
Watching old people use computers and phones makes me want to kill myself.
I don't think our children or children's children will understand this sentiment. Perhaps they will even envy us for having had the last chance to see living, breathing computer incapables, those stuck with the previous version of human mind software. To envy that would be perverse! But, it really is true that, although our genetic material is not changing, the capabilities of the software for the whole of successive generations of humans is changing. I'm not talking about my going off and studying chemistry and then knowing something you don't (if you're not a chemist) in that sense. I'm talking about that which cannot be described other than to say a fundamental capability — the difference between me going off and learning chemistry, and the actual capacity for my brain to even comprehend chemistry.
In a similar vein, I guess that the various people of the generations of new thinkers a few hundred or thousand years back would find me perverse. Because, honestly, when I read accounts of moderns living in unusual circumstances that have allowed their brains to preserve exactly what our antecedents likely had as neural software, I feel exhilarated and want to meet them. I feel exhilarated to know humans of the same physical make up really can and manifestly DO live in astonishingly different mental worlds. One example of this is primitive people who were asked to suspend disbelief and draw a hypothetical judgment based on a premise impossible in reality¹, something which poses no challenge to anyone would could be reading this text. The primitives simply couldn't or wouldn't entertain an impossible idea, even for exploratory purposes.
More exhilarating still is a read through Julian Jaynes's "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", a book which suggests that differences in neural software alone can challenge the boundaries of our definition of human being. If a man does not have an ego, is he really deserving of rights "more" than the cattle we indiscriminately slaughter to satisfy our craving for steaks at dinner time? Of course having a meaningful discussion necessitates drawing a distinction between one not having an ego or conscience and being capable of gaining these faculties through some course of action and one literally being hard wired in such a way that no future action could bring about the expression of either faculty (as cattle). Think "critical period" as in language acquisition but as a concept that applies limits to far more than just neuroauditory production. Why not?
At any rate, as far as debates about peoples' humanity goes, computer disabilities are hardly a reason to draw one's personhood into question. I just wish I could “enjoy” them like a man from the future. And for Jaynes's bicamerals, I think it is prudent to admit that entertaining the idea of offering them “personhood”, more than of any philosophically sound moral necessity, is just a luxury we can afford because (thankfully) versions of consciousness software just aren't insurmountable barriers like human languages. Though differences of language easily persist into perpetuity, somehow, and this is the astounding thing, everyone's operating system software seems to get the upgrade in the same generation or three, regardless of where they are or what language they speak.
So now for my question:
Why the hell isn't anyone studying this? Surely I'm not the first to identify an important new field which stands at the cross position of sociology, psychology, and some sort of 'software' verion of neuroscience? While Jaynes's theory, if true, would certainly be the most profound of such transitions in the whole of history, surely there is no good reason to believe a change of neuro programming would happen but a single time. Let's get some version numbers standardized guys!
¹ [insert reference] I've been unable to locate a reference for this, but will attach one as soon as I can (may take years). If you can name a book or article mentioning this phenomena, PLEASE leave a comment.




