I believe in dinosaurs.  Not that I’m a dinosaur fanatic or anything; it’s just that, in spite of the most popular and pervasive interpretations of the book of Genesis, I simply don’t believe our planet (along with the rest of the universe) was instantly created 5,000 years ago with dinosaur bones already buried in the ground simply for creative effect (and to mess with our feeble little minds).

I also believe in God.  I realize the concept of God doesn’t compute for many people, but for me, there is simply no alternative.  Correct or not — I know I’m correct, but you might not — I have always sensed an overriding and attentive presence, and when I look at trees, or clouds, or animals, I see creations.  And I can’t believe the forces — or the concepts — of good and evil are no more significant than positive and negative magnetic forces, or that the spiritual implications of good and evil are simply a product of erroneous human perception.  I just can’t think that way.  Good is clearly good, and evil is clearly evil.  To me, at least.  (On the other hand, I think it’s very careless to label individuals, or groups of people, as being “evil.”  Evil, like good, is a force that can, and does, live in all of us to various degrees.)

Now, I know it’s wrong (in the eyes of many, many believers) to suggest that God doesn’t do everything with absolute perfection, right from the very beginning, but sometimes, when I think of dinosaurs and the various other creatures from Earth’s past, I wonder if some of them might have been created in order to test a wide variety of biological attributes within the unique parameters of this planet’s composition and atmosphere.  And at some point, a particular set of attributes (perhaps partially selected based on those previous test results) was used to create human beings, and then human beings (for reasons that might be debatable, given our record of stewardship) were given dominion over the earth.

Creation and evolution (not either/or)

So what am I getting at?  Within the context of intelligent design (and my own limited understanding of said design), I very much believe in evolution.  In my mind, the evidence of evolutionary improvements (or adaptations) having occurred over the millennia is irrefutable.  On the other hand, and perhaps because I have that tendency to believe in a creator, I just naturally see those periodic changes as being the result of an actively creative influence.  Even if a particular evolutionary change could be proven to have been spontaneous, i.e., not the result of direct creative interaction at the time of the change, why would it be a stretch to believe this ability to adapt could simply be a component of a creature’s original design?

Anyway, human beings, possibly as a result of having been created in God’s (i.e., the Creator’s) image, have managed to come up with some creations of their own.  Chief among those creations — because of their various resemblances to “creatures” — are automobiles, airplanes, space craft, and computers.  All of these creations evolve over time, and the evolutionary changes are implemented by the human creators.  We often speak in terms of the “next generation” of each of these creations.  (For example, I’m personally looking forward to our getting the next generation of space shuttles off the ground, assuming they’re still called space shuttles when it finally happens.)

On the other hand, when we speak of human generations, we automatically think of children, parents, grandparents, Generation X, Generation Jones, Baby Boomers, etc., in spite of the fact that humans do not exactly tend to improve every 20 years or so.  But sometimes I wonder what Jesus might have actually been referring to when he spoke of “this generation.”

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” – Mark 13:30 (NIV)

Could he have been referring to an evolutionary design change that might directly impact the physical design of human beings at some point in the future?

I know this is wild conjecture, but I’m just sharing my thoughts, after all.  And so…

A merging and melding of creatures

When we create our own version of birds (airplanes) and our own version of land animals (automobiles), we have a tendency to insert ourselves (pilots/drivers) into the brain cavities of those creatures.  Our eyes, ears, and brains become the eyes, ears, and brains of the birds and other animals we create, and so they come to life as soon as we take the controls.  Or, to look at it from another perspective, the airplanes and automobiles become exoskeletons for human beings, they become extensions of our own bodies and limbs, and we actually become those large birds and fast-running land animals.  It seems we have found ways to accelerate the schedule of our own evolutionary advancements.

Silly, huh?

But all of this leads me to a discussion of computers, because it’s our frustrating inability to create just the right versions of artificial brains, eyes, and ears that necessitates our continued reliance on human drivers or pilots (or at least remote control by humans) whenever instant reactions are expected from machines that are operating within rapidly-changing and/or unpredictable environments.

Computers are a relatively new (infantile, really) human creation, but they have already outpaced human beings in many areas, particularly those requiring high-speed and/or high-volume data processing.  Computers can do many things better (or at least faster) than humans, and humans still do many things better than computers.

Of course, as human creations go, and in spite of their newness, computers are still very special (that is, when they’re not just aggravating or frustrating).  They help us do things.  They help us to learn.  But most importantly, they resemble us.  In a very rudimentary way, they think (or at least process a wide variety of information), and they have the ability to memorize things.

These commonalities between humans and computers have given us an opportunity to view ourselves from a new perspective, and possibly to learn some things about ourselves.  In other words, while computers really only “know” what they are told by human beings, and while computers in turn can help to make a vast amount of information readily available to humans, I believe we can also learn something about our own human condition simply by observing the more basic nature and physical composition of computers.

So what can we learn?  If you’re still reading this post (and your eyes aren’t glazing over), please indulge my computer analogy:

Primary components of the human machine

Our brain is the computer that operates and maintains the machine that is our body, with all of its input devices (the five senses), output devices (facial and other muscular expressions, voice, etc.), and fuel and waste management systems (oxygen, food, drink, etc.).  In addition, the brain acts as physical processing and random access mediums (for the manipulation of active thoughts), and also as a storage medium (for storing memories).

Our mind is the operating system that runs within the brain (and some evidence involving cellular memory suggests it might also run, at least to some extent, in other bodily organs as well).  The mind is a special set of programs that is mostly built and maintained by the self (see next paragraph), but it can often also be modified, sometimes adversely, by influences outside one’s own body.  The mind sets the context and determines the perspective from which all other information is processed.

Our self (or personality, or soul, or psyche, or spirit) is both the primary user and, usually, the primary programmer of the mind.  I personally tend to think of the self (or soul) as having been attached or assigned to a particular mind (and brain) at some point during gestation, perhaps as early as conception.  To carry this personal mini-theory one step further, once this single drop of life has been added to a human embryo (or fetus — how could we ever know which?), its process of learning how to use and build the mind begins.

(The personal computer does not have its own self.  As with an airplane or automobile, the personal computer’s closest thing to a self is the primary user.  Or maybe Mac’s have a self, but PC’s don’t.  Who can really say?)

If you don’t believe in souls, perhaps you can think of the self as being the extension of the mind that is (or has somehow become) self-aware, sentient, intelligent, creative.

Our thoughts are the smaller programs that run within the context of our mind.  They are the surface programs used by the self to initially process new input (and/or previously recorded input), to rearrange selected portions of that information in an infinite possible number of ways, and to [optionally] produce some kind of output (i.e., expression), such as spoken sentences, writing, music, etc.

The input devices of the body (eyes, ears, skin, taste buds, olfactory) are our sources of all incoming information.  The self utilizes thoughts and mind in order to filter, process, discern, interpret, revise, organize, and ultimately store selected portions of this incoming information.

The output devices of the body (the voice, facial and other muscular expressions, etc.) can be used to extend programs outside one’s own body (e.g., spoken words and sentences, writings, arts & crafts, music, etc.) and make them available to the input perceptions of others.  This networking/communication process is susceptible to all manner of interference, noise, incompatibilities, and misinterpretations.

Themes.  You set the background (perspective) from which to live and work.  You choose to believe in something.

Purpose.  You decide which programs (thoughts and ideas) to install, which to avoid, which to delete, which to run, how often to run them, and how to use them.

Maintenance.  To a large extent, you choose the quality, quantity, and composition of your energy sources (food and drink and air).  You set the scheduling and choose the forms of exercise that will be applied to your systems (both mind and body).  You manage the avoidance of potential inhibitors (certain substances and influences).

Implications of the computer analogy

Maturity is a measure of growth, integrity, and efficiency (of the mind), combined with a programmed ability to discern potentially damaging information and process it accordingly.  The challenge to the self is to develop the right combination and levels of discernment, filtering, and selection processes (i.e., a value system) that will keep the mind from becoming infected with the mental equivalents of computer viruses, spyware, adware, and malware.  Although other people can exert peer-pressure, the self still makes its own choices regarding the types of information that get priority levels of attention, as well as the quantities that will be deemed sufficient from each type.

Just as a computer can become sluggish, ineffective, and corrupted when exposed to the wrong code, a mind that has been flooded with inordinate quantities of certain persistent thoughts, ideas, concepts, and/or images can become extremely inefficient and counterproductive.  An infected mind will likely taint new information with unfair (or unkind, incorrect, inconsiderate, disrespectful, malicious) preconceptions, then attempt to spread the corruption to others via its own forms of outward expression.

On the other hand, the best firewall and anti-virus system is not the one that simply closes off all incoming ports and proceeds to eradicate any incoming information that is even slightly unfamiliar or uncomfortable.  This is the reaction of the closed mind, the self-righteous or fearful mind, the mind that seeks only the familiar, and simply criticizes, condemns, and/or completely avoids anything that is different.

So how to choose the books, movies, TV and radio programs, games, images, music, language, and ideas (i.e., all of the potential incoming information) that will be given higher priority as you continue the ongoing process of assembling and reassembling your own mind?  All of these expressions (of others) comprise potential fuel for the mind, and the quality of this fuel should be just as important to you as your choice of foods and exercise regimens.  All of these expressions can have the power to lift or depress.  To inspire or corrupt.  To heal or hurt.

If you happen to be interested in building at least a portion of your mind around the theme of compassion, I would suggest keeping most of your firewall ports open.  Give higher priority to the more uplifting and strengthening influences, but don’t live under a rock or close yourself off from other people or other ideas (with some possible exceptions, most of which can be found at the left and right extremities of the political and religious spectrums — even an open mind should not feel obligated to expose itself needlessly or excessively to the most extreme forms of stupidity that exist in this world).

Instead, focus your programming energies on strengthening your ability to discern.  Without building a rigid grid of preconceptions and prejudgments against which to measure all information, nevertheless construct a flexible yet highly reliable information vetting system (value system) that will protect the integrity of your personal convictions (and desired worldview) while extending respect and reasonable consideration toward the different values expressed by others.  Be open to new ideas, but actively neutralize, file away, or discard (with all due respect) any ideas that you deem to be incompatible with — or potentially harmful to — your own chosen themes and beliefs.  Where differences are sure to remain between yourself and others, create the capacity for understanding, acceptance (or at least tolerance), and continued participation in mutually beneficial communication.  And in order to grow, be willing to change when all reasonable evidence suggests it is time to do so.  Never allow yourself to believe that all of your opinions and positions are infallible, especially if they are hurtful to others.

As a shirt recently worn by one of my favorite people very succinctly says:  “Don’t believe everything you think.”

Final thoughts

When viewed as an advanced computer, the human being is unbelievably superior to any other computer that exists today.  Although computers can be made to excel at certain tasks that leave humans in the dust, the fact that humans created and control them is evidence of the absolute supremacy humans enjoy over their creations.  Today’s computers exist solely because of the amazing ability of the human computer to self-program, to optimize and reorganize pieces of past experiences in order to visualize things that have never existed, and then to create them.

Perhaps one day, personal computers will attain some semblance of a self.  Computer scientists, engineers, and developers dream of nothing less, but the attainment of this goal will still be an accomplishment of the creator, not the created.

So rather than looking down at our creations and attempting to infuse them with more human qualities such as intelligence and self-awareness, might we benefit more by learning from the selflessness of those same creations?  Should we spend less time attempting to glorify ourselves through our creations, and instead aspire to become, like our own personal computers, totally dependent on an external source of power?  Should we learn to look up instead of down, with the hope that we might actually lose our sense of self entirely, and commit ourselves completely to the cause of serving others?