Tag: Evolution

Suffering – The North Star of Existence

People have tried to justify their existence with happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction, service, love, hope, devotion and what not. But those who have existed in full spirit, lived it to the fullest have realized the effect of sufferings on our lives and even after overcoming them are ready to endure them again in the hope that they will become better than what they were before. These are the people who might have solved the query to justify the life. Overcoming the sufferings in life and continuing the journey ahead could be the answer.

On Charles Dickens’s short story –  A Child’s Dream of A Star

The Impact of Suffering in the Pursuit of Happiness

Question- what would you choose of the following?

A short life filled with happiness and satisfaction? or A long life filled with pain and suffering?

I will assume that you have selected one.

Charles Dickens’s short story – A Child’s Dream of A Star

I came across a short story “A Child’s Dream of A Star” by Charles Dickens which shows what it means to pass through the suffering of the lost loved ones.

This is a story of a boy who loses many loved ones throughout his whole life. Whenever he is losing someone, he dreams of a star where he sees the souls of his loved ones meeting and coming together. First, he loses his little sister in childhood, then his baby brother. When he grows young, he loses his mother, while being adult he loses his own daughter. Every time, when the boy loses his people, he dreams of the same star and wishes that he too could join them. But, when grown adult and losing his daughter he is somewhat soothed that his daughter is not alone, she has the angels of his sister, mother and brother to accompany her.

When he realizes the arrival of his last moment, he accepts the death for the joy that he will join the souls of his loved ones now.

The Suffering of Watching People Leave

Charles Dickens in a very impactful way shows what it means to live life. On surface analysis, one can say that this short story of a boy dreaming about the people he lost and asking for his own death in the hope to join them is about the pain of losing the loved ones and dissatisfaction of not getting enough time to spend time with them and love them. Deep down it is about how one endures pain and I think the only way to endure such pain is to pass through it. Any attempt to alleviate or even control it, leads to more pain.  

Enduring the Suffering

The great thing about this story is that it delicately captures what a beauty that life we live in is and how we connect same attributes of life to the afterlife (even when we are unsure whether it truly exists, even when it exists in our minds and dreams) also how fragile our existence is.

Charles Dickens used the innocence of the child’s mind to show how we carry that innocence throughout our life to use every chance to stay closer to the people we love. The opening of the story also talks about the sorrow that is felt by everyone when someone dies.

“They used to say to one another, sometimes, supposing all the children upon the earth were to die, would the flowers and the water and the sky be sorry? They believed they would be sorry. For, said they, the buds are the children of the flowers, and the little playful streams that gambol down the hillsides are the children of the water; and the smallest bright specks playing at hide-and-seek in the sky all night must surely be the children of the stars and they would all be grieved to see their playmates, the children of men no more.”

It shows that even for children the suffering had a bigger meaning not even when they had faced any such suffering from loss in their tender age.  It shows how by default we are hardwired for the sensitivity towards suffering. Maybe we are more sensitive to suffering than love.

Then we see that the boy is exposed to multiple losses and you will see over the time his dreams are evolving gradually. In early childhood loss of his sister, he is totally devastated that he could not join his sister, then he is again agitated with the thought that his younger brother has to join her in the starry heaven. Then when he is young, he is somewhat settled that his mother could join his sister and the brother.

Now when being adult and losing the beloved daughter, the same boy has made peace with her death in the thought that she has enough people to take care of her and maybe love her more. Now he has made amends with the death.

“My daughter’s head is on my sister’s bosom, and her arm is round my mother’s neck, and at her feet is the baby of old time, and I can bear the parting from her, God be praised!”

You must understand how the boy from childhood till his old-age sees the death in different ways. At first, he has intense sorrow for his sister but over the time he sees that even after death the people he loves have each other’s company.

He cannot do anything to join them in the afterlife and death is the only way to join them. Please note that there is not even single mention or any indirect indication that boy wishes to end his existence just to meet his loved ones in afterlife.

So, it’s a story of how a person builds himself towards the suffering. You will see that the boy never gets numbed because of the series of losses, he is hopeful that at least someone is there in afterlife for them to love each other. Death along with love is the only constant in this story.

We are well aware of the love from the very beginning of our existence but it takes time to appreciate that just like love, death too is eternal. It’s just that our minds find it difficult to bring together the idea of eternal nature of love and never-ending series of death in single thought. Maybe that is why not everything exists at exactly the same time and ends at exactly the same time, otherwise there would be no one to witness and appreciate what one existed in and carry that forward.

The Eternal Curiosity, Innocence and Love

I am adding the concept of eternity, endlessness in this story of involving series of deaths, ends and sadness with it, because that is how the life is. The symbolism of star used in this short story by Charles Dickens also points to that idea.

You should notice that in the opening it is about how everything that is there in existence will feel sad for loss of the children of men. The boy feels that sorrow in his childhood; later on, we realise that he holds these unfulfilled emotions, feelings of not getting enough time to spend with the people he has lost. These emotions are continuously getting reflected in his dreams. In the end, we see that he is dying happily while feeling that he can love them again in the afterlife.

But you should now notice that the dream is limited to the boy only. What is real is the star in this story; the star shining on little sister’s grave and was still shining on her brother’s grave who died at old-age.

Just like the children’s curiosity about whether the nature grieved for the losses in the beginning of the story, we can say that the star (being the child of nature) would also grieve for the people he saw dying. But that is not where the story is going. The boy had learned to handle the grief over time and that is why is mature emotionally with the death of his daughter and even his own death. This became possible because his love for his sister increased multiple folds, got intense over the time.

The maturity that comes to such sorrow is worth noticing, the boy now an old-age man is not sad because he will be leaving his children behind. He is neither happy that he will join his loved ones in the afterlife (although what he says while dying means that he is eager to join afterlife).

The star was a construct of his mind to move over the grief and be assured that no one – not even him will never be left unloved. He had a strong belief that at least love is eternal in some or other forms. The star still shining upon his grave in the last sentence of the story is thus the symbol of the child’s innocence and love.      

The last words of the boy/ man are these:

“…My age is falling from me like a garment, and I move towards the star as a child. And O my Father, now I thank thee that it has so often opened to receive those dear ones who await me!”

We all can appreciate that the afterlife’s notion is only in the boy/ man’s dreams but that does not invalidate his feelings. He is grateful that he had someone to love (although he couldn’t love them to the fullest while living). The childhood innocence and curiosity he carried throughout his life helped him to endure the suffering. Curiosity because of the urge to understand what would happen to the people who die gets materialized in the dreams of the boy and thus he builds his understanding around it. This curiosity emerged because he cared for them so strongly that he was concerned about what would happen to people after they die. Innocence because from childhood till old-age he deeply believes that just like the children of nature, everyone and not only him cared for people, loved them in some or other ways.   

Conclusion

Most of the existential queries on human life point to one single question of meaning or purpose or at least worth of the life. Once started, if it is destined to end then why is this everything existing? And this question is not just about life. It is about everything attached to the life itself. If everything in existence is attached to something and everything at any time will be lost forever, disconnected forever then why does everything exist in first place? Once you appreciate this question, you will see that existence is majorly a series of detachments, losses – literally and figuratively. It is just that some things detach faster than others, some things stay for longer time but are lost in the end; we are just existing in these gaps of losses and detachments. Maybe how we felt about those things especially the innocent emotions we had for everything that is there (which are neither good/ bad, pure/ impure) are eternal. If not eternal, I would say that they evolve in better ways, get refined, gain maturity and get transferred to our next generations through our legacy. Maybe they too would have an ending but what can we say about the human spirit! The spirit to exist in spite of the sufferings! The ability to exist in full spirit and endure multiple sufferings over the time while maintaining that innocent child alive inside you is what justifies our existence in the end. And even that is to end in the end, I have no complaints.

So, when I asked to select one of options at the start, if you felt that selecting only one of these is foolish (or difficult/ meaningless) then welcome to the club!

People have tried to justify their existence with happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction, service, love, hope, devotion and what not. But those who have existed in full spirit, lived it to the fullest have realized the effect of sufferings on our lives and even after overcoming them are ready to endure them again in the hope that they will become better than what they were before. These are the people who might have solved the query to justify the life. Overcoming the sufferings in life and continuing the journey ahead could be the answer.

Philosophical fate of AI and Humans

Alan Turing was the very first person in the world to formally ask- “Can machines think?” The ideas he presented in his famous paper has laid the pathways leading to the creation of modern computer science and today and tomorrow of artificial intelligence. There is no doubt that there will be a time when machines would be able to think just like humans do, but that should not be a negative aspect. There will be practical limitations to a human-like thinking machine too. So, the game would never be single sided. This should push humanity on a completely new path of evolution. That is also how we have become the humans we are today from the primitive apes.

Alan Turing’s world famous paper on future of human-like thinking ability in machines

The holy doubt – “Can machines think?”

We all know how modern machines/ computers have great abilities to make systematic thinking and take decisions accordingly; this is obviously attributed to the very programming embedded into them by us human beings. Many breakthroughs in storage capacities of computers, size of computers, efficiency of these machines, computation capabilities, evolution of programing languages, intersection of neuroscience and computer science, accessibility of these highly powerful machines to masses have shown world that such machines can do amazing marvels.

You know where I am going with this. Not mentioning Artificial Intelligence in these breakthroughs would be a straight crime. AI has unlocked a totally different capability in computing for which some are optimistic and some are fearful. In a crude sense, how AI stands out from other concepts of computing is its ability to change it programming to achieve given goal. This concept is very normal even for today’s child.

But, would you be open to such self-programming machine 75 years ago? A time when there were only mechanical calculators, electronic computers were in their infancy and were created only for certain restricted problem solving and number crunching. Even the experts of those times found this idea foolish because of the practical limitations of those times. How could a machine think like a human being when for doing some mechanical number crunching it takes such many resources, doesn’t have its own consciousness, its own soul, has no emotions to react to given stimuli? In simple words “thinking” is somehow associated as a special ability humans got because of the soul they have, the conscience they have (granted by nature, the Creator, the Almighty, the God or whatever but some higher power)

It is our tendency as human beings to have this notion of being superior species amongst all which brings in the confidence that machines cannot think. That is why this idea seemed foolish, but now we are comfortable (to some extent but not completely) with the idea of thinking machines.     

Alan Turing – a British mathematician, the code breaker of Enigma, the man who made Britain remain strategically resilient in World War 2, the Father of theoretical computer science wrote a paper which laid down the blueprint of what the future with AI would look like. For the times when this paper was published all the ideas were seemingly imaginary, impractical, and totally impossible to bring into the reality. But as the times changed, Alan’s ideas have become more and more important for the times in which we are living in and the coming future of Artificial Intelligence.

Weirdly enough, this paper which laid the foundations of artificial intelligence – thinking machines was published in journal of psychology and philosophy called “Mind”.

The world-famous concept of ‘Turing Test’ is explained by Alan in this very paper. He called this test as a game – an “Imitation Game”.

The paper reflects the genius of Alan Turing and how he had the foresight of the future – the future with thinking machine. After reading this paper you will appreciate why and how Alan was able to exactly point out every problem that would rise in future and their solutions. He was only limited by the advancements not happened in his time.

The Imitation Game   

Alan posed a simple question in this paper –

Can machines think?

The answer today (even after 75 years) is of course a straight “NO”. (Deep down we are realizing that even though machines can’t think they are way closer to copying the actions involved in thinking or “imitating” a thinking living thing)

The genius of Alan Turing was to pose practicality to find the answers to this question. He created very logical arguments in this paper where he used the technique of proof by contradiction to prove the feasibility of creating such ‘thinking machine’. The AI which has evolved today is the very result of following Alan’s blueprint for making thinking machines.

The famous Turing Test – the Imitation game is a game where an interrogator has to tell the difference between a machine and a human being by the responses they give to his/her questions.

The machine is not expected to think like humans but at least imitate them. The responses may feel completely human but it is not a condition or compulsion that machine should exactly think like a person. This practicality introduced by Alan and his arguments built upon this idea shows what are our limitations when we are actually thinking or making any decisions. This paper will change and also challenge the way we think or do anything. This paper might humble you if you think that we are superior beings because we can think and have/ express emotions. (Trust me you would also question ‘What is love?’ if love was your next answer to justify our superiority after reading this paper but that is not what Alan was focusing when he wrote this paper.)

The idea is not about creating an artificial replica of human, it is to create a machine which would respond just like humans do, the goal is to make their responses indistinguishable from ‘real’ human beings.

There are hundreds of simplified explanations on Turing test (ask Chat GPT if you want) which Alan has discussed in this paper but that is not my interest of discussion hereon.

I will be focusing only on the arguments made by Alan to prove why it is completely practical to create human-like thinking machines. My intent in doing so is that to show how we as humans can also be challenged by our practical limitations. These arguments also show a way to humans where they will get overpowered/ surpassed by AI. This does not mean that AI will eradicate humanity, rather it shows new pathways in which humanity would evolve. So, for me the arguments end on an optimistic note. Surely AI will take over the things which make us who we are but it will also push us into some completely unconventional pathways of rediscovery as the smart species.

The way in which Alan intended the Imitation game was the mode of question-answers – an interview. You would question why didn’t he think of a challenge where exact human like machine need to be created – that would be more challenging for the machines. I think, the idea behind rejecting the necessity for a machine to be in human form is like this-

The creation of human body is very similar to cloning a human body or augmenting the human parts to a mechanical skeleton. What is more difficult is to impart the consciousness and the awareness which is (supposedly) responsible to impart thinking in humans. So, even if a fully developed machine exactly looking like human being is in front of you and you are unable to tell that it is a machine, the moment that human-like machine would start expressing its thoughts everything would be easily given away.

In simple words, Alan was confident that the biological marvels, genetic engineering, cell engineering would easily take us to the physical replication of human form. What would be difficult is to create a set of logics (or self-thinking mechanism) which would demonstrate human like (thinking) capabilities. And such abilities can easily be checked by mere one on one conversation. Such was the genius of Alan Turing to bring such complexities using this simple experiment of Imitation Game.

We as human beings have certain insights, intuitions (I don’t want to use this word but don’t have any alternative word) which gives away if it is a machine or a human.

What Alan did masterfully and why he deserves full credit is that he pointed out the factors which can make machines respond and ‘think’ more like humans. While creating the confusions about the nature of human mind, consciousness, awareness, thoughts and their limitations and ambiguity, Alan also gave the possible arguments to solve these confusions.

Alan proves that human-like thinking machines can be created and he proves this by contradiction of the objections raised against this idea. I am diving deep into these objections hereon:

  1. The theological objection

The rigor that Alan used to prove his point deserves appreciation. Despite being a logical thinker and mathematician, he cared to answer the religious point of view, he wanted no stone left unturned while making an argument.

Alan aggressively (verbally) hammered the idea of God’s exclusivity to grant the immortal soul to only humans, the soul responsible to make humans think. Alan says that if soul is the reason, then animals have souls too. The true comparison then should be between living and nonliving things to support the point that machines cannot think. It is because they are nonliving things they have no soul so they cannot think.

But if the great almighty can give soul to an animal, then why this omnipotent God decided to not give same souls to the machines? Alan knew that any blind theologian would find a contrived argument to prove this idea but he clarifies his point by presenting the historical mistakes religious institutes committed because the truth was hard to swallow. Alan gives the examples of Galileo who presented that earth was not the center of the universe, against the ideas of Church. Later church was proved wrong.

So, even if the religious arguments may seem easy to understand, easy to ‘swallow’ but if they are not fitting in the logic, it makes no sense to take them forward. The theological inconsistency ‘As machines have no soul granted by the God, they cannot think like humans’ which Alan pointed out  was totally false. He justifies this point using the logic of God remaining the ultimate creator.

Alan explained that if we are stealing the powers of God to create a human-like thinking ‘thing’ its not a crime or a blasphemy. Does procreating and making children “to whom also God grants the soul for thinking” mean crime? In similar spirit ‘machines’ – thinking machines are our children whom to God should bless with his powers.    

“In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.”

No doubt he would also have been a great priest if he had thought of changing his career to theology.

  1. The ‘Heads in the Sand’ objection

Alan gives worst case scenarios on the superiority of human species out of all species. What if we are “the superior” species? If that is true then there is no reason to worry about thinking machines, they won’t surpass us.

But what if what we know is wrong? We have been proven wrong many times in history. What if we are not the superior species? Then there is no sense in blindly believing that we are superior. Rather this illusion of superiority steels us from the chances to fight the battle of superiority.

So, in either case, we cannot run out of the fate of thinking machines Vs humans. We may fake it, run from it, hide it from rest of the population but it is not in our favor if we do so.

“We like to believe that Man is in some subtle way superior to the rest of creation. It is best if he can be shown to be necessarily superior, for then there is no danger of him losing his commanding position.”
  1. The Mathematical Objection

Very beautifully Alan brought the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to prove his mathematical argument. According to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, if we start to prove every mathematical argument there exists in the universe, we end up into some arguments for which there exists no proof. In order to ensure that the whole mathematical system remains stable, consistent on logic one has to accept those arguments true. So, once such logically unprovable but true in existent reality statements are found in nature they create a new system of mathematical understanding.

In simple words, every mathematically logical system is inconsistent in the end, in order to remove that inconsistency a new rule must be accepted which create a new system of mathematics. (Which again would be inconsistent)

Further oversimplification goes like this,

A farmer wouldn’t know how to make a shoe. So, he would need knowledge of a cobbler. A cobbler wouldn’t know how to make metal tools, so he would need help of blacksmiths. Even if they have each other’s knowledge, skills they must accept certain thumb rules passed down from their ancestors (which are always true but unprovable) to master each other’s skills.  

So, even if you are creating a thinking machine based on purely mathematical system the mere limitation of mathematics will stop it from overpowering, surpassing humans.

This also does not mean that thinking machines are defeat-able. A machine with one mathematical system in totally different domain could support this logically inconsistent system just like the villagers with different professions.

Alan Turing’s doctoral thesis contains the ideas of Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem so it is a joy to read these arguments in this paper. They are well formed and super-intelligent.

(If you are really interested what this argument means, you can research the efforts that went into proving Fermat’s last theorem. A new field of mathematics had to be created to prove this simple to explain but difficult to prove mathematical theorem.)

There will always be something cleverer than the existing one – for humans and for thinking machines too.

“There would be no question of triumphing simultaneously over all machines. In, short, then, there might be men cleverer than any given machine, but then again there might be other machines cleverer again, and so on.”
  1. The argument from Consciousness

Even if the machine is feeling and thinking exactly like a human being, how could the “real humans” know that it does so? – Alan’s new argument.

“The only way to know that a man thinks, is to be that particular man. It is in fact the solipsistic point of view. It may be the most logical view to hold but it makes communication of ideas difficult.”

Communication between machines and the humans and its quality would be key proof to understand whether the machine thinks like human beings or not. Even if the machine is really thinking exactly like humans, it is futile if it cannot communicate so to humans.

(That is exactly why The Turing test with mere typed communication is more than enough to check the thinking ability of machines.)

It is the great philosophical mind of Alan to use the limitations of Solipsism to justify his point. According to solipsism all the world exists in the mind of the person because if the person dies then it doesn’t matter if world is there or not.

The key limitation of solipsism is that your survival is not directly connected to your mere thinking. If I think ‘I am dead’ that does not immediately kill me. If I think that I have eaten a lot without actually eating anything, that doesn’t end my hunger in ‘reality’. So, reality is not only your mind.

Also, solipsism fails to answer the common experiences we have in a group. If my mind is my world, I can create any rules for my world and things would always go as I desire. But that doesn’t happen in reality. There are certain ways, truths which are common to all of us that is why our world is not just our mind, rather it may be a shared world. You alone are not the representation of whole reality.

So, even if we accept that the machine ‘inwardly’ thinks like human being, it has to share some common truths to the interrogator to prove its humanly ways of thinking.

“I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness. There is for instance, something of a paradox connected with any attempt to localize it. But I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question…. (the question – can machines think? Can they at least imitate humans? – the Imitation Game)”
  1. Argument from various disabilities

Alan is challenging the idea that even if machines are successful in thinking exactly like humans, they won’t be able to do certain things which humans can do better.

It’s like a human saying to a thinking machine –

“You machines can think like us but can you enjoy literature and poetry like we humans do, can you have sex just like humans do, enjoy it and procreate just like we (human) do? This is exactly why your thinking is not a human thinking.”

The key point Alan is trying to prove is that people always need a justification of given machine’s ability (through its ways of working, maybe its architecture, its technology, its components, its sensors) to prove that certain capability of the machine. When we are showing these justifications, we are also telling people indirectly what it cannot do thereby its disabilities. One ability would point to other disability.

People do not accept black box models in order to justify ability of the machine.

“Possibly a machine might be made to enjoy this delicious dish, but any attempt to make one do so would be idiotic. What is important about this disability is that it contributes to some of the other disabilities.”

In same fashion one argument is that even if machine could think like humans, it is difficult to have its own opinion. Alan strikes that too.

“The claim that a machine cannot be the subject if its own thought can of course only be answered if it can be shown that the machine has some thought with some subject matter.”

The key disability which was preventing Alan from creating a working thinking machine was the enormous storage space. You will appreciate this point today because you know how drastically storage capabilities have improved over the time. These improvements in storage created the AI we see today, although processing power is also on factor and there are other factors too but it boils down to the ability to simultaneously handle lot and lots of data.

Alan had this mathematical insight that once the storage ability is expanded enough the thinking machines is a practical reality. (Now researchers are not only working on to further improve storage capability but special efforts are also taken to effectively compress data. Ask Chat GPT about the Hutter Prize)

So, Alan makes a point that having variety of opinions in order to ‘think for itself’ machines don’t need logic, they need enough storage space just to process them simultaneously to create a new thought. In terms of humans, the more information and logic you can handle the crisper your understanding are. Same would be the case for thinking machines.

“The criticism that a machine cannot have much diversity of behavior is just a way of saying that it cannot have much storage capacity. “
  1. Lady Lovelace’s Objection

Charles Babbage was the first person to technically create calculator with memory – a programmable computer which they called Analytical Engine. Even though he knew how the Analytical Engine works Ada Lovelace created programs and published them to the masses to prove the effectiveness of the Analytical Engine. She was the first programmer of computer.   

Lady Lovelace’s key argument is based on the idea that the computer thereby a thinking machine cannot think for itself because it can only use what we have provided it. As we have provided whatever we know and have it cannot think outside of that information and generate new understandings, The machines cannot think “originally”.

Alan strikes down this argument easily using the idea of enough storage space. If the machine can store large enough data and instructions then it can create new inferences, original inference.

“Who can be certain that ‘original work’ that he has done was not simply growth of the seed planted in him by teaching, or the effect of following well-known general principles.”

Alan questioned the very nature of originality. Only a genius can do this in my opinion. Alan showed the world that the things which we call original are inspired, copied from something already existent. It is just matter of how unknown we are to this new thing.

He builds further upon that saying that if machines can think originally then they should surprise us. That is reality. Machines do surprise us by using unconventional approaches to our daily tasks. 

Alan links new argument for further justification, if machines can think originally then they can surprise us. In order for us to not get surprised we must get immediate understanding of what machine presents which never happens when such events happen. So, machines can think originally and can surprise us.

“The view that machines cannot give rise to surprises is due, I believe, to a fallacy to which philosophers and mathematicians are particularly subject, This is the assumption that as soon as a fact is presented to a mind all consequences of that fact spring into the mind simultaneously with it.”

What a brilliant argument!

  1. Argument from Continuity

“The nervous system is certainly not a discrete-state machine. A small error in the information about the size of a nervous impulse impinging on a neuron, may make a large difference to the size of the outgoing impulse. It may be argued that, this being so, one cannot expect to be able to mimic the behavior of the nervous system with a discrete-state system.”

Alan talks about an attempt to create thinking machines by mimicking nervous system which is a continuous system. A system which works in wave, signals (analog) and not in ones and zeros (discrete).

Alan says that even if we use such analog system in Turing test, the outputs it would give would be probabilistic instead of definite. This will actually make the interrogator difficult to distinguish human response from the machine one. Humans would be more frequently unsure and will give such probabilistic answers more frequently.  

  1. The argument from Informality of Behavior
“If each man had a definite set of rules of conduct by which be regulated his life, he would be no better than a machine. But there are not such rules, so men cannot be machines.”

The idea that machines work on certain defined rule even if they can alter their own program by themselves in order to think like humans, it feels obvious that they will be more formal and stuck to their rules while responding. This formality would give away their non-human nature.

Alan questions the very nature of what is means to have laws in a logical setup. Taking support from the Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, not even single system – single logical system can confidently remain purely on its laws. It would assume some arbitrary point to make some sense out of given data even if it is using some mathematical frameworks. (Remember the simulations where you put garbage in and the simulations runs perfectly giving garbage out. But you know its garbage because you have certain test to judge the output with reality which are objective.)

There is no such objectivity to judge informality of a system – the word and logic itself says it all. Our search for formal laws would never end and this will always keep on creating new laws and new inconsistencies and informalities. There is no end.    

“We cannot so easily convince ourselves of the absence of complete laws of behavior as of complete rules of conduct. The only way we know of for finding such laws is scientific observation, and we certainly know of no circumstances under which we could say, ‘We have searched enough. There are no such laws.’”
  1. The Argument from Extra-sensory Perception
“The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go. This argument is to my mind quite a strong one. One can say in reply that many scientific theories seem to remain in practice, in spite of clashing with ESP; that in fact once can get along very nicely if one forgets about it.”

Again, Alan left no stone unturned. He made sure that even the pseudo-science fails to support the idea that machines cannot think like humans.

He explains that even if the human competing against the machine mimicking humans has telepathic abilities to know states of the machine or even the interrogator, it would actually confuse the interrogator. The only thing such telepathic person can do differently is to under-perform intentionally which again would confuse the interrogator.

The idea is that even when we are not sure of how such supernatural things works our current understanding of things and their workings are just fine. The supernatural things are not interfering in our formal understanding of nature and reality.

The implications of Alan Turing’s Paper on Computing Machinery and Intelligence

All the ideas explained by Alan in this paper are responsible for the modern technologies like efficient data storage, data compression, artificial neural networks, self-programming machines, black box models, machine learning algorithms, iterative learning, data storage, manipulation thereby data science, analog computing, self-learning, supervised learning algorithms, Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPTs) and what not.

This paper is holy grail for not only modern computer science but also for the literature and popular culture. Once you appreciate the ideas in this paper you will be able to see the traces of these ideas across all the modern science fiction we are consuming all the time.

Alan created practical ideas which were possible to implement in future based on the coming technological revolutions he foresaw. He logically knew that it is possible but the genius of him was to lay the practical foundation of what and how it needs to be done which is guiding our and will guide future generations.

Conclusion

What is there for humans if machines start thinking like humans?

For this, I will address each argument posed by Alan

  1.  The theological objection

God will actually bless us because we extended his (or her I don’t know) powers to create something like his own creation through thinking machines.

  1. The ‘Heads in the Sand’ objection

Even if thinking machines surpass us, we have to live with it and create our new ecosystem to ensure our survival. Even though for given times we are superior species, other species are existing with us in the same time with their special abilities. There is no running away from any possible outcome of this scenario.

  1. The Mathematical Objection

The mathematics itself restricts a single machine from knowing everything. So even if multiple machines come together to create superior understandings same would happen for humans. There will always be this race of superiority, sometimes machines will lead sometimes humans will lead. There is no conclusion to this race as far as the inherent flaw of mathematics goes.

  1. The argument from Consciousness

A machine has to be the communicator of its human thinking, it cannot remain in the dark abyss of self-cognizance and remain away from humans. If a machine starts thinking like humans, we all would definitely know about it. A machine has to communicate its ability of awareness to, it will a surprise but a very short lived one.

  1. Argument from various disabilities

If we don’t know how machines think like human that would not prevent them from thinking like humans. We have to accept the black boxes through which machines would think like humans. That is the only sane way out. We humans too are filled with disabilities but they are not directly linked to the ways we are able to think.

  1.  Lady Lovelace’s Objection

Machines will surprise us, they can also create original ideas, because what we call original is something that lies out of the limits of our current thinking. Rather it is an optimistic idea that if machines could think like humans do then they may give us totally new ideas for new discoveries, breakthroughs.

  1. Argument from Continuity

Continuous thinking machine or discrete thinking machine both can confuse humans if they achieve their thinking potentials. So, there is no point in creating an analogue thinker to beat digital thinker. We ourselves are an analogue thinker.

  1. The argument from Informality of Behavior

No system will have all laws already established, the system has to keep on creating new laws to justify new events, outliers. The process is never-ending. So even if machines surpass in human thinking we too have the advantage of informality to make the next move.

  1. The Argument from Extra-sensory Perception

Even if the supernatural abilities are proven be existent, they will have less to no contribution in the thinking abilities of machines. So, if you are a telepathic reader a human like thinking machine can fool you without exposing its real machine identity.

Going through all this you will appreciate how limited our human thinking is. There is no doubt that there will be a time when machines would be able to think just like humans do but that should not be a negative aspect. There will be practical limitations to a human-like thinking machine too. So, the game would never be single sided. This should push humanity on a completely new path of evolution. That is also how we have become the humans we are today.

Further references for reading:

  1. A. M. TURING, I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE, Mind, Volume LIX, Issue 236, October 1950, Pages 433–460, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
  2. Understanding the true nature of Mathematics- Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem
  3. Questioning Our Consciousness – Solipsism

Anxiety – Ugly (But Precious) Gift From Evolution

Anxiety serves to prepare a person for threats. Anxiety just like pain is one uncomfortable but effective way to cope up with the adversities in life, that’s how we build strength, resistance and deeper understanding of the surrounding for better and more precisely predictable future.
The remarkable concepts like smoke detector principal and optimal threshold in signal detection theory developed by modern psychologists/ psychiatrists help us to draw a line between a healthy anxiety (adaptive function) and unhealthy anxiety (pathology) and show ways to handle/treat them effectively.

Anxiety’s like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you very far

Jodi Picoult

Survival, Fear, and Anxiety

Every living thing if not have any goal in their lifetime would at least have sole goal of existing, surviving. Nobody wants to die and all of us always yearn to live forever but we know our limitations and hence are always on the quest of justifying the finite existence granted to us. Even if we are certain of the end closing in, our instincts are evolved in such way that many of the times, we bear the ability to cheat death. Humans have further extended cheating the death using science and technology.  Technology augmented our lives, reduced the risks of death, created a safe environment to grow, increased our chances of survival.

The fear of death and uncertainty of future is the key driver in our improved survival instincts and excessive use of technology to achieve it. We plan for things in advance, create backup plans if something would go wrong, have risk assessments before the execution, understand and decide according to the cost benefit analysis. That is what makes us humans and also separates from other species (although rest of the surviving species are also smart in their own ways to increase their chances of survival like viruses – but hopefully humans have other ways to overcome them)      

So, fear in a way triggers the actions to ensure survival. Anxiety – a sophisticated form of fear which prepares us in advance even before the fear causing scenario is supposed to happen. Simply put anxiety is an anticipatory type of fear to increase the chances of survival.

I am talking about fear and anxiety because they are bugging my mind for many days. Recently I watched Inside Out 2 movie and the it really delivers. The narrative has successfully presented how all emotions play a vital role in creating our personality in whole. Anxiety was new and important emotion presented in this movie. Every moment where anxiety came in focus it was fully relatable to me. Once I was done crying in the end the anxiety never left me (figuratively!), I felt a strong urge to understand the anxiety on deeper levels and what the domain experts have to say about anxiety.

The discussion heron is not a movie review rather I have made some attempt to summarize what the real-world scientists have to say about anxiety. I won’t be giving you the tricks, counseling and recommending any medicines to cure anxiety disorders. (Trained professional, experts are the best people to do that – “I AM NO EXPERT”)

My focus of the discussion is to question why anxiety exists in first place when we have an emotion called fear, another question is how to interpret the anxious emotions and what leads to anxiety disorder, where does the root of anxiety lie and is anxiety a bad or negative emotion? If it is so then why? and if not – then why?

While posing such questions and researching articles I came across some beautiful ideas, experiments and theories established by professionals in the field. I will throw light on these ideas in the coming discussion.    

The fear is real! – is it? – Defining anxiety

As I already mentioned that fear of death, the unknown and urge to live long are always fighting with each other. Humans rather every species existing today in nature mastered this battle to some extent and have ridden on chariots of evolution to augment – change themselves to adapt with the surroundings and improve the chances of survival.

A deer completely aware of its surrounding, grazing in the open grass fields can distinguish the rusting of leaves due to winds and rustling due to sudden movements of an apex predator like tiger. When the exams are on top of tomorrow, we are ready to sacrifice the night sleep to crack them (engineers would resonate more with this!) We know that the pain of failing, fear of failing is worse than painfully covering syllabus overnight! The fear is there and the anticipatory response is also there, only the level of sophistication is different.

Why I say sophistication? It is because due to the advancements in our lifestyles humans are rarely exposed to the real life-threatening scenarios like animal do (still today). Our fears are now more anticipatory. I would say most of our fears are now classified as anxiety.

Wikipedia goes like this for anxiety –

“Anxiety is an emotion which is characterized by an unpleasant state of inner turmoil and includes feelings of dread over anticipated events.”

So, the key differentiating aspect between fear and anxiety is the anticipation. Anxiety is a prospective emotion and a forward-looking emotion. Whereas fear is the emotional response to current threat. Fear makes us act immediately; anxiety keeps us ready for future threats. Fear will immediately decide fight or flight whereas anxiety will create plans, strategies for both and also calculate which one is more probable. (now you can appreciate why anxiety is more intense in over-thinkers, the analysis paralysis is one mild example of this.)

Anxiety is also an emotion important from evolutionary perspective as it has helped the current existing species to remain existent. The ability to anticipate future and preparing for it in advance gives competitive edge in survival.  

Why Is Anxiety Good?

While reading about anxiety I came across a very good paper by Dr. Randolph M. Nesse.

Dr. Randolph M. Nesse, UoM

Randolph M. Nesse is a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Psychology in University of Michigan. The ideas and theory he created to understand and identify anxiety and its intensity are very important and interesting.  

Dr. Ness developed the smoke detector principle to control and quantify the medication used to fight with anxiety disorder. (He poses very simple but important question the opening of the paper that “Is he medicating his patients too much? is he harming them?”) The fundamental doubt Dr. Ness had was if the anxiety is evolved during evolution to improve our chances of survival, then why are we forced to reduce its symptoms and effects? Why are we using medications, therapies to reduce these symptoms, effects of anxiety. What if the patient is too anxious for given thing and that thing is too real to happen but the doctor dumbed that emotion down? (Dr. Ness calls it down-regulating the mechanisms causing anxiety)

The core of his thinking is that if we keep on “down-regulating” our anxiety which is an evolutionary gift to us, we might never be able to gauge the future in better way and prepare for it in advance to improve our chances of survival. (this is an exaggeration of the scenario but it proves a point)  

This calls for the quantification of anxiety. Which Dr. Ness did through the smoke detector principle.

The Smoke Detector Principle – How Much Anxiety Is Too Much?

Dr. Ness in another paper talks about the mechanism which is a feed-back system between the animal and its surroundings, which selects the emotional response to improve the chances of survival. The emotions we have today are the result of such evolution to maintain “homeostasis” – the balance among our bodily system to survive and function properly.

According to his ideas, anxiety works like a smoke detector.

The anxiety response is always trying to maximize the chances of survival and escape from a life-threatening situation. When we set a smoke detector it will go off even when the fire is not that extreme or if there is just some smoke which can be a controllable one. The smoke detector is designed to never miss a single fire causing situation. This ensures complete confidence in smoke detector that it will save people from every life taking fire scenario. But, it’s the same mechanism of smoke detector which forces people to evacuate frequently even when the fire or smoke where controllable or life threatening.

The frequent emergency evacuation even when it is not required is the same problem with the extreme intensity cases of anxiety. Always having armor ready for combat may sometimes make the soldier to lose the agility.

The patients with anxiety disorder have lowered sense of real threat. Their system triggers too many false alarms.

Dr. Ness established various techniques to quantify the levels of anxiety. The responses from anxiety include increased heart rate, rise in certain bodily chemicals – stress hormone secretion which can be easily measured as signals using instruments. Thus, the smoke detector principal paved a way to quantify the anxiety and understand what triggers the anxiety disorders in patients. It helps to understand how and why a level of anxiety is healthy in normal person and what level of anxiety is unhealthy and needs drug administration, therapy, how it can be administered by altering the setting within and around the person.

The core reasons why we need not to be intensely anxious about common life threats are as follows as Dr. Ness explains in his papers:

  1. Regulatory mechanisms have tendency to make errors and be extra defensive about situations
  2. We do not need to always be extra defensive to avoid given threat. (A machine gun in a bulletproof enclosure is not required to kill a mosquito.)
  3. Our body and surroundings have multiple layers of defense for almost all common threats. We are evolved and have survived in that way.
  4. Our environment is much safer than it was at the time we evolved

Types of Anxiety Disorders

Now that we have understood what is the nature of anxiety and what is its mechanism. Here are some important anxiety disorders to outline. Huge amount of information is available in literature, internet websites on these:  

  1. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) – too much worrying about ordinary things, problems like money, work, health, relations, family, and anything possible or imaginable, it may not exist in reality.
  2. Hypochondriasis – People suffering from this often worry about the health condition when nothing is wrong with their body. The word comes from feeling of stomach pain the person experiences even when everything is alright.
  3. Specific phobia – fear of anything but specific without any reason. It’s the fear for certain thing even when it does not pose threat.
  4. Social anxiety disorder (SAD) – In this scenario people intensely fear the public situations, humiliations, embarrassments, criticisms.
  5. Separation anxiety disorder (SepAD) – People in this case intensely fear the loss of person or a place
  6. Agoraphobia – it is fear of being in situation where there is no exit door, or escape strategy. Fear of using public transportation, being in large crowds are some examples.
  7. Panic disorder – these are outburst of all the collective or intensive fears, they come quickly and last for short time.
  8. Selective mutism (SM) – in this case the person is extremely fearful of initiating a conversation, does not speak to specific people or in specific situations or conditions even when they are forced to talk by humiliation or mocking.  

Post traumatic syndrome disorder (PTSD) and Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were once classified under anxiety disorders (now not under anxiety disorder in DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders)

Signal Detection Theory For Interpreting ‘Anxiety Like Responses’

One good paper in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry by Bateson et al. shows how the smoke detector principal can be used to decide the boundaries of different levels of “anxiety like-responses”. This paper talks about signal detection theory and optimal threshold. The beauty of this paper for me is the mathematical model it establishes to explain psychological events. A single formula will help you understand the difference between normal anxiety and anxiety disorder.  

With the smoke detector principal, we can now appreciate that not every common threat needs full armored protection. The signal detection theory in this paper shows where a person draws line when they overestimate or underestimate anxiety.

It talks about “optimal threshold” to show a threat response in given situation. Optimal threshold is a mathematical parameter which is function of probability of the occurrence real event and vulnerability of the individual.

The signal detection theory says that the superposition of response signals for given background noise and response signal from real threat give us the quantified judgement of how intensely the anxiety is triggered compared to the practicality of the threat – this quantified judgement is called optimal threshold (λ). Lower the threshold more intensely the anxiety will be triggered for given disturbance – background noise.

Figure 1 : Signal detection problem, how the optimal threshold can be calculated. (Credit: Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach, 2011, Bateson et al., Canadian Journal of Psychiatry)

Equation 1: optimum threshold (Credit: Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach, 2011, Bateson et al.,Canadian Journal of Psychiatry)

Here,

 λ = optimal threshold

 pnt= probability that there is no threat

 pt= probability that there is real threat

wfa= cost of false alarm

wmiss = cost of a miss

Once this equation comes in focus the discussion becomes interesting. The ratio of pnt to pt mathematically quantifies how practical the threat is. The ratio of wfa to wmiss mathematically quantifies what will be the cost if the anxiety trigger is accepted or rejected – will the subject live or die. This ratio shows how we trigger anxiety response. If the cost of responding is nothing for even a simple threat scenario, we will choose to trigger that response, same would happen if the cost of losing is ultimately the loss of life, we would trigger any possible anxiety response to avoid it. The authors call this ratio as individual’s vulnerability.

The ratio (pnt/pt) can be seen like this. If the surrounding really is hostile and consists of events which cause many life altering events than the safety ensuring events then the pt (probability of threat) will be way higher than pnt (probability of no threat and safer environment). In war situation where multiple bombings, gun firings are happening around you the probability of threat happening (pt) is way high than it not happening (pnt). The optimal threshold will drop immediately and anxiety triggered will be very high.

The ratio (wfa / wmiss) can be seen like this. If the person is way stronger to handle given threat, then the person will need no effort, investment or cost to trigger any reaction alarm to even a false threat. Consider the example where you are about to be bit by mosquito, you know the efforts to slap many times until the mosquito dies are not worthless, you will try many times to kill it even when you know it will swiftly escape, you are less vulnerable in this scenario. But now when you are about to be killed by John Wick (!?) you know for sure that even a pencil will do the job for him, any environment is hostile for you, you are vulnerable here, the value of losing life (wmiss)is way high than the cost of attempts to save it (wfa). Your optimal threshold will immediately drop down thus triggering intense anxiety.

Once you generate enough data for such optimal frequencies you can easily distinguish the healthy anxiety responses and anxiety disorders. I loved how these two factors (probability of threat and vulnerability of an individual) can predict the levels of anxiety in a person. This equation explains and can also quantify why pregnant women have heightened awareness of their surroundings, why people get insomniac after constant mental stress, why restless people are always in the mode of action and fight, why reclusive people hesitate to visit foreign, unknown places.    

Your Surroundings and Mindset Matter!

Figure 2 : Three levels of vulnerability, here optimal threshold and probability of event can be correlated for difference in the anxiety responses (Credit: Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach, 2011, Bateson et al., Canadian Journal of Psychiatry)

It is really interesting what the authors have achieved and established in this research. They compared three different levels of vulnerability and explained them using given plot.  The thing to highlight here for anxiety disorders is that they emerge from the environments which always keep on presenting high probabilistic practically threatening scenarios. The anxiety disorders also emerge when the individual feels more vulnerable.

Higher the vulnerability lower will be the optimal threshold and intense will be the anxiety response.

As shown in research, in the uncertain times of Covid-19 people who were locked in their home had no disorders, were not exposed to the virus also felt anxious and faced some anxiety disorders because of the environment they were in.

If the person feels less vulnerable and stronger then even for given strong life-threatening events the optimal threshold will be higher thus the anxiety triggered will be lower.

Are you noticing where this is going?

This is a mathematical model which shows how a healthy, supportive, and safe environment and also a strong mindset and better judgment of reality is important for handling challenging situations.

For a person suffering from anxiety disorder, it becomes very important to make sure that they know that they are in a safer environment and are cared for. It is very important to make them feel safe and understood. Creating a system of critical thinking and reasoning can also help the person to have a sense of strength and high resistance to vulnerability, this also goes for physical strength. The vulnerability is not only mental it is also physical when it comes to reality.

You will now appreciate why teenagers and trauma patients are more exposed to anxiety disorders. Mostly and generally in teenagers it is due to the uncertainty of many new things happening with them simultaneously and in trauma patients it’s the constant bombardment of life-threatening events in hostile environments.

Conclusion

Anxiety serves to prepare a person for threats. The emotion called anxiety is an evolutionary gift to ensure long survival of our species but as it is also related to our primitive instincts, we mostly let anxiety overpower other emotions in seemingly safer scenarios. Strategy and anticipation are the gifts of anxiety but if overused they will end up in imparting unnecessary caution and overprotective attitude which inhibits adaptation to changes there by slowing evolution of our species. Anxiety just like pain is one uncomfortable but effective way to cope up with the adversities in life, that’s how we build strength, resistance and deeper understanding of the surrounding for better and more precisely predictable future.   

The remarkable concepts like smoke detector principal and optimal threshold in signal detection theory developed by modern psychologists/ psychiatrists help us to draw a line between a healthy anxiety (adaptive function) and unhealthy anxiety (pathology) and ways to handle/ treat them effectively.      

These theories show how we can quantify seemingly intangible emotions like anxiety and way to handle them. If you can measure something effectively you can control and predict it effectively. All credit goes to such brilliant minds!

References, Image sources and further reading:

  1. Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all?, 2016, R. Nicholas Carleton, Journal of Anxiety Disorders
  2. Natural selection and the regulation of defenses: A signal detection analysis of the smoke detector principle, 2005, Randolph M. Nesse,Evolution and Human Behavior
  3. Natural Selection and the Regulation of Defensive Responses, ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Randolph M. Nesse
  4. Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach, 2011, Bateson et al., Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
  5. The relationship between perceived stress and emotional distress during the COVID-19 outbreak: Effects of boredom proneness and coping style, 2021, Yan et al., Journal of Anxiety Disorders
  6. Long-term effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for youth with anxiety disorders, 2018, Kodal et al., Journal of Anxiety Disorders
  7. Anxiety, National Library of Medicine, www.medlineplus.gov
  8. Anxiety Disorders, National Institute of Mental Health
  9. What are Anxiety Disorders?, American Psychiatric Association
  10. Anxiety – Wikipedia
  11. Randolph M. Nesse, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan
  12. Everything You Need to Know About Anxiety – www.healthline.com

Hometown by French 79 – The song of evolving patterns penetrating through chaos

Patterns and their awareness are one integral part of our daily activities and are deeply rooted in our personality too. Most of the time their influence goes unnoticed. What could be a better example than a good song to highlight the significance of patterns in our life. This is about a special song which may highlight the significance of creating new patterns in every instance of life that we live. This is about a song which embodies the patterns and evolution in them to create meaningful life out of chaos around us.

Music – magic of patterns

Some songs are such a work of art that you don’t want others to discover that treasure for the feelings it creates within you.

They say music is the last magic left in this world. It transcends the boundaries of language, religion, nationality, wealth, cultures and what not. Music, technically speaking is nothing but a harmonious, a systematic pattern of vibrations leading to the formation of difference in the density of the medium like air when sensed by our ear invokes some emotions. In this whole mechanical definition of music there is a part called “emotions” which actually becomes the bridge between the physical world (that can be sensed using our sense) and our mind (which is just there and cannot be sensed by our physical senses). Thus, it is safe to say that music lies as a bridge in a grey area between physical and non-physical (some call it spiritual) world.

The most important thing about “your” favorite music is that “hook” which recalls specific emotions in your mind. Even though the lyrics is also one important aspect of a good music that does not mean that it is everything. Every one of us can list down their favorite music which doesn’t contain any lyrics. In whole and sole, it is this hook or a specific repeating line in a song which connects you to that song and then you have this urge to explore the whole song thereby that becoming your “favorite song”.

I think our association with music has a deep-rooted link with who we are as living things (It is also present in non-living things but as there is no person alive to tell how it feels after death, we will limit our discussion to living beings only!) The only reason we can deeply associate music with living things especially with humans is due to the response generated to this stimulus. We already know that animals, plants and even insects react to music but the changes it can create through human beings are more intense and significant. (It can be loosely explained by the crowd control music in Trance Concerts, Instagram reels music trends)

Today we will discuss a song which can possibly point out what is “that” thing that we actually love about a music or any song. The music and lyrics both possibly point out to the same thing which we will discuss here.

Hometown by French 79

Hometown by French 79

Hometown by French 79 – The lyrics

Every time the lights are turning blue
Then I tried to close my eyes to see my hometown
I don’t wanna change my life
Flying to the back in time
I feel like a child Wearing his golden crown
I don’t need a purified mind

“Hometown” lyrics by Simon Henner (French 79)

Looks like the songwriter- the poet from hereon has a feeling of unhappiness. Whenever he feels sad, he tries to recall the memories from his hometown. Here, hometown in broader sense are his childhood memories, the feeling of nostalgia, the feeling of familiarity. The happiness he gets from these feeling is due to a sense of familiarity.

The poet doesn’t want be become child again but he loves those memories of his childhood. That is what he expresses in the next lines. The poet here, is aware of the reality he lives in. He just wants to make sense of the chaos around him. There is no such pivot from which he can make sense of the things around him right now. That is why the feeling of sadness have kicked in due to the unfamiliar – hostile conditions. The feeling of a child with a golden crown is the feeling of a king who has control over everything. This exactly depicts how things explode in proportions when we transition from our childhood to adulthood, this explosion of everything seeming “simple” in our childhood brings in extra dimensions which are beyond comprehension. This is the reason why adulthood and every new experience thereafter feels more chaotic and unsettling. Maybe this is also the reason why our childhood memories are so precious to us. The childhood is full of innocent and simple feelings which have this sense of predictability, controllability. Important to understand here is that our poet doesn’t want that purified mind, that innocent child from his childhood. This shows his maturity towards the unsettling feelings due to chaos around him. He wants to use the pivot of familiarity of feelings from his childhood to tackle the unsettlement of his mind at this instance. He is searching for a comfort, a familiarity, a pattern in this chaos.    

The future and the past are really confusing
But I keep my feet on the ground to keep trying
I don’t wanna change my life
Flying to the back in time
I feel like a child Wearing his golden crown
I don’t need a purified mind

“Hometown” lyrics by Simon Henner (French 79)

Our poet can be attributed to an adult or an old age person who is unsure about how to handle sad feelings, the unknown situations, the discomfort they bring. The past experiences are not that helpful to make sense of the new challenge he is facing. If the past would be that helpful then the situation would have been already made sense to him and could have been solved already which is not the case; hence it is already confusing to him. If it is not solved properly then the poet also has a worry for his future because of the more unpredictability, more things going out of hands. In short, he is stuck between indecision leading to not acting on things. The next most important thing the poet is thinking is attitude to keep on trying while remaining on the ground. Our poet wants to make sense out of the unsettling chaos by some practical understanding of reality. In simple words, the poet is thinking of not getting overwhelmed by the indecision – analysis paralysis and taking control on things by realistically acting on things in his life. This is his wish to evolve through this chaos while keeping the child in him alive with the wisdom of an adult. What a thought! This is his urge to evolve in the new chaos presented to him.     

The music and the video

The music is the most influential part of the song “Hometown”. Blessed by the talent and legacy of French Electronic music, the song stands out for the evolving pattern – loop of synth which goes on and on throughout the song. The creator of the song is Simon Henner named here as “French 79” (Simon was born in 1979) creates an addictive hook which goes on evolving as the song progresses. The best and the smart thing about the song is that it really resonates with the idea of breaking out of the comforts of repeating patterns to make sense of the new challenges in life, to create new patterns and evolve ahead.

French 79 – Simon Henner

The video is also very interesting and quite open ended which depicts stories of people from different stages, phases in life who come out of the comforts to evolve. You will see that everyone in this story discovers a pattern in a characteristic way in their lives which inspires them to come out of their current situation, chaos and create new evolved pattern, new sense to the surrounding around them just like the lyrics and the music of the song. You will find every character transitioning from the state of rest, comfort, familiarity to the state of acting on things for actually creating something new and rediscovering themselves to a newer version of themselves.   

Simply put, Hometown is the song of our evolution especially our emotional evolution

The patterns and humans

We as human beings and also animals thereby love patterns. Our favorite songs, the Instagram reels songs, the famous dialogues in the movies, the pop culture references, those callbacks in the web series, TV Series, the childhood nostalgia, our close friend circle, our family, our favorite office colleagues, our favorite memories and what not – all these things are prime examples of how much we are obsessed with the patterns in our lives. An important thing to understand about our love to these hooks, these repetitions, these patterns is the feeling of familiarity, feeling of predictability that settles our mind to an environment of known variables. It is also important to understand that a when a pattern gets continuously registered in our brain our brain automates it to save its energy. (that’s how habits are formed) The situation becomes challenging when something out of these patterns emerges; that is where we feel chaotic about our environment, we have no pivot to make sense of the things. That is our moment of evolution, that is where we would also evolve our preexisting patterns.

[Or maybe this is just a song about how the poet loved his childhood in his hometown and the memories which now console him while tackling his adulthood problems]

Image reference:

  1. Featured image – Penrose Tiling from Wikimedia