Sf leads to philosophy:
interstellar civilizations lead to discussion of the nature of society;
time travel leads to discussion of the nature of time;
conscious AI leads to discussion of the nature of consciousness, which I think is the most fundamental philosophical question.
I had some waiting time today so I thought about consciousness, an issue implicit in several major works by Poul Anderson.
Solidity is both a property of material objects and an effect of their molecular cohesion. Molecules are composed of atoms which are composed of subatomic particles interacting according to the strong and weak nuclear forces. Although there is a qualitative difference between macroscopic solidity and subatomic interactions, the latter somehow cause the former.
Consciousness is both a property of organisms with central nervous systems and an effect of electrically firing, chemically interacting neurons. Although there is a qualitative difference between consciousness and neurons, the latter somehow cause the former.
We say that an animal or human organism is solid because it is neither liquid nor gas and also that it is conscious because of the ways in which it responds to its environment, including to other organisms. Thus, consciousness is a detectable property of certain organisms, not a discrete entity manifesting through any organisms. If this is so, then why is there alleged knowledge, even alleged experience, of postmortem mental states? I don't know but the whole subject requires further research.
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think the first time I read any serious discussion about the nature of time was in St. Augustine's CONFESSIONS.
One reason why I think God sometimes grants miracles at shrines like Lourdes is to make secularist minded people holding to some kind of materialist philosophy uncertain, that there might be more things in heaven and Earth than their philosophy concedes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there are more things in heaven and Earth than anyone's philosophy dreams of. And I can tell that by "materialism" you still mean reductionism. "...some kind of..." There is more than one kind and they are not all reductionist.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because I don't believe the problem of "reductionism" can be so quickly dismissed. Nor am I convinced any forms of materialism can answer all questions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What problem of reductionism? I recognize that new, irreducible qualities emerge at higher stages of development. I am not reductionist.
We can't just keep using an abstract term ending in "-ism" without being clearer about whether we understand it in the same way. What do you understand by "materialism"?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Unlike you and John Wright, I am not competent to discuss philosophy with you. The best I could think of was to email you a link to the article discussing Materialism from the 1913 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. In which the author argued against materialism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course they argued against materialism but what is materialism? I will read the article.
Materialism is not just denial of supernaturalism and not just reduction of everything to physics. It is an understanding of how being develops dynamically. Everything is an interaction between change and resistance to it. Quantitative change becomes qualitative. Development is spiral. New, irreducible qualities emerge at higher levels. Animal consciousness transcends unconsciousness but is transcended by human consciousness. Levels of interaction extend from inanimate matter, the most inert, to conscious understanding and creativity, the most dynamic.
Paul.
Post a Comment