Steven, I like this and do not think it at all overblown. I don't have my Peirce disk with me here in Tucson, but somewhere in it Peirce states that "God" could not have consciousness because consciousness requires the capability for sensation from which to experience and thus be conscious, something that Peirce's conception of God does not have.
However, it seems to me that a machine could be thought to fulfill that requirement for a sort of consciousness as long as it possesses prostheses that enable it to experience its environment and some way of interpreting that experience. For example, the Mars-lander picked up (tactile) and analyzed (interpreted) the contents of materials and then provided that information (communicated) to scientists on earth. Yet, I suspect that you would encounter resistance from readers if you termed the sort of possibilities you are addressing as consciousness, as we are still a highly anthropomorphic civilization and many (though perhaps not your intended readers) may be insulted by the idea that such non-living constructions might be construed as conscious. Regards, Phyllis -----Original Message----- From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 7:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [peirce-l] Proemial: On The Origin Of Experience 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
