Bull. Hiroshima Inst. Tech. Research Vol. 54（2020）19-28

ArticleHarari and Kaku

Naoki ARAKI ＊（Received Oct. 31, 2019）

Abstract
Historian Yuval Noah Harari predicts what will happen to human beings in the future in his
book Homo Deus. According to him, everything comes to merge with the Internet-of-All-Things.
Human beings are no exception. He says that human beings will become part of the flow of data.
On the other hand, physicist Michio Kaku also considers the future of humankind in his writings.
According to him, computers will become super-intelligent and surpass human beings. As a result of
the evolution, humankind will be replaced by robots. These two scholars’ views are similar in somerespects but different in others. In this paper, we examine their views and clarify their similarities
and differences.
Key Words: consciousness, algorithm, intelligence, Dataism, the Internet-of-All-things, superhumans

Introduction
As sciences are advancing, we are faced with thequestion: What will happen to human beings in the
future? Harari and Kaku propose their answer tothis question respectively based on their specialty,
history or physics. In this paper, we examine theirviews on machines and consciousness, and also theirpredictions of what will happen to human beings in
the future.

1. Machines and Consciousness
1. 1. Harari’s Views
According to Harari, it is scientifically shownthat we human beings have no soul like otheranimals (Harari 2015: 101). Harari insists thatCharles Darwin’s theory of evolution leads to theconclusion that human beings have no soul (Harari
2015: 103). According to the theory of evolution, allliving things including human beings are composedof small particles constantly combining andsplitting. There are no such things indivisible andunchangeable in natural selection (Harari 2015: 103104). So, from evolution never emerges indivisible,
unchangeable, and eternal soul. Soul has no parts(Harari 2015: 104). In short, evolution means change,
so it cannot explain the existence of unchangeable
eternity like soul (Harari 2015: 105).
On the other hand, according to Harari, theexistence of mind can be confirmed whereas that ofsoul cannot:
Mind is something very different from soul. The
mind isn’t some mystical eternal entity. Nor is it
an organ such as the eye or the brain. Rather, themind is a flow of subjective experience, such as pain,
pleasure, anger and love. These mental experiences
are made of interlinked sensations, emotions andthoughts, which flash for a brief moment, andimmediately disappear. Then other experiences
flicker and vanish, arising for an instant and passing
away. (When reflecting on it, we often try to sortthe experiences into distinct categories such as＊ epartment of Information Systems and Management, Faculty of Applied Information Science, Hiroshima Institute of Technology,
D
Hiroshima 731-5193, Japan. E-mail: araki@ cc.it-hiroshima.ac.jp― 19 ―Naoki ARAKI

sensations, emotions and thoughts, but in actuality
they are all mingled together.) This frenzied
collection of experiences constitutes the stream of
consciousness. Unlike the everlasting soul, the mind
has many parts, it constantly changes, and there is
no reason to think it is eternal.
(Harari 2015: 105-106)
Therefore nobody cannot doubt the existenceof mind as René Descartes insists that Cogito ergosum:
The soul is a story that some people accept
while others reject. The stream of consciousness,in contrast, is the concrete reality we directly
witness every moment. It is the surest thing in theworld. You cannot doubt its existence. Even when
we are consumed by doubts and ask ourselves:‘Do subjective experiences really exist?’ we can becertain that we are experiencing doubt.
(Harari 2015: 106)
Do, then, animals have mind? Descartes denies
that animals have mind. But Harari says that they
have mind because mind is a biochemical dataprocessing algorithm:[…] the life sciences currently argue that all
mammals and birds, and at least some reptiles
and fish, have sensations and emotions. However,
the most up-to-date theories also maintain that
sensations and emotions are biochemical dataprocessing algorithms.
(Harari 2015: 106)
If mind or consciousness is a biochemical dataprocessing algorithm, then how does science explain
how mind or consciousness emerges?
To be frank, science knows surprisingly little
about mind and consciousness. Current orthodoxy
holds that consciousness is created by electrochemical
reactions in the brain, and that mental experiences
fulfil some essential data-processing function.
However, nobody has any idea how a congeries ofbiochemical reactions and electrical currents in thebrain creates the subjective experience of pain, anger
or love. (Harari 2015: 107-108)
I f subjective experiences are biochemical

phenomena in the brain, we will have physicalism,
which has been discussed in philosophy:[…] scientists have certainly identified correlations
and even causal links between electrical currents
in the brain and various subjective experiences. […]When billions of neurons send billions of electric
signals back and forth, subjective experiences
emerge. Even though the sending and receivingof each electric signal is a simple biochemical
phenomenon, the interaction among all these signals
creates something far more complex—the stream of
consciousness. (Harari 2015: 108)
But, on the other hand, Harari criticizes suchan explanation above, pointing out that it does
not clarify why electric signals cause subjective
phenomena. The same criticism has already been
proposed by Akira Sadakata, who makes it clearthat from the outset there is an assumption thatmind and body are separated from each other(Sadakata 1990: 118-119). For more details, see Araki
2020:
Yet this explanation explains nothing. It merely
affirms that the problem is very complicated. It
does not offer any insight into how one kind of
phenomenon (billions of electric signals movingfrom here to there) creates a very different kindof phenomenon (subjective experiences of anger orlove). (Harari 2015: 109)
But a data-processing system like computers
does not always need any subjective experiencessuch as pain, pleasure, anger or love (Harari 2015:
113). For example, autonomous cars, which are
one of data-processing systems, does not have any
consciousness. Nor do they have any subjective
experiences like fear (Harari 2015: 114). So, Harariasks, if machines function properly without any
consciousness, then do they need any consciousness?
In the history of science, ether was discarded, which
was once presupposed to exist. In ancient times,
God was responsible for natural phenomena, but notanymore. If so, do we not need soul or mind just as
we did not ether or God? Soul or consciousness may
be like Ockham’s razor (Harari 2015: 114-115).
Also from another point of view Harari discusses
consciousness. There are other reasons why― 20 ―

Harari and Kaku

machines, which function better than human beings,
do not need mind or consciousness. According
to Harari, in science fiction intelligence andconsciousness are confused and it is misunderstoodthat computers need to have consciousness in orderfor their intelligence to surpass that of human beings(Harari 2018: 68-69). But, Harari says, intelligenceand consciousness are quite different things.
Intelligence is the ability to solve problems while
consciousness is the ability to feel pain, pleasure,
love and anger. In animals including human beings,
intelligence and consciousness go hand in hand.
This means that animals solve problems withconsciousness whereas computers solve problems
without any consciousness. But algorithms do notneed to have feelings such as pleasure, anger andfear when recognizing biochemical patterns offeelings (Harari 2018: 69). Then, are there never
the possibilities that computers will have any
consciousness? Harari gives us three possibilities
concerning this question:
1. C onsciousness is somehow linked to organic
biochemistry in such a way that it will be
never possible to create consciousness in nonorganic systems.
2. C onsciousness is not linked to orga nic
biochemistry, but it is linked to intelligencein such a way that computers could develop
consciousness, and computers will have todevelop consciousness if they are to pass acertain threshold of intelligence.
3. T here a re no e s s ent i a l l i n k s bet we enconsciousness and either organic chemistryor high intelligence. Hence computers mightdevelop consciousness—but not necessarily.
They could become super-intelligent while still
having zero consciousness. (Harari 2018: 69-70)
But Harari insists that both human beings andmachines are algorithms and that human feelings
are also algorithms. If he is right, we cannot
deny the possibilities that machines will gain
consciousness. In fact, Harari says that consciousness
is the byproduct of algorithms, which means thatmachines are likely to have consciousness:
Rather, feelings are biochemical mechanismsthat all mammals and birds use in order to quickly

calculate probabilities of survival and reproduction.
Feelings aren’t based on intuition, inspiration or
freedom—they are based on calculation.
When a monkey, mouse or human sees a snake,fear arise because millions of neurons in the brain
swiftly calculate the relevant data and conclude
that the probability of death is high. Feelings ofsexual attraction arise when other biochemicalalgorithms calculate that a nearby individual offersa high probability of successful mating, social
bonding, or some other coveted goal. Moral feelings
such as outrage, guilt or forgiveness derive fromneural mechanisms that evolved to enable groupcooperation. (Harari 2018: 47)
According to Harari, the idea that consciousness
is the byproduct of algorithms results from thefact that biotechnology merges with information
technology (Harari 2018: 48). Next, we shall examine
Kaku’s views on consciousness.
1. 2. Kaku’s Views
According to Kaku, human brains are different
from digital computers (Kaku 2011: 80-81). Thismeans that human beings have consciousness.
Human brains are not only digital but also analogue
at the same time. Also they transmit both discreteand non-discrete (continuous) signals (Kaku 2011: 82).
It is linked to Descartes’s mind/body dualism thathuman brains are different from digital computers.
But if mind is distinct from body as Descartes
insists, brains’ injuries will not affect mind. But thisis not the case:This event [the case of Gage suffering from brain
injuries] forever changed the prevailing opinions of
the mind-body problem. Previously, it was believed
even within scientific circles that the soul and the
body were separate entities. People wrote knowingly
about some “life force” that animated the body,
independent of the brain. But widely circulated
reports indicated that Gage’s personality underwent
marked changes after the accident. Some accounts
claim that Gage was a well-liked, outgoing man
who became abusive and hostile after the accident.
The impact of these reports reinforced the ideathat specific parts of the brain controlled different
behaviors, and hence the body and soul were
inseparable. (Kaku 2011: 100-101)― 21 ―Naoki ARAKI

If mind and body cannot be separated, is it
possible that machines have consciousness? Ifmachines can have consciousness, then what ismind or consciousness? Kaku tries to redefine
consciousness:
But if I were to venture a guess, I would theorizethat consciousness consists of at least three basic
components:
1. sensing and recognizing the environment
2. self-awareness
3. p lanning for the future by setting goals
and plans, that is, simulating the future andplotting strategy
(Kaku 2011: 111)
According to Kaku, even simple machines havesome form of consciousness in that they sense andrecognize the environment. For example, a thermostat
detects the temperature of the environment and actson it (reacts to it) by transforming itself. Therefore,
machines with a feed-back loop have a primitive
form of consciousness. But robots lack patternrecognition (Kaku 2011: 111-112).
Then, is it possible to build a robot that satisfies
the three conditions above?
AI researchers, therefore, should aim to create arobot with all three characteristics. The first is hardto achieve, since robots can sense their environment
but cannot make sense of it. Self-awareness is easierto achieve. But planning for the future requires
common sense, an intuitive understanding of what
is possible, and concrete strategies for reachingspecific goals.
So we see that common sense is a prerequisite
for the highest level of consciousness. In order fora robot to simulate reality and predict the future,
it must first master millions of commonsense rules
about the world around it. But common sense is
not enough. Common sense is just the “rules of
the game,” rather than the rules of strategy andplanning. (Kaku 2011: 114)
So, unfortunately, it is very difficult to build a
robot with consciousness because common sense isa prerequisite for consciousness. According to Kaku,
a computer used in the field of medicine, Watson

does not have self-awareness and common sense
although it processes data faster than human beings(Kaku 2014: 215). Steven Pinker also says that it is
impossible to create a robot that recognizes objects
and reasons about the world and controls hands andfeet (Kaku 2014: 217-218). In other words, robots (AI)lack pattern recognition and common sense. Robots
cannot understand what they see even though they
can detect more details of objects than humanbeings:There are at least two basic problems confronting
AI: pattern recognition and common sense.
Our best robots can barely recognize simple
objects like a cup or a ball. The robot’s eye may see
details better than a natural eye, but the robot brain
cannot recognize what it is seeing. […]Robots also have a problem with common sense.
They do not understand simple facts about thephysical and biological world. There isn’t an equationthat can confirm something as self-evident (to us
humans) as “muggy weather is uncomfortable” or“mothers are older than their daughters.” There has
been some progress made in translating this sort of
information into mathematical logic, but to catalogue
the common sense of a four-year-old child would
require hundreds of millions of lines of computercode. (Kaku 2014: 218-219)
So robots need to have consciousness in order
to be like human beings. On the other hand, somethink that robots cannot experience the essence offeeling, or “qualia” even though they can process
feelings of color or sound better than human beings.
But Kaku insists that the question, “Can robots feelcolor?” is not relevant here because the word “feel”
is not well defined:
These arguments [e.g. John Searle’s Chineseroom (Searle: 1980)] have to be taken seriously, butthere is also another way of looking at the questionof qualia and subjective experience. In the future,a machine most likely will be able to process a
sensation, such as the color red, much better than
any human. It will be able to describe the physicalproperties of red and even use it poetically in a
sentence better than a human. Does the robot “feel”
the color red? The point becomes irrelevant, since
the word “feel” is not well defined. At some point,― 22 ―

Harari and Kaku

a robot’s description of the color red may exceed ahuman’s, and the robot may rightly ask: Do humans
really understand the color red? Perhaps humans
cannot really understand the color red with all thenuances and subtly that a robot can.

(Kaku 2014: 239)
Similarly, Kaku says that if robots can use
Chinese better than human beings, the question, “Can
robots understand Chinese?” will be irrelevant:Similarly, it is only a matter of time before arobot will be able to define Chinese words and use
them in context much better than any human. At
that point, it becomes irrelevant whether the robot“understands” the Chinese language. For all practical
purposes, the computer will know the Chinese
language better than any human. In other words,
the word “understand” is not well defined.
(Kaku 2014: 239-240)
After all, Kaku insists, the following question is
no longer important: “Do robots feel sensations?” or“Do robots understand words?”:
One day, as robots surpass our ability tomanipulate these words and sensations, it will
become irrelevant whether the robot “understands”
or “feels” them. The question will cease to have
any importance. […] So the problem lies not in the
hardware but in the nature of human language, inwhich words that are not well defined mean different
things to different people.
(Kaku 2014: 240)
Kaku’s views above are the same as those of
Alan Turing and Francis Crick:But as time goes by, robots will eventually beable to describe sensations better than us on any
level. Then it will be obvious that robots understand.
This was the philosophy behind Alan Turing’s
famous Turing’s test. He predicted that one daya machine would be built that could answer any
question, so that it would be indistinguishable froma human. He said, “A computer would deserve to
be called intelligent if it could deceive a human into
believing that it was human.”Physicist and Nobel laureate Francis Crick said
it best. In the last century, he noted, biologists hadheated debates over the question “What is life?”
Now, with our understanding of DNA, scientists
realize that the question is not well defined. There
are many variations, layers, and complexities to that
simple question. The question “What is life?” simply
faded away. The same may eventually apply tofeeling and understanding.
(Kaku 2014: 240)
Thus, Harari and Kaku slightly disagree on whether
computers will be likely to have consciousness. Harariis skeptical that machines might gain consciousness
but Kaku does not deny that robots will haveconsciousness.
By the way, Harari insists in his book Sapiens(2011) that money, states, companies and so on are
just fictions. Then, is the same true of intelligenceand consciousness? If intelligence and consciousness
are fictions, the relationship between intelligenceand consciousness will vanish. Sadakata (1990) also
points out that words make us think that something
signified by them really exists by itself. For moredetails about this matter, see Araki 2019; 2020.
But if computers advance in the future, what will
happen to human beings? Next, we shall consider
what Harari thinks of this question.

2. The Future of Human Beings
2. 1. Harari’s Views
According to Harari, biologists have reached theconclusion that human beings are algorithms (Harari
2015: 84-85). On the other hand, machines areadvancing and surpassing human beings but there
is little, if any, possibility that machines will haveconsciousness:
In the past, there were many things only humans
could do. But now robots and computers are catchingup, and may soon outperform humans in most tasks.
True, computers function very differently fromhumans, and it seems unlikely that computers will
become humanlike any time soon. In particular,
it doesn’t seem that computers are about to gain
consciousness, and to start experiencing emotions
and sensations. Over the last decades there has been
an immense advance in computer intelligence, butthere has been exactly zero advance in computerconsciousness. As far as we know, computers in 2016
are no more conscious than their prototypes in the
1950s. (Harari 2015: 311)

― 23 ―Naoki ARAKI

Harari says that it was once thought that
intelligence and consciousness were inseparable
but that advances of computers show that we haveintelligence without consciousness (super-computers):
Until today, high intelligence always went handin hand with a developed consciousness. Only
conscious beings could perform tasks that required
a lot of intelligence, such as playing chess, driving
cars, diagnosing diseases or identifying terrorists.
However, we are now developing new types of nonconscious intelligence that can perform such tasks
far better than humans. For all these tasks are
based on pattern recognition, and non-conscious
algorithms may soon excel human consciousness inrecognising patterns.
(Harari 2015: 311)
What is the meaning of the fact that computers,
which gain intelligence without consciousness,
emerge? If human beings are algorithms, this meansthat sooner or later computers will surpass humanbeings:
The idea that humans will always have a uniqueability beyond the reach of non-conscious algorithms
is just wishful thinking. The current scientificanswer to this pipe dream can be summarized inthree simple principles:
1. O rganisms are algorithms. Every animal—
including Homo sapiens is an assemblage oforganic algorithms shaped by natural selection
over millions of years of evolution.
2. A lgorithmic calculations are not affectedby the materials from which you build thecalculator. Whether you build an abacus fromwood, iron or plastic, two beads plus two beads
equals four beads.
3. Hence there is no reason to think that organic
algorithms can do things that non-organic
algorithms will never be able to replicate or
surpass. As long as the calculations remain
valid , what does it matter whether thealgorithms are manifested in carbon or silicon?
(Harari 2015: 319)
As Harari insists, if human beings are algorithms,
computers may surpass human beings someday
because they are also algorithms even though

they do not have consciousness. In other words, as
far as intelligence is concerned, the wall between
organisms (human beings) and non-organisms(computers) will be removed. In fact, computers
have already surpassed human beings in some fields.
Sooner or later computers may take over humanbeings’ jobs. The fields of medicine and arts such asmusic are no exception. According to Harari, if thisreasoning is right, computers will rule the earth andgo out to the universe:[…] the AI takes over the planet, eliminates thehuman race, launches a conquest campaign to theends of the galaxy, and transforms the entire known
universe into a giant super-computer […]
(Harari 2015: 327)
This scenario of Harari’s is very similar to
Kaku’s prediction, which we shall deal with later.
Furthermore, if all things are connected with theInternet, even human bodies will be linked throughwearable devices. If so, everything will be controlled
by a network of algorithms. This is also a conclusion
brought about by life sciences that insist that humanbeings are algorithms:
It is the life sciences that have concluded thatorganisms are algorithms. If this is not the case—if organisms function in an inherently different
way to algorithms—then computers may work
wonders in other fields, but they will not be able
to understand us and direct our life, and they willcertainly be incapable of merging with us. Yet once
biologists concluded that organisms are algorithms,
they dismantled the wall between the organic andinorganic, turned the computer revolution from apurely mechanical affair into a biological cataclysm,
and shifted authority from individual humans to
networked algorithms. (Harari 2015: 345)
Here emerges, Harari insists, a new religion,
Dataism, which worships data. But what is Dataism?
Dataism says that the universe consists of dataflows, and the value of any phenomenon or entity isdetermined by its contribution to data processing.
(Harari 2015: 367)

― 24 ―

According to Harari, two factors have given rise

Harari and Kaku

to the birth of Dataism: one is that life sciences
have come to think of organisms (including humanbeings) as biochemical algorithms one and a half
centuries after Charles Darwin published his
book, The Origin of Species (1859), and the otheris that computer scientists have come to develop
electronic algorithms eighty years after Alan Turing
formulated his Turing’s test (1950). This removes
the wall between organisms and machines. So
electronic algorithms have come to be thought tosurpass biochemical algorithms because the samemathematical laws can apply to both electronic andbiochemical algorithms (Harari 2015: 367). If Harari
is right, we will be able to get the theory thatunifies all scientific disciplines:
For scholars and intellectuals it [Dataism] also
promises to provide the scientific holy grail thathas eluded us for centuries: a single overarchingtheory that unifies all the scientific disciplines fromliterature and musicology to economics and biology.
According to Dataism, King Lear and the flu virus
are just patterns of data flow that can be analysedusing the same basic concepts and tools.
(Harari 2015: 367-368)
Furthermore, the history of human beings canalso be analysed as the history of data-processing:From a Dataist perspective, we may interpretthe entire human species as a single data-processing
system, with individual humans serving as its chips.
If so, we can also understand the whole of history as
a process of improving the efficiency of this system,[…] (Harari 2015: 377)
If the history of human beings has proceeded as
Harari insists, what is their destination like?
If humankind is indeed a single data-processing
system, what is its output? Dataist would say that its
output will be the creation of a new and even more
efficient data-processing system, called the Internetof-All-Things. Once this mission is accomplished,
Homo sapiens will vanish.
(Harari 2015: 380)
Dataism, then, would extend from the earth tothe universe sooner or later:

The supreme value of this new religion [Dataism]is ‘information flow’. If life is the movement of
information, and if we think that life is good, it
follows that we should extend, deepen and spreadthe flow of information in the universe. […] Humans
are merely tools for creating the Internet-of-AllThings, which may eventually spread out fromplanet Earth to cover the whole galaxy and even thewhole universe. This cosmic data-processing system
would be like God. It will be everywhere and willcontrol everything, and humans are destined tomerge into it.(Harari 2015: 380-381)
If organisms are biochemical algorithms, asHarari insists, the whole universe will be the flow ofdata and human beings will be chips of the flow:
As authority shifts from humans to algorithms,
we may no longer see the world as the playgroundof autonomous individuals struggling to make theright choices. Instead, we might perceive the entire
universe as a flow of data, see organisms as little
more than biochemical algorithms, and believethat humanity’s cosmic vocation is to create an allencompassing data-processing system—and thenmerge into it. Already today we are becoming tiny
chips inside a giant data-processing system that
nobody really understands.
(Harari 2018: 56)
Harari’s idea that human beings become chips
of a gigantic network may be based on AI ’s
connectivity and updateability, which are lacking inhuman beings:
Two particular important non-human abilities
that AI processes are connectivity and updateability.
Since humans are individuals, it is difficult toconnect them to one another and to make sure thatthey are all up date. In contrast, computers aren’t
individuals, and it is easy to integrate them into asingle flexible network.
(Harari 2018: 22)
Thus humankind merges with the information
flow as chips in the Internet-of-All-Things. As thedata-processing system gets larger, it is the sourceof meaning to merge into the system. Humanbeings spontaneously come to wish to merge into
the system (Harari 2015: 386). Why is that? The
reason is that according to Dataism, algorithms are― 25 ―Naoki ARAKI

watching what you are doing as part of the data
flow. So it follows that disconnecting to the data flow
may be the loss of life’s meaning. It is meaningless
not to contribute anything to the exchange of
information (Harari 2015: 386). But eventuallyhuman beings might vanish in this data flow:
We might try to upgrade the human dataprocessing system, but this may not be enough. The
Internet-of-All-Things may soon create such hugeand rapid data flows that even upgraded humanalgorithms cannot handle it. When the car replaced
the horse-drawn carriage, we didn’t upgrade thehorses—we retired them. Perhaps it is time to do
the same with Homo sapiens.
(Harari 2015: 388)
Then, will Homo sapiens be retired someday
like horses that once drew a carriage? Even so, it
is doubtful whether life can be reduced to the data
flow. At present, it is unknown how the data flow
produces consciousness of human beings. Afterall, organisms (including human beings) may not
be algorithms (Harari 2015: 393). But, Harari says,
even if Dataism is wrong and organisms (including
human beings) are not algorithms, it will rule theworld instead of human beings:
Of course, even if Dataism is wrong andorganisms aren’t just algorithms, it won’t necessarily
prevent Dataism from taking over the world. […]Dataism has especially good prospects, because it iscurrently spreading across all scientific disciplines.
A unified scientific paradigm may easily become
an unassailable dogma. It is very difficult to contest
a scientific paradigm, but up till now, no single
paradigm was adopted by the entire scientificestablishment. Hence scholars in one field could
always import heretical views from outside. But if
everyone from musicologists to biologists uses thesame Dataist paradigm, interdisciplinary excursions
will serve only to strengthen the paradigm further.
Consequently even if the paradigm is flawed, itwould be extremely difficult to resist it.
(Harari 2015: 394)
Then, if Dataism succeeds in ruling the world,what will happen to human beings? First, Harari
predicts that health, happiness, and power will be
pursued, but when the homo-centric world view

shifts to the data-centric world view, human beings
will become chips or data and eventually clumpsof earth in the flow of data (Harari 2015: 394395). After all, according to Harari, human beings
may undergo the same thing that they did to otheranimals and humanity may become ripples of theflow of data in the universe. But, as Harari says,
we cannot predict the future, so this should beunderstood as possibilities not prophecies (Harari
2015: 395). Next, we shall examine what Kaku
thinks of the human beings’ future.
2. 2. Kaku’s Views
If robots advance, what will happen to humanbeings? According to Kaku, one scenario is thatrobots will retire human beings and rule the earth
and eventually the universe:
In one scenario, we puny humans are simply
pushed aside as a relic of evolution. It is a law of
evolution that fitter species arise to displace unfit
species; and perhaps humans will be lost in the
shuffle, eventually winding up in zoos where ourrobotic creations come to stare at us. Perhaps that is
our destiny: to give birth to superrobots that treat
us as an embarrassingly primitive footnote in theirevolution. Perhaps that is our role in history, to givebirth to our evolutionary successors. In this view,
our role is to get out of their way.  (Kaku 2011: 115)
Furthermore, Kaku predicts that robots, which
are more intelligent than human beings, will produce
robots even more intelligent than themselves andsooner or later they will use up the resources of theearth:
When we finally hit the fateful day when robots
are smarter than us, not only will we no longer be
the most intelligent being on earth, but our creations
may make copies of themselves that are evensmarter than they are. This army of self-replicating
robots will then create endless future generationsof robots, each one smarter than the previous one.
Since robots can theoretically produce ever-smarter
generations of robots in a very short period of time,
eventually this process will explode exponentially,
until they begin to devour the resources of theplanet in their insatiable quest to become ever more
intelligent. (Kaku 2011: 116)

― 26 ―

Harari and Kaku

When computers have run out of the earth’s
resources, Kaku expects, the whole earth will
become computers. Next, computers will go out tothe universe and may make other planets or galaxies
computers. So, eventually the whole universe may
become computers:
In one scenario, this ravenous appetite for everincreasing intelligence will eventually ravage
the resources of the entire planet, so the entire
earth becomes a computer. Some envision thesesuperintelligent robots then shooting out into space
to continue their quest for more intelligence, until
they reach other planets, stars, and galaxies in order
to convert them into computers. […] Some evenbelieve it might consume the entire universe, so thatthe universe becomes intelligent.  (Kaku 2011: 116)
Furthermore, from another point of view Kaku
says that AI will merge with human beings as it
advances:
If you ask Dr. Brooks how we can coexist
with these super- sma r t robots , his reply isstraightforward: we will merge with them. Withadvances in robotics and neuroprosthetics, it
becomes possible to incorporate AI into our own
bodies. […]Some scientists even dream of the day whenexoskeletons will have super-powers like those foundin comic books, with super strength, super senses,
and super abilities. We’d become a cyborg like Iron
Man, a normal human with superhuman abilities
and powers.
(Kaku 2014: 248-249)
Furthermore, Kurzweil (2005) refers to thepossibility that computers and human beings are
unified, that is, computers are embedded in a humanbody (Kaku 2011: 119). Like Kurzweil, Kaku also
refers to the possibility that computers and humanbeings are unified (Kaku 2011: 122). This is similar
to Harari’s idea that networks and human beings
are unified. Furthermore, the following passage issimilar to Harari’s idea that medicine for treatments
can be used to improve the ability of human beings’
body and it leads to the emergence of superhumans(Harari 2015: 348):
In the next stage, he [Rodney Brooks] sees

merging silicon and living cells not just to curethe ailments of the body but to slowly enhance ourcapabilities. For example, if today’s cochlear andretina implants can restore hearing and vision,
tomorrow’s may also give us superhuman abilities.
We would be able to hear sounds that only dogs canhear, or see UV, infrared, and X-rays.
(Kaku 2011: 127)
Furthermore, Kaku thinks, if it is possible forhuman beings to control robots only by directions
from their brains, then human beings will becyborgs with robots’ body:
Although this [an example of robots controlled
by the mind] is a crude demonstration of mind overmatter, in the coming decades it should be possible
to increase the set of motions we can control in arobot, and also to get feedback, so we can “feel” with
our new robotic hands. Goggles or contact lenses
would allow us to see what the robots see, so wemight eventually have full control over the body’s
motions. (Kaku 2011: 129)
According to Kaku, if we move this forward, it
will lead to that human beings abandon their bodyand become software of a program encoding theirpersonalities. This means that we will download
our personalities into a computer. Eventually,
human beings’ body will be replaced by movementof electrons of a computer. This idea of Kaku’s issimilar to Harari’s that human beings will merge
with the Internet-of-All-Things (Harari 2015: 380381):
In the ultimate scenario, we discard our clumsy
bodies entirely and eventually evolve into pure
software programs that encode our personalities.
We “download” our entire personalities into a
computer. If someone presses a button with yourname on it, then the computer behaves as if you
are inside its memory, since it has encoded all
your personality quirks inside its circuits. We
become immortal, but spend our time trapped
inside a computer, interacting with other “people”(that is, other software programs) in some gigantic
cyberspace/virtual reality. Our bodily existence will
be discarded, replaced by the motion of electrons inthis gigantic computer. In this picture, our ultimate― 27 ―Naoki ARAKI

destiny is to wind up as lines of code in this vast
computer program, with all the apparent sensationsof physical bodies dancing in a virtual paradise.
We will share deep thoughts with other lines ofcomputer code, living out this grand illusion. We
have great, heroic exploits conquering new worlds,
oblivious to the fact that we are just electrons
dancing inside some computer. Until, of course,
someone hits the off button. (Kaku 2011: 131)
Will Kaku’s predictions above be really realized
in the future?

Conclusion
Harari insists that organisms including humanbeings are algorithms and that machines cansurpass in intelligence without consciousness. On
the other hand, Kaku claims that even machines
can have consciousness and robots can outperform
human beings. So both Harari’s and Kaku’s views
are similar but they are different in some respects.
Harari denies the existence of soul but accepts
human consciousness as reality. He is not sure of theexistence of consciousness in machines. In contrast,
Kaku accepts the possibility that machines haveconsciousness by his own definition of consciousness.
But Kaku does not mention whether organisms arealgorithms and there is soul.
Furthermore, Harari predicts that as technologies
are advancing, everything is merging with theInternet-of-All-Things. This means that even humanbeings are no exception. They come to be part of theflow of information or data. On the other hand, Kaku
foresees that as a result of the evolution humanbeings will be replaced by robots. Robots reproduce
more intelligent robots and come to rule the earth
and eventually conquer the whole universe. Alsoin this point Harari’s and Kaku’s views are similar.
But they are different in that Harari thinks thateverything can be reduced to data flow but Kaku
believes that robots rule the universe.
As we have seen, Harari and Kaku agree on thesame pessimistic prediction that human beings willlose their present position as part of the flow of dataor as a result of the evolution. It will turn out in the
future what will actually happen to human beings.

But at present we cannot judge whether theirpredictions are right or wrong. Time will show us
what will happen to us in the future.

References
Araki, Naoki. “Sapiens and Language.” Bulletin ofHiroshima Institute of Technology. 53. pp. 1-10.
(2019)
Araki, Naoki. “Descartes’s Problem.” Bulletin ofHiroshima Institute of Technology. 54. pp. 9-18.
(2020)
Brooks, Rodney A. Flesh and Machines: How Robots
Will Change Us. Vintage. 2003.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 1859. (Areprint of the 6th edition. Oxford University
Press. 1951)
Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens: A Brief History of
Humankind. Vintage Books. 2011.
Harari, Yuval Noah. Homo Deus: A Brief History ofTomorrow. Harvill Secker. 2015.
Harari, Yuval Noah. 21 Lessons for the 21th Century.
Jonathan Cape. 2018.
Kaku, Michio. Physics of the Future: How Science
Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Livesby the Year 2100. Anchor Books. 2011.
Kaku, Michio. The Future of the Mind: The
Scientific Quest To Understand, Enhance andEmpower the Mind. Penguin Books. 2014.
Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity Is Near: When
Humans Transcend Biology. Viking. 2005.
Pinker, Steven. The Stuff of Thought: Language asa Window into Human Nature. Viking. 2007.
Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. W. W. Norton.
2009.
Pinker, Stevens. “The Riddle of Knowing You’reHere.” In Your Brain: A User’s Guide. Time Inc.
Specials. (2011)
S ad a kat a , A k i r a . Em pt i n e s s a n d No n -E g o:
Buddhism’s View of Language. Kodansya. 1990.
(in Japanese)
Searle, John. “Mind, Brains, and Programs.” The
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: pp. 417-457.
(1980)
Tu r i ng , A l a n . “ C omput i ng M ach i ner y a ndIntelligence.” Mind 59 (236): pp. 433-460. (1950)― 28 ―