Consciousness

  (out of 5 stars)

David McFarland, someone well-versed in biological robots and zoology, offers up this quick philosophical (not technical) discussion of just how we go about identifying 'alien' minds. 'Alien' here refers to non-human minds, not the ET variety, specifically those of animals and robots. He assumes as fundamental the need to identify both rationality and subjectivity in an 'other' before we could ascribe to it a mind. Most of the book involves dealing with the numerous and convoluted problems associated with those identifications.

To move his ideas along, McFarland uses his dog Border as the animal example, and a conceptual security robot for the other. Throughout the early parts of the book, the reader gets an intro to 'mindless machines' and the role design plays in both animals (through natural selection, environment, etc) and robots (engineer, programmer, etc).

The bulk of the book involves traditional philosophical considerations of intent, functionality, rationality, subjectivity, feelings, knowledge, and mind. Much of this discussion will be familiar to readers of Daniel Dennett (and Dennett is frequently referenced) and/or general philosophy of mind. There are some interesting applications of these concepts to robots (especially), but I'd advise the novice philosophy reader to find a quiet room and have an optimal mind set before proceding through the middle sections (as I would advise on any good philosophy book).

Toward the end, the reader gets stronger discussions of mind as they may (or may not apply) to robots and animals. Many of the contradictions are pointed out, as well as the inherent difficulty (impossibility?) of determining the mind, mind set, or subjectivity of anything which might house them.

The end of the book falls off the truck, unfortunately. Throughout the chapters, McFarland clearly appears to be laying groundwork for his conclusions (and yes, I use this word in the philosophical not empirical sense), only to turn in a 'hedging all bets' card in the epilogue without any real opinion. He offers what may be possible, states that philosophers are all in disagreement, and proposes weakly that its basically up to the reader to determine what is going on inside that skull/robot. I recognize (both from reading this book and previous knowledge of many of the subjects) that a conclusion of any sort would not be likely in strong empirical terms, but at least McFarland should have let the reader know this was an exploration without an actual purpose other than to discuss the issues (does the Intentional Stance come into play here in his narrative?). I never expected McFarland to state whether he thought his dog had a mind, but he presented enough points of view that I expected him to accept one at some point. He never did. It was all one big lecture for the reader (enjoyable though it was).

The strongest points for me were his determination that mind and consciousness were just as much products of evolution and purpose (or for the robot, design and purpose) as any other phenotypic effect. His one strong conclusion was that we cannot expect an animal or a robot to ever have a mind or consciousness like ours. They don't have human brains, haven't been selected (or designed) under the same conditions, and therefore, if they have minds at all, those minds would conform to the specific needs and conditions of their respective developments.

Guilty Robots was worth the read, and with a stronger finish this would have been a four-star review. However, the weak ending, the progressing obscurity of our main characters (security robot, Border), and a reader-must-decide 'conclusion' somewhat spoiled an otherwise solid effort (but not enough to render it a waste of time). Three and one-half stars.

  (out of 5 stars)

Quantum Gods is physicist Victor Stenger's answer to the emergence of new age gurus who propose proof of God is available thanks to quantum mechanics. In this rebuttal, Stenger takes on the manifestations which range from ones resembling the Old Testament Christian God to those which are more on the traditional deist side (with a new age twist or six).

Having just read Stenger's previous book, God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, I probably should have waited a bit before picking this one up. I was somewhat disappointed in this effort for lots of nit-picky reasons despite the fact that the book is actually fairly successful at debunking the physics-based arguments of the new age God theories. As much as I liked Failed, my expectations were likely too high going into this latest work.

Stenger's mode in this effort is much different as he is forced to launch into a 100-page explanation of basic physics and quantum behavior in order to ground the reader in the real facts as known to real physicists. Being one who has a good grasp of physics theories, I was generally bored by this section, especially since its aim was only to educate on the basics, not offer any new information. Great stuff for a reader new to physics (and undoubted well-appreciated), but tedious for me.

However, Stenger had no choice given the rebuttal he must make. The new age gurus claim that quantum theory supports ideas that aren't actually backed up by quantum theory. Stenger goes to great lengths to explain the important details of the various theories and what exactly they predict, but I'm afraid I'm not the only reader that lost the overall thesis of the book for long sections. Quantum physics isn't a subject easily summed up in a chapter, so his need to explain the ideas was a given, but I feel it could have been more readily integrated with his central thesis.

The last part of the book feels rushed, as if Stenger didn't really bother to use all that information he presented earlier to prove his points. Most of the rebuttal feels like an afterthought, one which should have been integrated into the discussion as he proceded rather than left for mopping up after the long section of basic intro to the quantum.

He does directly counter many of the specific cases he brings up, but despite a reasonable introduction at the beginning of the book which presents some of the new age arguments, I never got a very good feel for what Stenger wanted to argue. Yeah, I get that he is knocking down various quantum physics-based God 'proofs', but the effort felt quite scattershot and without much central narrative. In contrast to Failed, which was a straightforward assault on the basic assumptions of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, I feel Stenger took on too many opponents in one go, with too much basic information to explain to the reader, leaving his overall effort muddled despite his near-flawless logic.

Stenger doesn't even really address the 'search for cosmic consciousness' that is in his subtitle, leaving that mostly to the greater discussion of God. His inclusion of chaos and complexity theory was a good basic intro, but I thought of numerous ways that could have been used to explain things in a more direct manner.

Overall, I remain disappointed in this effort, but I applaud Stenger for taking it on. The Quantum Gurus are among the most successful at taking advantage of the public's ignorance of physics, and it is admirable that someone is willing to point out just how blatantly wrong the gurus are. I do wish, however, Stenger had presented his case more directly by explaining a bit of physics then offering why that bit of physics clearly refuted specific points rather than holding off most of the rebuttal until long after the physics arguments had drawn out for 100 pages.

I admit I might simply be basing some of this review and rating on the fact that I really enjoyed Failed, so please consider other reviews as they come in before deciding on passing on this book. If you don't have a basic feel for quantum physics but want to learn, you'll get much more out of this book than I did and it will be worth the effort to read. Three stars, but recommended to anyone who wants to understand just why the new age gurus claiming quantum physics proof of God are dreadfully wrong.

  (out of 5 stars)

I read Dragons of Eden many years ago as a teenager. I've got a couple of Carl Sagan's more recent works in the short queue to read soon, so I wanted to reread this classic to get a bit of a basis to work from. Dragons is Sagan's foray into the philosophy and science of human brain evolution, one which was groundbreaking at the time and is still largely applicable several decades later.

Sagan is considered a master of his craft, merging the often complementary but divergent subjects of science and philosophy. Dragons summarizes some of the cutting-edge science of the late 1970s with Sagan's own insights into evolution, function of brain, and various physiological changes in the human body.

The first half of the book lays down a lot of the biology, anthropology, and evolutionary framework Sagan uses later to speculate on brain development, psychology, dreams, and the future of human intelligence. Many of Sagan's speculations are well-founded in research that has since been conducted, although some of his less-central thoughts are still not validated (and are still sources of ongoing research and controversy in many fields).

Dragons is a book often referenced in a broad range of subjects, and has been a source of inspiration for countless scientists and writers, and after reading this book a second time after a couple decades since the first reading, there is no doubt why. Sagan's ability to mix hard science with philosophical considerations has very rarely been matched, and it becomes even more obvious just how much he is missed in the world.

Overall, I have to honestly rate this book at three and one-half stars, due largely to the fact that a great deal of the underlying science has been improved upon, and many of his technological references are now greatly out of date. At publication, this was easily a four and one-half star book, and only because of its age is it not so now. Still, highly recommended to anyone interested in human evolution, biology, philosophy, or on learning about Sagan's on thoughts on a wide variety of subjects. Well worth the time spent to read, just ignore some of the less timely information as you go.

  (out of 5 stars)

I wish I had read this book many years ago, though after having read the book, I have to question whether my conscious self illusion had developed enough to know how handle the arguments Dr. Dennett presents. From the opening chapters, this book is a candy store for thinkers. Make no mistake, it is deep and will require concentration from most any reader. The rewards, like any good read, are worth the effort as Dennett makes a profound and intensely engaging argument about his philosophy of mind, consciousness, and self. He makes extensive use of the idea of Virtual Machines, software, and AI-style capabilities in building his model of mind.

Dennett opens up in Part 1 with an exploration of the groundwork for his theory, offering the reader some soft (but quickly advancing) concepts of hallucinations, 'mind stuff', and phenomenology (which he abstracts into heterophenomenology for use later). This section skirts some of the more basic philosophical arguments (of which there are general if not specific agreements) in favor of offering challenges to intuition and 'seems to be' type thinking.

In Part II, he breaks down his theory of Multiple Drafts as a more reasonable (and often, direct affront to) the traditional Cartesian Theater arguments. To put this simply, Dennett's theory argues against the firm existence of a Central Meaner (audience in the theater, ultimate decider, aka soul or top brain dog) while presenting his Multiple Drafts idea. He supposes that consciousness arises, not due to the presense of a specific observer/decider, but instead as the reflective consequence of multiple contributions to the mental state. These 'drafts', as he refers to them, are temporary versions of introspective narrative which are only true until they get edited (and these edits take place in a decentralized manner based on many factors). Because the information used to develop the self-narration comes from numerous sources whose functional-chains are often specialized and multifaceted, and because one cannot determine between two types of rewriting (Orwellian, which involves revisionist history, or Stalinesque, which includes more real-time 'made-up' explanations treated as if factual), the Multiple Drafts theory seems to satisfy these issues, as well as solve many of the problems of the tangibility and determinism found in the alternative theories.

The final Part of the book explores the numerous objections likely thrown up at this theory, and offers extended discussion of why Multiple Drafts both fits the evidence and offers the scientific advantage of being testable and falsifiable. Using many thought exercises and scientific studies of brain-damaged or abnormally-acting people, Dennett argues that the idea of quale (a rival explanation in the Cartesian Theater model) doesn't fit the evidence, is self-contradictory, and cannot be reduced in a meaningful and testable manner.

The most fascinating discussion in Explained is Dennett's thoughts on the creation and indoctrination of consciousness. His theory is basically the following: early creatures gained advantage by taking traditional basic instincts and abilities (like fight-or-flight, verticle symmetry detection, etc) and making them more active and available. Rather than only being called for under extreme conditions (or more specifically, only available when the instinct itself notices stimuli it is both equiped to notice and for which it 'cares'), an 'always-on' mentality allowed greater observation and more information collection. This lead to stronger, more efficient means of distributing observation-based data and acting upon instructions that are more likely to be advantageous. Primates in particular got especially good at saccadic eye motion (visual jumpiness that allows the eye to observe more points in its line-of-sight, thereby, collecting more data), which likely increased our ability to protect ourselves and to find food. Shortcuts were created in the brain at this point which began to lay the foundation architecture for the language to come later.

Early pre-language hominids likely used some audio mechanism to communicate very basic information in a one-directional sort of way. 'I'm looking for food' probably elicited no direct response, though it would have been a data point considered by anyone in earshot. At some point, this stopped being simply one-way, and a question/answer process evolved. 'I'm looking for food' might lead to 'I have a lot of food'. The asker, however, was likely unable to ask and then answer himself, leaving an efficiency gap to be filled. Later, a sole homo sapien likely started the process with a question, but no one else was around to answer. However, a surprising thing happened: he answered himself. 'I'm looking for food' might have been answered by his own voice (or perhaps internally) with 'Try the bush by the big rock.' Not consciously aware of self-talking (as we would define it), but in a 'I just asked about X' and 'I received an answer about X'.

While the process was inefficient, having had to be formulated, passed out the vocal chords and mouth, and received back in the ear and reprocessed, the invaluable addition of consulting one's self quickly became an advantageous Big Trick (Dennett's idea that social evolution can take place very quickly if a specific action or ability could be both possible due to genetics and available to learn from others who themselves would have developed or learned the Trick). From this point on, humans developed an efficiency we now call an inner monologue (although Dennett is careful to say that this is not just a textual 'spoken' monologue, but instead a multi-faceted creation from multiple heterogeneous contributors) which didn't require (but in many of us, still is exhibited as) vocally 'talking to ourselves'.

From this point on, the reader can infer that consciousness came about, not through a guided Observer or Meaner, but through the chaotic, pandemoniac contributions of various brain-functions and sub-functions. Consciousness is more of a bucket of interaction where subroutines can pay attention to both hardwired areas of interest (pain receptors looking for pain in the hands, for example) but also have the ability to contribute to areas of temporary interest (those same pain receptors might offer a concept of pain to the bucket in response to the information that a fire is near before a narrative leading to a hand being placed in the fire can be acted upon).

Dennett also contends that consciousness may well be taught to children (as a meme set) rather than inherited in a traditional genetically-driven manner, and consciousness is only made possible by our ability to use and understand language (at least the sort of consciousness as humans know it to be). 'Words do things with us' he titled one chapter. Dennett does argue that we have to be genetically predisposed to be able to be conscious, but that consciousness itself is only one possible arrangement of the various brain functions available to a human. One quote he uses really boils this down in a way that is both enlightening and haunting, in the words of Helen Keller:

"Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious time of nothingness...Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another.'

This review vastly oversimplifies Dennett's discussion and leaves out dozens of key points and sub-elements which make this book a very deep and rewarding read. Highly, highly recommended for the very curious mind, but I'd advise taking this book to a quiet room for a few days and really allowing yourself to disengage some of those constantly vigilant 'demons' of expectationalism and open up your mind (and self) to ideas you may never have dreamed could be true. Believe Dennett or not on these theories, this book will make you think deep and carefully reconsider many things you took as given in your own head. Five stars.