I am a program

On programming and being

As a programmer by trade and a biologist by training, I am afforded an endlessly fascinating perspective on the question of being, since organisms turn out to be (via the magic of DNA) enormously complicated learning and self-reproducing programs.

Now that we are all dependent on computers and comfortable with various analogies between computation and biology, (memory, viruses, language, bugs(!)), it might seem unproblematic to see ourselves as programs, instantiated in messy wetware and programmed with glacially slow evolutionary optimization. But of course there is a great deal of resistance, since one of the features of our program is that we see outwards, not inwards, and thus customarily don't have the faintest appreciation of our psychological or bodily inner workings. Indeed, our program creates a brain that militantly resists thinking of itself as a program, enjoying instead an illusion of sovereign freedom and a sovereign view over its flowing experience, as though its own basis were immaterial.

While some nerds revel in the computational analogy, and hope that they may shortly "download" their brain contents into immortal mechanical devices, it is fair to say that most people resist the analogy, whether instinctively or behind the smokescreen of elaborated theology. Unfortunately, science has relentlessly chipped away at these superstitious defenses, starting at the outer perimeter of humanity's geographical place in the cosmos, proceeding to kill the knights of vitalism through biochemistry, then breaching the sanctum of our mental sovereignty through Freud and the later work of psychology.

Really, there is nothing sensible left of the idea that subjectivity is as it naively seems- an immaterial soul with intuitive powers to communicate with the foundations/founders of the universe. But then, a final mechanistic account of subjectivity is not at hand either. At least the problem of consciousness is on the research program in earnest, at last, but solving it will take a few more years- decades at most.

On the silicon side, programs have become behemoths of complexity, though remaining well short of "artificial intelligence". Language translation on the web has become a great example of mini-intelligence, however. What is the barrier to true intellegence? It is learning. Humans are voracious learning machines, pulling in and storing vast amounts of information, but more importantly, interlinking it all organically in our neural nets, so that connections between near and far facts and ideas arise instantly as the need (or "inspiration") arises via related ideas, creating an integrated "world" for us to inhabit.

Despite all the databases, no computer yet inhabits this kind of world. Current programs are nowhere near learning at this high level and structure. It is a bit like the "total information awareness" project of John Poindexter, which was supposed to bring Big Brother to life across the federal government. Which was killed not because it worked, but because the concept itself was so disturbing.

But these capabilities will develop. That is the basis for Kurzweil's "singularity"- a point when machines can really learn and inhabit general conceptual worlds effectively, to the point of driving technological development faster than humans can (not to mention reproducing themselves!). Of course, there is the countervailing trend of diminishing returns to technology as the real limits of science and sustainability are reached. But at any rate, just as we have relegated half our minds to Google already, we may relegate the rest at some point in the future, and just enjoy life.

On the philosophical level, silicon is more benign and interesting. When I am looking for a so-called "bug" and puzzling over a program's mystifying behavior, the temptation to pray to unseen beings glimmers across the screen. But one thing you learn is that there is always, always, a definable cause. It may be a single character out of place in an enormous program, a well-hidden bug in infrastructure you have relied on for years, or a machine physically melting down. In philosophy, this is called the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), (in physics, it is Newton's third law, or many other conservation laws), and to come up against it day after day, on a relentless basis, can be most sobering.

Biology has similar moments, science being predicated on the PSR as well- the observation and assumption that causes can be found for any phenomenon. But cells and organisms are complicated systems, often more persistent in their inscrutiblility than we are in unlocking their secrets. Thus the triumph when the gene is found that causes a dramatic phenotype or syndrome, or the virus that causes a disease.

The science of genetics, and especially the discovery of DNA with its endless transmission through the generations, creating discardable somatic bodies as it goes along, brought the subject of biology down to a matter of programming, in the sense of heredity and evolution. How is the program propagated, preserved against accidents, read to create bodies, and divided to mate with partner DNAs? Most critically, how does this DNA make a brain and mind?

Obviously, DNA does not program the brain in the same explicit way that Microsoft programs Windows. The programming is indirect, generating and regulating complex proteins that have small lives of their own, which in turn generate dynamic metabolic, regulatory, and developmental processes, (an example in neuronal patterning), which in turn generate complex structures like brains. It's a messy process, built on a haphazard basis. It relies on many forms of homeostasis- feedback regulation- to maintain "normal" operations in the face of genetic and environmental variability, as well as to leverage normal obstacles and challenges into learning and development.

It's a bit like the Sims/SimCity game. There are discrete units of basic structure- people with various roles, furniture, urban fixtures, needs to fulfill. Once everything is working together, and combined with other players, you may end up with a city that behaves in complex ways, built out of relatively simple reproducible parts. Most theories of brain development rely on similar self-organizational behaviors to do much of the heavy lifting, for instance Edelman proposes massive neuron growth followed by function-induced testing/weeding/death to come up with properly structured networks, once the basic anatomy is in place.

Finally, there is the being of a program, rather than the making of programs (playing god, in a way) and the analysis of biologically given programs. Through the amazing alchemy of DNA, development, and neural brainwave patterns, we are the program, feeling the programmed instincts to learn, to live, to reproduce. We also feel the programmed need to imbue it all with inspirational meaning that is worth living for, and worth dying for, chosen freely with no influence from the programming.

• But we aren't a program!
• Excellent interview on consciousness issues, with Thomas Metzinger.
• Howell Raines, calling the storm troopers and brownshirts what they are.
• Interesting interview with a solar entrepreneur.
• Martin Wolf on "Chermany" as the black hole of global aggregate demand.
• The wasabi receptor- found!
• Wall street selects for psychopaths.
• Cary Tennis meets his death panel.
• Bill Mitchell quote of the week:

"But an economic system should be about enhancing the prospects for the people. What other reason would there be to organise production and work in the way we do? That is actually the nub of all this ideological debate. The mainstream is not about people – the people are just “factors of production” (as they are referred to in the mainstream microeconomics textbooks) and are there to create profits."