Skip to main content

The Mountain in the Sea (SF) - Ray Nayler ****

I'm giving this book four stars despite some irritations, because it's engaging and does inspire some thought about the nature of consciousness, though I think it could have been better as a science fiction novel.

As has become something of a clichéd structure, Ray Nayler switches between three narratives that initially seem unconnected but eventually come together. The central one involves marine biologist Dr Ha Nguyen, who arrives on the Con Dao archipelago, which has been bought by a corporation that evacuated the inhabitants, apparently to make it a wildlife reserve. The only other people present are a military specialist, who defends the location against attacks, and an AI-driven android. Ha is there to observe the local octopuses - but nothing is quite what it seems.

In the other two threads, a robotic trawler is manned by slave labour to process the fish it catches, and an AI specialist is attempting a particularly difficult exploration of a neural network. As the plot draws together, we flip between periods of philosophical discussion and action sequences, usually involving deaths. As mentioned above, there is plenty of consideration of the nature of consciousness, both from observation of the octopuses, which seem to have developed symbolic language and of various AI constructs - and this is where Ray Nayler succeeds in making this an intriguing read (though I wouldn't describe it as a thriller, as one of the quotes on the jacket does).

The negative aspects start with what sounds like a niggle, but proved a real pain. Because the central character's name is Ha, we get sentences starts such as 'Ha heard the insect cacophony from the jungle...' - and every time I read that as 'He', wondered for a moment who this new male character was and then realised. From the science viewpoint, the ability of the AI specialist to explore neural networks was more a matter of magic than programming skills. And having just read Stephen Baxter's Time with its chromophore talking squids, having chromophore talking octopuses brought on a feeling of déjà vu. It didn't help that I'd also recently read Nicholas Humprey's Sentience, which provides real scientific doubts on the validity of cephalopods being sentient.

Not only am I a little fed up of multiple-threaded narratives, although the automated trawler with its rebelling slaves was visceral in its impact, it added very little to the overall thrust of the book - whenever we were on the ship, I just wanted to get back to the rest. And perhaps most irritating of all, each chapter began with an extract from either a book by Ha or by the scientist behind both the android and the corporation that took over the archipelago. These were heavy handedly portentous, sometimes verging on the kind of parody pompous language you'd find in Private Eye. In the end I stopped reading them.

Some issues, definitely for me - though I accept that they might not worry others - but I'm still glad I read it because of the opportunity to think a little more about what it is to be a sentient being.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on