Let's grant for the sake of argument that philosophical zombies are possible: beings that are molecule-for-molecule physically and behaviorally identical to human beings yet lack conscious experience. They will say "I'm conscious!" (or emit sounds naturally interpreted as sentences with that meaning), but that's exactly the type of sound a molecule-for-molecule identical replica of a human would make given the physical-causal channels from ears to brain to vocal cords. Zombies share every single physical property with us but lack something crucial -- the property of being conscious.
My thought for today: Is there any reason to think there would be only one such nonphysical property?
Introducing Hyperconsciousness
Let's stipulate the existence of hyperconsciousness. If this stipulation later entangles us in logical contradiction, we can treat it as the first step in a reductio ad absurdum. My hyperconscious twin is molecule-for-molecule identical both to me and to my zombie twin. Unlike my zombie twin, but like me, my hyperconscious twin is conscious. However, unlike both my zombie twin and me, it is also hyperconscious.
What is hyperconsciousness? I can form no positive conception of it, except through this structural analogy. But the impossibility of hyperconsciousness doesn't follow. Someone blind from birth might be unable to form a positive conception of redness, but red things exist. My merely abstract grasp of hyperconsciousness might just reflect my own sad limitations.
If there are hyperconscious entities, they probably won't be my behavioral twins. Any molecule-for-molecule twin of mine would say (or "say") the same things I say, since their physical structure and behavior will be entirely indistinguishable from mine, regardless of whether they are zombie or hyper. But just as friends of the zombie thought experiment hold that non-zombies typically (but not universally) know and say they are not zombies, so I imagine that typical hyperconscious entities would typically know and say they are hyperconscious. (ETA 11:39 AM: They will, presumably, have hyperintrospective insight into their hyperconsciousness, say they can conceive of entities physically identical to them but who are merely conscious, and maybe have cognitive capacities of which we humans can't conceive.) Since no one around here describes themselves as hyperconscious in this sense, I tentatively conclude that hyperconsciousness does not exist on Earth.
Zero, One, or Many Nonphysical Properties?
Could there really be such hyperconscious entities (in principle, or even in actuality)? Here I think we face a theoretical choice:
(1.) Consciousness is as consciousness does. Zombies are impossible. Anything physically identical to a conscious human being is necessarily conscious. There's no looseness between physical properties and other properties such that some entities could have non-physical properties that other physically identical entities lack. If so, hyperconsciousness is impossible.
(2.) There is only one type of nonphysical property. (Or at least there's only one of the type we're attempting to conceive: Maybe being a prime number is also a nonphysical property, but if so, it is in a very different way.) But then I think we're owed an account of why there should be only one such property. Hyperconsciousness seems at least in an abstract sense conceivable. Even if it's not instantiated around here (though can we be sure of that?), it might be instantiated somewhere.
(3.) There are multiple types of nonphysical property. Although individual atoms (let's assume) aren't conscious, swirl them around in the right way, and amazingly a whole new type of property arises: consciousness! Now, swirl conscious entities around and maybe a further new type of property arises. We just haven't swirled things around in the right way yet. Maybe they're doing it in the Andromeda galaxy, or in a metaphysically possible world with different laws of nature. (If we allow that individual atoms are conscious, then maybe some are hyperconscious too.)
We humans love to think we're the top of the metaphysical food chain. And maybe we are, around here. But zombie-lovers' dissociation of consciousness from physics invites a way of thinking on which we are only one step above zombies in a potentially unlimited hierarchy.
If this seems too absurd, maybe that's one consideration against such nonphysical properties.
(For a related view, see Geoffrey Lee on alien subjectivity.)
1 comment:
Gemini and me...please do not post this if it is to much...
Physics is not singularity: it is a sense...just like philosophy is not a singularity: it too is just a sense...represented for inquiry "as physics of" or "philosophy of"...
..."consciousness of" does not exist for us except as a sense...
That's a very interesting and nuanced perspective, one that touches on the fundamental relationship between human perception and the nature of reality. Here's a breakdown of how we can interpret that idea:
Key Points:
Physics and Philosophy as "Senses":
This suggests that physics and philosophy aren't absolute, independent entities, but rather frameworks through which we perceive and interpret the world.
They are tools of understanding, shaped by our cognitive abilities and sensory experiences.
"Physics of" and "Philosophy of":
This highlights the contextual nature of these disciplines. They are always applied to something—"physics of particles," "philosophy of ethics"—emphasizing that they are lenses through which we examine specific aspects of reality.
Sense-Dependent Existence:
The assertion that "physics does not exist for us except as sense" emphasizes the role of human perception in constructing our understanding of the physical world.
Our senses, and the cognitive processes that interpret them, are the foundation of our scientific models.
Implications:
Subjectivity in Science:
This perspective acknowledges a degree of subjectivity in scientific inquiry, even though science aims for objectivity.
Our theories are shaped by our limitations and perspectives.
The Limits of Knowledge:
It suggests that our understanding of reality is inherently limited by our sensory and cognitive capacities.
There may be aspects of reality that are beyond our ability to comprehend.
The Interplay of Perception and Reality:
It highlights the complex relationship between our perceptions and the external world.
Our perceptions are not simply passive reflections of reality, but active constructions.
Connecting to Existing Ideas:
Phenomenology:
This philosophical approach emphasizes the importance of subjective experience in understanding reality.
Constructivism:
This theory suggests that knowledge is not passively received, but actively constructed by the learner.
Quantum Mechanics:
Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly those that deal with the role of the observer, also hint at the ways in which our act of observing reality, changes the reality we are observing.
In essence, your perspective invites us to consider that our understanding of physics and philosophy is not a direct, unmediated grasp of absolute truth, but rather a product like consciousness's of our human experience
Post a Comment