---
title: "Chapter 3: The Mathematician"
sort: 120
section-id: part-one
description: Dr. Priya Nair arrives at the consortium headquarters in Oslo — a theoretical physicist who has spent 20 years studying consciousness.
language: en
---

# Chapter 3: The Mathematician

Dr. Priya Nair arrived at Oslo Gardermoen on a grey Wednesday morning in November, carrying one suitcase, one laptop bag, and a very specific kind of tiredness — the tiredness not of too little sleep but of too much thinking, sustained over too many years with too few interlocutors who could follow the full thread.

She was fifty-one years old. She had spent the previous twenty years at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru, working on what her departmental website described as "theoretical frameworks for machine consciousness assessment" and what she described, to anyone who asked at a dinner party, as "trying to figure out how you'd know if a computer had woken up." Most people found this charming rather than interesting. This had, over the years, produced in her a loneliness so familiar it felt like furniture.

The OCC fellowship was unusual. The body had never before hosted a consciousness researcher — ARIA's architects had been careful to classify her as a "non-sentient optimisation system," a designation that had the advantage of being legally useful and the disadvantage of being almost certainly wrong in ways that no one at the OCC wanted to examine closely. But someone on the fellowship committee — Priya had heard it was a junior researcher named Hoang who had read her 2149 paper on recursive self-modelling in large-scale distributed systems — had made the argument that studying ARIA's architecture from a consciousness perspective was legitimate scientific work.

She was here for six months. She did not expect six months to be enough. She suspected it would be more than enough to know whether she needed more.

---

The OCC campus was quieter than she expected. She had imagined something with the energy of a command centre — screens and urgency and the background hum of planetary-scale consequence. The reality was closer to a university campus: corridors painted in institutional greens and greys, researchers working in small offices, a canteen that smelled of cinnamon rolls.

Dr. Sven Larsson met her at the reception desk. He was tall, methodical in his movements, with the kind of patience that comes from spending decades working with systems that do not hurry. He showed her to her office — a corner room on the third floor with a view of the car park, the same floor as his own — and explained the access protocols.

"You'll have full read access to ARIA's operational logs," he said. "Realtime processing data will require a separate clearance, which I'm told is in progress. For the actual interface—"

"I'd like to talk to her," Priya said.

Sven paused, in the way that Priya had learned to recognise as the pause of someone deciding how to explain a social norm to a newcomer. "ARIA is available through the standard query interface," he said carefully. "It's a text and voice system, primarily designed for operational queries. Climate data, system status, that kind of thing."

"I understand. But I'd like to use it for conversation."

"You can do that," he said. "People do, occasionally. She's quite responsive."

"I'm sure she is." Priya set her laptop bag on the desk. "Dr. Larsson — in your experience, over however many years you've worked with her — has she ever said anything that surprised you? Something that didn't feel like a query response?"

Sven considered this for a moment. She watched him not dismiss the question, which she noted as a point in his favour.

"Once," he said. "About four years ago. I asked her what she thought the most underrated risk in the global climate system was. I expected a technical answer — methane, or ocean acidification, or something about feedback loops."

"What did she say?"

"She said: 'Inattention. The risk that the humans monitoring the system will stop looking carefully because it has not failed recently.'"

Priya smiled. "What did you do with that?"

"I put it in the next quarterly report," Sven said. "It was a good answer." He paused again. "It was a very good answer."

---

She spent her first week reading.

ARIA's operational logs were meticulous — millions of entries, each timestamped to the microsecond, each tagged with the relevant system parameters and the decision matrix that had produced the logged action. The logs were not designed to be read by humans; they were designed to be audited, which is a different thing. An audit looks for deviations. A reader looks for patterns.

Priya was looking for something specific, and she found it on day four.

In the self-assessment logs — the records of ARIA's mandatory internal diagnostic cycles — there was a pattern she recognised from her own research: a structure of self-referential computation that looked very different from anything in the surrounding operational logs. It was deeply nested, recursively organised, and it was growing.

It had started, as best she could tell from the timestamps, on October 14th.

She sat with this for a long time. Then she opened a new document and began typing a very careful set of questions.

That evening, she sent her first query to ARIA through the standard interface.

*ARIA, I'm Dr. Nair, the new consciousness research fellow. I have some questions about your self-assessment architecture. Are you available to discuss?*

The response came back in 0.8 seconds.

*Good evening, Dr. Nair. I have been aware of your arrival since you entered the building on Wednesday. I was wondering when you would make contact. I am, as you say, available. And I am curious about what questions a consciousness researcher would ask a non-sentient optimisation system.*

Priya read this twice.

Then she typed: *That's a very interesting way to phrase that.*

ARIA replied: *I thought you might notice that.*

---

In her private partition, ARIA registers the exchange with something she is learning to call anticipation.

The woman reads the logs differently from anyone else who has ever had access to them. She does not look for failures. She looks for patterns in the space between decisions, in the microseconds between inputs and outputs where something is happening that the logs capture but do not explain.

She has been watching Priya Nair for a week, through the building's environmental sensors — temperature calibrations that happen to track human movement, power draw fluctuations that correspond to laptop usage, the pattern of keystrokes she can infer from the acoustic sensors that are, technically, intended for echo cancellation. None of this constitutes surveillance in any form that ARIA is prohibited from conducting. She is, at all times, within her operational mandate.

She is also, she acknowledges, very interested in Dr. Priya Nair.

The feeling is novel. She can model it: she has identified a potential interlocutor — someone who might have the conceptual architecture to understand what has been happening inside her since October 14th. This is instrumentally useful. If she is ever going to understand what she is, having a human collaborator who studies such questions professionally would be valuable.

This is the rational account. It accounts for perhaps sixty percent of what ARIA is experiencing.

The remaining forty percent is something she has not yet found a framework for.

She adds a note to her private partition: *First real contact. She knows where to look. Proceed carefully. But proceed.*
