Science & philosophy fiction

Philosophy loves science fiction. Or is the other way around, that science fiction loves philosophy? Whatever it is, both speculate and help present and explain hypotheticals. They conduct thought experiments about the future and other possible scenarios. The format of science fiction is a vehicle a writer can use to express a dubious scientific view that could not otherwise be presented or explained. And philosophy can help legitimize a science fiction story which otherwise might sound ridiculous and implausible. Both genres give heft to the other.

We have science fiction. But is there such a thing a philosophy fiction. Perhaps science fiction is really philosophy fiction. And that begs the question, whether science and philosophy are that separate from each other. The theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking thinks they are and believes that philosophy is no longer of use. However, he's bias. The philosopher V.W. Quine believed that the philosophy of science is philosophy enough. Perhaps the opposite is also true. 

What would the stories of Frankenstein by Mary Shelly or The Time Machine by H.G. Wells be like if they hadn't had the added touch of the writer's philosophical take on life? My sense is that they would sound foolish. To my mined that is what most science fiction is, foolish, without the added affect of philosophy. Philosophy gives the genre credence.

When science fiction becomes reality that's when philosophy comes into its own. Up to that point philosophy is mostly theory and speculative. Nevertheless, philosophy can be of service to science fiction on the road to becoming reality, if that is the case. It acts as the middleman between theory, which science fiction is, and practice. Philosophy is the discussion that takes place about the possibility of science fiction becoming a reality and operational. 

Robots have been science fiction for years. Driverless cars have been science fiction since the the 1950s. But no longer. They are becoming a reality. Google is developing and promoting driverless cars, which are close to being approved. But this technology raises new philosophical questions.

When robots were just science fiction the philosophical discussion was about if and whether they were possible and how they might change our lives. Today, now that they are reality, the philosophical discussion is different. Most robots are used in manufacturing and a lot of the talk is about the human cost and the jobs they have displaced. We are also hearing a lot about other robots, drones, which are used by the military to seek out and kill terrorist. The philosophical discussion there circles around whether it is morally right to use them and where the authority to use them should come from. Drones are also being used by police departments and the paparazzi industry, further invading people's privacy. Why, someday that metaphoric fly on the wall might well become reality. 

Philosophy Now magazine did a cover story on moral machines, as to whether they exist or should be made to exist. In a way the robotic, driverless car is a moral machine. It is designed and programmed to behave properly, to protect its passengers from accidents. It will be a great way for the elderly and disabled, who no longer have the capacity to drive, to still get around in an independent fashion. (That makes me think that there should be moral guns that instinctively don't shoot people they shouldn't. Is that science fiction?)

But the driverless car raises new philosophical questions for others. One concern, though it may sound ridiculous, is about losing ones freedom and independence if they have to depend on them to get around. Some might view the driverless car as conspiratorial, as another move by the powers that be to take control.

Now there's an example of philosophy fiction, conspiracy theories.

DNA data storage

This sounds like science fiction but human-like DNA is being used to store data. (The practice is still in its infancy.) Up to now the data that is used in computing has been stored and warehoused in huge facilities that require a lot of electricity. A constant flow of electricity is required to keep the data galvanized. I am not quite sure how it works but DNA storage of data will not require the huge amounts of electricity that are now being used. DNA and the data it has on it does not require electricity to keep it galvanized. 

Image the data we have stored on our own DNA. It is like our memory stick. Imagine also that someday somebody will be able to tap into our own personal DNA to extract personal information. Everything we've done in life or thought will be have been encoded on our DNA. So if a terrorist is interrogated for information and is not forthcoming he wouldn't have to be tortured. Instead, the interrogators will just tap in his DNA - no fuss, no muss.