Michel Jullian wrote:
But could our mind possibly be open to the idea that like paramecia we are machines, only with more
computing power? We couldn't possibly cope with this thought could we? We would have to resort to a
ghost in the machine, or even a deus in the machina...
Nonsense; I've had exactly that argument over lunch with a friend who
was convinced of it. We can conceive it, we can admit the possibility,
and we can debate whether it makes sense. I don't think it does, but
some people disagree with me.
By a "ghost" I merely meant that which is aware; "awareness" is
something which is not part of current physical theory, so it seems
reasonable to call it by an extraphysical term.
The problem with what you say above is that you're getting into issues
as deep as the basic rules of inference here. As I said, the bottom of
the slope is Total Confusion, not simple Nihilism.
Something I encountered with surprise when I first studied logic is that
the primary rule of inference:
(A => B) & A => B
is an assumption, not a theorem. In fact, there's very little in logic
which doesn't turn out to be an assumption. These fundamental
assumptions appear to be inarguable to us -- but that only really shows
that we can't imagine how they could be incorrect. That statement is
subtly but significantly different from the statement that they cannot
be incorrect.
Descarte's "cogito ergo sum" appears at first glance to be airtight --
until we realize that what it really says is, I experience
consciousness, and given that fact, I cannot see any way that I could
not exist. I.e., I cannot see any way that *nothing* could be
conscious. That is, again, not /exactly/ the same as saying, "To be
conscious, one must exist".
If, on the other hand, we take the usual rules of inference as givens,
and we take Descarte's notion at face value, then we are confronted with
the fact that /something/ is aware of its surroundings -- or at least, I
am so confronted; I can't say whether you are too! :-) Unfortunately,
that is as far as we can take it while retaining any semblance of
deductive validity. (Descarte's subsequent arguments, from which he
concluded that things are as they appear, were ill-founded.)
So, then, we can ask what it means to be "conscious", and we can get
embroiled in slippery arguments about it; but no matter what we conclude
we won't be able to argue our way out of the possibility that we're
stuck in a virtual reality version of the Matrix and just don't recall
pressing the start button.
