Objective And Subjective

Might a fiction writer like Poul Anderson, who carefully controls narrative points of view, be able to illuminate the philosophical mind-body problem, i..e, the question of the relationship between an objective account of neurons and a subjective account of experiences? (Probably not but let's have a crack at it.)

Part of my answer to the question is that the two accounts differ because my neurons are an observable part of this organism whereas my experiences are the organism's observations of everything else. It is subjects, not objects, of consciousness that generate any account of anything, whether subjective or objective. Might a fiction writer alternating between omniscient narrator and character point of view identify the transition from objective to subjective? (Of course not.)

"Y minus 500,000.

"Once there had been a great proud star, bright as a hundred Sols."

-Poul Anderson, Mirkheim IN Anderson, Rise Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, 2011), pp. 1-291 AT Prologue, p. 1.

This opening sentence is set 500,000 years before the events recounted in the novel. No character with his or her subjective point of view was present to observe or describe the "...great proud star..." So it must be the omniscient narrator, the next best thing to God, that informs us about the star? But maybe not. The opening word, "Once...," might imply a point of view contemporaneous with the events of the novel. Sure enough, further down the opening page and after a massive companion planet has been described:

"There may have been lesser worlds and moons as well; we cannot now say. We simply know that the giant stars rarely have attendants..." (ibid)

By using that first person pronoun, "...we...," the narrator identifies himself as a contemporary of the protagonists of the novel. He is not omniscient, for example he does not know whether there were any smaller planets. An omniscient narrator, presenting an entirely objective account, would have avoided not only personal pronouns but also temporal adverbs like "Once..." As far as possible, he would have remained atemporal, describing the star burning for four hundred million years without stating that this had happened long ago or is happening now or is yet to happen etc.

At the other end of the scale, when Anderson writes a character's immediate thoughts in italics, this is an entirely subjective account:

"A light-year, raced through her. The extreme distance at which the space-pulses from our hyperdrives are detectable."

-op. cit., VII, p. 111.

In this example, the italicized words are subjective. However, the view-point character does not think "...raced through her." These three words are, perhaps, the omniscient narrator affirming that it is indeed Sandra, the view-point character of this passage, who is thinking about light-years. Sometimes Anderson can trust us to understand both that an italicized passage is a thought and also whose though it is:

"'I was busy. And after all, you two were newly married.'

"After I introduced you..."

-Poul Anderson, "Brave To Be A King" IN Anderson, Time Patrol (Riverdale, NY, 2010), pp. 55-112 AT 1, pp. 55-56.

(A school friend pointed at one such passage and asked me, "Who says this?")

"'I doubt that,' the Cynthian replied."

-Mirkheim, VI, p. 110.

It is an objective fact that Chee Lan said this. She might have been lying although we have no reason to think that she was. However, the viewpoint character in this passage is Falkayn so we know that it is he that hears her reply. Indeed, we have just read:

 

"'Where are we bound?' he heard Chee ask." (ibid.)

 

OK. That is enough about povs (points of view) for tonight. How far have we got with the philosophical problem? Neurons cause experiences. Causes and effects are not identical.