"Of course as a science-fiction fantasy we can imagine conscious thermostats, but science fiction is not science. And it is not philosophy either." (p. 170)
Searle sounds dismissive of sf. Science fiction is neither science nor philosophy but is a kind of fiction that locates human beings not only within their own social structures but also within the scientifically understood universe of physical laws and cosmic spaces. Deploying his knowledge of the relevant sciences, Poul Anderson, in his Technic History, speculates about xenobiology:
how intelligent beings might be able to fly in terrestroid conditions;
how tripartite intelligence might evolve on Dido;
why two populations of Diomedeans, while remaining a single species, might develop life-styles that seem alien to each other.
This is more than fantasy although Anderson wrote that also.
I think that Philosophy and Literature would make a good combined University course. At Lancaster University, one Professor of Philosophy had only a BA in English. I think that he made the switch via Aesthetics. Poul Anderson's novels about post-organic intelligences dramatize the philosophy of consciousness as discussed by Searle, one point being that mere computer programs are definitely not conscious but maybe some other kinds of artefacts could be.
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The idea of a "conscious thermostat" could make sense if it was a tool or a part of a conscious computer. The AI level computer we see on Wayland in A CIRCUS OF HELLS certainly had instruments of that kind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the question was whether an artefact that is only a thermostat can be conscious. Some say it is! I think that science and philosophy find sensible answers by considering, and sometimes accepting, every nonsensical answer.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I was being a bit facetious! Of course a thermostat by itself is a non-conscious artifact.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Unfortunately, for some philosophers, this is not an "of course" matter.
Paul.
Post a Comment