C.P. Snow's Two Cultures:

Hardware and Software, Discovery and Creation

Summary

In his recent work "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge"[1], E.O. Wilson notes that not only does the gap between the two cultures of the Sciences and the Humanities described by C.P. Snow in 1959[2] continue to exist today, but that its very origin is unexplained. In this essay I describe a possible (scientific!) explanation for the existence of these two cultures.

Briefly, the Sciences seek to understand the physical world and, from a human perspective, this is a study of our human "hardware." Amazingly, this hardware is complex enough to support self-conscious thought. But, just as a general purpose computer can run a variety of programs[3], our human hardware allows us to "run" a huge range of individual and collective "cultural software"[4]. The Humanities, then, focus on the cultural creations of human beings; these creations cover a huge range and are central to our experience as human beings, yet they are not derivable from and only loosely constrained by the properties of our hardware.

This view suggests a mariage of the two cultures which recognizes each of their strengths and limitations. Scientists may retain their claims to the objectivity of their results regarding the physical world but might adopt some humility by recognizing the large contribution to their success that is due to the extraordinary "model-ability" of the physical world itself, as opposed to the strength of the scientific process per se. Humanists would do well to understand, acknowledge and incorporate the results of science where appropriate and relevant. On the other hand, the Humanities may properly declare that much of their domain transcends scientific criteria of truth[5], that it is fundamentally subjective, and yet that it is ultimately what is most important to our lives as human beings[6].

Of Computers, Hardware, and Software

In the 1940's Alan Turing conceived of a universal computing machine in which:

"There will positively be no internal ["hardware"] alterations to be made even if we wish suddenly to switch from calculating the energy levels of the neon atom to the enumeration of groups of order 720." [3]p.293

At the time this kind of general purpose computing machine was a novel idea but today it is common place. Personal computers can be used to process words, display text and pictures, produce music, provide interactive game worlds, etc. Adding a new capability is carried out primarilly by loading some new software into the machine rather than making changes to the machine's hardware. The look and feel of the machine can change dramatically depending on the software running on it.

Alan Turing also demonstrated that at some level all such universal computing machines are equivalent and able to perform the same calculations given appropriate software and enough memory. The underlying hardware, then, takes on a supporting but not defining role for this software.

In a similar way, as self-conscious learning creatures, the "action" for human beings and their societies has, for at least several thousands of years, moved away from being defined by our "hardware", genes and the laws of physics, and is rather defined through our "software", "memes"[1,6] and cultural legacy. The existence of so many different languages, modes of social organization, religious beliefs, musical styles, etc. are examples of the ability of our human hardware to support a range of cultural software.

It may be more accurate to speak of our brain as being "programmed" rather than "wired" - the later suggesting a relatively fixed state that requires gross physical changes to change. In fact people are capable of learning and modifying behavior and values on short time scales.

Connections between Hardware and Software

Of course the image above of a personal computer representing a human being is simplistic and leaves out a key ingredient: there is a connection between our harware and our software which is more intimate than in a personal computer. A personal computer receives no indication that it is running a "good" program or a "bad" one, or that it needs more electricity, or that its hardware is deteriorating.

For a human being, it is more accurate to add some "firmware": this is hardware which carries out reletively sophisticated functions but, because it is hardware, it requires more dramatic physical changes to change its function, e.g. at the genetic level.

Our conscious software is made aware of the body (the hardware) through such direct inputs as the five senses. On a deeper level the brain receives complex even hidden-to-us signals about our well-being. Psychology and the study of feelings and emotions, e.g., flow[6], is central to this aspect. There are complex interplays between our "top-level software" and the messages from our firmware. Messages of hunger and desire can be "controlled" by our values, on the other hand, chemical imbalances can imprint despair on our consciousness.

Religion

I wonder if it is safe to say that many religious leaders and founders have not seemed too interested in science? For example, in the case of Buddhism the Buddha set out to relieve suffering - hence understanding the causes for human suffer was his focus. The "three poisons" of greed, anger, and stupidity were identified as the fundamental evils inherent in life which give rise to human suffering. If this is representative of other religions, the conclusion appears that most suffering has more to do with our "software" than our physical situation.

( Speaking of religion, it is interesting and in keeping with this general view that the selection of an operating system for a personal computer (e.g., MacOS vs Windows98) is often described as being of a "religious" character! )

[This is a subject for further research: did Jesus, Buddha, etc. ever express interest in science per se, that is how the physical world works? Or were their concerns exclusivley human centered?]

Towards the Future

While "objective" science may speak of "truth", in the humanities (and hence our daily lives) it may be more important and in fact only possible to speak of "value" [5] which is a subjective measure that varies in relation to a given human situation.

While we discover the workings of the physical world, it is more crucial that we focus effort on creating our world view and values; for example there is work being carried out to draft an "Earth Charter" of ethical principles[7]. If we choose meta-values such as "each individual life is precious", "the creation of value[5] and feelings of flow[6] should be maximized for all", and "the steady state health of the world ecosystem should be maintained" then we may find that the Sciences will be able to provide some input to our shaping of values; but we must always remember that the values are created by and captured in our cultural software:

"How many people are there, I wonder, who truly believe that we can change the world through the power of spiritual value?"[8]

References

• [1] E.O. Wilson, "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge", 1998.
• [2] C.P. Snow, "The Two Cultures", 1959, reissued 1993.
• [3] A. Hodges, "Alan Turing: The Enigma", 1983.
• [4] J.M. Balkin , "Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology", 1998.
• [5] D.M. Bethel, "Makiguchi the Value Creator: Revolutionary Japanese Educator and Founder of Soka Gakkai", 1994
• [6] M. Csikszentmihalyi, "The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third Millenni um", 1994.
• [7] The Earth Charter Campaign: http://www.earthcharter.org
• [8] D. Ikeda, Soka Gakkai International (SGI) President's New Years Message, Jan.1, 1999

Further work

I have assembled these remarks before reading C.P. Snow's actual lecture and Balkin's "Cultural Software" - I am looking forward to these reads!

This web page is: http://sites.google.com/site/dan3dewey/two_cultures

(c) Copyright 1999 Dan Dewey

Dan Dewey can be contacted through e-mail to Dan2E@aol.com