# Biological computers summarized In one framing of thought, [our DNA](science-life-biochem.md) is a computer. It has 4 nucleotide base pairs, which come together as a quaternary program. The entire system is vastly complex, but all life is programmed from those 4 primitives, similarly to how the 2 primitives of true/false [create all math inside a computer](math.md). ## Limits There are constraints to the DNA analogy: - Our brains are chemical trigger machines, but programmed softly through [the repetition of habit](habits.md) (rather than hard entry of non-negotiable [information](data.md)). - Computers are logic machines, and if we work hard enough at making [AI algorithms](computers-ai.md), we can make them imitate feelings. By contrast, we are [feeling](mind-feelings.md) beings that create [logic](logic.md) upon those framed intuitions once we've achieved some level of [certainty](understanding-certainty.md). It's safe to say mindless activities track absolutely the same as a computer (e.g., working a [factory job](computers-robotics.md), [driving](creations.md) passively down a clear highway), and all of those tasks can largely be automated. However, once a conscious mind engages and [a soul](humanity.md) makes decisions, there's a clear divorce between a computer and a living being. The *only* way this could be completely overlapping is if we philosophically believe that [human beings' existence](humanity.md) is *nothing* but [information](information.md). This entire idea is *not* [fashionable](https://trendless.tech/trends/) among the tech industry, mostly because it expresses hard limits on [how far we can go](computers-ai.md). We are fully capable to re-engineer *components* of life like limbs and organs, but something will always evade us that sits almost squarely in the domain of [religion](religion.md). ## Possible As an emerging technology, it's *possible* to [build computers with DNA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing), but it will take an *enormous* amount of effort managing proteins on a microscopic level. It is certainly possible to convert any cell into a stem cell by wiping it out, but that's a *very* bleeding-edge development. If we sidestep the [Sars-CoV-19 conspiracy theory](conspiracy.md), the actual implementation of an mRNA vaccine is the beginning of reprogramming DNA, and the technology has been developing as rapidly as they can finance it. Before we get there, we'd have support systems to *monitor* DNA (e.g., nanobots). This would be much easier, and could detect things like [cancer](body-4_health.md) much earlier than simply waiting for symptoms to express. We'll need at least a few decades before we can even explore that domain. Even then, there are too many unknowns (e.g., unintentionally bound proteins, consequences of mutations, how to fix an error). Destroying things is often easier than preserving or duplicating it, and sabotaging existing DNA is within the realm of present possibility. [Infecting parasite DNA](https://www.techexplorist.com/disorient-malaria-parasite-prevent-harm/62346/), for example, could cut down on diseases or infections. However, beyond working with DNA, we *are* developing the means to interact with a computer directly with brain signals. It's relatively rudimentary as of the early 2020s, but it's only a matter of time before an electrode becomes a comparable interface device over a [keyboard](computers-keyboard.md) and [mouse](computers-mouse.md). ## Hard Limits There are hard limits to how far computers can develop, and they simply can't get any smaller than a certain as-of-yet-unknown size. That limit will determine how far some of the technologies can be implemented. The [interfacing](engineering-design.md) we make with computers has always been an impediment. Most interface design is built around "good enough", but nature itself has interfacing designed to be as seamless as reasonably possible. As a few examples, there's no perceptible delay for your hand movement, and you don't have to wonder if your feet haven't been calibrated before going for a walk. Further, as much as people like to imagine we can create life, we still barely understand what a living being *is*. The genetic code only speaks to one portion of the experience, and plain intuition dictates there's another domain that sits beyond what we presently know. One knowable truth about computers, though, is that working with life enough to *transfer* it (e.g., upload consciousness into a computer) would simply create another life and delete the original, similarly to how ["moving" a file across media is an illusion of copying and deleting the original](computers-files.md). ## Ethics Of course, ethical considerations also abound with this new technology. If genes could be edited toward one domain or another, engineering a baby from birth would naturally form a [bias](mind-bias.md) toward favorable traits (e.g, being healthy), but it slowly leads to engineering other optional traits that may also be favorable (e.g., height, intellect, [personality](personality.md)). Scaled across society, the consequences would be dramatic: [social class](classes.md) distinctions based on genetics, differing [rules](people-rules.md) based on genetic predisposition, and other hairy problems that presently only exist in the realm of science fiction. And, of course, brain-computer interfaces don't *have* to operate one-way. If someone can operate software with only their thoughts, it could be possible to send thoughts *into* a brain as well.