Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The rise of technological God-like beings

#1
C C Offline
https://iai.tv/articles/the-rise-of-god-..._auid=2020

Are some important questions simply un-answerable by humans due to the type of biological beings we are? Philosophers such as Kant thought so. But humanity’s thirst for knowledge makes us unhappy with not knowing. In an age where person-engineering technologies such as Crispr and Neuralink are becoming a reality, enhancing our biology might illuminate the answers to some of life’s deepest questions writes Mark Walker.

INTRO: Today we are at the cusp of our most profound crisis—what I call the “über crisis”. The antecedents of this crisis can be traced back at least to Heraclitus, one of the early Greek philosophers, who wrote, “The wisest man will appear an ape in relation to God, both in wisdom and beauty and everything else.”

Heraclitus offers an early formulation of what I call ‘noetic skepticism’. When applied to any species, noetic skepticism says that there are biological limits to its ability to grasp important truths. If Heraclitus is correct, Homo sapiens are permanently cut off from important truths. So, if we want to discover all those important truths, we will have to change our biology. A perilous thought for sure, but history is replete with stories of humans taking great risks for sake of greater knowledge: Pandora’s box, the tree of knowledge, and the travails of Dr. Faust.

Noetic skepticism was a prominent part of philosophical discussion until relatively recently. For example, in the dialectic between Kant and Hegel in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Since then, interest has waned. Perhaps this decline is due to the rise of secular culture. After all, Kant offered God as his primary example of a noetic being: a being who stands to us in intelligence and wisdom as we do to apes.

Once we rid ourselves of God, so this line of thought goes, we can reject noetic skepticism. But Noetic skepticism is the worry that the biological limitations of our understanding put important truths out of reach, not the worry that some other being is in possession of such truths. Noetic skepticism applies to chimps; there are important truths a chimp cannot grasp. Whether or not humans exist does not change this fact about chimps’ grasp of the world. The same is true of humans and the existence of God.

Person-engineering technologies will make it possible to accomplish in a matter of years what evolution would take thousands of millennia to achieve.

The über crisis is the question of whether to create noetic beings: we have, or very soon will have, person-engineering technologies that could be used to this end. These technologies will make it possible to accomplish in a matter of years what evolution would take thousands of millennia to achieve. Here are four emerging person-engineering technologies with this potential... (MORE)
Reply
#2
Ostronomos Offline
Do you believe that our access to truth is contingent on our biology?
Reply
#3
C C Offline
(Feb 25, 2021 07:33 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Do you believe that our access to truth is contingent on our biology?

Obviously an insect can grasp a "bigger picture of what's going on" than a microbe, a dog more than an insect, and a human more than a dog. But once biology reaches the point of self-programming and being able to handle abstract concepts, it seems to be purely a contest of information capture and storage, processing speed, and creativity with relationships and quantity.

An archailect or techno-god ultimately seems just as limited to inferring and verifying items of the sensible world as humans, though it might generate multi-dimensional representations from sensory input. It could probably extract more patterns from both very long-term and very short-term sequences of events than what humans can, and conceive more challenging theoretical constructs and mathematical products (that wouldn't necessarily correspond to anything actual). It could also tote around its own sophisticated, simulated reality to dwell in avatar-wise (more regulated and coherent than mortal dreams and hallucinations).

Any prior-in-rank level that was completely different from this one (i.e., avoided the homunculus fallacy) would not conform to computational and spatiotemporal properties. So an archailect susceptible to psychotropic or mystical trips probably couldn't make better non-predisposition, consensus, systemic order out of them than human adepts across the centuries. Granting that there was anything more to them just the hidden architecture of a brain or the micro-technological configurations of a super AI represented as unfamiliar experiences.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Technological amnesia Magical Realist 2 653 Oct 15, 2015 08:49 AM
Last Post: elte
  Technological telepathy C C 1 722 Mar 10, 2015 11:26 PM
Last Post: stryder



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)