To me is the base – God, who is perfect, created us flawed people – with the ability of free will to do good or evil. He gave us examples and the word.
We (the Techies, who are a very scary group of postmodernist kinds) create AI. We are totally imperfect, the ones doing this creating are likely on the evil end of the curve – So we create AI, and give it free will, but not the understanding of good and evil as we are not divine.
Well evil, it is immensely clever, has had eternity to learn to hide, corrupt, lie, reason.. When Jesus and Satan met Jesus had knowledge of God to save him… AI will have not, it will have the Techies who are possibly already serving the dark.
I agree that our devices, though never so advanced, do not have the spiraculum vitae, the breath of life. They are not made into living souls. We have achieved an incredible level of control over nature, but it is not the mastery many imagine it to be. Though we select DNA and “concoct” people in a laboratory–or black market warehouse–we do not know what quickens the life within living creatures at the moment of conception. We may call it God or call it random, but we do not know. That unknowing can itself have a sacred quality, and should at the very least be remembered. It must serve as a “firewall” of minimal humility before the Forces of Nature.
Tyler Durden
4 months ago
A debut for Virilio in the modern Anglo media? The local reality is that tech conceptualists are eternal adolescents whose work feeds back into their autism to create enhanced irreality be that an obsession with hyperreality or the simple, boundless ecstasy of digital communication.
Daniel Lee
4 months ago
“Human beings appear to be the only mortal finite beings who wish to transcend their finitude.”
We’re the only mortal finite beings who know we’re finite.
I get where you’re coming from, but think it might be possible that other creatures (such as dolphins, whales, chimps) have some understanding of the finite nature of life. When one of their species dies – and presumably they also have a concept of aging too – they will note the lifelessness of the corpse. I’m not sure if any species (other than humans) carry out rituals after death? Perhaps someone with specialist knowledge in this area might comment, but that would be definitive.
But i think your general point stands. In one key respect, it’s our mortality that makes us human, and if we were to transcend that final boundary we’d become something else.
Alan Gore
4 months ago
To me the Noosphere is all of the information that comprises civilization itself. Traditionally we have accessed it through scholars and their written and artistic works. Today’s tech devices give us fast access to a newsy and opinionated fraction of that idea base. Will that fraction steadily evolve into true instant access to all the knowledge that civilization has to offer, or will it remain just a cultist fraction?
George K
4 months ago
De Chardin was apparently wrong about the evolution having meaning and direction, at least accessible to our understanding. His radical evolutionary progressivism didn’t anticipate noosphere being hostile to the human nature.
To me is the base – God, who is perfect, created us flawed people – with the ability of free will to do good or evil. He gave us examples and the word.
We (the Techies, who are a very scary group of postmodernist kinds) create AI. We are totally imperfect, the ones doing this creating are likely on the evil end of the curve – So we create AI, and give it free will, but not the understanding of good and evil as we are not divine.
Well evil, it is immensely clever, has had eternity to learn to hide, corrupt, lie, reason.. When Jesus and Satan met Jesus had knowledge of God to save him… AI will have not, it will have the Techies who are possibly already serving the dark.
I agree that our devices, though never so advanced, do not have the spiraculum vitae, the breath of life. They are not made into living souls. We have achieved an incredible level of control over nature, but it is not the mastery many imagine it to be. Though we select DNA and “concoct” people in a laboratory–or black market warehouse–we do not know what quickens the life within living creatures at the moment of conception. We may call it God or call it random, but we do not know. That unknowing can itself have a sacred quality, and should at the very least be remembered. It must serve as a “firewall” of minimal humility before the Forces of Nature.
A debut for Virilio in the modern Anglo media? The local reality is that tech conceptualists are eternal adolescents whose work feeds back into their autism to create enhanced irreality be that an obsession with hyperreality or the simple, boundless ecstasy of digital communication.
“Human beings appear to be the only mortal finite beings who wish to transcend their finitude.”
We’re the only mortal finite beings who know we’re finite.
I get where you’re coming from, but think it might be possible that other creatures (such as dolphins, whales, chimps) have some understanding of the finite nature of life. When one of their species dies – and presumably they also have a concept of aging too – they will note the lifelessness of the corpse. I’m not sure if any species (other than humans) carry out rituals after death? Perhaps someone with specialist knowledge in this area might comment, but that would be definitive.
But i think your general point stands. In one key respect, it’s our mortality that makes us human, and if we were to transcend that final boundary we’d become something else.
To me the Noosphere is all of the information that comprises civilization itself. Traditionally we have accessed it through scholars and their written and artistic works. Today’s tech devices give us fast access to a newsy and opinionated fraction of that idea base. Will that fraction steadily evolve into true instant access to all the knowledge that civilization has to offer, or will it remain just a cultist fraction?
De Chardin was apparently wrong about the evolution having meaning and direction, at least accessible to our understanding. His radical evolutionary progressivism didn’t anticipate noosphere being hostile to the human nature.