Clarke and the mind

In many of his works of science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke often muses about the concept of the mind. In books such as 2001, Childhood’s End, he toys with the idea that there is “something special” about the mind. He suggests that human beings will eventually learn to become independent of their bodies, and that their minds will be amorphous, “free from the tyranny of matter.” But is there any substance to all this, or Clarke just being poetic? In other words, is this really possible?

I think the answer depends on the exact nature of the mind. Clarke never explicitly stated if he believed in the concept of a soul, but he always attached a kind of importance to consciousness and self-awareness. However, I think he had a very scientific reason to do so—he hinted in his novels that he had a somewhat deterministic view of the mind—he often portrays it as a computer, a processing machine—but with the ability to connect with the supernatural. Clarke probably figured that the brain, the physical component of the mind, could be mutated or rebuilt (as computers have proved to a certain extent).This seems in accordance with the entities described in his books; in works such as the 2001 series, he describes an alien race that gradually becomes machine-like.

However, Clarke also goes one step further. He states that minds can eventually become contained in “lattices of light.” In other words, he is saying that the mind can be reproduced with non-physical materials such as light. This, of course, it pure speculation, and we probably do not possess enough knowledge of the universe to confirm if this is possible.

But what about the mind’s connection with the supernatural, which Clarke focuses on in novels like Childhood’s End? (In this novel, there is much discussion of the paranormal, and almost all of the characters have ethereal or otherworldly visions.) At first, this seems to conflict with the idea that the mind can be reproduced ad physically altered—after all, a deterministic view of the mind cannot explain the supernatural. However, I think that Clarke simply thought of the mind as more than the sum of its parts. Though I am critical of this view, the supernatural has yet to be explained—and Clarke may be closer to the truth than I would like to believe.