Friday 6 October 2023

Neurons And Psyches II

The Day Of Their Return, 20.

A reference to Chereionite psychology and neurology makes me think of philosophy. Most of this post is philosophy but at the end it connects with the Chereionite, Aycharaych.

When both cause and effect are objective, then we empirically observe both the cause and the effect and also the connection between them whereas, when the cause is objective but the effect is subjective, then we observe only the cause. I see you hit your thumb with a hammer and also both see and hear your response but cannot see or otherwise observe your pain. Anything that we might identify as the connection between cause and effect, like the transmission of impulses from your thumb to your brain, remains an empirically observed process and therefore cannot explain the qualitative transformation from objectivity to subjectivity.

We empirically observe subjects because every subject - that we have encountered so far - is an organism with a central nervous system, not some invisible entity residing within or behind the organism. What remains empirically unobservable is a subject's inner, subjective or psychological processes - sensations, perceptions, experiences, observations, thoughts, feelings etc. These processes are neither the subject himself, the organism, nor any of the objects of his consciousness, his environment and its contents, but his interactions with those objects. The inner processes are not invisible objects. They cannot be detected with scientific instruments as if they were sub-atomic particles.

So what does Aycharaych, the universal telepath, do? I do not think that he observes anyone's thoughts as if from outside, an impossible task. He must experience the thoughts as their thinker does, including that other being's understanding of his own thoughts, then afterwards remember the understanding.

10 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

That's not quite how Erannath put it. He speculated that Aycharaych was able to scan/analyze the minds of beings of different species so rapidly that he could understand them within a few seconds. And, apparently, only their surface thoughts. But still accurately enough to suit his purposes.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

You are right. That is how Erannath put it. But how can scanning a set of symbols give anyone their meanings which are completely arbitrary? "I" can mean the capital form of the ninth letter in the English alphabet, the first person singular pronoun in the English language or the numeral one in Latin. And it can be assigned any number of other meanings, none of which is inherent in that symbol.

Paul.

S.M. Stirling said...

I can think up SFnal reasons -- eg., that the underlying "operating code" of a conscious mind has inherent similarities?

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!

Paul: I can't claim to be able to answer those questions. All we know is what Erannath learned from his conversations with Aycharaych. But see below.

Mr. Stirling: And that was basically what Anderson did. E.g., from Chapter 20 of THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN: "I suspect what he does is almost instantly to analyze the pattern, identify universals of logic and conation, go on from there to reconstruct the whole mental configuration--as if his nervous system included not only sensitivity to the radiation of others, but an organic computer fantastically beyond anything that Technic civilization has built."

I can imagine the Chereionites, already having an unusual amount of natural telepathic ability, using genetic engineering to enhance these abilities, and that it took a million or more years for them to achieve Aycharaych's level of telepathic talent.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: good thinking.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Thanks, plus I wrote an article discussing why, some years later, in "Honorable Enemies," Flandry was not yet aware of Aycharaych's telepathic abilities, despite Terran Naval Intelligence learning about them in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN. I hope my suggested solution for that inconsistency was reasonable.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

It was. I had not noticed the prima facie inconsistency but you certainly smoothed it over. It is the sort of point that needs to be mage in a general introduction - or maybe afterword - to the Technic History.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Oops! My comment immediately above should have addressed to Stirling, but I don't think he minds me mistakenly addressing you.

I hope any COMPLETE COLLECTED WORKS OF POUL ANDERSON will include annotations discussing the more important or interesting inconsistencies found in those stories. Either as footnotes to those stories or a collection of articles placed in an appendix volume.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

And I don't think that there are many inconsistencies.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Surprisingly few, I agree, but fans will still obsess over them. Think of my casuistry in "How Many Heads Do Ymirites Have?" (Laughs)

Ad astra! Sean