Science Fiction Recommendations!

[CrazyKB]

I would echo the recommendation for Blindsight. On the discussion, I would suggest that even if decisions are made before we calculate why we are going to make that decision, consciousness must have a function. One possibility is that it offers us a model for predicting the behaviour of others, which is important for a social animal.

Hard SF is rewarding but requires some effort. Even "soft" hard SF such as Greg Egan's Quarantine (soft because nobody believes that interpretation of QM) requires one to know or learn something about quantum mechanics. If you feel determined, Egan might be a recommendation.

One way of approaching SF might be to follow a theme. For example, how are AIs treated in SF and does the approach change and how is it influenced by both science and previous SF. Google easily finds a few lists: 24 Best Artificial Intelligence Science Fiction Books - The Best Sci Fi Books , 10 Chillingly Possible Sci-Fi Books About AIs Taking Over | Book Riot or You are being redirected... although those tend to be rather serious and perhaps one might prefer Hogan's Code of the Lifemaker or Naomi Kritzer's Cat Pictures Please Clarkesworld Magazine - Science Fiction & Fantasy.

I am rather doubtful about recommending particular novels because of the author's and reader's views. One can often read a fantasy novel without learning too much about the authors opinions. However, many (most?) science fiction novels soon reveal the author's opinion about political and religious issues, which is no problem if these seem to the reader plain common sense but may cause an issue if the reader disagrees. For example, a reader of Michael Z Williamson's Freehold might feel that the author underestimates the need for regulations. Similarly a reader of Charles Stross' Merchant Princes Series might feel that American institutions and politicians are being unfairly criticised.

In her Guest of Honor speech at Denvention, Lois Bujold said:
In fact, if romances are fantasies of love, and mysteries are fantasies of justice, I would now describe much SF as fantasies of political agency. All three genres also may embody themes of personal psychological empowerment, of course, though often very different in the details, as contrasted by the way the heroines “win” in romances, the way detectives “win” in mysteries, and the way, say, young male characters “win” in adventure tales. But now that I’ve noticed the politics in SF, they seem to be everywhere, like packs of little yapping dogs trying to savage your ankles.
(Copied from Political agency and changing the world)

To see the impact of religious views, I found the following whilst looking at Jo Walton's excellent series listing most of the best works published up from the start of the Hugo Awards up to 2000 Revisiting the Hugos – Tor.com:

I haven’t read Mary Doria Russell’s Children of God because I hated The Sparrow, to which it is a direct sequel. I should have no opinion on whether it was a good Hugo nominee, as I haven’t read it, but one spoiler I heard for it made me feel really glad it didn’t win. It’s theological SF.

That's the problem with this type of research, it's difficult to except the (possible) conclusion because not only is it counterintuitive, it goes against how we experience reality. It's akin to some of the findings of Quantum Mechanics. You stated that consciousness must have a function, I disagree. Evolution is nothing more than genetic change guided by natural selection, there isn't an 'end goal' in that process.


It appears that consciousness isn't necessary for predicting behavior. I'll go back to the example I gave earlier. If you realize that a car is approaching and will hit you unless you take action, one of the things you have to do is try and 'predict' what the other driver will do. Will they brake? Do they see you? Will they veer left or right in an effort not to hit you? Again, the old view was that the brain takes that all that into account, then sends possible scenarios into your consciousness where you choose which scenario is best (to avoid being hit). However, that requires a working visual system (other sensory modalities can't provide all the data necessary to fully predict possible outcomes in this case). However, someone with blindsight acts as though they can see. Those with Blindsight have a visual system that can still process visual data taken by the eyes, sending that data to the brain via the optic nerve, again the only pathways damaged are the ones responsible for your visual experience (consciousness experience of sight). Thus, if a person who claims they can't see (Blindsight) however can still act in situations where visual data is required, what's the point of consciousness? What consciousness may be is a simulation created by the brain based on certain processes, akin to what happens when you dream. One idea is that consciousness was an evolutionary fluke sometime in our evolutionary past, thus it's possible that if other intelligent Aliens exist, ones capable of science and technology (things required for space travel), they may not be conscious as we are. Which is why it was so difficult to communicate with the aliens in the book Blindsight (there was no conscious interface to communicate with).


All give another example. There have been studies done where someone is asked to push a button whenever they feel like it, the subject's brain being monitored by a brain imaging device ( I believe they used fMRI), the data illustrated that the brain was priming the subject to push the button 'before' they were aware they wanted to push it. If we are agents of freewill that process should be top down, however it appears to be bottom up (we don't choose to do the action then send those impulses to other areas of the brain that coordinate the action, it appears to be the other way around).

I hope the OP doesn't think we've hijacked his thread. The great thing about Science Fiction is the ideas/concepts that it discusses, which can lead to some great discussions (or debates).

I agree that Hard Sci-fi requires effort, however Watt's writing style, at least to me, was overly convoluted, although the payoff at the end was worth it.

 

[Lostinspace]

I didn't mean a teleological function, just that consciousness must give Homo sapiens some advantage or it wouldn't be there. I was aware of some research about the decision being made before conscious thought about the decision.

 

[LordOfWizards]

Surprised noone's mentioned Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir. Do people not like this? I would reccomend this book to anyone, but especially to a beginner to Sci Fi. It's a better version of The Martian. (In my opinion, as well as goodreads ratings). When I finished reading this book I immediately started reading it again.

I agree. I read this in 2022. It provides an example of a non anthropomorphic alien, and they work out a way to communicate. I enjoyed this read more than most.

 

[LordOfWizards]

I wanted to add that the idea of the multiverse (many-worlds interpretation) is based on empirical research, most notably the 'double slit experiment', crazy stuff ...

I'd love to see the research on that. And I'd love to reply to more of your stuff, but would run out of time. You are quite prolific (In a good way )

 

[CrazyKB]

I didn't mean a teleological function, just that consciousness must give Homo sapiens some advantage or it wouldn't be there. I was aware of some research about the decision being made before conscious thought about the decision.

That's the whole point, consciousness may not have a purpose, that's why some are calling it an 'evolutionary fluke'. In fact, there are those who state that consciousness maybe a waste of 'processing power', since it may not serve a useful purpose.

 

[CrazyKB]

I'd love to see the research on that. And I'd love to reply to more of your stuff, but would run out of time. You are quite prolific (In a good way )

Thanks. There are many good explanations of the double slit experiment online. However, the gist is that a particle takes an infinite number of paths, simultaneously, from point A to B.

 

[hitmouse]

That's the whole point, consciousness may not have a purpose, that's why some are calling it an 'evolutionary fluke'. In fact, there are those who state that consciousness maybe a waste of 'processing power', since it may not serve a useful purpose.

One could equally argue that opposable digits are an evolutionary fluke, as with any mutation-derived evolutionary feature. It is dubious logic to presume because of that that there is no “useful purpose” to it. In fact “purpose” is a rather uncomfortable idea in itself in modern evolutionary biology. Easier to talk about function and value, which opposable digits have in spades. Personally I believe that I am conscious and that my consciousness has both function and value (I enjoy it, at least) but ymmv.

 

[CrazyKB]

One could equally argue that opposable digits are an evolutionary fluke, as with any mutation-derived evolutionary event. It is dubious logic to presume because of that that there is no “purpose” to it. In fact “purpose” is a rather uncomfortable idea in itself in modern evolutionary biology. Easier to talk about function and value. Personally I believe that I am conscious and that my consciousness has both function and value (I enjoy it, at least) but y

It doesn't matter what you want to believe, if the data suggests that consciousness servers no 'purpose', that's the way it is. If the multiverse exists, perhaps there's a 'you' that accepts that possibility. If you derive comfort in your belief that consciousness has value, great. However, as Richard Dawkins would say, "just because it gives you comfort doesn't make it true". I don't hold it against 'you', since you're not in control of your thoughts anyway. And feel free to substitute the word 'purpose' for any other synonym of your choosing. However, you're correct in stating that purpose is an uncomfortable idea, since it, like meaning, only exists in your mind. Perhaps, I should have used the term 'function'. However, let's not turn this into semantics.

I'm just stating what the science is saying, if you've got issues with their findings, take it up with them. Don't shoot the messenger, mate.

 

[LordOfWizards]

Thanks. There are many good explanations of the double slit experiment online. However, the gist is that a particle takes an infinite number of paths, simultaneously, from point A to B.

I wanted to add that the idea of the multiverse (many-worlds interpretation) is based on empirical research, most notably the 'double slit experiment'

I know the double slit experiment well. (Interference) That's not what I meant. I want to see the research linking the double slit experiment to the 'empirical' research that the multiverse theory comes from.

Apparently, I had no choice but to type that. Or what I'm typing right now.

 

[CrazyKB]

I said that the multiverse idea (many world interpretation) is 'based' on empirical research, using the double slit experiment as an example. Obviously, there's no empirical data to show that the multiverse exists. However, one method that may provide evidence for the multiverse is if scientists could produce the hypothetical graviton particle in an accelerator (CERN). The idea is that gravity is a weak force because unlike all other particles it isn't tethered to our universe, thus can seep out of ours. If Graviton particles could be produced at CERN then 'disappear' shortly after, that could provide tentative evidence for the multiverse. That idea is also a possibility for Dark Matter.

How would you interpret the double slit experiment when the interference pattern was created by only one particle? Do you agree with Feynman's interpretation of the data?

 

[hitmouse]

It doesn't matter what you want to believe, if the data suggests that consciousness servers no 'purpose', that's the way it is. If the multiverse exists, perhaps there's a 'you' that accepts that possibility. If you derive comfort in your belief that consciousness has value, great. However, as Richard Dawkins would say, "just because it gives you comfort doesn't make it true". I don't hold it against 'you', since you're not in control of your thoughts anyway. And feel free to substitute the word 'purpose' for any other synonym of your choosing. However, you're correct in stating that purpose is an uncomfortable idea, since it, like meaning, only exists in your mind. Perhaps, I should have used the term 'function'. However, let's not turn this into semantics.

I'm just stating what the science is saying, if you've got issues with their findings, take it up with them. Don't shoot the messenger, mate.

What data suggests that consciousness (however it is defined) has no function or value?

 

[hitmouse]

@mods
The discussion on consciousness, evolution etc is really interesting, but it is sort of derailing this thread. Would it be worth splitting it off to continue in Science and Nature?

 

[otaylor]

To try and crowbar this back towards the original post, I would suggest it depends what you like about the idea of science fiction, because there's such a huge range out there! Although it's also nice to be surprised.
I just read Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed, not sure how I missed it till now, and it's brilliant. But it probably appeals because I like stuff that examines politics, gender and society in interesting ways.
If you like alternative or alien visions of consciousness, I really enjoyed Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Time and Children of Ruin - omg in writing this I just saw there's a new one! He works from a good basis in evolutionary biology, it's great. (Combine it with watching my octopus teacher on Netflix)
I was also really impressed with Anne Leckie's series, Ancillary Sword I think was the first, again for excellent insights into gender and the nature of being.
And of course some classics - reread Dune when the film came out and it's so, so good.

 

[otaylor]

It doesn't matter what you want to believe, if the data suggests that consciousness servers no 'purpose', that's the way it is. If the multiverse exists, perhaps there's a 'you' that accepts that possibility. If you derive comfort in your belief that consciousness has value, great. However, as Richard Dawkins would say, "just because it gives you comfort doesn't make it true". I don't hold it against 'you', since you're not in control of your thoughts anyway. And feel free to substitute the word 'purpose' for any other synonym of your choosing. However, you're correct in stating that purpose is an uncomfortable idea, since it, like meaning, only exists in your mind. Perhaps, I should have used the term 'function'. However, let's not turn this into semantics.

I'm just stating what the science is saying, if you've got issues with their findings, take it up with them. Don't shoot the messenger, mate.

This is, for me, a classic misreading of the nature of scientific enquiry. It is never (or rarely, very rarely) 'settled', when it comes to the fringes of our understanding. Data can't exist or be interpreted in a vacuum; we encounter/create it in our own processes of investigation, and it can be limited in a million social ways before we even get to our capacity to comprehend the 'real' as it might exist independently of our observation of it.
The idea of 'function' is hilarious, because it is hugely limited by how we view the world and ourselves - take, as a hilarious (but sad) example, the attempt to understand the 'function' of the female orgasm. In the end most of this tells us more about ourselves and our society than it does the nature of reality. Thomas Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions would be good on this front, just to be wary of our certainties

 

[CrazyKB]

@mods
The discussion on consciousness, evolution etc is really interesting, but it is sort of derailing this thread. Would it be worth splitting it off to continue in Science and Nature?

I completely agree. If you open up a thread I'll join in on the discussion.

 

[CrazyKB]

@mods
The discussion on consciousness, evolution etc is really interesting, but it is sort of derailing this thread. Would it be worth splitting it off to continue in Science and Nature?

I'll join in on that if you open a thread. Oops, didn't mean to post that twice.

 

[CrazyKB]

This is, for me, a classic misreading of the nature of scientific enquiry. It is never (or rarely, very rarely) 'settled', when it comes to the fringes of our understanding. Data can't exist or be interpreted in a vacuum; we encounter/create it in our own processes of investigation, and it can be limited in a million social ways before we even get to our capacity to comprehend the 'real' as it might exist independently of our observation of it.
The idea of 'function' is hilarious, because it is hugely limited by how we view the world and ourselves - take, as a hilarious (but sad) example, the attempt to understand the 'function' of the female orgasm. In the end most of this tells us more about ourselves and our society than it does the nature of reality. Thomas Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions would be good on this front, just to be wary of our certainties

If you look at my post (the one you commented on) I use the word 'suggest', which is the opposite of 'settled'. You're getting close to quote mining me.

Since you're focusing on semantics ... Let's take my use of the term 'function'. By studying the wings of birds an understanding emerged regarding the 'function' of the feathers and the wing, this lead to an understanding of how birds fly. Those insights led to the construction of air plane wings (camber of wing and aileron, for example), and helicopter blades. And there are numerous other examples of how understanding functionality has lead to break throughs in science and technology. The fact that we don't understand the female orgasm, doesn't refute the importance of trying to understand functionality in nature. I'm familiar with Kuhn, and everything I've discussed can be found in research journals, that employ the peer-review process. You're preaching to the choir, mate.

My response was based on what Hitmouse said, "Personally, I believe that I am conscious". On those grounds my comment stands. Again, it doesn't matter what you believe, in science you must always follow the data no matter where it leads. There are many examples of personal belief getting in the way of scientific progress. Kepler was placed under house arrest because the data he espoused (heliocentric principle) went against religious belief, Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection was rejected because it went against the cherished beliefs of religion. Even Einstein let his beliefs get in the way of understanding the implications of his own ideas, or how they lead to quantum mechanics. Einstein didn't 'believe' in a universe ran by the laws of QM, even though his own ideas paved the way for its inception.




I hold to the idea of Model Dependant Realism. I'm fully aware that science is a 'work in progress', and what we know now may change as new data is brought to light. However, when it comes to Free Will, or consciousness itself, there is a growing amount of evidence illustrating that it's an illusion. I find that fascinating, not to mention if flies in the face of what humans have thought since we had the ability to discuss it.

 

[LordOfWizards]

I completely agree. If you open up a thread I'll join in on the discussion.

There are already several threads in Science & Nature. Here's a few:

The mystery of consciousness

I enjoyed this article quite a lot, hence I'm posting the it for perusal for those who may also be interested in the subject matter... http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness ...but am really none the wiser (along with...

www.sffchronicles.com

Language and The Development of Consciousness

Following on from Phyrebrat's 'Internal Voice' thread... For many years I've pondered on how I think and develop ideas. I definitely think in English sentences (there was a time when I was writing programs in machine code when some of my words were replaced by the machine code equivalent!)...

www.sffchronicles.com

If these don't suit your taste let us know. Either @hitmouse or @LordOfWizards (I) can start one. I understand you may not have permissions yet.

 

[CrazyKB]

What data suggests that consciousness (however it is defined) has no function or value?

I've already given you a few. And I'm still waiting for you to show me the philosophers that came up with similar ideas regarding freewill or consciousness (as I've described), which you stated in your initial rebuttal. I'm hear to learn, I'm not well versed in philosophy.

 

[CrazyKB]

There are already several threads in Science & Nature. Here's a few:

The mystery of consciousness

I enjoyed this article quite a lot, hence I'm posting the it for perusal for those who may also be interested in the subject matter... http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness ...but am really none the wiser (along with...

www.sffchronicles.com

Language and The Development of Consciousness

Following on from Phyrebrat's 'Internal Voice' thread... For many years I've pondered on how I think and develop ideas. I definitely think in English sentences (there was a time when I was writing programs in machine code when some of my words were replaced by the machine code equivalent!)...

www.sffchronicles.com

If these don't suit your taste let us know. Either @hitmouse or @LordOfWizards (I) can start one. I understand you may not have permissions yet.

I'm easy. If one of you wants to start a discussion on freewill (for example) I'm fine with that. Some of those threads are quite old. Perhaps, we should start a new one?