Wish fulfilment of abstract wishes in fantasy/science fiction

[jack]

Souls in scifi

I always like fantasy about the nature of the soul or the nature of gods. I think it's because I'm drawn to the idea of a primal sort of understanding of people, one of the greatest mysteries. But to me, it means I'm drawn to things vaguely reminiscent of a popular conception of old academic theology, people making massive strides into the nature of reality by pure reason, and embracing towering arguments about some theological point, whether or not they're any good, or what's good about them is actually something else.

I like the same thing in science fiction. In Anathem, I love the idea of concents where intellectual pursuits are encouraged all day (even if I don't think it's a good idea per se). And I love the idea that human brains are build on some sort of quantum trick (even though I think it's complete hokum). I'm drawn to that sort of thing and resentful when -- inevitably -- it turns out not to be as insightful as it looks, because you can't easily overturn the nature of reality in one book.

Likewise, I like "real" science fiction, which seriously explores some unusual premises (physics or otherwise) -- sometimes I can read pages and pages of just worldbuilding. And the same in fantasy which is harder to do, but worlds with consistent metaphysics about what makes gods tick, etc, I can't get enough.

Wish fulfilment

But what's bugging me is -- how much is that harmless wish fulfilment, and how much is it dangerous wish fulfilment? Some wish fulfilment is harmless because it talks about something that would be nice whether or not we can get it. Some wish fulfilment is good because it inculcates in us an idea of what our life or society should be like, from the small (I wish I had a lovely friend) to the large (I wish we had a techno-utopia).

Some wish-fulfilment is harmless in moderation, but dangerous in surfeit. Books like Atlas Shrugged or Ender's Game are valuable for their intended audience (small business owners in USSR and intelligent bullied children) to say "you don't have to give in to them, you can be awesome". But can be very dangerous in the hands of people who are already prone to being powerful selfish and narcissistic, and find in the book an excuse why stealing from the rest of humanity is actually a moral thing to do.

Some wish-fulfilment is harmless but can be addictive. Which is where I think my "understand the world" urge falls. Some authors actually say interesting things about our minds (Greg Egan, Ted Chiang). But many more capture that moment of "Aha! I understand!" without giving any actual understanding. Which is fine in fiction, but I'm not sure how much it's a good thing in itself, and how much it's a trick.

And whether the same can apply in real life -- I am drawn to people who claim to show me how to understand everything, but am also cynical, because I know most such people are misled, but I don't WANT to be cynical, but it's preferable to the alternative, or is it?

Comments

[ptc24]

Of course, there are several different ideas about brains based on quantum tricks. There's the Penrose thing that I have little time for. There are some ideas about the identity-preserving nature of quantum states - you can (in principle) teleport them, but you can't duplicate them, which are more intriguing. There's Scott Aaronson's speculations about freebits, which are very much at the "if I let myself extrapolate wildly, here's what I come up with". There's Tegmark - Tegmark![1] - who has some interesting ideas about Integrated Information Theory, and how quantum computing as we actually know it might be needed to give enough integrated information for conciousness (but see Scott Aaronson recently).

[1] The very Tegmark who said that decoherence means that Penrose's ideas don't work.

[jack]

As I say, I'm really interested in any theories of how quantum effects COULD be relevant to consciousness. And I really, really don't know enough about quantum information theory to judge any of those theories on their merits.

But I feel like I should be able to hear a short explanation of what sort of thing they're saying. It's like, if I hear a new theory of physics, I have no idea if it's right. But I expect it to be something like "we made up a bunch of equations and compared them to experimental data which everyone already has, and see if they fit well" not "we made little voodoo dolls and waved them around in a cargo cult like way".

It's possible that a cargo cult theory is right, but I can't see how it would be SORT of right, if it doesn't lead with "we have overthrown the whole notion of science and given simple proof that the universe is actually conscious" then I think I don't understand it at all.

And theories of mind seem like that in reverse. It seems to me human brains are like monkey brains but more so, and monkey brains are like ant brains but more so, and ant brains are like FPGAs but more so. I'm inherently sceptical of anything that treats consciousness as a special thing, not a special skill which human brains can handle and monkey brains can nearly handle.

And I don't know that any of those theories are like that. They're all by people who are more educated on the subject than me. I normally trust Aaronson to know exactly what he's talking about. But it seems like either quantum effects just make the brain a slightly better state machine (in which case they don't really have any metaphysical importance, it's really interesting on a small scale, but doesn't say anything about consciousness) or they do something qualitatively different (which seems really unlikely, but someone should be able to explain WHAT'S different, even if I don't understand the calculations.)

So I really dislike being sceptical of things I don't understand, but I find it hard to understand how any of those *could* be relevant. But I know I'm likely to be missing *something*. I will read Aaronson's essay if I ever have the energy...

[wild_irises]

I guess I would say that wish-fulfillment is, like everything else, important in moderation and dangerous in excess. That seems kind of obvious, but it looks like where you are going.

I would also say that being cynical about people who claim to show you how to understand everything is essential, but that doesn't in any way mean you have to be cynical about people who claim to show you how to understand something you don't understand. Open-minded, perhaps critically evaluative, but not cynical.

Not sure this is at all useful ...