After reading Poul Anderson on (fictional) artificial neural networks and
John Searle on the (real) mystery of consciousness, I am even more puzzled. Scientists can understand how each neuron affects other neurons but not how all the neurons cause consciousness but how would they be able to understand that? Although they are able to observe a cerebral state, scientists are not able to observe either a mental state or the connection between the two kinds of states but how would they be able to observe such things? Is this question answerable? What would scientists have to do to be able to answer it? Should they examine neurons even down to the quantum level? Yes, because quantum particles are one part of the objective realm, which is the subject-matter of scientific inquiry, but will it be possible to deduce how quanta cause consciousness? Maybe somehow but how?
Individual experience is subjective, meaning inaccessible to anyone else. Scientists rightly study the objective, meaning the publicly accessible, because only thus can observations be verified. But, if scientists are able to study only the objective, then are they also able to study the objective-subjective link/connection/causal relationship? Psychologists study subjective states but can they make their study scientific in the sense of objective?
Can the studies of the objective and the subjective become a single study? This is as close as I can come to formulating the question coherently.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
You are raising tough questions and issues. Ones which reminds me of how John Wright has recently been discussing similar issues on his blog. Something which might interest you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean, btw, are you on my betareaders list? If not, do you want to be? I'll be doing my first manuscript distribution soon.
Steve
Paul: "If our consciousness was simple enough for us to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it".
I wonder if that is the answer, that we cannot see the link between objective and subjective any more than a flatlander can see a sphere or a cube?
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for the extremely flattering suggestion! I am not sure I would be of any use for you, because I still work, Monday to Friday, 3.30 PM to Midnight. If you are on a strict publishing schedule, my work hours might get in your way.
But how does betareading work? I assume something like proof reading, looking out for errors and possibly awkward turns of phrase. And how would I get the texts to read and comment on? And how would I send them back to you? This is the first time I've ever been asked to betaread.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Do it. It's good.
Back to the consciousness question. My brain is part of me as perceived by others whereas my consciousness is my perceptions of everything else so they have got to be different.
Paul.
Paul: I'd put it more as the way a dog can't understand algebra, but yeah, that would be my guess.
Sean: the way it works is that my friend Kier Salmon distributes the draft ms. portions -- as the book is written -- and the betareaders read 'em, comment as they please, and send them back.
Comments not limited to copyedit stuff, but including comments on plot, characterization, what they think doesn't work, or for that matter what they think -does- work, and why.
Sort of a unilateral version of a critique group.
Paul: are you on the list, or did you just get the completed ms. that time?
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Pau!
Mr. Stirling: In that case, I am glad to accept your offer. Do you need my snail mail address? I could send it to you via your email address.
Paul: With some trepidation, I accepted the offer!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yup, email me. I’ll send it on, and you’ll get the first 20K words in a couple of days.
The way a dog can't understand algebra. That's better. A flatlander cannot visualize a solid but can understand it intellectually just as we can understand a tesseract and even visualize it in 3D perspective but not in 4D.
What happened before, just as a one-off, was that I received an entire manuscript electronically and managed to reply with some proof-reading points although I struggled with the technicalities.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Many thanks! I will look for your email contact at smstirling.com, to send you my snail mail address.
Paul: It's those computer technicalities you alluded to that worries me. I am by no means a computer expert!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It sounds as if the beta-reading will just involve snail mail, though.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That would make it easier. I wouldn't mind paying postal costs. Only a few dollars, at most.
Do you know Stirling's email address? If so, will you send it to me by a private email?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Let me see.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Thanks!
Sean
No, it's all done email these days.
Email is manageable.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
This is going to be a learning experience for me. What is the customary way for indicating suggested changes or corrections: bold font or italics?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: anything eye-catching will do. Myself, I usually use square brackets.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Understood. I'm in a rush, so this has to be brief. Thanks!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment