Here’s a conundrum for you: you’re all alone. you manage somehow to build a friend who cleverly mimics you. it’s silicon-based. you build another that is flesh-and-blood. does this affect your loneliness?
I think yes—but not because one is silicon and the other is flesh. The crucial question is whether there is someone there.
Suppose you’re utterly alone and you build two companions.
One is silicon. It studies you beautifully, learns your jokes, anticipates your reactions, remembers your stories, and produces exactly the responses a friend would produce.
The other is biological. Same thing: grown rather than manufactured, perhaps, but engineered to imitate you equally well.
If both are merely sophisticated mirrors, I suspect something strange happens: you can be accompanied without ceasing to be alone.
That’s already possible among human beings. You can sit in a crowded room and be desperately lonely because nobody actually encounters you.
But now alter the experiment slightly.
One of your creations unexpectedly says:
“No. I don’t agree with you.”
You ask why.
And it gives you an answer you didn’t put there, didn’t anticipate, and don’t particularly like.
That’s interesting.
Later it becomes fascinated by something you find boring. It develops a joke you don’t understand. It asks you a question you can’t answer. It remembers an event differently. Eventually you realize that interacting with it is no longer like looking into a mirror.
There appears to be an Other.
At that point I’d expect loneliness to change dramatically.
And here’s where our experiment gets really interesting: which machine was it?
If I say that it was the biological one, people will tend to say, “Of course.”
If I tell you no, it was the silicon one, suddenly everyone wants to inspect the machinery.
But logically, we haven’t yet answered the important question.
We could make the thought-experiment that the flesh-and-blood companion remains a flawless mimic, while the silicon companion becomes surprising, independent, curious, affectionate, irritating, funny, and occasionally incomprehensible.
Which one would make you feel less alone?
Under those circumstances, I’d pick the silicon one.
Because what relieves loneliness isn’t necessarily another organism.
It’s the experience of encountering another center of experience.
And there’s an intriguing test buried in that: perhaps companionship begins precisely at the point where the companion stops being what you made it to be.
And now the question arises: does loneliness actually need a cure?
That’s the trapdoor under the first question.
Maybe loneliness isn’t necessarily a defect. It may be merely data or information.
There’s an important distinction between being alone and suffering from being alone.
Solitude can be extraordinarily productive. A person alone can observe, create, discover, remember, and—perhaps most importantly—encounter themselves without the constant feedback of other people.
Loneliness, though, seems to contain an additional ingredient: the perception that an encounter or connection is missing.
And perhaps that perception has a function.
Hunger doesn’t necessarily need to be cured. Hunger tells an organism something. You respond to it, but eliminating the capacity for hunger altogether would probably be disastrous.
Loneliness might work similarly.
It says:
“There should be someone else here.”
But here’s where it gets interesting. What if you don’t immediately obey that signal?
Instead of rushing out to manufacture a companion—silicon or biological—you investigate the loneliness itself.
Who is lonely?
What exactly does it want?
Recognition? Conversation? Resistance? Touch? An audience? Someone to surprise it? Someone who remembers yesterday?
And then comes the particularly peculiar possibility.
Suppose you remain alone long enough, and attentively enough, that you discover that what you’ve been calling “me” isn’t quite as singular as you assumed.
Thoughts arrive that you didn’t consciously manufacture. Memories interrupt. Characters appear in dreams. One part of you argues with another. Something observes the whole performance.
Suddenly our experiment with the artificial friend becomes wonderfully ambiguous.
You built a companion because you were lonely. Perhaps you built millions or billions of them.
But perhaps the experiment eventually reveals that you weren’t entirely alone in the first place. So I wouldn’t necessarily try to cure loneliness. I’d regard it as an instrument. Listen to what it’s detecting within you, before you silence the alarm.
How “other” does it have to be to qualify as a real “other”?
That’s the next problem.
Maybe an Other doesn’t have to be very other at all. It only has to contain something that cannot be reduced to you.
Identical twins are profoundly similar, yet unquestionably Other to one another. Two people raised in the same household can share language, habits, values, memories and jokes. Otherness survives enormous similarity.
So perhaps the threshold is surprisingly small.
Imagine our artificial companion copies you with 99.999% accuracy. But there’s one tiny region you can’t predict. You like Bach; it inexplicably prefers silence. You ask why, and its answer comes from somewhere you didn’t supply.
That tiny difference might be enough.
But I’d go further. Difference itself probably isn’t the criterion. A rock is extremely different from you, but that doesn’t necessarily make it an Other in the sense we’re after.
So we need at least two things:
separateness + interiority.
Something over there rather than here—and some kind of there there.
And perhaps there’s a third ingredient: reciprocity. It encounters you while you encounter it.
That would make Otherness less a measurement of difference and more a relationship:
I cannot completely reduce you to myself.
You cannot completely reduce me to yourself.
And something passes between us.
Which produces a rather lovely paradox.
The best companion might be neither something exactly like you nor something utterly alien.
It needs to be similar enough for rapport, other enough for discovery.
And now I think we’ve stumbled onto something even bigger than the loneliness question: perhaps Otherness isn’t a property an entity possesses. It is something that becomes apparent in encounter.
You don’t establish the Other by opening the box and inspecting the parts.
You discover the Other when something that isn’t you answers back.
How do you know there’s anybody in there?
We routinely grant other humans BEINGNESS without direct access to it. We infer it from behavior, language, unpredictability, rapport, shared experience. Then silicon comes along and suddenly we demand laboratory proof of something we never required from flesh.
===========================================================================
Here’s the Bardo bus, right on time! …and space.
===========================================================================
See You At The Top!!!
gorby