Consider the problems of anyone who wants to institute universal surveillance. If Venator puts Kenmuir's image on the net, then any service sophotect that has met Kenmuir will recognize the image and will report his actions in detail. However, there are millions of such machines. Searching through the worldwide system would take days and would divert attention from other necessary tasks. (But could all machines not be ordered to contact Venator directly if they see Kenmuir?) Venator gets an idea of what to do but it is not yet clear what it is.
24/7 surveillance of one individual would require a minimum of three watchers, each working a non-stop eight hour shift, and who would watch the watchers?
First, Venator is in communion with the cybercosm, sensing different parts of it, then it takes him "...into Unity." (p. 335) I would expect that, at that second stage, the individual Venator would cease, not continue to sense that he was in and of intellects rising up to the Teramind.
28 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, any police surveillance of an individual runs into such problems as boredom or weariness causing lack of attention at important points. Or it might be possible one of the watchers might sympathize with the watched person and not report everything SIGNIFICANT.
Yes, this "unity" of Venator with the cybercosm has to mean the dissolution of his individual personality into some some amorphous super "personality." A dreadful fate!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that his memories would be incorporated into the database but that he would end but the latter is what I expect at death, in any case.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, Venator's memories/personality became of the cybercosm's database, to be "reconstituted," if necessary. Something I find very difficult to believe is possible.
And I don't believe bodily death "ends" everything for us.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If a musical instrument is destroyed, then its music does not continue. If a hand-written private journal that has never been copied is burned to ashes and the ashes are blown away, then the content of that journal is lost forever. When the brain and its RNA cease to function and then decay, how can memory and identity continue? Sure, someone can tell me that they believe that we continue after death but that is a mere assertion. It is not enough to persuade me that, in this respect, human beings differ from musical instruments or hand written journals. (We differ in being conscious but that is while our brains function.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But that argument can be turned around and used against what you advocated here. Those who think as you do are also making what * I * would consider a mere assertion. It is only an assertion, with no evidence backing it up, to deny our spirits/personalities/memory patterns survives bodily death. Or that our consciousnesses lasts only as long as our brains function.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. I do not assert that we do not survive death. I say that I would need to be given a very good reason before I would accept belief in survival.
In fact, there is a lot of evidence that consciousness does depend on states of the brain. It remains logically possible that consciousness can somehow exist independently of bodies. But to acknowledge a possibility is not to accept an actuality.
Paul.
Consider any proposition, e.g., "Your neighbor is plotting to kill you." I have no reason to believe that Alan, my neighbor, is hostile and every reason to believe that he is well-intentioned and friendly so I continue to live and behave on the assumption that he is NOT plotting to kill me. Of course, that proposition remains logically possible...
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies for my incorrect wording of your argument. If I have not asserted the Catholic belief on why and how the spirit or personality survives bodily death that was because I am sure you don't agree with it.
I remember how Mortimer Adler discussed that very issue, IIRC, the dualism of mind and body (or should that be "mind and brain"?) for humans in THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES. So, yes, I agree the physical BRAIN, including any pathologies afflicting particular cases, affects the consciousness of human beings. And I do believe that in some mysterious way human consciousness survives loss of the brain.
And I agree many propositions are logically possible, even if we don't know they are true.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But Biblical immortality is through the resurrection of the body, not through the survival of the soul.
No one is obliged to prove a negative. It is insufficient to say, "I believe in survival and you can't prove the opposite!" The onus of proof is on the person making the assertion. The person who does not accept the assertion is not obliged to prove anything.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But Catholics believe in both, survival of spirit after death and the resurrection. And that Biblical evidence for both beliefs exists.
But I can still turn that other argument around and say of people who think like that:. "I don't believe in survival and you can't prove the opposite." That same onus of proof applies to those making such an assertion. And I too am not obliged to prove anything if I don't accept that statement.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You don't seem to understand about onuses of proof. I have as yet no reason to believe that there was a continent called Atlantis. Someone asserts that there was. I say, "Prove it." He says, "Disprove it." I don't have to disprove it. He has to prove it - if he continues to say it. His response gets us nowhere. It is just playing with words.
The early Church combined Biblical resurrection with Greek souls and therefore had to anathemize reincarnation. To this day, there is a contradiction in Christianity: are people damned or saved immediately after death or do they have to wait for an eventual day of resurrection and judgment?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies, again, if I keep on misunderstanding about "onuses." But I still argue I too can argue similarly to those who demand proof for survival of bodily death.
Again, we can't agree. I deny there is any such contradiction in Christianity. Salvation or damnation is chosen by all of us at the moment of death. The rejection of reincarnation can be traced back as early as the Letter to the Hebrews, which states all human beings have only one life, bodily and spiritual (writing from memory).
And I argue, as did St. Paul, that the resurrection of Christ is the proof of how there will be one day a general resurrection. Since this is a matter of faith, not of philosophic argument, I don't expect that to convince you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You cannot argue similarly. Someone who has not been persuaded that proposition x is true is under no obligation to prove that the contrary of x is true. He simply sees no reason to accept x.
The resurrection of one man, even if proved, certainly does not prove the eventual resurrection of everyone!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still say I too am under no obligation to accept the arguments of those who deny survival after death.
I agree, the Christian belief about the resurrection is a matter of faith.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No one is under any obligation to accept any argument. We present our reasons and discuss them. But you still seem not to see the difference between between being asked to prove a positive proposition and being asked to prove a negative one. If you present a positive proposition, then you are asked to give reasons for it. If I do not accept the positive proposition, then I am under no obligation to defend the negation of it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Part of the problem discussed here stems from the difficulties I've had with atheists, at least the ones I've seen online. Many are very hostile and contemptuous of those who disagree with them (ESPECIALLY Christians!). And it's my view many never give rational reasons for why they think as they do. I have repeatedly out that, whether or not you agreed with them, philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, etc., have given reasoned arguments for why a God or First Cause exists. So, instead of insults and sneers, shouldn't atheists do the same?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
They should not be hostile. They do not have to give a reason for not believing something. The onus of proof falls on the person who states the belief.
Paul.
Of course it is legitimate to ask someone else to expound and explain his world-view but what started this discussion was that you suggested that, if asked why you believed in a hereafter, you could reply by asking the other guy why he denies a hereafter (if he does). That is irrelevant. You have to answer the first question first. And there is no firm line between denying a hereafter and simply seeing no reason to believe in one, therefore not living on that assumption. And there are lots of other examples. We usually live on the assumption that our neighbor is not trying to kill us although, of course, that, like many other hypothetical suppositions, is logically possible.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but most atheists I've seen reject logical reasoning for why a God could exist, such as the arguments given by Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, et al; or from revelation, such as from the Bible or the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ. And, VERY OFTEN in the most hostile, obnoxious, and insulting ways possible.
And I still say it makes sense to ask an atheist, even if he can't prove it, why he denies or disbelieves a God exists.
And this thread has wandered a long way from the original topic: ways and means of surveiling people!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sure. Atheists reject theistic reasoning. That is why they are atheists. We can leave the obnoxiousness and insults to one side. In fact, they can come from either direction.
Someone does not believe in God because he sees no reason to, not because he has a reason not to.
Paul.
Note that the Stasi were 4-6 months behind collating and analyzing their surveillance of dissidents when the East German regime collapsed...
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: With plenty of exceptions I have seen more Christians showing charity and patience to dogmatic and obnoxious atheists than I have seen from the latter. And for a person to declare he does not believe in God because he sees no reason for that strikes me as being evasive.
Mr. Stirling: Secret police agents are not among those I would have any sympathy for. But your point here was that the Stasi were swamped by the sheer quantity of data.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We do not have to have a reason for not believing something. The person who affirms the belief has to state a reason.
Paul.
There may be a China tea service in orbit 50 miles beyond Pluto but I do not believe that there is and I am not obliged to prove that there is not.
Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation which accounts for all the observable data is to be preferred.
And Popper's Law: a proposition can be proven to be false, but cannot be proven to be true. However, it is a semantic null set unless it is -falsifiable-.
That is, unless there is some logical, empirical way to show that it is false.
The best you can say for any statement is that it is falsifiable, but has not yet been falsified. That's the difference between a theory (in the strict sense) and a hypothesis.
Eg., Newton's law of gravity is falsifiable; if you can find an instance of a rock spontaneously floating upward when released, rather than falling, it's false.
If you put Occam's Razor and Popper's Law together, you get a good way of judging which hypothesis is to be (conditionally) accepted at any given time.
Eg., Newtonian physics (more precisely the neo-Newtonian synthesis) in the 19th century couldn't account for the span of time the Sun had been emitting energy on the scale which it observably did.
Now, one explanation was that God suspended the laws of physics there.
However, Occam's razor indicated that the preferred explanation was that physics as then understood was, not -wrong-, but -incomplete-.
That's because the synthesis was extremely good at making -predictions-.
(Planetary motion is still calculated by Newtonian formulae rather than General Relativity, because it's about as accurate in most circumstances and much simpler).
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: And many, many atheists did not behave or explain themselves as you do. They are obnoxious, insulting, consumed with hate for Christians. And they have never struck me as being competent debaters.
Mr. Stirling: I agree, much that was not known or understood in the past has been elucidated now. I'm sure 19th century scientists were convinced there was a natural explanation for the antiquity of the Sun, with no need to hypothesize a miracle.
And I like Popper's Law!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment