Head to head
Emergence vs Searle’s Biological Naturalism
Emergence (Principle of Consciousness) and Searle’s Biological Naturalism, compared field by field from their entries in the Atlas.
At a glance
- Both belong to the Materialism family in Kuhn's Landscape of Consciousness.
- Both treat consciousness as emergent.
- They give the same kind of answer on AI consciousness.
- On life after death, Emergence says “Conditional” and Searle’s Biological Naturalism says “No”.
- On mind uploading, Emergence says “Conditional” and Searle’s Biological Naturalism says “Yes”.
- On meaning and purpose, Emergence says “Uncertain” and Searle’s Biological Naturalism says “Humanistic only”.
Add more theories to this comparisonCompare other theories
The claim
In brief
EmergenceEmergence is the philosophical claim that qualitatively new properties, such as consciousness or psychological states, arise from underlying physical properties governed entirely by physical laws. It is distinguished primarily into weak emergence, which is reducible in principle, and strong emergence, which is fundamentally non-reducible and may necessitate new physical laws.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismBiological Naturalism posits that consciousness is a real, irreducible, subjective biological feature of the brain, entirely caused by lower-level neurobiological processes and realized as higher-level system features. This approach seeks to solve the mind-body problem by accepting the scientific worldview while acknowledging the first-person ontology of conscious experience.
What consciousness is
EmergenceConsciousness is identified as a qualitatively novel property or psychological state arising from physical properties. This concept defines the relationship between mind and matter based on reducibility or non-reducibility to fundamental physics.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismConscious states are identified as real parts of the real world that are higher-level, system features of the brain, defined as states of awareness, sentience, or feeling that persist during wakefulness.
Big questions
Can AI be conscious?Both agree
EmergenceConditionalIf consciousness is weakly emergent, AI consciousness is certain given sufficient complexity. If strongly emergent, AI consciousness is still possible if non-physical properties emerge from non-biological physical complexity, depending on the meta-psychophysical laws involved.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismConditionalSearle rejects consciousness via simulation (Chinese Room Argument) but argues that if the causally sufficient biological mechanism is known, an artificial machine that implements that same mechanism could be conscious, as consciousness does not strictly require biological neurons, only sufficient causal power.
EmergenceConditionalWeak emergence, being close to Materialism, precludes survival. Strong emergence, particularly in the form of Emergent Dualism, could theoretically generate a nonphysical substance (mind/soul) dependent on, but not strictly identical to, the physical brain, allowing for potential independent existence after death, although this is speculative.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismNoConsciousness is entirely physical and solely the product of biological brains; therefore, death of the brain and body means irrevocable, permanent non-existence.
EmergenceConditionalIf consciousness is weakly emergent, duplicating the physical states would duplicate the mental states (likely). If strongly emergent, the non-reducible properties and possible downward causation would need to be perfectly captured and recreated in the new medium, posing significant, perhaps insurmountable, technical and conceptual challenges.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismYesIf consciousness is entirely explainable by physical/biological states, then duplicating those states (and their causal relations) in a non-biological medium would, in principle, allow for the uploading and continuation of the first-person mental self.
EmergenceUncertainEmergence, especially strong emergence combined with concepts like top-down causation, offers a framework where higher-level properties like consciousness and its associated values could possess genuine causal power, potentially supporting cosmic purpose or meaning, depending on the resulting ontology.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismHumanistic onlyAs a materialist theory, Biological Naturalism struggles to rationalize ultimate cosmic meaning or purpose, though humanistic meaning created by ourselves remains possible.
Nature of mind
Ontology
EmergenceHighly variable/Contested. Weak Emergence supports reductive Physicalism. Strong Emergence often implies Non-Reductive Physicalism or a need to expand the conception of nature, potentially requiring new fundamental laws (Naturalistic Dualism or Property Dualism).
Searle’s Biological NaturalismPhysicalism (Biological Naturalism). It holds that consciousness is part of nature as a subjective, qualitative biological property, rejecting attempts to 'naturalize' it by denying its subjective ontology.
Mind and body
EmergenceEmergentist. The mind arises from the body (complex physical systems). The nature of the relationship depends on the type of emergence: Weak suggests reduction in principle; Strong suggests non-reducibility even in principle, often involving downward causation.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismConscious states are causally reduced to lower-level brain processes (causal reducibility), but are ontologically irreducible to these processes because consciousness has a subjective (first-person) ontology while its basis has an objective (third-person) ontology.
Fundamental or emergent
EmergenceEmergent
Searle’s Biological NaturalismEmergent
Qualia
EmergenceQualia are the novel, qualitatively new properties (e.g., sensory qualities) that arise from the physical system. Strong emergence views consciousness (and thus qualia) as the clearest case of a strongly emergent phenomenon, fundamentally irreducible to underlying physical facts.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismConscious states are inherently qualitative, in the sense that there is a distinct qualitative feel to being in any particular conscious state, and this qualitative feel is a real and irreducible part of the world.
How it works
Mechanism
EmergenceThe principle is the claim that novel, qualitatively distinct properties arise at higher levels of complexity, which is often contrasted with the reductive assumptions of mainstream science.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismThe principle is that all conscious states are reliably and universally caused by lower-level brain processes and realized as system features, functioning as a real biological machine.
Where it is
EmergenceTypically localized in complex biological systems (e.g., brains), although strong emergence proponents may argue that AI consciousness is possible if sufficient physical complexity is achieved, regardless of substrate.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismLocalized in the biological brain, specifically realized in the brain as higher-level or system features.
What it does
EmergenceVaries. Weak emergence aligns with standard physical causation. Strong emergence often posits top-down causation, where emergent higher hierarchical levels exert causal force on lower levels, giving the emergent property causal powers.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismConscious states function causally (causal efficacy) as real parts of the real world, providing a basis for intentional action and interaction with the environment.
Evidence and criticism
Testability
EmergenceSpeculative and philosophically contentious. Weak emergence is scientifically aligned in principle. Strong emergence is difficult to test empirically because it posits phenomena are non-deducible from fundamental science.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismEmpirically testable in principle, as the theory requires finding the exact causal details of how lower-level brain processes cause consciousness.
Tests so far
EmergenceNot stated
Searle’s Biological NaturalismThe theory is generally supported by empirical evidence from neuroscience showing the link between consciousness and brain activity (e.g., brain impairment, brain stimulation).
Criticisms
EmergenceIt is criticized by reductive physicalists (like Eliminative Materialists) as having little explanatory value, being superfluous, or acting as a 'restatement of a miracle' that fails to explain *how* unconscious complexity yields consciousness. Strong emergence specifically challenges the causal closure of the physical world.
Searle’s Biological NaturalismCritics dispute the claim that the causal connection between brain states and consciousness is fully established. Tension exists in maintaining materialism while arguing consciousness is ontologically subjective and irreducible to objective physical processes.
Sources
Key sources
Emergence
- The Re-emergence of Emergence: the Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, P. Clayton and P. Davies (2008)
- Strong and weak emergence, D. Chalmers (2008)
- Why reductionism does not work, G.F.R. Ellis (2019)
Searle’s Biological Naturalism
- The Rediscovery of Mind (1992)
- Biological naturalism (2007)
- What things are conscious? (2007)
More comparisons
Emergence vs …
Searle’s Biological Naturalism vs …
- Searle’s Biological Naturalism vs Orch OR
- Searle’s Biological Naturalism vs Spira’s Non-Duality
- Searle’s Biological Naturalism vs Goff’s Panpsychism
- Searle’s Biological Naturalism vs Bentley Hart’s Monism
- Searle’s Biological Naturalism vs Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism
- Searle’s Biological Naturalism vs Christian Soul Theory