29 August 2007
On 14 August 2007, The New York Times published John Tierney's article, "Our Lives, Controlled from Some Guy's Couch". In the article, Tierney writes about Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrum's 'mathematical' theory that "we are living in someone else's computer simulation" and that our "brain...exist[s] only as a network of computer circuits". In his theory, he explains that "advanced humans or 'posthumans'" are produced by supercomputers "with more processing power than all the brains in the world" and these 'posthumans' ultimately lead to the "Prime Designer".
While this theory may have all the makings of a sensational science fiction novella with a technological bent, the issue becomes problematic when Bostrum states: " 'My gut feeling...is that there's a 20 percent chance we're living in a computer simulation....the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even...'"
Obviously, Bostrum is not a philosopher of the same school (dare say, caliber) with Thales, Plato, Descartes, Malebranche, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, or Sartre, to name just a handful. Perhaps that does not even matter. However, what does matter is the lack of separation between conjecture and theory, and between that theory and acting belief. If he truly believes in the "better than even" possibility of this 'theory', and if he represents the level of present day philosophy, then we have serious cause to worry.
Perhaps the fact that any academic from such a well known, finely established institution would actually communicate such notions is a signpost of the real academic issue: when is the rubbish going to stop? When are we going to see philosphy that affects and is effective - the kind of brave, bold, 'Nietzschean' ideal?
Foucault said it best at the end of an interview about Truth and Power - Nietzsche was perhaps the only one who could speak on Truth...
Though the line between fact and fiction may be thin to some, it does rightfully exist and should not be pummeled over with careless statements.
Rather than being an article newsworthy about an esteemed philospher's theory about our present reality, Tierney thus supplies us with an article noteworthy as a demarcation between past greatness and present decay. His article is an historical marker - a 'post-it' note - indicating the demise of Significance, the loss of Truth, and the failure of Greatness.
In contradisctinction to Tierney's article, I suggest another published by The New York Times by Sandra Blakeslee on 24 August 2007, titled: "Studies Report Inducing Out-of-Body Experience". In this article, Blakeslee reports on a research project by neuroscientists from Princeton University (New Jersey, USA), Ecole Polytechnique Federale (Lausanne, Switzerland), and Karolinska Institute (Stockholm, Sweden). Blakeslee explains that in this project, the respective neuroscientists have run simulation experiments to determine the effective dynamics amongst touch, vision, balance, and the body's position in space on the brain's determination of the 'out-of-body' sensation.
It seems that when there is a "mismatch between touch and vision", the brain interprets a sensation of 'bodily separation'. The neuroscientists plan to experiment further, by decoupling "other aspects of sensory embodiment, including the sense of balance and the body's position in space". Through these experimental findings then, neuroscientists are coming closer to a credible and proven explanation of 'out-of-body' sensations experienced by people who have suffered traumatic injury, illness, or near-death accidents.
Beyond sensational (literally), and beyond the science fiction - technological or otherwise - this academia is newsworthy precisely because it captures the metaphysical within the scientific so seamlessly and logically.
And this - this is true potentiality!
