history
future history in the light of past history
cosmogony and cosmology
exobiology
social organization, both economic and political
warfare
quantum mechanics
the material basis of consciousness
etc
From Anderson, readers might proceed not only to other sf writers, Wells, Heinlein etc, but also to non-fiction - history, science and philosophy. Thus, their reading might alternate between fictional accounts of conscious AI and philosophical discussions of the nature of consciousness. After reading Anderson's The Stars Are Also Fire and John Searle's The Mystery Of Consciousness, I offer the following observations.
We can fully describe the movements of a clockwork toy soldier without attributing consciousness to the toy. Although we might tell a story, that the soldier is marching to war, we are in no danger of mistaking this fiction for reality. Therefore, we have no reason to attribute consciousness to the toy and indeed take for granted that it is not conscious.
We can fully describe electrochemical inter-cellular interactions within a brain without attributing consciousness to the brain. However, the simplest explanation of another human being's social and linguistic interactions is that he is conscious as I know that I am. (Indeed, if I were not conscious, then I would not wonder about anyone else's consciousness.) How can an apparently unconscious brain cause apparently conscious behavior?
See also Philosophy Of Consciousness.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The analogy I thought of was of chess computers and computerized chess programs. Many, many times my old Radio Shack chess computer has made moves which frustrated my best efforts. I have often been tempted to attribute consciousness to the computer, despite knowing better!*
Ad astra! Sean
*Interested readers might look up my "Andersonian Chess" article, esp. where I discuss Anderson's chess computer story, "The Immortal Game."
Humans are consistently tempted to attribute action to consciousness because our own sapience evolved largely to deal with other conscious beings -- other humans. We "introject" models of other people's motivations and personalities and then use them to anticipate other's reactions.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And when done carefully and shrewdly, this "introjecction" can be more often correct than not.
I'm sure you know how to play chess! How would you rate yourself? My Elo rating was not much more than 1300 plus. Hardly better than a patzer!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: to me Chess is like mathematics -- I'm better at the theory than the practice. Algebra was easier for me than arithmetic, for that reason.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree theories are sometimes easier than the DOING of something, chess in this case. It's easy to learn but hard to be good at.
I am proud of that game of mine which I made part of the Appendix to my "Andersonian Chess" article. Because I actually beat my chess computer in only 17 moves as White! Silly, I know.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment