Dune Fanatics discussion

Dune and Philosophyby Jeffery Nicholas will be availiable on April 1st, 2011.

I'm not quite sure if I want to read this or not. Which is why I'm posting it, so maybe one of you brave people will read it first and let me know if it's worth a read. (Truth is, I just can't buy any books at this time.)

The other part of my reluctance is that I'm not sure this unknown author can answer these questions better than I can for myself:
Do secret conspiracies direct the future course of human political evolution? Yes.
Can manipulation of the gene pool create a godlike individual? Yes.
Are strife and bloodshed essential to progress? Yes.
Can we know so much about the future that we lose the power to make a difference? Possibly.
Does reliance on valuable resources— such as “spice,” oil, and water— place us at the mercy of those who can destroy those resources? Yes.
When gholas are reconstructed from the cells of dead people and given those people’s memories, is the ghola the dead person resurrected? Yes.
Can the exploitation of religion for political ends be reduced to a technique? Yes.

Does anyone have any interest in this book?

Jackie wrote: Does anyone have any interest in this book?

I have a strong interest in philosophy and I liked the first Dune book a lot. I will probably eventually read Dune and Philosophy but I won't likely pay for it. So it depends on how long before I can get it at the library.

I would love to hear what you think of it when you read it. It has the potential to be an interesting read.

The following are nothing more than my opinions. You may agree or disagree as you see fit.

Do secret conspiracies direct the future course of human political evolution?
A perfect example of a question that can never be answered. If any secrect conspiracy were ever successful at manipulating mankind, we would never know.

Can manipulation of the gene pool create a godlike individual?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "godlike". Can genetic engineering produce humans who are physically stronger or more intelligent? Probably, although not for a long time. Will we ever be able to produce people with psychic powers (prescience, telepathy, telekinesis, etc.)? No. Life is not a science fiction novel.

Can we know so much about the future that we lose the power to make a difference?
It depends on your frame of reference. The choices that I make every day will always affect me and those around me, and that will never change. On the other hand, if I know so much about the future that I know that in exactly 31,862 years the human race will become extinct, then how much difference will it make whether I choose to be cruel or kind to those around me? I would argue that it still matters, even if in the end the result is the same.

Are strife and bloodshed essential to progress?
Strife and bloodshed are not essential to progress, but they are unavoidable. There will always be strife and bloodshed, whether progress occurs or not. Also, while not essential to progress, strife and bloodshed can, under some circumstances, lead to progress.

Does reliance on valuable resources place us at the mercy of those who can destroy those resources?
Absolutely. I am old enough to remember the 1973 oil embargo.

When gholas are reconstructed from the cells of dead people and given those people’s memories, is the ghola the dead person resurrected?
No. Humans are more than just collections of cells; we are immortal spirits. Spirits who possess some biological material which we wear like an article of clothing. Inevitably, the collection of biomass will wear out and be discarded. What the spirit does afterwards is a matter of much debate, but the spirit does not cease to exist, and (significantly for this discussion) if someone were to manufacture a new "suit" that was identical to the old one, that would still not force the spirit to don the replacement article of clothing.

Can the exploitation of religion for political ends be reduced to a technique?
Not only can it be, it already has been, throughout much of human history, at least as far back as Constantine,and extending to the present day.

Good answers, Colin. Do you think you'd ever read Dune and Philosophy?

I like Colin's answers and it has prompted me to answer the questions as well. I only will cover the questions where my answers are substantively different than Colin's.

Can we know so much about the future that we lose the power to make a difference?
The basic problem with the question is that one's "power to make a difference" is part of the resulting future. This question reminds me of a traffic prediction program that was once written. The program was able to predict traffic jams with 99% accuracy., but only if the predictions were kept secret from the general public. Once the predictions were revealed, people changed their behavior and the program became useless. This is a classic feedback effect that basically tells us that the answer to the question is a resolute "no." Either our "ability to make a difference" is causing the future we predicted (positive feedback,) or it will prevent the future we predicted (negative feedback.) Either way, our ability to make a difference is very important.

When gholas are reconstructed from the cells of dead people and given those people’s memories, is the ghola the dead person resurrected?
I think Colin is making an assumption when he says that the "immortal spirit" would not be forced into the replacement body. Frankly, I can't help but wonder what the difference would be...

This question is a reformulation of Theseus' Paradox. The only way to resolve the paradox is to get at what is meant when ones says "the dead person resurrected." If the ghola is a resurrection how is that different than if it is not? What property would be different?

Do you think you'd ever read Dune and Philosophy?

I've never read much philosophy. So probably not, although I wouldn't altogether discount the possibility.

I think Colin is making an assumption when he says that the "immortal spirit" would not be forced into the replacement body.

Assumption... faith... Either label will work.

It's important to remember that Dune is a work of fiction. We are imagining a universe that differs from our own. One way in which it is different is that humans have discovered a technique for manufacturing gholas, and for imbuing them with the memories of their originals. It is not a great leap to further imagine (if you so choose) that by doing so, the ghola will have the same "immortal spirit" (or "soul" if you prefer) as the original. Obviously the nature of fiction is that each individual reader has the ability to make this decision independently of anyone else's decision.

Were this technology (gholas) to exist in real life, the question would still have to be answered by each individual, independently of anyone else.

So in other words we would be right back to "making an assumption", or having faith, or whatever label you choose to place on it.

Some would choose to believe that the replacement body contains the exact same soul, therefore is the same person, as the original. Others would choose to believe that the ghola possesses a different soul, and is therefore a completely different person. Still others would deny the existence of any such thing as a soul.

I have to agree with Colin in that each reader will come to different conclusions. Ultimately, it's a matter of opinion. All are valid, yet none are absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect.

Or as Wolfgang Pauli put it, "It's not even wrong." In questions like this, the whole notion of correctness, whether absolute or otherwise, is thrown out the window.

Unless we can answer the fundamental question, "what would be the empirical difference between a ghola that *is* a reincarnation of the person, and one which is not?" If we can't answer that question, then the original question's answer has no truth value whatsoever (no answer can be said to be true or false or anywhere in between.)

At this point though, we are getting into some pretty deep philosophical issues. Further discussion would serve to encourage me to get the book, but I don't know if it would help anybody else. :-)

Well... I have to agree with some of my peers including Colin & Jackie. I do have an Interest in Philosophy and that's one of the main Things for which I Love Dune. But Herbert's work or "Dune" is a Unique Experience for every Reader as an individual. I would give the book a try but won't take it too seriously, Because Dune holds a Special place in my Psyche due to my Life Experiences as an individual and also my education and my perspective on Religion.

I don't see a need for a book on The philosophy behind Dune. I have read the "Philosophical" books written about "the Matrix" and Star Wars but Dune is already Deep and has a distinctive audience of its own.

I plan to read this.

Please note that it's a collection of papers/essays by different philosophers.

(Lundse from Jacurutu is one of the contributors.)

I do have this to say for genetic manipulation: it will completely change the meaning of freedom and citizenship and how we see class in society.

Unless it is accessable to all humans regardless of cost it dooms us to a society where class lines are not fluid, and where the rich are literally "better" than those around them. (I'm actually working on a short story that deals with that idea) Its not even the same as Gattica, its worse. Would you really expect a genetic royalty to consider the poor as even the same species?

We're already headed to a financial aristocracy, and genetic engineering is an easy cement for it.

I wasn't aware of the book, but I'll definitely be picking it up.

mmm... Fascinating that the discussion has turned to the 'gholas'. I guess that it raises one of the fundamental philosophical questions: What is it, to be human?

I'm thinking about the replicants in 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' & recently Dr Who explored the notion in 'The Rebel Flesh' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011fnd4
... perhaps I digress! I would love to read Dune & Philosophy... I cannot find much information about it though http://www.bookdepository.com/Dune-Ph...

Hi everybody. I'm Clark, a Dune freak.

I'm interested to read this book but I think Herbert's personal philosophies are probably not found in it. I don't believe he thought that a world like the one he created would come into existence either. I think he wanted to illuminate a mindset, to present classic situations in a mystical guise, that he was creating a new hero myth that conformed to previous ones. Paul is face 1001 of what Campbell called "The Hero With A Thousand Faces". Herbert is good at conveying the psychology of religion and ties it into many other concerns but he purposely doesn't draw sharp conclusions.