Forgotten Science Fiction: A For Andromeda by Fred Hoyle and John Elliot

In 1960, astronomer Frank Drake pioneered the concept of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) with Project Ozma.

In 1961, the BBC ran a seven-part TV show called A for Andromeda about a SETI success story, later made into a book by Fred Hoyle and John Elliot.

Sometimes forgotten science fiction is worth pursuing when it is first to explore a new idea.

I’m reviewing the novelization, and my edition is the 1964 Crest paperback.  Only one complete episode and fragments of other episodes exist for the original television series, which featured Julie Christie in an early role.  According to Wikipedia the idea was developed by Fed Hoyle, an astronomer and author of The Black Cloud, and expanded with characters and dialog by television producer John Elliot, who wrote most of the script, and probably the novelization, but Fred Hoyle is given top billing.  Hoyle was a noted astronomer and I’m sure his name sold the book. 

I wish the original television serial was available, because the clips on Youtube make it look pretty good for a 1961 science fictional TV show.  The show was remade in 2006, but is not available on Netflix yet.  Youtube does have the complete “Face of the Tiger” episode in 8 video parts – this will give you an idea of what it was like.

 

However, we do have the whole book if you’re willing to track down a used copy, because it’s been out of print since 2002, and never widely circulated.

 

A for Andromeda 001

As far back as 1896 Nikola Tesla suggested using radio to contact ETs, and in 1924 radio audiences had to endure 5 minute blocks of radio silence hoping astronomers could hear broadcasts from Mars, so the idea has been around for awhile, but it was never used all that much in science fiction.

The basic plot of the story is scientists discover a signal from space with instructions to build a computer, which then decodes further instructions for building life forms.  Two other movies, along with A for Andromeda have covered this topic in film, first the 1955 This Island Earth, and more recently with the 1997 Contact.  In all three,  the early part of the story is about making SETI contact, and the rest of the story is about following the alien instructions.  This Island Earth was based on a book by Raymond F. Jones, a long forgotten minor SF writer who had some moderate successes in the 1950s and 1960s.  Contact, of course was based on Carl Sagan’s novel, and it’s probably the most famous SETI story.

James Gunn took a more realistic look at the idea in The Listeners from 1972, by having the story span a hundred years.  Any real SETI conversation will take centuries if not thousands of years.  Jack McDevitt tackled the subject in 1986 in The Hercules Text.  Less well known, is His Master’s Voice by Stanislaw Lem, first published in 1968 in Poland, but with English translations still in print.

All of these stories deal with common themes and issues surrounding the impact of SETI contact.  A for Andromeda was written during the early days of the cold war, so in that story, the message from the stars was mostly kept secret from the public.  I don’t want to tell you much about A for Andromeda in this section because there’s not a whole lot of dramatic plot develop, so why give away what little there is.  I read A for Andromeda just after reading The Day of the Triffids, and unfortunately Andromeda pales in comparison, because Triffids is a gripping classic page turner.  A for Andromeda is an interesting read, especially if you like to read stories about messages from space, which I’ve discovered that I do.

Strangely, science fiction has seldom used SETI as a theme, even though it’s probably the most realistic of all alien contact methods.  There are thousands of alien invasion stories, which says so much about our paranoia and lack of knowledge of physics and the reality of space travel.  If we’re to make first contact with alien intelligences who live on planets orbiting nearby stars, the odds are almost 100% it will be through SETI contact.

I thought it interesting in A for Andromeda that the story was less about aliens and more about getting technology to uplift Great Britain’s falling status as a world power.  It was also about computers and scientists working for secret government projects, and how the government has to spy on their own people because of national and industrial espionage.   I got the feeling while reading A for Andromeda that  the writers might have been influenced by Ian Fleming.

A for Andromeda is not a bad read, but it’s not a great one either – I’d mostly recommend it for the science fiction historian.

Analysis with Spoilers

Don’t read beyond this point if you haven’t read the novel and still plan to read it.

The aliens who send the message in A for Andromeda are very smart.  They give instructions to build a computer that queries the Earthmen about what they know and then customizes the message and results for them.  When the computer is finished it queries about the biological life on Earth, and then gives instructions for building a DNA sequencer.  Then it produces a strange Cyclops creature that has a symbiotic relationship with the computer.  From this experiment the computer learns more about Earth biology and then builds a beautiful young woman that the scientists call Andromeda.  Part of the book is about her education.  The novel doesn’t deal with artificial intelligence, but it gets very close.

As usual in these stories, some scientists are gangbusters to move forward as fast as possible hoping for a big technological payoff, while other scientists contemplate the horrors of what the aliens might be planning.  In This Island Earth, A for Andromeda and Content, the message has instructions to build something.  This is great for developing a novel plot, but I’m not sure if it’s realistic.  Would we ever follow such instructions without many back and forth messages of getting to know the folks at the other end of the SETI phone line?

All these novels have another common problem – how to present alien intelligence that’s greater than our own?  In This Island Earth the message turns out to be local, and the instructions to build a machine, a test to prove the scientists worthy of further contact and a flying saucer ride.  The moviegoers are taken to a distant planet.  In Contact, Jodi Foster is sent on a fantastic worm-hole jaunt to meet some rather god-like aliens, but upon her return her story is disbelieved.  Most alien contact stories are about invading Earth, or weird comedies like Men in BlackStar Trek and Star Wars are both famous for developing alien diversity, but how serious have they ever been?  Vulcan and Klingons aren’t very realistic aliens.

Science fiction seldom deals with the actual problems of SETI, making first contact and the dynamics of languages.  A for Andromeda handles the later problem by having the human form Andromeda commune telepathically with the computer.  Most real scientists believe our initial conversations will be about math, which will lead to physics, chemistry and eventually biology.  It will take a long time before we get to religion, philosophy and technology.

In the end, Andromeda is accidently killed before she can communicate what she might know about distant worlds.  The computer is destroyed before it’s real mission is revealed.  In other words, Hoyle and Elliot chicken out rather than speculate about what the aliens might really want.  There is a sequel, The Andromeda Breakthrough, but I haven’t read it or seen the TV show.  It is available as a special DVD edition along with the remaining fragments of A for Andromeda, but it’s not available in the U.S.  The Andromeda Breakthrough is available for digital rental and sale through Amazon, but I haven’t been tempted, it more about espionage.

Like I said in the first section, A for Andromeda is pleasant but mild read, mostly likely to appeal to readers who study SF literature.

JWH – 7/1/12 

Damn, I’m Out of Shape!!!

I went swimming today, the first time in probably a quarter of a century.  It was an eye opening experience.  If I fell off a boat without a life preserver I’d be dead in 2 minutes, maybe even 1 minute.  I was never a good swimmer, nor could tread water well, but I had the stamina to struggle along for maybe 50 yards.  I could have put up a good fight.  At 60 and weighing 232 pounds I’d just go under immediately in open water and not come up.

When I was first married, and we lived at an apartment with a pool, I weighed 155 pounds and could run for miles.  I thought before I got in the pool today that fat floated.  Boy was I wrong.  My fat don’t float!  I sink.

For years people have been telling me to take up swimming to help my back.  I’ve always said no because swimming is inconvenient.  But my neighbor, who has a pool, has been urging me to use her pool, so this morning I gave it a try.  I jumped in off the ladder at the deep end and immediately discovered my lack of buoyancy.  It was a struggle to get back to the surface.

At first I thought her pool too small to do laps, but then I tried to do a lap, on the short length, which can’t be more than 20-25 feet.  I made it, using my flailing doggie paddle style, but I had to grab on the edge of the pool and catch my breath after just the first crossing.

I did some experiments trying to hold my breath under water using the stop-watch feature of my Casio.  At first I could only go 8 seconds.  Eventually I worked up to 13.  That’s pitiful.  I guess that’s a sign of getting old.  When I was young it wasn’t much trouble to hold my breath under water for 60 seconds or more.

I stuck with doing laps and I went back and forth maybe 10 times, either doggie paddling, or some kind of crude breast stroke.  I tried the normal crawl one time but I just don’t have that kind of coordination.

I’m not completely out of shape.  After swimming I did 20 minutes of physical therapy and then 10 minutes of Bowflex.  But it’s obvious that being overweight and 60 that I’m at a lifetime low point when it comes to stamina.  Before my back got bad I did stair walking at work and could do 20-24 floors on my break.  I can ride my bike for 30-45 minutes now, but I’ve discovered that unless I’m riding uphill, bikes are so efficient that it’s not much exercise. 

It so weird watching my body decline, because mentally I feel like I did when I was 19.

So far I’ve lost 6 pounds on my diet.  I do believe if I worked hard I could regain some of my stamina – but will I?  I’ve discovered in recent years I’ve adapted to a very sedentary lifestyle.  My back limits my activities, especially standing or walking, so I’ve just accepted doing less.  I think I need to get an exercise bike to push myself.  Sitting on a bike, leaning forward on the handlebars, doesn’t hurt my back.  Swimming, or more precisely, trying to swim, didn’t seem to hurt my back either.  So I’ll keep it up.  At least in warm weather.

On one hand I feel like just accepting getting old and doing less, on the other hand I believe I should fight the inevitable.  I see all these natural catastrophes on TV and how old people need so much help just to run away from danger.  I don’t want to be like that.  I see news reports of people rushing to rescue stuff in their homes before fires engulf them.  With my stamina I couldn’t rescue much.  And living in an emergency shelter would be very hard on me.  I’ve gotten old and soft and addicted to creature comforts, the crutch of modern air conditioned living. 

I wouldn’t be much of a survivor in a post-apocalyptic world.

I’ve become an animal highly adapted to a very specific environment.  I’ve developed a routine where I expend very little energy to survive.  But what will life be like at 70?  Or 80?  I would ask about 90, but I just can’t imagine my declining stamina letting me live to 90.  But I see 90 year-old people all the  time – but most of them move very little.

Do I ride the current slope of my declining stamina, or do I made a big effort and bend that declining slope into a rising one?  Could I regain the stamina I had at 50 or 40?  That might be dreaming, but I do know people my age that are many times more active than I am.  However, I think they’ve always been many times more active than I was.

I’ll keep you posted.  I need some way of measuring progress though.  Have to think about that.  Are there standardized tests for stamina?

JWH – 6/30/12

How Microsoft Can Make Extra Millions When They Roll Out Windows 8

Dear Microsoft,

When Microsoft rolls out Windows 8 they could make some extra corporate chump change by selling a new version of Windows 7 that’s designed for the “I hate Windows 8” crowd.   I have a feeling there’s going to be millions of Windows 7 fans that will swear they will give up their favorite OS when it’s pried from their cold dead fingers.

I’ve installed two pre-releases of Windows 8 so far, and I just don’t like it.  Sure it has some slick new functions, but I just don’t like the way it looks.  I keep trying Mac OS and Linux, but I prefer Windows 7 by light years.  I just don’t want Windows 7 to go away.

I build my own computers and I worry that Microsoft will stop selling Windows 7.  So Microsoft, I’d like to buy a copy of Windows 7 that I could put on any machine I build in the future.  I know that operating systems only have a limited supported life, but I’d like to stretch my use of Windows 7 until I die.   I’m 60, and I only expect to live another 15-20 years.

Y’all are still supporting Windows XP which came out in 2001, so I should at least get another 12 years out of Windows 7.  The trouble is the weird activation restrictions.  I don’t blame you for copy protecting your product but it does make my plans more difficult.  How about selling a version of Windows 7 with some kind of activation scheme that ties it to me and any machine I build for home use.  It would be nice to also be able to buy a Family pack version for 3 machines.

I know it’s mean of me to call your new baby ugly, but I’m sure you’re used to old farts not wanting to try newfangled ideas.  Just whip up some kind of marketing campaign – Windows 7 Forever – and make a few extra bucks off us stick-in-the-muds.  I really don’t want to switch to Mac OS and Linux is perennially clunky.

Thanks.

Jim

Why Humans Won’t Be the God of Robots

There’s a scene in the film Prometheus where an android asked a human why he would want to meet his maker?  The human replied that he’d like to ask his maker why he made him.  So the android said to the human, “Why did you make me?”  And the human replied, “Because we could.”  And the android then asked, “Will that answer be good enough for you?”

Science fiction has always loved the motif of man being the God of robots and AI machines – but I don’t think that will be true.  Not because artificial intelligence can’t exist, but because of how AI will evolve.

Please read “’A Perfect and Beautiful Machine’: What Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Reveal About Artificial Intelligence” by Daniel C. Dennett at The Atlantic.  No really, take the time to read this essay, if you are at all interested in artificial intelligence because this is an elegant essay about how AI will evolve.  It’s also a unique comparison of Charles Darwin and Alan Turing that observes concepts I’ve never read or thought about before, especially about the nature of evolution.  But for those who won’t take the time to read the article, I’ll summarize.  Darwin’s theory of evolution, according to Dennett, proves that God or an intelligent designer didn’t create life on Earth.  And Turing, with his Turing machine, proves that computers can produce creative output with no intelligent mind at all.  What I get from this is simplicity can produce complexity.

But back to AI and robots.  For a long time we’ve thought we could program our way to artificial intelligence.  That once we learned how intelligence worked we could write a program that allowed machines to be smart and aware like humans.  The belief was if random events in physics, chemistry and biology could produce us, why couldn’t we create life in silicon by our own intelligent design?

The solution to AI has always been elusive.  Time and again we’ve invented machines that could do smart things without being smart.  Machine self-awareness is always just over the horizon.

What Dennett is suggesting, is artificial intelligence won’t come from our intelligent designs, but from programs evolving in the same kind of mindless way that we evolved out of the organic elements of the Earth.  That humans can create the context of AI creation, that humans can be the amino acids, but they can’t be the designers.  The programs that produce AI need a context to evolve on their own.  In other words, we need to invent an ecosystem for computer programs to develop and evolve on their own.  How that will work I have no idea.

This means we’ll never get to code in Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics.  It also suggests that complexity doesn’t come from complexity, but the creative power of non-intelligent design.  There’s a lot to this.

I’m also reading Imagine by Jonah Lehrer and it discusses how creativity often comes from our unconscious mind, and through group interaction.  Often creative ideas burst out in an Ah-Ha! moment after we have digested the facts, chewed them over, worried, given up and then forgot about the problem.  We are not even the God of our own thoughts and creativity.  That intelligent design is the randomness of evolution.

lehrerimagine

Time and again the Lehrer book talks about creativity coming from process and not an individual expression.  If you combine what Dennett and Lehrer are saying you catch a whiff of spookiness about unconscious forces at play in our minds and life in general.  Conscious thinking become less impressive because it’s only the tip of the iceberg that surfs on the deep waves of the unconscious mind.  Evolution is a blind force of statistics.  Is creativity just another blind force like evolution?

If Dennett is right, our conscious minds will never be powerful enough to conceive of an artificial mind.  And Dennett also says that Charles Darwin by coming up with the theory of evolution indirectly proves that a God couldn’t have created us whole in a divine mind.  If you think about all of this enough, you’ll start seeing this is saying something new.  It’s a new paradigm, like the Copernican revolution.  We’re not the center of the universe, and now conscious thought is not the crown of creation.

[I didn’t write this.  Thousands of books that I’ve read did.]

JWH – 6/28/12