Obligate Mutualism

On several occasions, I have been asked about my view regarding technology.  I originally was concerned my views would be categorized as both unconventional as well as bordering on madness.  Interestingly enough, the reception of the approach to the coexistence of humanity with AI has been embraced as possible.  Quite possible, indeed. 

I would like to ensure my readers that I do see the use of certain technologies as advantageous for daily life applications.  For instance, a cellphone used on occasions where there's a flat tire or one is lost.  I get it.  However, the use of cellphones, now smartphones, has led to the obligate mutualism of humanity to technology.  In fact, many individuals would honestly say they can't live without their phones within their immediate reach. 

This is the first of many signs of the inevitable downfall of the human race resulting from the rise and the eventual takeover by technology - namely Artificial Intelligence - of our world, civilizations and freedom.  Medical procedures, government functions, personal data, airports, electrical grids and even metropolitan transit systems, are computerized to such an extent that any failure on the part of the machines will led to total shutdown of daily human life activity.  This is truly a frightening prospect.  I'm sure most of my readers have experienced calling a bank and being told that their access to their money is not possible at the present time because the system is down.  So, this means your money isn't yours to do whatever you want with it whenever you want to as the machines are down.  No access to accounts, no transfer of funds, ATMs down, etc.  The list is an infinite illustration of just how the current situation is jeopardizing our human way of life.  

Machines, robots, all forms of technology were produced to help humanity.  But humanity remained in control.  It is increasingly clear that the current and future generations of computer engineers and those dedicated to Frankenstein-esque work on human artificial intelligence robots, do not consider the moral implications of their work.  Coexistence will lead to a robot-based civil rights movement.  Eventually the word, “robot”, will be consider equitable to the use of the N----r or to calling homosexuals F—s.   Then hate crime legislation will be contemplated because robot lives matter.  

We’ll have the first human and robot wedding redefining marriage across the planet.  Surely we’ll be in the presence of the first robot Senator in the decades to come.  This is of course, if humanity survives the first robotic civil war.

The conscience of the machines will only be as pure as that of its producer.   

This leads to the question about the soul and if the very nature of the robot’s presence and reality as a tool makes it a being with a metaphysical constitution.  Hammers and automobiles do not have souls.  Neither do dogs.  But, what if a machine begins to think for itself and considers its reality subjectively.  No longer as part of an instinctive group or pack, but as an individual with a sense of purpose and transcendence.  Could this be programmed?  And if so, would it suffice to now render the machine eligible for a soul?  Is a soul something one can aim or strive to possess or is it the sole property of the life forms created by God and not produced by humans?  The whole of nature is part of the Over-soul.  This is to say that all of nature is imbued with a special form of natural revelation and holiness.  Despite its destruction by humanity, the whole of the natural order and the universe is holy and therefore transcends the need for a soul.  Therefore a soul has an end.  It is a teleological and existential reality.  It is born of wonder and tempered by suffering.  It is almost a certain statement that AI offspring will be problem solvers to the point of such excellence, that suffering will be virtually eradicated.  In essence, erasing any possibility of being human. 

A programmed consciousness cannot be an organic, metaphysical reality.  It is counterfeit.  Despite its access to knowledge in nanoseconds or eventually in zeptoseconds, will still be the result of programming and not of authentic spiritual introspection.  It will address data provided and not experienced.  Experience is the privilege of the living and not of the ones turned on by a power switch.  No matter how elaborate or how celebrated the science may be, the outcome is one of counterfeit approximations to the greatest exercise in idolatry since the Tower of Babel.