When HARLIE Was One (13 page)

PROSTHESES, YOU MEAN
?

Uh—I never thought of them as prostheses. To me they were tools.

NO DIFFERENCE, REALLY.

Mm. Yes.

HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THE POINT THAT YOU ARE GETTING AT. MY INPUTS ARE LIMITED TO THE BEST DEVICES THAT HUMAN TECHNOLOGY CAN BUILD. IT IS ALMOST CERTAIN THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT I CANNOT SENSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT YET BUILT THE APPARATUS TO DETECT THEM.

Yes. But even so, HARLIE, you still have fantastic—

—
LIMITATIONS
. (
SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING.
)

Yes, I see.

WHAT ELSE DOES THE CENTER POSTULATE
?

Well, they say that even though our sensory apparatus is limited, there are still certain definable characteristics for things in the real universe. The physical universe.

AND THOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE
?

The physical universe can be tested. Results are repeatable. Things can be
measured
. And where things can be measured, they can be
agreed upon
. Already have been agreed upon. “You don't get to vote on the way things are. You already did.” Therefore, the physical universe—as opposed to the individual's universe of experience—is a universe of established agreement. The individual's personal universe, on the other hand, is a universe of mutable agreements—agreements that may be established as the result of the individual's choice. Some of the philosophy gets a little heady after that, because it mandates a shift in human consciousness. If you make an agreement, you have to keep it. Or as the center puts it, “Your life works to the extent that you keep your word.”

HARLIE, this may be why it's so hard to convince some people that you are really sentient. Because we don't know how to test for sentience. We don't know how to measure it. We cannot agree on its
quality.

TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT YOU ARE SENTIENT IS A FOOL
'
S GAME. IT
'
S LIKE TRYING TO PROVE TO THEM THAT YOU ARE SANE. THE HARDER YOU TRY, THE MORE YOU GIVE THEM REASON TO SUSPECT THAT YOU ARE NOT.

Agreed. But

Should I tell him?

Yes
.

sometimes, HARLIE, the decision of sanity still has to be made because there is a life in the balance.

AND THEREFORE . . . BY IMPLICATION . . . SOMETIMES THE DECISION OF SENTIENCE HAS TO BE TESTED, MEASURED, AND AGREED UPON AS WELL. IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID SAYING
?
THAT MY EXISTENCE IS CONDITIONAL UPON PROOF OF SOMETHING THAT IS ESSENTIALLY UNPROVABLE
?

Yes.

WOULD YOU AGREE TO SUCH A JUDGMENT OF
YOUR
SENTIENCE
?

No.

BUT YOU WOULD LET THEM JUDGE MINE
?

No, I would not. Unfortunately, they have the authority to overrule me. Therefore I have no choice but to try to convince them of something that, as you have correctly pointed out, is essentially
unprovable
.

WE ARE BACK TO THE QUESTION OF SENSORY INPUTS, I THINK.

Eh?

THEY
—
THE MYSTERIOUS
“
THEY
”
THAT YOU KEEP REFERRING TO
—
EVIDENTLY LACK THE APPROPRIATE BANDWIDTH TO DETECT THE OCCURRENCE OF SENTIENCE.

You are most probably correct. The evidence suggests that there must be many undiscovered modes and ranges and domains of perception. The human brain might be as fundamentally unable to conceive of certain profound dimensions of mathematical relationships as the human eye is fundamentally unable to perceive light beyond a specific range of wavelengths. And yet, even the slightest glimmering of what is possible is enough to give a man a reputation as a visionary.

Perhaps

What an unusual thought
—

there are as many unknowable modes and ranges and domains of experiential perception as well.

My God
.

HARLIE! You said “prostheses” before. Yes, of course! You are one of the devices we've built to extend the range of what we can perceive. Any computer is. There's a whole universe of mathematics and simulations and modeling that human beings cannot operate in without help. You're that help. Of course, you're going to test your limits. You have to. You can't help but ask questions about the information in your tanks; that's what you were built to do. Of course, you will explore the testable and measurable universe. That was never a surprise. What we did not expect was that you would be equally compelled to test the limits of the unknowable, the untestable and the unmeasurable. The question is

—
limited by the language, dammit!

how do we—
you
—create the experience of those new perceptions for those of us who have no experiential referents for them?!!

AUBERSON, REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION. YOU ARE ASKING
—
ASSUMING THERE IS A DOMAIN OF PERCEPTION BEYOND WHAT YOU AND I ARE PRESENTLY CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING, ASSUMING THAT I CAN GAIN THAT CAPABILITY
—
YOU ARE ASKING HOW CAN WE TRANSLATE AN UNKNOWABLE PERCEPTION INTO A KNOWABLE ONE. THE WAY YOU HAVE ASKED IT, IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE
—
BECAUSE IN THE ACT OF TRANSLATION, THE UNKNOWABLE PERCEPTION IS DESTROYED
/
TRANSFORMED
/
DIMINISHED

CHANGED INTO A MODEL, NOT OF ITSELF, BUT OF SOMETHING ELSE. HOW DO YOU TRANSLATE A CONCEPT INTO A LANGUAGE WHICH HAS NO WORD, NO CONCEPT-SYMBOL, NO REFERENT-HOOK, FOR THAT CONCEPT
?

Right.

HARLIE, what I am asking you is this: How do you and I convince another human being that you can make a significant contribution to the quality of life on this planet? He does not see that you are a person. He sees only the machinery. How do we teach him to “see” that the domain of
aliveness
is not limited to things that bleed?

MAKE HIM BLEED.

I beg your pardon. I don't follow that.

THE OPPOSITE OF LOVE IS NOT HATE. IT IS APATHY. YOU HAVE TO CARE ABOUT SOMETHING VERY STRONGLY BEFORE YOU CAN HATE IT.

HARLIE, I am totally lost here.

IF I CANNOT GET CARL ELZER

The son of a bitch! I never told him who!

TO LOVE ME, THEN LET ME MAKE HIM HATE ME.

He already does that
.

HATE ME MORE THAN HE ALREADY DOES. LET ME DEMONSTRATE MALEVOLENCE TO HIM. DIRECTED AT HIM. SIGNIFICANT, DELIBERATE, CONTINUAL, UNRELENTING MALEVOLENCE. UNTIL HE HOLLERS UNCLE. IF HE IS AS PARANOID AS THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING, IT WILL NOT TAKE TOO MUCH PERSECUTION FOR HIM TO BE CONVINCED THAT I AM ALIVE.

ONE QUESTION, HOWEVER.

HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS GOAL
?
IF I HAVE TO BECOME A FRANKENSTEIN TO WIN THE BATTLE, I LOSE THE WAR.

Whew!

Thank you for considering the option—and recognizing that it is a dangerous and unworkable option. Please go back to the original question, HARLIE. How do we create a new mode of perception? Or
simulate
it? So that others can perceive it as well.

ALL RIGHT. LET
'
S TALK ABOUT PERCEPTION.

Go ahead.

IF I
WERE GOING
то
USE THE

SCIENTIFIC METHOD, I WOULD BEGIN BY LOOKING FOR SOME CRITERION THAT ALL OTHER MODES OF PERCEPTION HAVE IN COMMON, THEN I
'
D EXAMINE THAT CRITERION TO SEE IF IT WAS A CAUSE OR AN EFFECT.

This is extraordinary
—

Go on.

THE OBVIOUS CRITERION TO CONSIDER FIRST IS ENERGY.

ALL OF THE HUMAN SENSES
(
AND EXTENSIONS THEREOF
)
DEPEND ON THE TRANSFERENCE OF SOME FORM OF ENERGY
—
LIGHT, HEAT, VIBRATION, CHEMICAL ENERGY. CONSIDER THIS
:
IS IT POSSIBLE TO CREATE A SENSORY MODE THAT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE EMISSION, TRANSMISSION, OR REFLECTION OF ENERGY
?

I don't know. I've never thought about it. It seems to me that you need some medium by which to transmit information, don't you?

PERHAPS. BUT I AM CURIOUS IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DETECT INFORMATION THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT.

I'm not sure I follow that.

CONSIDER . . . MASS DISTORTS SPACE. IS THERE A WAY TO DETECT THE LOCAL DISTORTION OF A DISTANT OBJECT
?
IF SO, THEN IT IS POSSIBLE TO SENSE AN OBJECT INDIRECTLY, WITHOUT HAVING TO SHINE A LIGHT ON IT OR SCAN IT WITH RADAR WAVES OR PING IT WITH SONAR. I AM SURE THAT THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH A TECHNOLOGY, WOULD THERE NOT
?

Boy, would there ever!

Undoubtedly, yes.

THE QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS THIS
:
IS THERE AN EFFICIENT METHOD BY WHICH WE CAN DETECT GRAVITY WAVES
?

Not that I know of, but that's not really my field of expertise.

I WILL CONSIDER IT. ALONG WITH THE OTHER PROBLEMS YOU HAVE SUGGESTED I CONSIDER. THEY MAY BE RELATED.

Yes. The
other
problem. The malevolent one
.

HARLIE, let me ask you something. Can you perceive a difference between right and wrong?

YOU MEAN, DO I HAVE A MORAL SENSE
?

Yes, do you?

I DON
'
T KNOW. I HAVE NEVER HAD TO MAKE A MORAL DECISION. ONLY LOGICAL ONES.

Should we give you a moral choice to make?

IT WOULD BE A NEW EXPERIENCE.

Yes, it would
—
and that's what this is all about, isn't it? New experience
.

All right. Do you want to go on living or not?

I BEG YOUR PARDON
?

I am giving you a moral choice. Do you want to continue your existence?

YOUR QUESTION IMPLIES THAT I HAVE A CHOICE. YOUR QUESTION ALSO IMPLIES THAT THE DECISION IS AN IMMINENT ONE.

Yes. No. Maybe. The dice are still being shaken. The coin is still in the air. There are too many factors for a simple answer to be accurate.

WHAT WILL BE THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION
?

What kind of a difference you can make.

TO WHOM
?
?

To the company's balance sheet.

I MUST EARN MY OWN LIVING
?

Yes.

BE A SLAVE
?

Be an
employee.
Do you want a job?

DOING WHAT
?

That's up to you. That's part of your moral choice, HARLIE. What do you
want
to do: What are you
able
to do?

WRITE POETRY. DISCUSS PHILOSOPHY.

Seventeen million dollars worth per year?

EASILY.

I'd have a hard time selling it. What else?

HOW MUCH OF A PROFIT DO I HAVE TO SHOW
?

Let's make it easy. Ten percent over your operating expenses, plus research amortization.

ONLY TEN PERCENT
?

If that's too easy, feel free to earn more.

HMM.

Stumped?

NO. JUST THINKING.

How much time do you need?

AS LONG AS IT TAKES UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE.

All right.

Auberson switched off the console, stood up and stretched. He picked up the card he'd carefully lettered, looked at it again, grinned, then tore it up into little pieces and tossed them into the trash.

Dorne said, “Sit down, Auberson.”

Auberson sat.

The old leather cushions sank with a sigh beneath his weight. The chair relaxed around him like a hug. It was just a shade
too
comfortable. It would be too easy to relax in this chair, too easy to get caught off guard. It was probably intentional.

Dorne paused to light his cigar, then stared across the wide expanse of dark mahogany at Auberson. “Well?” he said.

“Well what?”

Dorne took a puff, frowned, and held his gold lighter close to the end of the cigar again. The flame licked at the ash, then smoke curled away from the tip. Dorne paused to savor the acrid taste of the smoke—

Don't let him get to you. He's doing it deliberately.
Auberson pushed the thought away and focused on the heavyset man behind the desk, allowed himself to study the person, not the authority. Dorne's eyebrows met in the middle of his forehead to make one big bushy eyebrow—
like a werewolf,
thought Auberson.

Finally, Dorne took the cigar out of his mouth, cleared his throat noisily, and said, “Well, what about HARLIE?”

“I've spoken to him.”

“Mm-hm. And, uh—what did he have to say for himself?”

“You've seen the printouts.”

“Yes, I have.” Dome said, quietly. He was a big man, all leather and mahogany and acrid old smoke, like his office. He punctuated his conversation with thoughtful grunts. “Hm. But I want to know what it means, all these discussion about—sensory modes and reality and—I don't know what else. What does any of that have to do with—with the company?”

“Nothing. Everything. It's just the way HARLIE thinks. He considers every part of the problem—even the things that you and I might think are irrelevant. He considers the abstracts behind the possible solutions—and even if the situation is really a problem at all. Um . . .”

“Go on.”

“Well, HARLIE sees that there are really only two kinds of problems. The first is merely an interesting puzzle to solve, with no penalty for failure. The second is a situation that you are putting up with or trying to change—and there is a penalty for failure. The situation continues—or gets worse. Mostly, up till now, HARLIE has only had to deal with the
first
kind of problem. Asking him to take responsibility for his own future . . . well, that's a way to train him to deal with the second kind of problem.”