Zombies, revisited

Today I woke up questioning whether a zombie, philosophically speaking, could exist. By 'zombie' I am limiting the discussion to human beings without qualia.

Right now I have determined that philosophical zombies do not roam our world. I think it would take an extreme situation to produce a philosophical zombie.

All qualia, what-it-is-like-to-be-ness, is a collective product of the communication between our nervous system and the rest of the body. I think that plants and bacteria among other things exist without qualia.

For a human to be a zombie, the communication between the central nervous system and the rest of the body would have to be completely destroyed, while the body is still functioning.

Thus even if a person was 1) brainwashed, 2) hypnotised, 3) connected to a brain-computer interface, the person would still have qualia. And so qualia is not synonymous with decision making or control for those who are intoxicated, drugged or confused still have an experience of what it is like to be that person.

The first option on how to create a zombie would be to shut down the central nervous system and mechanically operate the remainder of the body through bots. The lungs, the heart, the kidney and the liver for instance would be controlled not through the brain but through the bots.

I am tempted to say that this option fails because the entity is not self-controlled or even self-automated in the manner that plants or fungi are. The first option is not a zombie, but a robot. The first option is a form of artificial intelligence operating within a human carcass.

The second option on how to create a zombie would be to shut down the central nervous system and operate the remainder of the body through multiple human-engineered viruses. The lungs, heart, kidney, etcetera would be controlled by the virus iself. The difference in this case is that if bots are responsible for the functioning of the body, by definition, the body is mechanical and not alive. But a virus is a half-living phenomenon where it's presence in the hosts body does not diminish or exclude the liveliness of the human itself.

I think if a body is operated by smart-bots, it is a robot (which does not experience qualia); but, if a body is operated by smart-viruses, it is still human (which does not experience qualia).

I am not certain whether such smart viruses could be manufactured. In order to create a functional human being (one that takes in information) as opposed to a human being that simply breathes, circulates blood and respires, it would be difficult, but it is probably possible. One would have to look at mobile species who do not have brains or nervous systems.

If a body is operated by both smart bots and viruses, without a nervous system... I suspect that the body would be a robot if the body dies once the bots are turned off. The same body would be a zombie if the body could survive once the bots are turned off.

If a body is operated by either or both smart bots, viruses or an external machine/ person... as long as the nervous system is fully functional that person, though out of control, is not a zombie. Even when controlled by others, a person with a nervous system would have an experience of what it is like to be that person.

Lastly, neither the robot nor the zombie is conscious. It is not possible to be conscious and not have experience of what it is like to be conscious. It is not possible to have a conscious being without qualia.
Retweet this

Pondering Evolution

For the last few months I have been thinking about evolution. And, in the last few days I have been thinking about technology.

Sometimes it seems as if our understanding of machinery is growing faster than our understanding of the human body. And, the understanding that we are gaining of how to control the human body seems inevitably tied to machinery.

The information age seems to be very machine-oriented. And don't mistake my intentions, I am a huge fan of technology.

But, I hope that the next wave of human advancement has to do with our natural understanding of the human body. It's a hell of a masterpiece... even without technology.

How much conscious control can we obtain over our human body? Not simply externally through actions, but internally... Yes, sometimes I think our advancement of computers (or pharmaceuticals) is growing faster than our understanding of how to use our own brains.
Retweet this

Theistic Physicalism

Daily, I recognize the impossibility of my own growth; the improbability of my own worth. My only hope is discipline. I am tormented by both ideas and idealism, without any concrete skill set to construct what needs to be built. A theory. A book. A story. I am tortured by the worthlessness of ideas alone, and the worth of ideas in action. My own paralysis is depressing.

For at least ten years I have operated from a world view of Theistic Materialism. Or, more likely, Theistic Physicalism. I am not certain how to record what I understand. ...let alone how to prove it.

In theistic physicalism, I would like to account for 1. material consciousness, 2. free will, 3. God, 4. a world with more than three dimensions, 5. time.

Perhaps this would take a lifetime to construct. Problem is, no one knows exactly how long a lifetime is.
Retweet this

Experimental Philosophy

Lately, I seem to be surrounded by my own ignorance. Everything that I learn seems to be a reminder of how much more I do not actually understand, or know.

Recently, I have been introduced to the realm of Experimental Philosophy. I find it to be very intriguing. While, I think that analytic and continental traditions of logic or phenomenology should be preserved, I am very interested in seeing what can become of philosophies tested through scientific method.

A while ago, a commercial with a movie's tagline, a philosophy blog entry on zombies, a philosophy article on mind control and the lyrics to an old hip hop verse each have encouraged me to meditate on questions of Philosophy of Mind.

I have always been a die-hard physicalist. Monist, actually. I love spirituality but I think our concept of spirit is limited.

I am not convinced that there is any separation between the brain and the mind. Or the brain and consciousness. I'm afraid that the mind (as a non-physical entity) is an illusion, and consciousness is a function of a brain (or perhaps, highly ordered nervous system).

In the 21st century, I think it would be interesting to see if experimental philosophy takes off. If the methodology follows the hard-sciences, or if completely different methods are developed.

As for me, I have quite a lot to learn before I can develop strong theories... (or negate other's theories). It will take a very long time just for me to discover what has already been thought, written, published and debated. And as far as my ability to test theories through experiments... it may be an even longer while.
Retweet this

Should Blacks Practice Professional Philosophy?

Today's question is, "Should African Americans practice professional philosophy?"

And to address the question at hand, we should probably examine three topics: 1) What is Black?; 2) What role does one's profession have when you are Black in America and 3) What is professional philosophy?

1. On Blackness

I think the vast majority of those of African descent in America who both identify with and experience Blackness, would agree that being Black is not something that they decided to be. The exception may be those with extremely fair skin and/or those of mixed heritage; although for many many in these circumstances it was not much of a 'choice' either.

Blackness is something that is pressed upon you from a very young age. The decision that each person makes is whether they will a) be proud of it or b) be ashamed; whether they will a) become greater because of it or b) be stiffled by it. To be black, to be considered black, or to be identified with the thoughts, words and actions of other blacks is not a choice.

In the past 5-10 years there have been numerous articles, essays and books alike which have striven to prove race as a non-biological entity. A figment of our collective imagination, so to speak.

These reports, and all of their validity, mean next to nothing to me. The social, economic, academic and health-related ramifications of Blackness are enough to justify it's existence, it's realness to me.

So, Blackness shall be those of African descent who would be (self and otherwise) identified as Black. Not trying to be circular or redundant or unclear. But, there are many Caucasians who are of closer African descent than I am, who would not be identified as Black.

2. On Professions & Professionalism

It is a common belief amongst Blacks that we have a responsibility to each other, to each other's children and to future generations. It is commonly believed that we have a responsibilities to our ancestors (ashe), to build upon that which they died for.

In this sense, individualism is heavily frowned upon in the Black community.

From this point of view, our profession and our life's work is not only to create money and status for ourselves, not only to feed and nurture our own children, but also a reflection of the greater Black community.

Now, I recently discovered a text which I am looking forward to completing. Honestly, I don't own the book, so I'll have to finish it next time I get to the Hatcher. H. E. Baber has published a book, The Multicultural Mystique which rejects our normal liberal notions of the American melting pot.

Baber presents an argument against multiculturalism in America. In his Mystique, he states that many 'minorities' do not necessarily want to be associated with their racial or ethnic culture, in short they do not want the burden of limitation, but would rather be wholly and solely American. And he presents American as monoculture, a reflection of Western-European culture I'm presuming.

My initial response was to chuck the book in a corner. But, as I continued to read, I wondered what possible truth could lie in his argument. All of the Blacks I know are very proud of African-American culture. None that I know would give up hip-hop culture or urban apparel; none would give up African American history departments (which were fought so damn hard for at Michigan, Berkeley, Cornell amongst other places...) at various Universities for American Culture departments; none would give up our black media (well, a few would give up BET) in order to conform.

And, so I would wonder how other 'minorities', for lack of a better word, would feel about Baber's Mystique. I don't think the Dominicans in my Harlem/Washington Heights neighborhood would agree with Baber. And, I don't think Arabs in Dearborn, MI would agree. But, I wonder about Asians in California, or Indians in New Jersey. I wonder about Native Americans in Middle America. Who would give up their own for a piece of the American pie?

3. On Philosophy

Now that we understand who is Black and what role a profession might play, is Philosophy the right field for an African American?

Now, there may be many Blacks who would agree with Baber. And, it is obvious how philosophy can work well for the African American who does not align with their own race.

But for the African American who views race as fundamental portion of their identity, a fundamental part of their own thinking. Is there any room for a philosophy of a philosopher which acknowledges race, not as a figment of a social illusion, but as a reality that must be acknowledged and dealt with until a better world is built.

Many would say no. Many would say that is sociology. Perhaps theoretical sociology, but sociology none the less.

And so I wonder how a discipline which seeks to explain the world, only can justify one point of view, one culture.

4. On Leisure Professions

Now, perhaps American Pragmatism is ready for African American Philosophers, Asian Philosophers, Hispanic Philosophers and Women. Perhaps, the time has come.

The last, and perhaps most important, concern is, Can Blacks afford to engage in leisure or theoretical professions.

Now this is not to undermine academics, because they all work very hard to understand the world through the lens of their discipline.

But, many Blacks would argue that philosophy is too detached from the reality of of Black and urban experiences. Perhaps many Blacks would say that they don't have the convenience of Woolf's Room of her own, to quit their job and leisurely examine the problems of the world through a pen, a notebook, an Internet connection, or a classroom in an ivory tower.

When a Black is a philosopher, does he represent Black people, all people -- or his own selfish musings?

Should he?

Would it be safe to assume that philosophy as a profession is better suited for men and women who are detached from the Black community? For African Americans who would agree with the sentiments expressed in The Multicultural Mystique?

These are my questions, which I have not fully developed answers for.

Retweet this

The Rational, The Emotional

For at least the last year, I have been doing heavy meditation on the cooperation between emotions and rational thought. I was convinced that an increase in emotional response does not lead to a decrease in rational deduction.

Now, I distinguish rational thought and rational action. Heightened emotions can exist amongst rational thoughts. But, in these cases it becomes simpler to act on the emotion and not the thought.

In all cases I distinguish between emotions and thoughts. I associate emotions primarily with hormonal and chemical brain functions and thoughts with consciousness (somehow still, within the brain). I think both are physical. I think both can be controlled. Yet I think emotions are the automatic response of a body's chemical and hormonal state, and one seeks after the response to control the chemistry. Thoughts must be the opposite. They are not the product of your internal chemistry, instead thoughts create your chemistry.

How? I am not certain.Retweet this

Identity, Character and Reputation

I find it to be appropriate for my first entry to revolve around the concepts of identity, character and reputation. I have begun to ponder how each is constructed over a period of time.

Identity as discussed here is specifically personal identity. In short, it is who you are - who you have become over time. Character shall be defined as how you act - how you have responded over time. And, reputation is the sum of your appearances - how your identity and character has been defined by others over time.

Lately, I have been trying to determine how much control one has over their identity, character and reputation.

One has the most amount of control over their character. Since, under normal circumstances, one has the most amount of control over their actions. Normally. There are many factors that build our personal identity which we do not choose or control: our age, race, nationality, economic background, gender and, arguably, sexuality. Our control of identity and character, however limited, gives us the illusion that we can control our reputation. This is the idea that we can control other people's thoughts (of us). But, it is an illusion.

Retweet this