Humanity, Human Nature
Let’s start from where I left off six months ago. That was about the act of creation, creative writing, and creative desire. At their core, storytelling.
I consider myself a writer and reader who cares a lot about storytelling, in particular narratives or narration methods - how you tell a story. But storytelling does not pertain only to how you do it, but also what you are doing it for. We have the ‘telling’ in the storytelling; The ‘story’ remains.
Yes, there’s got to be a story. You can’t just type a couple dozen of pages worth of meaningless, unbased words. There ought to be something, a storyline, acting as the core of your writing, connecting everything together, giving it continuity, giving it reason.
So I look back upon writing that couple dozen of pages of worldbuilding and medieval fantasy setting, and introspected on such a question: what is the story that I’m writing, and what is the story I would like to write? What do they convey, at their core?
It is plain and obvious, elementary even. I tell a story of conflict, that betwen man and man, between man and nature, between man and god, between man and destiny. The common here is man, humankind. I write to applaud the glory, the greatness of humankind.
So then, why are we so glorious and great? What makes us human afterall? That is human nature, or with a word I prefer, humanity. What is humanity?
Let us discuss first the conflict between man and god. Leaving destiny aside for now, man can conquer other man, and man can triumph over nature, these are the things that we are capable of nowadays. But what is god, but those who exceeds human comprehension, and holds absolute dominion over some aspect of humankind, at least in the specific sense of storytelling. How are humans supposed to confront, let alone triumph over gods? That should not be possible.
But humankind finds a way. There are a lot of stories throughout time in which we overcome gods - it is a common theme, not only in the stories I tell. Discuss not the details within the struggle and conflict, but in these so-called ‘god-slaying’ processes, there is one vital element: achieving the impossible, making a feat that no human should be able to acquire.
Now this is even more obvious in the conflict between man and destiny. We break the shackles put upon us by designs of fate, walk off the beaten path into what is not destined for us, not unlike a Chinese proverb, literally ‘travelling towards the tiger hill despite knowing that the tiger is there’. Granted, most of those idiots who jump into a tiger enclosure are properly mauled to death, but haven’t there been news of people (many of the slavic) who fought a tiger bare-handed and strangled it to death? How do a human fight an apex predator - that is not supposed to happen, but it happens.
I am talking in circles here, perhaps wasting a bit of time for both of us, but you should be able to see what I’m trying to convey here. A core belief on the matter. Extremely subjective, but I do firmly believe that there is some virtue in this.
Humanity, human nature, what makes us human, why we are what we are, what differentiates us from machines and perfect gods. It is potential.
We humans, creatures with infinite possibilities, who believes in ourselves, who will attempt to do the impossible, who will succeed in doing the impossible. Who are capable of fault, who can be ignorant and oblivious, who despite all this will learn from their mistakes, become a better being, and never cease to advance forward towards the future.
From the perspective of the individual: stride against the tide in adversity, correct past mistakes and walk a different path; From the perspective of the society: once and again conquer and triumph against nature, seeking the truth that unknown to humankind.
Let me stop here - a few more sentences would constitute blind wishfulness. But, think about it, potential. Isn’t this such a beautiful word?
Now that we’re here; Once I reach such a conclusion, my theory of what really is humanity has thus crossed path with another line of thought of mine. This is a bit more technical, pertaining to my own profession: Machine learning, artificial intelligence, whatever you would like to call it - whether it is ultimately capable of developing a true intelligence of it’s own, complete with a will free of the preset algorithms; How are them ultimately different from us humans.
Beginning from when I first became acquainted with the concept of machine learning, I have been in firm belief that such feats are ultimately impossible, that artificial intelligence can never truly gain sentience and ascend to an artificial, fabricated replica of humanity. From this belief spins two different threads of thought, one more technical and materialistic and best left to another day, and one much more spiritual and idealistic.
I in the beginning cannot clearly interpret and illustrate the reason behind this belief of mine. Perhaps it is wishful thinking, a hope that this is indeed the truth, as after all, who wouldn’t want ourselves to be somewhat special, as opposed to constructs no different from a sequence of zeroes and ones?
It is only after many years of contemplation and philosophical soliloquy that I started to see the reason behind my belief more clearly. Be it machine learning, artificial intelligence, or algorithm and algorithmic structures: these are constructs purely based on mathematical reason and logic, perfect, flawless, and ideal. This is indeed a boon to us, as this perfection and reason allowed computers and algorithms to serve us, to benefit us, to act as a reliable proxy not prone to human mistakes.
Yet it is the same perfection that deprives these constructs of their potential. As perfect, flawless, and ideal beings, they will follow the predestined path meticulously, and where within this precision allows the potential to break the shackles and advance themselves?
This is exactly how we triumph over machines, how we are unreplacable by machines. We as humans are capable of infinitely many things, are capable of feats unique to oneselves, and are capable of achieving the impossible.
Hold it. Isn’t this such a paradoxical conclusion? Isn’t perfection the virtue, not the vice?
Allow me to borrow, again, a Chinese proverb known to many: There’s never a best, only a better. In its intended context: there is no end to expertise, and one should not be complacent with their mastery over anything.
Despite it ignoring the existence of a state known as ‘good enough’, I do think there is some virtue to this proverb that I agree with. Calling something ‘perfect’, and ‘the best’, is in some sense equivalent to declaring it utterly unable to ‘be better’, to improve, berefting it of its potential. From that point on, the only direction is downwards, the only load leads backwards.
I’ve been putting some time into Beat Saber recently - a rhythm game, so allow me to cite this genre for an example. Many rhythm games has a preset score maximum, taking Cytus II for example, 1,000,000 is the ‘perfect’ score. This is admittedly an achievement worthy of laud, yet there is still some miniscule yet undeniable regret in this feat: that there is no longer any reason to play this song, to get better at this song.
Beat Saber’s scoring system addresses this a little better, as hitting a perfect note has a requirement so strict that it is nigh impossible to get everything perfect. The leaderboards of most maps cap at, say, a score of 95%. Isn’t this quite awesome? A potential hiding in the missing 5%. Although I’m fairly certain this potential is beyond my capability, but there is a slight chance, a glimmer of hope, that I can get better than everyone else and utilize this gifted potential above the top space of the leaderboard.
Of course, in the event of someone getting a 100% perfect score, equivalent in chance to a cataclysm of celestial alignment, this whole argument fails again. But my point still stands. Say, take a look at the speedrunning community of many games, for example many different versions of Super Mario Bros, there are so many people who day after day, time after time, do their utmost best to top the world record or their personal best. If for a moment we forget the existence of the Planck time, then there will always be space for improvement, we humans can always advance ourselves: an unending potential.
I have heard this from somewhere: Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. After such a lengthy article, I feel like this sentence, together with what I quoted in the beginning of this section, sort of sums my ideas up in a more roundabout way.
Back to the discussion concerning artificial intelligence and humanity. As I’ve stated before, I believe that artificial intelligence can never surpass human intelligence, as it does not possess humanity. It does not possess potential.
At this point, as a philosopher (if I indeed am one), I’ve now found the answer that I desire. However, as a scientist, I can do naught but ruminate on this: be it humanity, be it potential, what really is it? What makes us different from machines, in scientific terms, instead of some idealistic, metaphysical nonsense?
Then, find yourself a comfortable place, take a deep breath, calm yourself down, and listen to this most crazy, most bold, extremely subjective, yet in my mind the only reasonable explanation that ties all this together.
Humanity, potential, what makes us human, the basis of all these, is true randomness.
A brief explanation: what do I mean by ‘true randomness’? In computer science terms, pseudo-randomness is used to describe the deterministic (i.e. not random) algorithmic procedure to generate a value that is indistinguishable from randomness. These usually uses the impossibility of efficiently factoring astronomically large numbers to generate a sequence such that even if given all the values generated prior, no human or algorithm can compute the next value given a reasonable amount of time. We use such procedures as there are no known method that reliably and undeniably produces true randomness, perhaps other than some form of quantum mechanics. Even the flipping of a physical coin is technically pseudo-randomness: given all the environmental variables, one can eventually predict the outcome of the coin flip with utmost certainty, despite the enormous computational power required.
Surprised? Appalled? What about something even more lunatic?
Potential, true randomness, is what has been known to us as the soul.
Isn’t that still metaphysics? Well my apologies, science throughout human history has explained many things from astrophysics to quantum mechanics, yet still fails at answering what is human consciousness, and what is life. How come, that these collection of elementary particles, bound together into atoms, into molecules, and finally into this living breathing creature known as yourself, reading this and cursing on the lunatic that I am?
Science, the crystallized essence of human intelligence, cannot explain all this properly, and you expect me to figure it out? You lunatic. Thus metaphysics it is.
But then again, as I’ve said before, once we calm down and really contemplate all of these ideas, it does in some wicked way make sense. Us humans, being the soulful creatures we are, cannot be predicted by any automaton even given an infinite amount of time, yet the soulless machines possess neither such potential nor such undecipherability.
Taking a step back, to inspect this lunacy from a higher perspective. Humanity, true randomness, soul, as I said, none of these concepts can be explained properly by modern science. As thus, allow me to state again that all my philosophies listed here are none other than subjective thoughts and wishful thinking. But, isn’t that the point of thinking and philosophy?
Many of us do not believe that souls exist. I used to be one of them, but day by day I hope that souls indeed exist. Similarly, no one knows if true randomness exists or not, and similarly I hope that it does indeed.
Maybe not. Maybe true randomness does not exist after all. The ‘true randomness’ that we observe is but a result of our ignorance, that we do not understand the miniscule details of how the universe operates.
But what a tragedy that would be! The thoughts and actions of you and me, being not the result of our consciousness and free will, but a simple consequence of the arrangement of elementary particles the moment our universe is born, echoed through the tens of billions of years of the past, controlling each and every single brain cell to operate in accord of the universe’s intention. Then what are we here for? What is the meaning of our existence? If our actions and thoughts are indeed destined by design, then why are we here to feel, to think, to be?
As a little bit of solace in this grand existential dread, I have at least convinced myself that humankind can never accurately predict the future. Even if we eventually deciphered the ultimate truth of the universe, and is capable of simulating the universe at a pace ahead of that of the flow of time, and in fact predict what we think and do at any moment in the future, I believe that we as humans are still capable of questioning and defying this fixated future.
I was spending a night a while back, talking to a friend of mine, and the topic drifted towards this writing plan of mine. I told him that I determined in January that I’ll write about something once in a while, keeping up a habit of writing. Yet, six months have passed, and nothing comes through.
‘Tomorrow for sure,’ I said, ‘I’ll finally write something tomorrow’.
‘That being said,’ I also told him, ‘I might end up not doing it after all.’
After all, this is not my first rodeo at procrastinating.
But, hey, would you look at that! I actually found some time to sit down, and draw the thoughts floating in my mind like threads from my fingertips, and wove and span into this article you’re reading right now.
If I am somehow a perfect creature, capable of meticulously following my intended schedule, it would be nice that I will keep up this habit of writing as I expect, but wouldn’t that be a bit… boring? In what form I am right now, you never know if I’ll write something down this week, younever know if I’ll post something to my blog. As a result of this, if I actually wrote something one day, it would come as a surprise, not to be taken for granted.
I know this is a stretch, and does not really corresponding to what I discussed above, but still I will stubbornly use such a sentence to conclude:
Isn’t this humanity, hmm?
Aug 5th, 2022. West Lafayette, Indiana.
