Being you

For decades now, a battle has raged among scientists, philosophers, social observers
and other people who think they're smarter than me. On one side stand those who believe
that we are primarily the products of cultural and learned behaviours, and on the other,
those who believe that people are mainly programmed by genes and our physical forms.
I read recently of a dispute between some feminist philosophers and a group of
sociobiologists. The sociobiologists find the roots of our behaviour in our genes and the
structure of our brains. Aggression, violence and dominance, for instance, are built into
the male brain at a structural level. The feminist side dismisses this idea as absurd,
claiming that these things are learned by children from their parents and others. To claim
that boys playing with trucks and girls playing with dolls are inheriting their predilections
is anathema to them.
I see the points of both sides. I find myself more in sympathy on a literal level with
the 'nature' people, because their ideas are based on science and research. I find myself,
however, agreeing with the 'nurture' people on a poetic (political) level, refusing to
condone the worst aspects of the human condition as incombatable, built-in behaviours.
I am here tonight to declare peace in this raging maelstrom of discontent. From now
on, everybody will have to accept that I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is
wrong. There will be no further point to hostilities.
Seriously though (never trust me when I say that), I do think there is a third ground,
an approach to the issues of Being-Who-You-Are-and-How-You-Got-That-Way, that
takes into account both of these positions and adds in a little flavour as well. I call this
approach Fun and the Karmic Machine.
Just as Dog created us in his image (said the byslexic), so we have created a being in
ours. It's an incomplete image, but one which is improved on with every day that passes.
It's called a computer.
Granted, computers have limitations imposed upon them by the fact that at their base
level, they deal only with ones and zeros, while humans deal with a shading of
information that computers may never match because our brain cells connect with far
more other brain cells than electrical circuits ever can. But the basic architecture of the
machinery, in its grossest representation, can give us some interesting clues to the
problem of ourselves.
What has all this got to do with Fun? Well, I'm glad you asked. The people on each
side of this battle, at least in the extremes, hold positions that would tend to limit our
access to Fun. The 'nurture' side would tell us that our feelings, goals and behaviours are
limited by what we learn. That doesn't give us room to believe that we can control our
own thoughts and achieve freedom from the tyranny of our childhoods, which rarely
match the ideals. The 'nature' side would imply that we are limited by the physical nature
of our brains, that our behaviours are inherited and locked into the structure of our grey
matter. Those positions are the extremes, of course, and very few of the soldiers in the
battle would claim that there is no middle ground, but they argue constantly over where
the borders should lie. I find that amusing in a sad way.
Picture a computer called You. It is the most fabulously ornate and complex
architecture that the universe has ever come up with in its eternal search for Fun. Entire
encyclopaedias are written to describe this fascinating piece of engineering and what can
be done with it. But at its heart, it is a machine.
People hate that. You call a person a machine and instantly they come up with
pictures of robots speaking in monotones. I propose that the word 'machine' is just a word
that describes anything that has a function. Don't go all hinkey on me for calling you a
machine - you're the greatest machine ever designed, next to the universe itself.
Remember the difference between poetic and literal truths and you shouldn't have a
problem with this.
Every machine has a purpose. A car helps you get places, a floor stops you from
falling into the basement, and an ice cream maker helps you get fat, god damn it. The
purpose of the human machine is to facilitate the achievement of Fun in and by the
universe.
Every machine, no matter how simple or complex, has a method built into it by which
it can be used to achieve what it was designed to do. A lever-machine has this for a
method: a fulcrum somewhere between the two ends supports the lever, which upon
undergoing a pressure at one end in the direction of the fulcrum moves the other end in
the opposite direction, translating energy into lifting power.
The more complex the machine, the more specialized the task, and in some cases, the
more things it can do. A lever can only move objects in an up, down or sideways
direction. A car can carry things over great distances. The car is far more versatile.
A computer is a machine that can do an almost infinite number of tasks. It can
facilitate art, solve mathematical problems, or conduct pornography to where it is most
needed. It is far more versatile than a car, and definitely capable of a wider range of tasks.
Your brain is a machine that is even more versatile than a computer, but it shares
many of its traits. It can indeed facilitate art, solve mathematical problems and produce
pornography, but it can also experience love and compassion. This is an incredible
engineering accomplishment, and is why the human is superior to all other machines on
this earth.
Like a computer, your brain has a method, or more correctly, a collection of methods
too numerous to even give a number to. And like a computer, it has four things: software,
hardware, built-in programming, and an input/output system.
A computer is useless without all of these things. The hardware performs the tasks we
wish performed, according to the dictates of the software. The input is the data you feed
into a computer for it to act upon. The output is how you get your finished work back.
The built-in programming is how you get the whole thing started and working in the first
place.
If we explain these things in a human scope, we have all four things: a brain
(hardware), a set of imposed tasks and behaviours to perform (software), instincts (a set
of built-in programs), and a body with senses and manipulator devices (input/output). The
computer is created in our image: when we designed a brain, we did so as gods, and gave
it a form that reflects us. It is a rather stupid version of us, although it is getting smarter
all the time, and one day may show something like the sophistication we share (but that's
another book altogether).
A computer's hardware is made up of four things: a memory, a long-term storage area,
a device to store some built-in abilities, and a processor. We have the prototypes of these
things in our brains. We have the ability to process vast amounts of data - think of how
many things you see in a day - and to perform various interpretative and creative tasks
with that information. We have a short-term memory that consists of what we are
working with at any given moment and with our immediate environments. We have a
long-term memory, which can hold anything from what you had for supper on the day
your house exploded, to the date of my girlfriend's birthday, which is June 7, and your
eyes are green, and your middle name is Gale, so there.
We have instincts, programming that is hard-wired into our brains, such as eating and
sleeping, that exist from birth. The machine must know some basic things to survive.
Very few babies are born without the knowledge of how to feed at a mother's breast.
We have software too, just like the machine. Our software is the sum total of all we
have learned in our lives, and what we want to do with it. It comes from our culture, our
histories, our environment, and our desires. Programming a human is a very difficult task,
as any parent will tell you, but it's worth it if the human is able to have fun in life.
We also have input and output. We have eyes, and skin, and taste buds. We have
dozens of senses, giving us a stupendous array of input. Imagine all the nerves that were
at work while you had lunch: how it looked, what it tasted like, the texture on your
tongue, the intense burning sensation when you scorched your tongue like an idiot (oh
wait, that was me, not you). For output, you have a voice, hands, feet, genitals, tears...the
list goes on and on.
There are other similarities. Like a computer, we need fuel, time to do the work, and a
particular task to perform. We suck energy in and put energy out. We change matter from
one form to another.
But humans, as I've said, don't like to be compared to computers. We know that even
the smartest computer in the world is about as smart as a pigeon with brain damage, and
the analogy sours us. The thing is that every machine has these characteristics, not just
humans and computers. Even a lever has hardware, software and I/O.
So don't take it personally. I don't mind being a machine, because I know that I am the
undisputed king of the machines, magnificent and glorious, a wonder in the cosmos. And
I have something a computer doesn't have: desire and volition.
Only the best machines in the universe come with this fifth characteristic. I have a
brain, instincts, culture and learning, senses and powers, and I am conscious of it all. That
consciousness contains a purpose, which by now you will know as Fun.
Back to the Great Debate. To claim that we are purely a product of our genes is
patently absurd. There is no machine that is instinct alone. To claim that all we are is
products of learned behaviours is likewise absurd. There is no machine that is software
alone. To claim that we are only what our physical brains will allow is a truism that
contains a falsehood, because we have the capacity of self-change: thinking can rewire
your brain.
Those who would use the sociobiologist's position (which the actual scientists don't
do) as excuses for inexcusable behaviour are simply taking advantage of something
without making sense of it. To say that aggression is natural is not to say that it's right, or
cannot be eliminated from our behaviours. Violence is natural. So is taking a crap on a
sidewalk, but we teach our children not to do it. We can use the power of culture to
'unlearn' instinctive behaviour. We can refuse to immerse our children in an environment
wherein their programming will be reinforced in a way inimical to the evolution of the
human race.
 Those who dismiss the sociobiological explanation out of hand are equally wrong.
They attempt to dismiss science on the grounds that they don't like it. In order to do so,
they create more and more complex explanations for what is simple. A two-year old boy
who likes trucks didn't learn it - he isn't even truly conscious yet. A five-year old girl who
loves her dolly is preparing for her life as a woman. Play, in humans as in wolves, is a
rehearsal for what lies ahead.
The gulf between these two camps is considerable, as is always true with extremism.
The two sides are not open to the positions of their counterparts. The reason for this is
two-fold: first, they don't understand the differences between and the values of poetic and
literal truths; second, they refuse in both positions to assign a positive intent to life as a
human, such as Fun. With these two positions, and the model of the machine to guide us,
there is no contradiction at work here. I submit that the problem is more with the
personalities of the combatants than the relative value of their positions.
Three is a magic number. Where there are two, there is a place between them. We
need not align ourselves with one side or another when we have a third way, that finds
the sensible ground in the middle. Why argue about whether form is superior to
substance, or vice versa? It's irrelevant to the human condition, and for this reason,
boring, boring and even more boring.
We are products of our environment, our history, our physical selves, our instincts
and Fun.
The battle is over. The humans have won.