| Home Forums Library Media Gallery Glossary Links |
 |
March 26, 2005
Shapeshifting, Consciousness & The Edge of Science
Guest writer Colin Magee shares with us his thoughts on the nature of consciousness.
In his essay on life after death when he was discussing consciousness Paul asked if rocks could be conscious. I've always found this line of speculation fascinating.Hans Moravec in his book Robot-Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind has the following to say: "Given the right playbook,the thermal jostling of the atoms in a rock can be seen as the operation of a complex, self-aware mind.How strange. Common sense screams that people have minds and rocks don't. But interpretations are often ambiguous....We can see levers and springs in animal limbs, and beauty in the aurora: our "mind children" may be able to spot fully functioning intelligences in the complex chemical goings on of plants, the dynamics of interstellar clouds, or the reverberations of cosmic radiation. No particular interpretation is ruled out, but the space of all of them is exponentially larger than the size of individual ones, and we may never encounter more than an infinitesimal fraction. The rock-minds may be forever lost to us in the boggingly vast sea of chaotic rock-interpretations. Yet those rock minds make complete sense to themselves,and to them it is we who are lost in meaningless chaos. Our own nature, in fact, is defined by the tiny fraction of possible interpretations we can make, and the astronomical number we can't."
I'd like to go one further and propose the following-is it conceivable that inanimate objects could have some degree of consciousness? I remember reading in the book Space-Time and Beyond by Jack Sarfatti, Fred Wolf, and Bob Toben something to the effect that even a spoon is conscious. I don't recall the exact quote unfortunately. In the book To Seek out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek by Dr. Athena Andreadis she discusse shapeshifters that are able to impersonate inanimate objects. She mentioned a character from Deep Space Nine named Odo who impersonated a wine glass.In the essay she stated that it violated various laws of physics and biology and stated that shapeshifters are impossible. If I was a scientist I think I would be inclined to say something along these lines: "According to our current and limited understanding of the laws of physics and biology it would appear at this time that shapeshifters are improbable." This of course leaves open the possibility that as our knowledge expands the concept of shapeshifters could indeed be plausible. Is it conceivable that some advanced civilization using some advanced form of technology such as femtotechnology or picotechnology (or some other technology not yet conceived of by our current understanding of the laws of physics) could impersonate an inanimate object for cloaking purposes,for instance to avoid predators. There are certain insects for example that impersonate leaves to evade predators (of course I know that this is a form of camouflage and that they don't actually "turn into a leaf"). Still it is an interesting idea to consider.Ideas such as shapeshifters of course bring up all kinds of issues in epistemology,ontology,metaphysics, and philosophy of science particularly when it comes to the nature of "impossibility." For instance,when is something truly impossible? And how many different degrees/types of impossibility are there - i.e. logically impossible, physically impossible, metaphysically impossible, etc.?
In the Bible Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt as a form of punishment. If karmic law exists, is it then conceivable that a person could be reincarnated as an inanimate object as part of their karmic decisions? On the surface I suppose that most people would consider this theory ludicrous and would probably question the sanity of the person proposing it. I threw this out somewhat tongue-in-cheek yet somewhat seriously as a hypothesis to a good friend of mind and she felt that it was something that someone on acid might have thought up. Still as a firm believer in the "guerilla ontology" of Robert Anton Wilson I feel that no ideas should be taboo or off limits particularly in philosophy and science.
There are five quotes which I think are relevant when considering and evaluating "outlandish" hypotheses:
1.) "Reality is not only stranger than we imagine,but stranger than we can imagine" - J.B.S.Haldane
2.) "Your theory is crazy,but not crazy enough to be true" - Neils Bohr
3.) "When an elderly but distinguished scientist says something is possible he is very probably correct,when he says something is impossible he is very probably wrong"- Arthur C.Clarke
4.) "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
5.) "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio" - Shakespeare
That being said when proposing theories and hypotheses which are considered "outlandish" what is the apropriate balance between freedom and discipline? Is this subjective or are there objective criteria? Does this depend on the area/discipline in which the speculations are being made? What does epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, and philosophy of science have to say regarding this? These are not easy questions to answer especially when dealing with issues that are considered fringe by the majority of scientists.
I guess until we have a firm definition of consciousness (if that's even possible-which may not be) we won't be able to answer what entities, objects, etc. are conscious or not. Furthermore, it seems to me that any definition of consciousness will be anthropomorphic. I think that we'd be like the scientists in Stanislaw Lem's novel Solaris-anytime we try to gain insight into something truly extraterrestrial/alien are we really just projecting our own theories, preconceived ideas, etc. onto something we may never be in a position to know?
Are there many science fiction stories that deal with the idea I've been discussing? I understand that there are a lot of fantasy stories that deal with the concept of shapeshifters but was wondering how much this theme is explored in science fiction. I'm a firm believer that even so called outlandish ideas can stimulate thinking about old ideas in a new light and can also stimulate thinking in new and innovative directions. With that in mind I was wondering how many people have read the books The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson and Space-Time Transients and Unusual Events by Michael A. Persinger and Gyslaine F.Lafreniere. I've found these books very interesting and mind expanding. Another book which I was curious about is called "The Secret Life of Inanimate Objects" by Lyall Watson. Do you know anything about this book. I'd be interested in any feedback positive or negative regarding this idea.
Many of those the theories you have discussed I have heard before. When I first heard of those theories I thought it was completely absurd. But then I remember the times I was playing a first person shooter game (UT) online and playing against AI bots and real people. Sometimes the AI bots would achieve a level of game playing which seemed eeriely human. And I would say to myself what is it that seperates a Bot from say a "inanimate" object in the game? And then I realized that the only difference between the AI bot and the "inanimate" objects in the game was the level of programming logic and order. And that the AI bot simply had a higher level programming logic (order) than say a virtual wall in the game. Making another bold assertion I then surmised that human consiousness "flows" through levels of programming logic through which the logic of our minds can achieve various levels of meta-logic and meta-order (we are programmed yet we can override our own programming . . . theoretically at any level). Or course this is just pure speculation but I thought it was just something I'd spout out there. Also by the way I'll take a look at those books you posted paul.
Posted by: nmatrix9 at March 26, 2005 11:45 AMI think that the whole mass-energy matrix is one giant shapeshifter...
Also nanotechnology could create objects that transform themselves fairly quickly - though conservation of energy is fairly standard... I don't know what would have to change in order to turn an elephant into a wine glass that someone could pick up withone hand.
Anyone can come up with a theory that might be true. In order to weld it onto the ediface of the scientific endeavour, however, it has to proceed from 'established facts'. This kind of attitude is necessary for progress in the sciences. Scientific methodology is uniquely appropriate for surveying certain aspects of our situation, and scientists are right to insist on it. That doesn't mean that the scientific method is the only tool in the box, though... and as far as philosophy goes it's open season!
Posted by: Teafaerie at March 26, 2005 04:18 PMA shape shifter has no need of macroscopic worlds. It needs them no more than we do: We could make houses with roofs 100 feet high and bedrooms 1000 feet in four directions. We could make our cars 100 tonnes each, take up 3 lanes, and our roads 500 lanes wide. But that'd be an enormous waste of energy. For what gain?
More likely: A shape shifter quickly realizes that it can make itself see anything, hear anything, feel anything. It becomes as small as it can, to save on energy, makes worlds inside itself, and then extends out lines of security and communication with its neighbors.
Sound familiar?
Posted by: Lion Kimbro at March 27, 2005 12:17 AMdo computers think?do submarines swim?certainly any form of technology sufficiently advanced will seem magical.i believe that the souls of the inanimate are resolved enough to just be.it is the doing in our concious reality that we imbue with intelligence but we don`t see doing,on it`s own,as alive.there is something that draws us to rocks and trees and matter of all shapes,sizes and purpose that suggests that we recognise the spirit in these inanimate things.
lyall watson has a series of books dealing with the supernatural.supernature and supernature 2 are fantastic trips into the seemingly impossible.i have both titles in a box somewhere.i will read them again now.colin wilson does similar investigations into metareal topics.his book on ufos is well worth the time.
do stones have a conciousness?we are busy putting thoughts(data streams)into silicon so why not.are we the only ones able to be god?maybe somebody already started the process once before.
maybe the order of logic in our mind`s programming is so high as to be indistinguishable from magic.to ourselves.
I would point out that a shapeshifter could exist and exhibit most of the qualities that they typically do in scifi (and Star Trek) without actually "becoming" the object it appears to be. Increasing the density of its tissues, adjusting their color, texture and opacity, rearranging its own preexisting cells or their equivalents into the shape of a wine glass would do it.
I must admit, that I loose you when you seem to talk about something actually "becoming" something else. What does "become" mean, in that context? What does "be" mean?
I'm not trying to be philosophical.
Likewise the idea of a concious spoon seems to leave me with no use for the word "concious" at all.
Posted by: Tri at March 28, 2005 07:05 PMI agree with Teafaerie that science does seem to need "facts", or at least use experimental data to establish a model that works best at the moment.
"The New Inquisition" is one of my fave Wilson books. The main gist of it is that even scientists can become as dogmatic as religious fundies--and Wilson provides examples from the behaviour of members of CSICOP.
I think shapeshifting may be possible at some point--we just don't have the means of making it possible at the moment. It's a plausible theory--just like a lot of things. Remember, even evolution is still just a theory, not a "proven fact"--it just seems a better model to me than "some old dude with a big long beard flung his hands around and universe popped out in seven days."
Posted by: Sly Stoner at March 29, 2005 12:40 AMa nice nouvel about many things, and among them consiounsess of non anime things is "starmaker" by O. Stapledon. You should definetily check it out.
so regarding whether a stone, or in general a non anime object is consious, one should take also into account in what time scale and magnitude. a massive and fairly complex system of, "stones", or matter in general, may posses consiounses in a sufficiently large(or small) time scale.
Posted by: tlon at March 29, 2005 06:00 AMHi,
What use does a shapeshifter have for form ? If it is able to change into anything air or water (The Abyss !) or whatever suffices.
As for stones, plants and animals, i consider them to have consciousness. The lowest level -stones have an advantage as its vibration is so low that it is possible to imprint higher vibrations- by humans f.i. and resonate them back to those sensative enough.