bringing new things into the world [00:13:05].
Orthograde and Contra-grade Dynamics
To articulate how complex systems emerge, Deacon introduces two terms:
- Orthograde: Processes that happen spontaneously, requiring no work or effort, typically running “downhill” towards equilibrium or increasing entropy [00:34:51]. Examples include a constant velocity object in space or a messy desk [00:34:36].
- Contra-grade: Processes that go “against the flow” of spontaneous tendencies, requiring work or effort [00:35:17]. Staying organized, maintaining a refrigerator’s coldness, or even logically consistent thinking are contra-grade [00:35:56].
These concepts extend beyond physics to thermodynamics and even thought processes, providing a generic way to describe how work is done to maintain or create order [00:37:38].
Three Layers of Emergence
Deacon proposes three distinct layers of emergence, each built upon the previous one through specific dynamics of constraints:
-
Homeodynamics: These are the most pervasive dynamics in the universe, characterized by orthograde changes that tend towards homogenization and equilibrium [00:40:21]. While particles may move, the overall gradients and patterns remain stable at equilibrium [00:40:41].
-
Morphodynamics: These processes are contra-grade, generating order and regularity by pouring energy through a system [00:42:16]. Examples include whirlpools, convection cells, or snow crystals [00:41:37]. While they produce order, they also speed up the dissipation of the very gradients that sustain them, making them inherently self-destructive unless frozen in a state [00:18:01]. Morphodynamic processes are rarer than homeodynamic ones [00:46:54].
-
Teleodynamics: This is the highest and rarest form of emergence, characteristic of living processes [00:47:19]. Teleodynamic systems arise from the strategic juxtaposition of morphodynamic processes that balance and support each other, preventing their mutual dissipation [00:43:05]. This creates a system that maintains and reproduces its own order, directed towards an “absent end” (its own continued existence) [00:43:51]. Unlike morphodynamic systems that wear out, teleodynamic systems can amplify themselves, which explains the spread of life on Earth [00:48:04].
Autogenesis: A Model for Teleodynamics
To concretely illustrate teleodynamics, Deacon proposes the “autogen” model – a thought experiment designed to be empirically testable [00:49:06]. An autogen involves two interdependent morphodynamic processes:
- Reciprocal Catalysis: Two catalysts (A and B) mutually generate each other, rapidly increasing their concentration and using up raw materials, a self-undermining process [00:51:52].
- Capsid (Container) Formation: A crystal-like shell made of molecules (G) that tends to form in areas of high concentration. This process also depletes raw materials and eventually stops growing [00:52:54].
In the autogen, the catalytic process generates the molecules needed for capsid growth, while the capsid contains the catalysts, preventing them from diffusing away [00:55:56]. This creates a self-repairing and self-reproducing unit: if broken, the spilled catalysts immediately begin making more catalysts and capsids, tending to self-close again [00:57:02]. This system embodies the concept of “absences generating new absences”—the constraints that define its form are reproduced, rather than merely existing as physical stuff [01:01:51].
Rethinking Information
Deacon’s framework redefines information beyond traditional Shannon entropy:
-
Shannon Information: Focuses on the engineering problem of transmitting signals, measuring how much a message can be carried by constraints on possible variety, without reference to meaning or usefulness [01:03:37].
-
Boltzmann Entropy: Refers to physical entropy, the degradation of the physical medium over time that interferes with information transmission (noise) [01:09:01]. The distinction between noise and signal is not intrinsic but depends on interpretation [01:09:25].
-
Bateson’s “Difference that Makes a Difference”: Gregory Bateson proposed information as a “difference that makes a difference” [01:13:35]. Deacon expands this to mean a difference that matters [01:14:01]. For something to matter, a system must be future-oriented and maintain its existence, distinguishing between “self” and “other” [01:14:38]. This introduces a “normative character” where things are categorized as good/bad, right/wrong, useful/dangerous [01:15:03]. Only teleodynamic systems can interpret information in this normative way, as they are organized around their own persistence [01:15:17].
Sentience and the Brain
Deacon defines sentience broadly as the ability of a teleodynamic system to be differentially reactive to its environment in a way that maintains itself [01:19:56]. This simple form of sentience can be seen in the autogen model (which breaks open in a supportive environment, enabling self-repair) or in plants (roots seeking nutrients, leaves turning to light) [01:21:30]. This represents a transition from “chemistry to normative chemistry” [01:22:57].
Subjective Sentience and Brains
Brains, particularly complex ones, represent a higher level of emergence, producing subjective sentience [01:22:22]. While simple sentience is immediately reactive, subjective sentience involves creating representations or models of possible futures and alternatives in the world [01:26:22].
Deacon proposes that individual neurons are themselves teleodynamic processes, constantly striving to maintain themselves amidst disturbances [01:33:31]. The brain, therefore, is a nested teleodynamic process of teleodynamic processes—a network of self-maintaining units that collectively maintain the larger organism [01:31:27]. This perspective suggests that understanding consciousness requires looking beyond individual neurons to the emergent dynamics across multiple layers [01:33:03].
The Role of Feeling and Attention
- Feeling as Primary: For Deacon, feeling is fundamental to cognition, serving as the very basis of sentience [01:35:39]. Feelings arise from “work” or contra-grade relationships where spontaneous processes are disturbed [01:35:59]. Emotions, for instance, reflect the inertia of these dynamic processes [01:37:11].
- Dynamics, Not States: Mental phenomena like thinking, feeling, and representing are intrinsic dynamic processes, not static computational states or “switch settings” [01:43:07]. A representation is a “dynamical form” or “melody” generated by the morphodynamics of brain regions, rather than fixed synaptic weights [01:44:57].
- Attention as Work: Attention is experienced as effort, a contra-grade process where the nervous system initiates work to resolve a conflict between spontaneous tendencies (e.g., daydreaming) and external or internal demands [01:40:05].
- The Job of Consciousness: Consciousness is a process that constantly tries to “destroy itself” by making things unconscious [01:49:04]. Our brains prioritize information that “makes a difference” (a novel input or unmet need) over constant, predictable inputs (like the feeling of toes in shoes), pushing the latter to an unconscious, automatic level to manage limited processing bandwidth [01:48:29].
Challenging the Hard Problem
Deacon suggests that the “hard problem” of consciousness, articulated by David Chalmers, is akin to Zeno’s paradox [01:52:22]. The more we analyze the brain at finer levels (synapses, neurotransmitters), the further we seem from understanding subjective experience. This suggests a fundamental disconnect, leading some to conclude that consciousness is beyond scientific inquiry or a form of dualism [01:52:50].
Deacon argues this perceived “hardness” comes from looking at the wrong side of the story [01:55:02]. Just as Zeno’s paradox was resolved by understanding zero, the hard problem can be approached by recognizing that “absences matter” and are fundamental to emergence [01:55:40]. Our experience and existence are not merely the physical stuff (which constantly changes) but the dynamic system of constraints that maintains itself [01:56:29]. These constraints define form and absence, enable work, and lead to new kinds of constraints, perpetuating an emergent process that defines what we are [01:57:31].