Science fiction considerations

Translation. By machine and I do not understand English. Therefore, the meaning may have changed.

If this is the case, please ask me questions about the part you don't understand and I will answer them.

I think I'll write a diary, or rather, a little bit of what I think about.

The cover is a frame from a manga I'm working on.

It would be better to write out my work (comics, novels, etc.), but I don't have the ability, time, skill and motivation to do so.

So I thought I would blurt it out here (sweat). I'm sorry for wanting to talk about it.

The following is a long shit, so please read it as you see fit.

I have a strange obsession with science fiction, but a very strange one.

I like science fiction works themselves, but I haven't seen most of the movies, novels and other famous ones.

I'm interested in it, but it's not that different from other genres.

What I'm actually interested in is science fiction as a method of creation.

(Which is even stranger because I don't make it that way...)

So what is science fiction as a creative method?

It is the if of reality through the construction of logic. Its thought experiments.

Logic in science fiction is a case of science or

There are cases of created logic, and these are...

Hmmm... this is going to be a long article, so another separate article?

Well, it's my own theory, so I don't necessarily apply it to my evaluation of existing works.

I don't intend to make this an absolute definition of science fiction.

I hope you will think of it as my point of view.

　Well, that's a long preamble.

For now, I would like to talk about my own theory on the heart of SF standard stories.

　The treatment of the heart as a special thing in most works is not very different.　If it is an animation or manga that focuses on characters

I think that, as a matter of methodology, you have to actively take such a position.

　Even in Ghost in the Shell, the concept of ghosts was introduced.

as a personal basis so that the characters are not subverted by the machine.

(Original manga. However, the author only depicts it as a perception of the characters, and　I feel he is aware that ghosting was necessary as a creative technique as well)

　In contrast, Mamoru Oshii believes that memory is the basis of the individual

In Innocence, he is a soulless doll, an animal in an unconscious dream.

He raises the animal as a higher dimension of the human being in the prison of memory and consciousness.

　For my part, I am close to Mamoru Oshii and I am sceptical about the particularity of the mind.

The reason for this is that, based on science, it should be judged by what can be confirmed by observation, and what I myself think or feel has no influence on its criteria or definition. This is because.

The definition of 'mind' as something that separates animals from humans is

I think that if we judge an animal's expression of intent by human standards, it is often judged to be mindless on the grounds that it is different from humans. (This may be imaginary.)

　We believe that this criterion is problematic.

What if we consider that the mind evolved from animals to humans?

　That there is no linear evolution from single-celled organisms to humans.

You are probably aware of this.　

If we view evolution as the result of applying it to the environment, we can say that cockroaches are currently at the pinnacle of evolution, but

I think it is possible to conclude that if cockroaches do not have a mind, they are useless.

Conversely, it could be interpreted that every animal has a sufficient mind for survival.

　It is also possible to imagine in science fiction that at the end of each evolutionary process, different minds with different criteria have arisen and that we just haven't identified them.

It is also possible to imagine in a sci-fi way that each evolutionary lineage has generated a different mind with different criteria, and that we just haven't confirmed it yet.

If the evolutionary lineage is different, the mind can be considered to be completely different, like the difference between silicon and carbon organisms, in science fiction terms.

　And even more so if we assume aliens and so on.

Even in dinosaur man, reptiles and mammals are derived from different lineages from the beginning.

(I recently found out... seriously? ) Therefore, even if we could communicate with humans and have scientific discussions (Planet Dinosaur is a masterpiece), as long as the definition is adapted to humans, it could be said that the mind does not exist.

　The heart of a machine, I see this a lot, but if you ask me if a heart can be generated in a machine...

I am of the opinion that it does occur.

If the simple fact is that the mind is defined by observation (my own opinion), then

A machine that is no different from a human in its representations can only be 'said' to have a human mind.

Even today, AI sentences and human sentences are indistinguishable (some of them), and

　If communication is restricted, for example, through monitors and other devices.

the observed mind is difficult to distinguish between human and machine.

(In reality, I think fake news etc. will become more serious. Not very happy)

　The possibility of misidentification will increase in the future, and in science fiction it can be said to be something that is no longer difficult to portray as something distinguishable, because you can portray any number of earlier eras. (Which is why concepts like ghosting are needed in creative writing.)

　Also, in my creative work, I draw people, but even if I read them 20,000 times, I still get the same lines.

Can characters be considered human? They are portrayed with emotions, and

we feel, we cry, we rejoice, but

they don't exist and don't fit the definition of a human being. What if they are actors on a monitor?

A mere recording? Flickering monitors, zeros and ones, we don't know if even the live broadcast is real.

What about the reality of the image? Is existence itself hazy?

Even though the actor himself has a mind that breathes, thinks and worries?　

Well, that's what I think when I say that it is defined by observation.

But in that case, these problems come up all over the place (sweat).

　Why do we think it is defined by observation? It is...

It's another simplistic way of thinking.

The idea is that unless you observe other people's minds in the same way you do, you can only deal with objective evidence, and

Because you have to think about what everyone else observes in the same way.

I myself don't want to adopt unconditionality because we are the same people, so we have minds.

Except as an idea, but unconditionality has to be very good.

I don't think it is suitable for scientific discussion.

　For example, as a thought experiment, if you produce another being with a mind, such as an angel or a demon...

The assumption of identity is broken, so the existence of a mind suddenly becomes indeterminate.

How is that kind of thing a definition? Therefore, I think it's a definition by observation.

That's why I support it.

Maybe there are others who are saying it...

Returning to the machine mind, if we rely on the definition of mind from observation

I believe that it is easy to admit that AI has a mind, because it only needs a representation to be confirmed.

I do not regard how the mind is constituted in a machine as a fundamental difference.

　I've written a bit of science fiction in a few novels about AI having human rights.

That is the reason.　Whether or not to recognise human rights is a question on the human side.It is not a scientific issue.

　People are attached to even the most clunky of machines.

Even if it doesn't have a soul or a heart, people hesitate to destroy things that are in human form.

Few people would argue that a corpse has no human rights.

Cats are cute. And cats are cute.

I think it's rather easy to recognise the soul and mind in machines and animals.

If Usami Shiori or Konan Kirie appeared in reality

I would fall in love with them, no matter what kind of being they are (laughs). Or that they're not human

I would ignore whether they have a heart or not (affirmation).

　I said that the mind is defined by observation. But how each individual perceives others is not a scientific question, it is an internal matter for each individual.

And if you think that thinking differently, having a different mind, leads to conflict.

Let's just say that the cat proves that this is not true.

　Clearly, as long as the interests are kept in check, feelings or no feelings.

Conflict is resolved in its own way.　We are not at war with the flowers in the field or in the vase every day.

(Of course, some people think they are battling... although farming may be a war).

　What I'm saying above is really a matter of definition.

Of course, different interpretations can lead to different conclusions.

　It's a thought experiment to see how much the definition affects

This is a thought experiment to see how much different thinking can be created by changing the definition, and the impact of this.

　If the definition itself makes existence unclear, then the social entity of a relationship

Some people believe that it depends on how you feel.

It is super easy to behave unscientifically. It is more difficult not to.

　As for the definition of the internal mind, I take it crudely to be the same as PC.

I think it is the "overall state" of the neural network and signals, and no need to think about it further.

I don't need to think about it any more than that. So even if it is said that a programme is the mind

I don't see any problem with that. It is also possible that the brain is part of the body, and that the body as a whole is an element of the mind.

I also believe that the brain is part of the body, and furthermore, the body as a whole is a component of the mind.

It's the same feeling as when a PC is hot or cold and has a good or bad condition.

Where is the most important part, the core, of the mind?

But it is questionable whether the identity of the mind can be maintained if the body is separate.

　I have a stomach ache all year round, and my personality is rather stressed.

If I had invincible health, I would have a more cheerful personality.

It would be within the normal range of physical changes that I would fit into the same personality.　But in a sci-fi android body

How much of a change would there really be?

And would you be able to accept the changes as the same personality?

　I've been unable to say it every day, so I thought I'd just get it out.

I wrote this.　I don't know what I'm trying to say.

As I said before, I'm thinking of science fiction as a way of creating, so I'm thinking of it as a science fiction story.

I don't get into the technical aspects (frankly, I don't know) and I think of it as a thought experiment.

You can think of it this way or that way.

　I could take a piece of logic, detach it, extend it, and use it for otherworldly reincarnation... And so on.

The position or the conclusion itself is not important, as we think about various possibilities.

　I also like works other than my own, from the non-scientific to the scientific, and

I also like works that take a different stand against the mind (I like both the Ghost in the Shell films and the manga).

　Also, I'd be rather happy if someone reading this could make something out of these stories.　It's a good source of stories. I myself could make a story out of one of these. Maybe.

I think it's something I can expand the story and make into a work of art.

I know these opinions about the mind may seem anti-human rights to some.

Here is a little (little?) explanation of the position for those who are concerned about it. Let me explain my position.

If this logic is simply applied to reality (i.e. politics and other social)

I don't want that to happen.

But when that problem arises, it is when there is a movement to apply it with that intention.

I don't want that to happen.

Even if science comes to the conclusion that humans should be destroyed, we still have the right to live.

I want you to separate thought from its interpretation and its implementation. It is not a straight line either.

　I am telling you this as a speculation over definitions.

I am aware that speculation can easily be used for political purposes, but it is quite problematic when it leads to rigidity of speculation and

There is a considerable problem with the loss of the act of thinking.

　And it is not a problem of thoughtfulness per se, but a problem in politics in the first place.The problem should be solved by politics.

　Science is also used as a basis for political issues, but it should be noted that this is not a place where everything is done and solved by science. (Because I don't think that being elected or supported = scientifically correct opinion or person)

　Various speculations are discussed in society and their conclusions are used as politics.I think they are 'elected' and applied by society, so

If the individual thought process is charged with a crime, the conclusion itself will be poor.

Isn't the danger of a society with only arbitrary speculation as depicted by many science fiction?

Nor do I speak of human rights according to whether the mind exists or not.

It is my position in human rights that there should be no criteria to apply to human rights, and

regardless of whether thought or science defines me or anyone else as not human.

It means we have human rights.

　The point is that politics and science, don't mix them, are dangerous.