Fenn considers Kinna's small, insectoid, robot pet:
"...the algorithms that ran it could not be simple; they must be capable of learning and of flexible response to situations. There might actually be a nonalgorithmic, quantum element - which would make it technically a sophotect, though an electrophotonic system this size couldn't be smarter than, say, a dog." (p. 182)
Algorithmic "learning" is not conscious. According to this passage, two elements are required for consciousness: "nonalgorithmic" and "quantum." However, "nonalgorithmic" is merely negative. What positive property is required? "Quantum" is positive but not sufficient to imply consciousness. We are left as ever with a qualitative difference between unconsciousness and consciousness. Somehow organic sensitivity became conscious sensation. An organism that needed food began to feel hungry or one that was becoming lethally hot began to feel uncomfortably hot. Did this qualitative change in organismic responsiveness have to involve quantum mechanics? Consciousness and quantum mechanics have in common that both are mysterious. Also, quantum processes (seem to) involve an observer effect which links them to consciousness. That is as far as I can go with this question at present.
4 comments:
Well, bafflegab is essential -- if Poul had known what constituted consciousness, he'd have been an inventor, not an author!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling! (I assume)
That's basically my view as well. But Anderson was very good at making bafflegab and handwavium look convincing.
Ad astra! Sean
As a philosopher, I want to keep pursuing answers and that pursuit takes us beyond any work of fiction but Anderson's fiction poses the questions very well.
Kaor, Paul!
Except you may be reading too much into what you quoted here from THE FLEET OF STARS. Most likely Anderson only wanted to give here some demi-semi-plausible explanation for consciousness, to advance the plot of the story. It still reads like handwavium.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment