Dear List,
I am writing the Proemial for my forthcoming book "On The Origin Of Experience"
and will appreciate your feedback. In particular, I ask that you challenge two
things about it. First, over the years of my work I have developed an aversion
to using the term "consciousness," which seems to me to be too overloaded and
vague to be useful. On the other hand Debbie (my wife) argues that it will
interest people more if I use it. Second, the vague "transhumanism" concerns
me.
Imagine this is on the back of a book. Does it encourage you to read the book?
Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience
Imagine that you could discover something so profound that it would not only
have a broad impact upon the entire species but the universe itself could not
proceed, could not evolve, without consideration of it.
This speculation refers to the role an intelligent species capable of mastering
the science of living systems plays in cosmology. Rather than viewing
intelligent species as the end product of a developing universe, it suggests
that they are simply a necessary step along the way. It observes that an
intelligent species able to place life into environments in which it would not
otherwise appear plays a role in the unfolding of the world.
Imagine, for example, that future Voyager spacecraft can be constructed with a
fundamental understanding of what is required to build living, thinking,
machines, machines that have the capability of any living system to heal and
reproduce.
The intelligent creation of such machines, machines that experience, may be an
essential part of nature's unfolding. This thought suggests that intelligent
species, here and elsewhere in the universe, play a role in the natural
dynamics of the unfolding world.
Such a species would become the evolved “intelligent designers” of life,
extending life beyond the principles and necessities of arbitrary evolution, an
inevitable part of nature's “plan” to move life beyond its dependence upon the
environment in which it first evolves.
If this is the case then our species, along with other such species that may
appear elsewhere, are not mere spectators but play a role in the unfolding of
the world.
In recent decades we have made significant advances in understanding the
science of the living. Modern biophysics has begun to show us the detailed
composition and dynamics of biophysical structure. For the record, it's nothing
like a modern computer system.
The results of this global effort are Galilean in their scope and pregnant with
implication. It is surely only a matter of time before we move to the Newtonian
stage in the development of our understanding and learn the details of how
sense is formed and modified, the role that sense plays in our directed
actions, and how intelligent thought functions.
Today, however, there is only a poor understanding of the mechanics of sense.
Theorists have had little time to give the new data deep consideration.
Clearly, more biophysical experiments, more observational data, will help us.
If we look at the history of science this period is analogous to the period
before Newton, in which experimentalists and observers such as Galileo and
Copernicus built the foundations of Newton's inquiry. A breakthrough of a kind
similar to Newton's discovery of gravitation is required.
But to make this breakthrough it is the discipline of the logicians that we
need to recall. Before the age of sterile twentieth century logic, when
mathematical logic was first developed and before modern computers were
invented, it is the logicians that concerned themselves with explaining the
nature and operation of thought and sense. Recall that George Boole (1815-1864)
entitled his work on logic The Laws Of Thought[1] and the founder of modern
logic, Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), wrote the book entitled Sense And
Reference[2]. I know from experience that it is a surprise to many that use
logic everyday in their education and computing professions that the original
concern of logicians is the operation of the senses and the mind. If we are to
uncover the mechanics of sense and thought, if we are to understand the
biophysical operation of the mind, then it is this earlier inquiry to which we
must return.
My subject here is logic of the kind that existed before the current era. It is
a logic informed by recent advances in biophysics. It explores solutions that
could not have been considered by the founders of mathematical logic because
they lacked this new data, and it takes steps toward a calculus for biophysics.
It does not provide the final answer. This is because we propose that something
new is to be discovered. But we do present an hypothesis that identifies
exactly what that something is and how to find it. What is more, even if we
discover the hypothesis is false we will learn something new and make progress.
The speculation above, that we can discover something so profound that it will
not only have a broad impact upon the entire species but that the universe
itself cannot proceed without it, will give philosophers something to talk
about for generations. It amuses me, in any case. In the meantime we in
science, and logic in particular, have work to do.
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
[email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
