It has become a standard trope of the last couple of centuries plus; for radicals and The Establishment (i.e. the affiliates of evil, as we may now recognize them) to subvert all those concepts that were at one time responsible for societal cohesion, purpose and meaning.
All kinds of law, for example, have been subverted: whether legal system laws, scientific laws or the laws of religion. Most people have long since been persuaded that - at the very bottom line and ultimately - these and other "laws" are Man-made, contingent, labile, and expedient.
They cannot be a fundamental basis for life - because they are not fundamental.
Such subversion has been possible because it is true - so that even when the motives for subversion are evil, and the motives for retaining the "reality" of laws are good - this does not matter over time and in the end; because the laws just aren't really real.
What then, is really-real?
The answer is what I call Beings*. Those entities of which we are an example, and so is God, Jesus Christ, every person, animal, plant and mineral... All are either A Being in their own right, or else a component part of a Being. (As a strand of molecules may be a component of a plant or animal Being.)
By my understanding, Beings are the irreducible entities of reality.
As irreducible and fundamental, Beings cannot be defined; although we can list some of their attributes - such as aliveness, consciousness, the capacity for growth/ development/ self-reproduction, purposiveness.
So although "They" might legitimately (logically, rationally, truly) be able to subvert most things and reveal them to be contingent - They cannot legitimately subvert Beings.
Beings are the primary reality, hence indestructible.
But of course They are trying illegitimately to subvert Beings! i.e. By falsehoods to persuade people that Beings are not the irreducible components of reality - but that Beings are really just "things" that can be manufactured, programmed, replaced or destroyed.
That's what the long-term and strategic AI/Transhumanism strategy is ultimately about - all those fictions and philosophical "thought experiments" and bureaucratic assumptions - that robots can be like people - including empathic and loving; those movies that show computers can be intelligent, make judgments, have purposes; that minds can be downloaded; that Men are optional elements of a society (which might be a simulation) - and so on.
But because Beings really are the bottom line reality - all of this agenda is false. It is based on exclusionary definitions, on calculated reductionism - and on sheer lies!
It is designed to persuade, to brainwash actually, people into regarding themselves as not-Beings; into behaving as not-Beings; into treating each-other as not-Beings - ultimately, into thinking and experiencing as not-Beings.
This is a huge business in the world here-and-now: not merely the process of dehumanizing, but actually to convince people that all Beings are contingent and replaceable.
Furthermore; a fair bit of religion and spirituality is part of this projects!
Of course we all know otherwise. We have innate knowledge otherwise. God can reveal to us otherwise The Holy Ghost will guide us otherwise.
Yet many/ most people ignore all this.
Such people have decided that they actively want their own not-Being.
Their strategy of subverting Beingness can only succeed if we actively invite it into our hearts.
Unless we do Their work for them - they cannot convince us we are not-Beings.
But They will keep on trying, 24/7, attacking from all sides simultaneously!
Because for Them:- to induce people really to believe we are contingent abstractions and so are those whom we love, is the ultimate triumph of evil.
**
*Note Added: It may be worth clarifying (for newcomers?) that all Beings are primarily spiritual; only secondarily (and only sometimes) material. The material is always spiritual; but the spiritual is not always material.
10 comments:
In American English at least, the term human being has almost disappeared over the last 50 years or so. We are no just humans, that is, just another biological category. Now, they introduce transhumans. I don't know if such a term could grab hold as it has if we stuck with human beings. Transhuman beigns?
Even if it was possible to create an artificial consciousness, I believe that it would rather be taking advantage of a natural process to allow a being to incarnate. It wouldn't be the creation of a consciousness from the ground up (even if people were to claim it as such).
Though I don't think anyone has any idea how to do that and no one may ever be able to.
@NLR - It is not a matter of "being able" to create consciousness, but that consciousness is not the kind of thing that can be created.
Consciousness can only be an aspect (an attribute) of a Being.
@Pk - Good point! I hadn't noticed that.
I apologize for my less-than-adequate proof reading.
Comments from Pk:
"The changes to common language usage surely affect the thoughts across generations. Following the great Birdemic litmus test, the change to how we (in the US) define "peck" and even a "case" of Birdemic (positive test versus an observed serious sickness) will be devastating.
"On a lighter note, my 30-something sons were shocked at a very nice 1950s love song that mentioned "making love." They did not know that up to the late 50s, making love referred to courtship and not sex. The evolution of that phrase greatly supported the feminist and free-love movement!"
That was my mistake, I should have written more clearly.
What I should have said was that if it appeared that an artificial consciousness was created from the ground up and people claimed that this is what happened, that wouldn't actually be what was happening.
In other words, though they aren't doing this now and probably never will, even if the AI believers were to actually appear to do what they claim to be able to do in the future (not just to fool people that they have), that wouldn't be what really happened.
@NLR - OK. I think I get what you mean!
Always a bit jarring when I come across “making love” in a novel written before 1950, eg a Georgette Heyer Regency romance.
Yes, consciousness is not created, what is created is an container for consciousness, like brain
Post a Comment