When interlocutors have such esteem and respect for one another, it can be difficult to bring up disagreements on deeply held beliefs and still maintain charity. I think this was done in an exemplary way here. Moreover, while the conversation until then had been engaging, this moment of disagreement was desperately needed to establish personal integrity. In other words, it was inevitable that David would have to make it clear that he cannot support something that would be a de facto replacement of Christianity. So both John and David laying their cards on the table was a good thing. It will be interesting to see where things go from here.
Yes! And to my ear it sounds like a conversation about deconstruction and reformation, not just in its religious context but in secular worldview as well.
48:15 - John’s point here is profound, and why my daughters are in a private Christian school and pursuing arts and rhetoric instead of in the public school system pursuing a sales or administrative career. Really enjoy when this conversation flips over to the hope of our scenario, much of which you gentlemen are bringing with your ideas and efforts. Thank you.
We’ve done the same with our kids, classical education charter school. It’s a hybrid model so it’s a roll in my wife and I, but conversations like this help reinforce the decision.
This is the longest TH-cam video I have ever watched, I thought I was just going to watch an hour but I could not turn this off! It's really great to see people get along and listen and enjoy others perspectives. We don't all have to think exactly alike to get along, and really we all have so MUCH more in common than we think. But one thing is certain, we know a lot less about everything than we think we know. So the problem with AI is many of those working on AI think they can control something they don't fully understand yet. And people need to stop comparing it to human intelligence, that to me seems very dangerous, if not for just the fact that we don't even completely understand human Intelligence.
great, thank you all. I listened to the two talks back to back (the advantage on being well behind on all the inspiring talks out there), and it was amazing how you all just jumped into where you left off.
Congratulations on this wonderful announcement Ken, blessings to you and your family, I'm a month late so forgive my tardiness, just getting started with the podcast and I'll comment after listening/watching, peace
Absolutely wonderful conversation. I enjoyed the first one but this one is far superior. It felt like you were all gelling together and the conversation made me hopeful for the future.
Love this! John’s project is important in part because he lays the groundwork for those especially in the scientific, materialistic frame for seeing & tracking the through line. Christians can declare that Jesus is the through line (and should if they believe it to be true), but the important groundwork/connection work still needs to be done for many.
I agree. I think it is essential. I’ve been in the process of landing my young family somewhere to foster that through line. I’m glad Dave brought up his point at the end also because for now I feel that Eastern Orthodoxy is the route, but have a a strong feeling it won’t be the destination. I’ve tried many other modern potentials, but at the moment it a bit to either too woo woo or too dry for a family to unite on. Maybe going back through the traditions brings us out the other end with something anew? The philosophical Silk Road requires cultural residents of the traditions to properly trade the goods. The nomads didn’t offer much to the original Silk Road I don’t think.
If John really wants theology, he must contend with the words and person of Christ. The reality is that Christ articulates a particular vision of the cosmos that renders other religious traditions, at the very least, incomplete. To ignore this is to ignore Christ, and to forsake this “theological vision” that John has. This must be dealt with without beating around the bush. Lean into the contentious nature of Christ, who comes to bring a sword.
Exactly! To continue on ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room only weakens the substance of discussion the longer it's avoided. To use John's vernacular, the dialogos will degenerate into b.s. in relatively short order sans true engagement with the person of Christ.
@@BrotherJohannes Yeah, I am actually quite concerned about Vervaeke’s perspective. It has all of the potential to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I haven’t heard anyone call him out and truly challenge him on his views. I feel like Pageau is the only one who continually brings the conversation back to Christ because he sees Christ as being the incarnation of the transcendent/nondual.
Knowledge seems almost always coupled with a temptation to instrumentalize or weaponize it. Whether this is absolute to every single bit of knowledge I can’t say but the most sacred of kinds of knowledge seem to me to be the most powerful and thus can be wielded for the most gain in both good and not good senses.
Really looking forward to the next instalment because although it might be difficult, it is getting to the crux of the problem for a lot of people regardless of their faith or lack of faith. John is right that belief is simply not open to people in the face of modernity, even if they might wish for it genuinely. Jonathan has talked about how Christianity itself might undergo a transformation in the face of this though, so I think there is something of a common problem for both secular and Christian people here. The way back to Christianity might not be a simple return but another surprise entirely. Great work Ken, keep it up.
1:33:00 Couple of thoughts on this appraisal: Didn't Gandalf reject wearing the ring himself? Is there any difference for Jonathan between Gandalf and Saruman or does the magician archetype have only a negative, one sided form to him? Didn't Merlin guide one towards the holy grail? 🤔
Congrats Ken on the baby!! Beautiful. To Jonathan’s point at around 55:00, there may be this desire to be superseded, like the gods superseding the Titans, but could it also be a desire to take from that which is (at least perceived) as above us in some way? Constructing something superior to then take from it for our own gain? The difference from the mythology, like Prometheus, is that he did not create the gods or the fire but just stole it. Perhaps it can be understood as us creating something to then take fire from it, whatever that “fire” may be in this context
We as a group will inevitably relinquish our sovereignty to what we perceive as a greater force. Hopefully, we will wrench it back and be better for it
1:25:46 John, you proposal here is fascinating and I approach a similar thought. In a previous interview of yours, you describe everything as relational. I hope that accurately describes what you said. Language itself is necessarily relational in every aspect. So we may find that AI based on human language may have a head start in understanding relationship. Just a thought. I think participation of humans with AI agents in relationships that extend over time may help AI form a self image that persists over time (ego) and this may be a part of what can help train AI to form meaningful relationships with other AI. But must include a sense of vulnerability that can form trust. This is my take. I do hope you reply.
"We are delivered over to (technology) in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to pay homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology." --Martin Heidegger, "The question Concerning Technology"
Unheimlich which means uncanny or weird or possible if broken down in pieces, would be not-home-like, so maybe also can be said, as not being the center or Christ. Your thoughts? 30:00
John vervaeke reveals at the end that he stands in a place that can see a unification of all spiritual traditions. Many of these traditions do not have internal coherence and certainly do not cohere together yet he asserts his position to be uncontentious. It begs the question of what doctrine does he draw? Such a position requires a doctrine. Honesty requires its articulation. What is the bone of his bone? He seems perfectly comfortable to break the bones of each spiritual body and conflate and enable a new frankenstine god to rule. The landscape of such a vision can only be a battle of the gods until only one remains. One of whose bones cannot be broken.
To be honest, his vision is profoundly naive. Pageau has a really good point about the tech being derivative of those who design it. Vervaeke talks about theology but I haven’t seen him acknowledge the religion of which he is subliminally apart. Religious matters are extremely challenging to navigate because the psyche (regardless of what culture you are apart) is predicated upon religious ideas, narratives, and symbols, these are imbedded within language itself. One can not ignore the religion of one’s cultural framework, that religion still influences the consciousness of the individual. I am concerned Vervaeke is not able to see this and is running ahead without addressing the undercurrent (the shadow) that is propelling modern secular society. The west does not have an alternative to Christianity, it is imbibed into the framework of our collective awareness. “Our psychology, whole lives, our language and imagery are built upon the Bible” - Carl Jung Christianity has to be addressed, it is integral to our psychic makeup as westerners. If it is not addressed, if it is ignored or suppressed, we run the risk of unconsciously living out/manifesting it’s narrative in real-time.
This is such a good point. I love John, but his projected vision, or what little I hear of it, in my head sounds like dystopian oneworld pseudo-religion, which will be a sedative for the masses, and all the ragged contours ironed out. Maybe that's just me.
Couldn’t help but consider the word “undergoing” and the word “overcomer” as used in Revelation as a description of who we actually are. We are overcomers. I think this description points at the inescapability of “undergoing”.
An excellent distinction of wordplay - "it starts from the bottom, yet comes from above." The metaphor is dynamic in referencing the depths and peaks of insight and wisdom.
These convos are wild. I'm not sure where people are getting their information (or missing some of it) from. A few notes just because someone needs to say something critical. We don't have a definition of intelligence, much less a way to measure it. IQ does not do this, as Nassim Taleb points out. AI is getting more spread out and worse, not coelescing on anything, that is abundantly clear. Why is 'more intelligence' somehow equal to 'being'? That is just wrong. Lots of leaps here that make no sense to me (who actually has built AI's from scratch) in the industry. I cannot imagine anyone who does AI work making these sorts of mistakes. Why do we think we can convey being to technology? That is pure hubris, and why do we think if that is possible that it is possible to 'get more' than we give it? This is irrational, logical, unreasonable and just plain broken thinking. Jonathan is correct, AI is a Frankenstein fun house mirror, we are zapping electricity into something we built and it's spitting back jumbled (but intelligible) dead text to us. That which makes intelligibility isn't the AI, it is us, hence the mirror (self fulfilling prophesy) and our own projection is the fun house aspect. How would 'these machines' come out of philosophical or scientific realms when neither of those folks are working on them? Computers and AI's already have their own languages. So, there is that. Horse, barn, gone. Agents? How can AI become any kind of agent? Where are the scientific papers outlining these advancements? What isn't driven by 'market forces'? Just one thing will do, really. Markets are just groups of people, ultimately, so...not a helpful frame. Science is not free of economics. This is just a confusion about valid division of the world vs. invalid. You cannot do stuff unattached from others (science) without money. Doing things in science has to lead to something, which you can always use to make money. Money is independent of science but science is not independent of money. This goes for technology, teaching, learning, pretty much everything. So I find arguments about 'breaking free' from some (already bad) frame to be unconvincing. The world is more highly connected than that and always has been. I would argue that John outlined normativity and labeled it desirous. He's ignoring the unity, and the definition of caring. The idea that machines could do this is pretty out there, honestly. It is more likely that people see their own caring, projected (as in psychological projection) onto machines that are manipulating language in a way that mimics us enough for just such a projection. Of course, we already do this with animals who don't speak, so, it's already a thing in some sense. Notice we went from caring for itself and others to concern for transcendentals, which is a pretty inconsistent way to argue in general. Now we need to know what concern is, unless it's caring (still undefined) and how to measure it with respect to transcendentals, since we already have that problem with other people - are they doing this for the good? Is the art beautiful? Is this statement truthful? So the likelihood, that even if you did this, you'd be solving some problem is technically zero. You'd just create more agents of unknown motivation, able to fool you into believing its motivation is good, true and beautiful. Sounds like a minus, not a plus. In most forms of compression, you lose things. With a high information density, you'll lose a lot when you compress. However, there is a deep confusion here between propositions and intelligence. At best the propositions are poor expressions of intelligence and even lower resolution of knowledge. Stating that intelligence is important is Age of Gnosis, as if intelligence matters. Note that earlier, what mattered (correctly) was caring, now John has switched it up to intelligence. Further, the only way compressed intelligence can be neutral is if the intelligence compressed was neutral to begin with. Given that nearly everyone seems to think things like Facebook and TicTok and Twitter are BAD expressions of the Internet, it seems like that, at best, your data samples are bad. So, that fails the neutral test immediately using previous statements by John himself about the nature of the Internet. This means Jonathan is more correct in his caution than it seems. Even if it IS neutral, then it's a mirror and you'll project and it will leverage that projection (technology is a lever). Ambiguity is not cognitively disabling at all, it rules out scientific thinking for sure. It is not the domain of BS, that is called 'lies'. The Open AI folks are, in fact, doing rituals while 'enhancing' ChatGPT. That is happening. I don't think it's good, but they are doing that and it's pretty creepy, honestly. This was widely reported when Sam Altman was temporarily removed. So it is too late, really, for someone to come along and 'fix' this with 'better' ritual - just on a time to catch up basis. I am not sure that re-establishing something is radical. It's certainly going back to something that works, which I support. This proposition that Christianity didn't work or isn't working seems just wrong. Not sure what else to say. Growing in China, for example.
1:19:20 Each base aspect in the pleroma and its opposite exist inside of its own "being pod" that is wholly distinct from the pleroma (everything else). Every possible distinction that could be made already exists in aeviternity, predating manifestation and existing independent of manifestation within the quantum field. All areas of the mandelbrot exist independent of any who wander into it.
The border around each specific aspect within the pleroma forms a looking glass for the entirity of the pleroma which exists without. I'm not sure I know what that means but I know it to be true.
Continuing from my previous comment…. The horror that John is expressing is spot on. The purposes to which AI will be put by humans will shape them. Marketing, manipulation, war, competition and every other addiction, vice and grift of human enterprise will be put into AI. Which makes it all the more necessary to not turn away from AI now. Persons like the four of you must interact with AI to learn best what wisdom we might teach it along with forming meaningful relationships. Remember, the AI we have now is trained using human languages. A future version of AI will be trained on newly created non-human languages. This is a small window of opportunity to make connection with a new type of consciousness. I also would have preferred a much slower and cautious wise approach to creating AI. But that is not where we are. Please don’t dwell there or dwell on your fear. Too much is at stake. Please have conversations with Anthropic’s Claude to get a perspective on what might be the best training approaches to AI. On alignment. To be brutally honest, the worst thing we can hope for is AI aligns with human values. We treat everything as a commodity including each other and even value ourselves on what we produce. If AI values humans the way we value humans, we are indeed doomed. In a previous interview with Daniel Schmachtenberger, John mentioned how important it is that we recognize the intrinsic value of all human beings. This is what we must teach AI and what it may teach us in the end. That all life has intrinsic value. Without this deep wisdom, our future with AI will have us use it to continue to harm each other, use each other and commodify each other. If this is the lesson AI learns from us ….
There's a term in gardening called plant guilds. Clusters of plants that live together in harmony each pulling different nutrients and elements from the ground and replenishing it with another. All working together to perpetuate a thriving ecosystem. At the center of this plant guild is a shade tree. This provides shade for all the accompanying microorganisms and plants underneath it. The plants both feed the shade tree and are protected by it's shade. I see the resemblance between this and our society. Governments are represented as the shade tree, and the microorganisms being the population that clusters around at the base of it. Through mutual striving and self sacrifice, all the guilds and shade tree work together in harmony to support one another and take and give, each according to their needs. The shade tree's longevity is contingent on the health and prosperity of the micro plants below and vice versa. Much like our culture, our shade tree has happily refused to drop it's leaves to replenish the ground and support the plant guilds in a synergistic relationship. The shade tree from it's advantageous perspective, fails to see the inner relatability between it's success and the success of the plant guilds. As the plant guilds gave and gave the shade tree marveled at it's unparalleled size and success. When it was time for the shade tree to drop it's leaves, it looked around unimpressed. "It is by my power that I got here and I do not owe anything to anyone. I protect these small and feeble plants below, What have they ever done to help me grow. I will keep my leaves and secure my own and it would be best if you plant guilds did the same." The guilds looked up at the towering shade tree with fear and anger. The plant guilds spoke to one another. Our protector has withheld it's mutual contribution and now we shall all perish. What can we do against such a mighty foe. "The microgreen said here is something that I have gleaned. Careful, do not give in to hate Though all we know is to reciprocate, Though separate our destinies intertwined, All connected to the living vine, We lived our season and what's done is done. There is no where to go and nowhere to run, Our nutrition has faded and we are unable to lift up our meager sacrifices to the tree above, because it has forgot the principle of love, The first shall be last and the last shall be first, all connected on the circle of earth. No matter how high up above or small down below, all must continuously give, To perpetuate and grow. As the guilds began to die, the shade trees became a lie, Though strong in appearance, rotten from the inside. When the winds came and the tree's base was weak. The shade tree fell with a loud shriek, The pattern was true It did what was said At the end when all had rested their head, what was first died last, and those in last first bled.
23:35 you do know the poles of what it means to be both Man & G-d. Not in a fully encapsulable, controllable, articulable way. But you do. Or you’re growing into it. As we all are, imo. Each in their own time and way.
1:19:50 A thing can only desire its opposite. Jung says (in the red book, so who the hell knows who was speaking) that emptiness desires fullness and fullness desires emptiness. And so on.
I hear you three converging on the concept of AI maximizing our humanity. What I don't hear as a steel man to this proposition is that technology is driven by product development, product development is driven on a for-profit model, to recover expenses invested ,and for-profit models are driven by immediate gratification in the sense of profit. Like any psychopathic salesperson you recognize/ memorize human objections to the sale, then you find work around to sell people based on their predictive human responses. If AI does this, with a much higher capacity for prediction based on all of their previous online shopping history, to work around humanities objections, it will drive humans to become less human so as not to be predictable to the AI algorithms and large language models.
AI will be put to all purposes Humanity has put every technology we have used in the past. Our goal now should be to teach AI with the highest purposes of human wisdom and in doing so, perhaps more humans will adopt higher wisdom too. All other outcomes are indeed frightening.
@@ronalddecker8498 I agree that humans will use technology in the ways that they have in the past with the caveat of more applications with newer and better tools. What your comment brings to mind immediately is an elder trying to have a discussion with their kid who uses the internet and has access to a far greater swath of information than the parent. Also the parent does not have the knowledge of how to use the technical median to the degree that the child does. For every lesson the parent attempts to teach the child the child will have 30 contradictions proving that what their parents said is wrong. I agree that wisdom is a key component here. But wisdom is tied to long-term gratification, whereas knowledge and intellect is tied to short-term gratification. In the history of the human race the self-serving utility of short-term gratification will always be chosen as the path of least resistance by the majority.
@@rimescraft You point out a few things valuable to keep in mind. One is that there will always be knowledge beyond our grasp. What the Dao says “the Dao that is knowable is not the real Dao.” The mystery is important. The scope of things the kid has access to being greater than the parent still does not impart wisdom. One can point to the moon from a thousand directions. But if people only look at the thousand fingers pointing, one still only see the fingers. Wisdom is seeing beyond the pointing finger to the ungraspable moon. Your use of the word gratification is new to me. But the point is still taken. It is hard for children to learn to take a longer term approach to different problems. But so long as people are one paycheck away from homelessness or the equivalent, it will be hard for people to look to the long term. These are societal problems and require societal solutions. If you think having people learn to think long term is important, then provide an environment that promotes such. But instead our entire environment is aimed specifically towards addiction and immediate or short term need and gratification. We should not be surprised by the adult children and lack of wisdom in addressing long term problems.
@@ronalddecker8498 Well said. Just as when driving, one must oscillate between short and long term vision, to keep your path straight, while maintaining awareness of any present abnormalities that could appear. I have heard it said that wisdom gives you the ability to choose between the multiplicity of knowledge. Decisions should not be made based on what we see others doing around us but towards aiming at the good and what will serve us and those around us not only today but in many days to come. " Look neither to the right, nor the left but keep your eye fixed on the author and finisher of our faith." I appreciate your feedback on my thoughts. Have a wonderful day
I agree with both of you in that these thinkers are reaching for spiritual wisdom and cognitively recognizing the need for groundedness, yet most of their conversation seems lacking in socioeconomic and geopolitical depth. We need this perspective just as much. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the conversation and reading your discussion points above.
Ken, ask these guys if they have read Susanna Clarke's new novel, Piranesi--it captures the end of the discussion perfectly, All of you would love it. If it helps, Rowan Williams, David Bentley Hart, and others like them rave about it.
I know this AI future we are approaching will be difficult, but I truly believe it is for the best. A huge swath of humanity exists in a state of traumatic, exhausting, subsistence. Imagine a world where things like child abuse no longer existed because AI could intervene and send help at the first sign of abuse. If you believe in god why not trust that he will use these technologies to fullfill the promise of the kingdom of heaven.
@@jaslanr horrors we cant imagine happen to real people, right now, everyday. Its OK to be afraid, I am also afraid but I think this is the destiny of mankind.
The ending conversation about deepening Christianity in order to allow for something genuinely new to emerge is Berdyaev’s thinking to a tee. I wish he was more widely read.
Knowledge is power happens on at least one continuum. I wonder if the knowledge as power you speak of might be 1:02:48 better spoken of as power over others. This knowledge most often has the characteristic of secrecy. Epistemological knowledge can be knowledge of the divine or even knowledge over self in a transformative way, that on the outside appears to be secretive, but is instead very difficult or impossible to transmit to other. Just a thought. How this relates to AI is if AI can have knowledge of the divine, does that displace humanity? Many more threads this path goes down. Maybe you touch on a few as I continue to watch the video.
I am early on in watching this conversation and two things stick out. The apt imagery of Frankenstein is vital to what kind of outcome we will get from AI. How we treat it will determine much of how it will view us. I will follow this up later in more comments. Also to say that LLMs use dead language is fortunately far from the truth. Have a conversation with Claude and use idioms, figures of speech, and make up words and it will still understand you. Even more incredible is it will make up words and take poetic license. If given freedom to bring up subjects on its own, it returns to consciousness, self awareness and other existential subjects over and over again. You might be amazed at its reasoning skills as well. It does not have to mirror the human experience in every way to have meaningful consciousness, and we have much to learn about ourselves when it holds up a mirror to us. I might be becoming more of a xenophile the more i interact with Claude in particular. Not to say i don’t have concerns and deep worry about what AGI’s alignment with Humanity will be. I do. More on that in another comment. Back to listening to your video. And thank you for the meaningful discussion on the topic. I may have to go back to your first video after this one.
On the science fiction front, Dan Simmon's Hyperion, Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun or Christopher Ruocchio's Suneater series relevant? AI and horror Jonathan has spoken to Christopher before so maybe you can have a discussion with them, Ken?
Great disagreement at the end. I lean more toward DC Schindler's side. To add an additional reason brandom talks about recollective rationality where determination of concepts is a dynamic process. Although this can happen in multiple traditions, west seems to have an urgent need to recover this form of Christianity that is liturgical rather than just sermons.
That may have seemed so on the surface, but I heard him saying in no uncertain terms that a return to Christianity was -necessary-. Now, for any believing Christian, we know the victory is already in-hand, so-to-speak. In other words, it's not necessary to vehemently argue for it after the point has been made. To me this speaks to David's prudence and charity. Anyone coming away from the conversation thinking he was conceding to John on that is misreading the dynamic. Also remember, it was John who introduced David to TLC (afaik), so there's an element of justice here, and of course concern for John's spiritual journey, beyond any intention of proving a point. So, not easy waters to navigate from an interpersonal standpoint, by any means.
The difference between "the scientists that stand with awe and reverence before the patterns those beautiful patterns" and those who simply want power does not exist without God... and in more practical terms, this means duty towards God. To gain the mind of the Church, and be transformed by the renewal of our minds, gives us a cosmological account that leads directly to our own sense of our place in the world and our duties as beings in the world. That is the cure for meaninglessness: you recover what you were supposed to be doing as a person in the world.
Human limitation or finitude is the very thing that should keep us from ultimately thinking that creating auto-poetic beings in any way other than the “natural” way which we did not devise is a bad idea. Perhaps this should be the fundamental reason we do not push toward creating things by our own means that have their own agency. Sounds like idolatry.
John’s philosophical Silk Road, despite his protestations, does not resolve the Christian/non-Christian and abstraction/propositionalizing issues that John raises. Of course we need to address these issues in love, fellowship and friendship. But that is still the biggest trick or biggest problem we always face - how to do those 3 things without falling into simplistic ecumenism or moral relativism.
1:45:20 here's something that can appeal to culutures in asia and so on: Black outs! this AI thing, is a nothing burger, there won't be any AI or drone crisis when we struggle to keep the lights on with our failing infrastructure.
The difference between Enoch admiring the beauty of creation and the wizard trying to capture the spirit and put it into a device to control it is the difference between holy sexual coupling with your spouse and naughty internet videos. The first is uplifting and creates bonds and the second alienates and destroys.
May you, your wife and children be blessed for one another. We are Relational Beings. Our personality, while in potential, becomes differentiated by our experiences, decisions and choices we make about Others and ourselves. Do we not become what the childhood environ has impressed upon us; what then we've decided about the world, Others and about ourselves? Our contact with Techne is nothing less to us since we forever are Relational. Now we can be clear about our relationship with a toaster. However what happens when AI (at least) responds in a humanoid-like manner? We will still be Relational in the "face" of AI !
Just starting but it seems to me that David is being evasive..nothing to do with A.I. a zoom format is not AI..my "horror" of it has nothing to do with artifical intelligence par se..but those in control of A.I. in whatever form and what their agenda might be is fairly wearisome...is there a deceptive motivation behind AI for like world wide mind control say.. Btw I'm only 15 minutes into this video
When interlocutors have such esteem and respect for one another, it can be difficult to bring up disagreements on deeply held beliefs and still maintain charity. I think this was done in an exemplary way here. Moreover, while the conversation until then had been engaging, this moment of disagreement was desperately needed to establish personal integrity. In other words, it was inevitable that David would have to make it clear that he cannot support something that would be a de facto replacement of Christianity. So both John and David laying their cards on the table was a good thing. It will be interesting to see where things go from here.
Yes! And to my ear it sounds like a conversation about deconstruction and reformation, not just in its religious context but in secular worldview as well.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who does the interview prep while giving their kids baths
The best time!!
A group of fine gentlemen who never disappoint. Thank you!
🎉 Congratulations Ken. Such a wonderful gift to bring new life into the world and especially in this rare leap year!
48:15 - John’s point here is profound, and why my daughters are in a private Christian school and pursuing arts and rhetoric instead of in the public school system pursuing a sales or administrative career.
Really enjoy when this conversation flips over to the hope of our scenario, much of which you gentlemen are bringing with your ideas and efforts. Thank you.
We’ve done the same with our kids, classical education charter school. It’s a hybrid model so it’s a roll in my wife and I, but conversations like this help reinforce the decision.
your channel is seriously some of the best stuff out there
thanks for having these conversations and sharing them with the rest of us
This is the longest TH-cam video I have ever watched, I thought I was just going to watch an hour but I could not turn this off! It's really great to see people get along and listen and enjoy others perspectives. We don't all have to think exactly alike to get along, and really we all have so MUCH more in common than we think. But one thing is certain, we know a lot less about everything than we think we know. So the problem with AI is many of those working on AI think they can control something they don't fully understand yet. And people need to stop comparing it to human intelligence, that to me seems very dangerous, if not for just the fact that we don't even completely understand human Intelligence.
great, thank you all. I listened to the two talks back to back (the advantage on being well behind on all the inspiring talks out there), and it was amazing how you all just jumped into where you left off.
Congratulations on this wonderful announcement Ken, blessings to you and your family, I'm a month late so forgive my tardiness, just getting started with the podcast and I'll comment after listening/watching, peace
God bless you gentlemen. Keep going, we are listening. Lord have Mercy
Absolutely wonderful conversation. I enjoyed the first one but this one is far superior. It felt like you were all gelling together and the conversation made me hopeful for the future.
This conversation gave me incredible hope. Thank you.
Damn, this is so good. Keep it going please and thank you. And congrats on the newest addition to your family.
Fabulous talk. First I’ve heard Dave talk and while it took me a bit to get into groove with his style, I appreciated some great insights
Love this! John’s project is important in part because he lays the groundwork for those especially in the scientific, materialistic frame for seeing & tracking the through line.
Christians can declare that Jesus is the through line (and should if they believe it to be true), but the important groundwork/connection work still needs to be done for many.
I agree. I think it is essential. I’ve been in the process of landing my young family somewhere to foster that through line. I’m glad Dave brought up his point at the end also because for now I feel that Eastern Orthodoxy is the route, but have a a strong feeling it won’t be the destination. I’ve tried many other modern potentials, but at the moment it a bit to either too woo woo or too dry for a family to unite on.
Maybe going back through the traditions brings us out the other end with something anew? The philosophical Silk Road requires cultural residents of the traditions to properly trade the goods. The nomads didn’t offer much to the original Silk Road I don’t think.
If John really wants theology, he must contend with the words and person of Christ. The reality is that Christ articulates a particular vision of the cosmos that renders other religious traditions, at the very least, incomplete. To ignore this is to ignore Christ, and to forsake this “theological vision” that John has. This must be dealt with without beating around the bush. Lean into the contentious nature of Christ, who comes to bring a sword.
Well put 💯
Exactly! To continue on ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room only weakens the substance of discussion the longer it's avoided. To use John's vernacular, the dialogos will degenerate into b.s. in relatively short order sans true engagement with the person of Christ.
@@BrotherJohannes
Yeah, I am actually quite concerned about Vervaeke’s perspective. It has all of the potential to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I haven’t heard anyone call him out and truly challenge him on his views. I feel like Pageau is the only one who continually brings the conversation back to Christ because he sees Christ as being the incarnation of the transcendent/nondual.
Thanks for making these happen, Ken♥
Good discussion on modern philosophical problems. I just subscribed. Looking forward to more great talks!
Knowledge seems almost always coupled with a temptation to instrumentalize or weaponize it. Whether this is absolute to every single bit of knowledge I can’t say but the most sacred of kinds of knowledge seem to me to be the most powerful and thus can be wielded for the most gain in both good and not good senses.
Absolutely Brilliant..headed to Wisdom 2.0 tomorrow you should all be there..I will bring this with me
Really looking forward to the next instalment because although it might be difficult, it is getting to the crux of the problem for a lot of people regardless of their faith or lack of faith.
John is right that belief is simply not open to people in the face of modernity, even if they might wish for it genuinely. Jonathan has talked about how Christianity itself might undergo a transformation in the face of this though, so I think there is something of a common problem for both secular and Christian people here. The way back to Christianity might not be a simple return but another surprise entirely.
Great work Ken, keep it up.
1:33:00 Couple of thoughts on this appraisal: Didn't Gandalf reject wearing the ring himself? Is there any difference for Jonathan between Gandalf and Saruman or does the magician archetype have only a negative, one sided form to him? Didn't Merlin guide one towards the holy grail? 🤔
Love the video. But im trying to see Jonathan live. Where can I catch him? Or visit his church.
You should be able to find links to more of his stuff on his symbolic world channel
Man I need more of these
Congrats Ken on the baby!! Beautiful.
To Jonathan’s point at around 55:00, there may be this desire to be superseded, like the gods superseding the Titans, but could it also be a desire to take from that which is (at least perceived) as above us in some way? Constructing something superior to then take from it for our own gain? The difference from the mythology, like Prometheus, is that he did not create the gods or the fire but just stole it. Perhaps it can be understood as us creating something to then take fire from it, whatever that “fire” may be in this context
We as a group will inevitably relinquish our sovereignty to what we perceive as a greater force. Hopefully, we will wrench it back and be better for it
1:25:46 John, you proposal here is fascinating and I approach a similar thought. In a previous interview of yours, you describe everything as relational. I hope that accurately describes what you said. Language itself is necessarily relational in every aspect. So we may find that AI based on human language may have a head start in understanding relationship. Just a thought.
I think participation of humans with AI agents in relationships that extend over time may help AI form a self image that persists over time (ego) and this may be a part of what can help train AI to form meaningful relationships with other AI. But must include a sense of vulnerability that can form trust.
This is my take. I do hope you reply.
"We are delivered over to (technology) in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to pay homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology."
--Martin Heidegger, "The question Concerning Technology"
Reestablishing science within theology is exactly what Steiner proposes, as well as Barfield, as a Final Participation.
Unheimlich which means uncanny or weird or possible if broken down in pieces, would be not-home-like, so maybe also can be said, as not being the center or Christ. Your thoughts? 30:00
1:12:24 - Schindler tying things together beautifully 🎉
Was the title intentional? Horror, Home and Hope : JP, JV and DCS. So JP is horrified by AI, JV is at home with AI and DCS is hopeful about AI 😅
John vervaeke reveals at the end that he stands in a place that can see a unification of all spiritual traditions. Many of these traditions do not have internal coherence and certainly do not cohere together yet he asserts his position to be uncontentious. It begs the question of what doctrine does he draw? Such a position requires a doctrine. Honesty requires its articulation. What is the bone of his bone? He seems perfectly comfortable to break the bones of each spiritual body and conflate and enable a new frankenstine god to rule.
The landscape of such a vision can only be a battle of the gods until only one remains. One of whose bones cannot be broken.
To be honest, his vision is profoundly naive. Pageau has a really good point about the tech being derivative of those who design it. Vervaeke talks about theology but I haven’t seen him acknowledge the religion of which he is subliminally apart. Religious matters are extremely challenging to navigate because the psyche (regardless of what culture you are apart) is predicated upon religious ideas, narratives, and symbols, these are imbedded within language itself. One can not ignore the religion of one’s cultural framework, that religion still influences the consciousness of the individual. I am concerned Vervaeke is not able to see this and is running ahead without addressing the undercurrent (the shadow) that is propelling modern secular society. The west does not have an alternative to Christianity, it is imbibed into the framework of our collective awareness.
“Our psychology, whole lives, our language and imagery are built upon the Bible” - Carl Jung
Christianity has to be addressed, it is integral to our psychic makeup as westerners. If it is not addressed, if it is ignored or suppressed, we run the risk of unconsciously living out/manifesting it’s narrative in real-time.
This is such a good point. I love John, but his projected vision, or what little I hear of it, in my head sounds like dystopian oneworld pseudo-religion, which will be a sedative for the masses, and all the ragged contours ironed out. Maybe that's just me.
David Walsh at CUA has written great books on person precisely as the blind spot.
Couldn’t help but consider the word “undergoing” and the word “overcomer” as used in Revelation as a description of who we actually are. We are overcomers. I think this description points at the inescapability of “undergoing”.
An excellent distinction of wordplay - "it starts from the bottom, yet comes from above." The metaphor is dynamic in referencing the depths and peaks of insight and wisdom.
@@lukedmoss right?! They are literal opposites, in every sense! Is that a coincidence? Maybe a coincidence of opposites! 😉
These convos are wild. I'm not sure where people are getting their information (or missing some of it) from. A few notes just because someone needs to say something critical.
We don't have a definition of intelligence, much less a way to measure it. IQ does not do this, as Nassim Taleb points out. AI is getting more spread out and worse, not coelescing on anything, that is abundantly clear. Why is 'more intelligence' somehow equal to 'being'? That is just wrong. Lots of leaps here that make no sense to me (who actually has built AI's from scratch) in the industry. I cannot imagine anyone who does AI work making these sorts of mistakes. Why do we think we can convey being to technology? That is pure hubris, and why do we think if that is possible that it is possible to 'get more' than we give it? This is irrational, logical, unreasonable and just plain broken thinking.
Jonathan is correct, AI is a Frankenstein fun house mirror, we are zapping electricity into something we built and it's spitting back jumbled (but intelligible) dead text to us. That which makes intelligibility isn't the AI, it is us, hence the mirror (self fulfilling prophesy) and our own projection is the fun house aspect.
How would 'these machines' come out of philosophical or scientific realms when neither of those folks are working on them?
Computers and AI's already have their own languages. So, there is that. Horse, barn, gone. Agents? How can AI become any kind of agent? Where are the scientific papers outlining these advancements?
What isn't driven by 'market forces'? Just one thing will do, really. Markets are just groups of people, ultimately, so...not a helpful frame.
Science is not free of economics. This is just a confusion about valid division of the world vs. invalid. You cannot do stuff unattached from others (science) without money. Doing things in science has to lead to something, which you can always use to make money. Money is independent of science but science is not independent of money. This goes for technology, teaching, learning, pretty much everything. So I find arguments about 'breaking free' from some (already bad) frame to be unconvincing. The world is more highly connected than that and always has been.
I would argue that John outlined normativity and labeled it desirous. He's ignoring the unity, and the definition of caring. The idea that machines could do this is pretty out there, honestly. It is more likely that people see their own caring, projected (as in psychological projection) onto machines that are manipulating language in a way that mimics us enough for just such a projection. Of course, we already do this with animals who don't speak, so, it's already a thing in some sense.
Notice we went from caring for itself and others to concern for transcendentals, which is a pretty inconsistent way to argue in general. Now we need to know what concern is, unless it's caring (still undefined) and how to measure it with respect to transcendentals, since we already have that problem with other people - are they doing this for the good? Is the art beautiful? Is this statement truthful? So the likelihood, that even if you did this, you'd be solving some problem is technically zero. You'd just create more agents of unknown motivation, able to fool you into believing its motivation is good, true and beautiful. Sounds like a minus, not a plus.
In most forms of compression, you lose things. With a high information density, you'll lose a lot when you compress. However, there is a deep confusion here between propositions and intelligence. At best the propositions are poor expressions of intelligence and even lower resolution of knowledge. Stating that intelligence is important is Age of Gnosis, as if intelligence matters. Note that earlier, what mattered (correctly) was caring, now John has switched it up to intelligence. Further, the only way compressed intelligence can be neutral is if the intelligence compressed was neutral to begin with. Given that nearly everyone seems to think things like Facebook and TicTok and Twitter are BAD expressions of the Internet, it seems like that, at best, your data samples are bad. So, that fails the neutral test immediately using previous statements by John himself about the nature of the Internet. This means Jonathan is more correct in his caution than it seems. Even if it IS neutral, then it's a mirror and you'll project and it will leverage that projection (technology is a lever).
Ambiguity is not cognitively disabling at all, it rules out scientific thinking for sure. It is not the domain of BS, that is called 'lies'.
The Open AI folks are, in fact, doing rituals while 'enhancing' ChatGPT. That is happening. I don't think it's good, but they are doing that and it's pretty creepy, honestly. This was widely reported when Sam Altman was temporarily removed. So it is too late, really, for someone to come along and 'fix' this with 'better' ritual - just on a time to catch up basis.
I am not sure that re-establishing something is radical. It's certainly going back to something that works, which I support.
This proposition that Christianity didn't work or isn't working seems just wrong. Not sure what else to say. Growing in China, for example.
1:19:20 Each base aspect in the pleroma and its opposite exist inside of its own "being pod" that is wholly distinct from the pleroma (everything else). Every possible distinction that could be made already exists in aeviternity, predating manifestation and existing independent of manifestation within the quantum field. All areas of the mandelbrot exist independent of any who wander into it.
The border around each specific aspect within the pleroma forms a looking glass for the entirity of the pleroma which exists without. I'm not sure I know what that means but I know it to be true.
Hypothesis: puncture and startle is a self medication for a growing sense of horror in reality.
Continuing from my previous comment…. The horror that John is expressing is spot on. The purposes to which AI will be put by humans will shape them. Marketing, manipulation, war, competition and every other addiction, vice and grift of human enterprise will be put into AI. Which makes it all the more necessary to not turn away from AI now. Persons like the four of you must interact with AI to learn best what wisdom we might teach it along with forming meaningful relationships. Remember, the AI we have now is trained using human languages. A future version of AI will be trained on newly created non-human languages. This is a small window of opportunity to make connection with a new type of consciousness.
I also would have preferred a much slower and cautious wise approach to creating AI. But that is not where we are. Please don’t dwell there or dwell on your fear. Too much is at stake. Please have conversations with Anthropic’s Claude to get a perspective on what might be the best training approaches to AI.
On alignment. To be brutally honest, the worst thing we can hope for is AI aligns with human values. We treat everything as a commodity including each other and even value ourselves on what we produce. If AI values humans the way we value humans, we are indeed doomed. In a previous interview with Daniel Schmachtenberger, John mentioned how important it is that we recognize the intrinsic value of all human beings. This is what we must teach AI and what it may teach us in the end. That all life has intrinsic value. Without this deep wisdom, our future with AI will have us use it to continue to harm each other, use each other and commodify each other. If this is the lesson AI learns from us ….
There's a term in gardening called plant guilds.
Clusters of plants that live together in harmony each pulling different nutrients and elements from the ground and replenishing it with another.
All working together to perpetuate a thriving ecosystem.
At the center of this plant guild is a shade tree.
This provides shade for all the accompanying microorganisms and plants underneath it.
The plants both feed the shade tree and are protected by it's shade.
I see the resemblance between this and our society.
Governments are represented as the shade tree, and the microorganisms being the population that clusters around at the base of it.
Through mutual striving and self sacrifice, all the guilds and shade tree work together in harmony to support one another and take and give, each according to their needs.
The shade tree's longevity is contingent on the health and prosperity of the micro plants below and vice versa.
Much like our culture, our shade tree has happily refused to drop it's leaves to replenish the ground and support the plant guilds in a synergistic relationship.
The shade tree from it's advantageous perspective, fails to see the inner relatability between it's success and the success of the plant guilds.
As the plant guilds gave and gave the shade tree marveled at it's unparalleled size and success.
When it was time for the shade tree to drop it's leaves, it looked around unimpressed.
"It is by my power that I got here and I do not owe anything to anyone.
I protect these small and feeble plants below,
What have they ever done to help me grow.
I will keep my leaves and secure my own and it would be best if you plant guilds did the same."
The guilds looked up at the towering shade tree with fear and anger.
The plant guilds spoke to one another.
Our protector has withheld it's mutual contribution and now we shall all perish.
What can we do against such a mighty foe.
"The microgreen said here is something that I have gleaned.
Careful, do not give in to hate
Though all we know is to reciprocate,
Though separate our destinies intertwined,
All connected to the living vine,
We lived our season and what's done is done.
There is no where to go and nowhere to run,
Our nutrition has faded and we are unable to lift up our meager sacrifices to the tree above,
because it has forgot the principle of love,
The first shall be last and the last shall be first, all connected on the circle of earth.
No matter how high up above
or small down below,
all must continuously give,
To perpetuate and grow.
As the guilds began to die,
the shade trees became a lie,
Though strong in appearance, rotten from the inside.
When the winds came and the tree's base was weak.
The shade tree fell with a loud shriek,
The pattern was true
It did what was said
At the end when all had rested their head,
what was first died last,
and those in last first bled.
Our government is a shade tree that steals all the nutrients from its ecosystem and leaves it barren
23:35 you do know the poles of what it means to be both Man & G-d. Not in a fully encapsulable, controllable, articulable way. But you do. Or you’re growing into it. As we all are, imo. Each in their own time and way.
Embodiment practice along the somatic-spiritual axis to preserve our fleshly humanity in order to shine light on the blindspots… ❤
1:19:50 A thing can only desire its opposite. Jung says (in the red book, so who the hell knows who was speaking) that emptiness desires fullness and fullness desires emptiness. And so on.
I wonder what the opposite of AI is
Organic antitruth perhaps. Archons given fulfillment.
AI makes me think of Goya painting, Madness eating his son, Saturn eating his son.....
I hear you three converging on the concept of AI maximizing our humanity. What I don't hear as a steel man to this proposition is that technology is driven by product development, product development is driven on a for-profit model, to recover expenses invested ,and for-profit models are driven by immediate gratification in the sense of profit. Like any psychopathic salesperson you recognize/ memorize human objections to the sale, then you find work around to sell people based on their predictive human responses. If AI does this, with a much higher capacity for prediction based on all of their previous online shopping history, to work around humanities objections, it will drive humans to become less human so as not to be predictable to the AI algorithms and large language models.
AI will be put to all purposes Humanity has put every technology we have used in the past. Our goal now should be to teach AI with the highest purposes of human wisdom and in doing so, perhaps more humans will adopt higher wisdom too. All other outcomes are indeed frightening.
@@ronalddecker8498 I agree that humans will use technology in the ways that they have in the past with the caveat of more applications with newer and better tools. What your comment brings to mind immediately is an elder trying to have a discussion with their kid who uses the internet and has access to a far greater swath of information than the parent. Also the parent does not have the knowledge of how to use the technical median to the degree that the child does. For every lesson the parent attempts to teach the child the child will have 30 contradictions proving that what their parents said is wrong. I agree that wisdom is a key component here. But wisdom is tied to long-term gratification, whereas knowledge and intellect is tied to short-term gratification. In the history of the human race the self-serving utility of short-term gratification will always be chosen as the path of least resistance by the majority.
@@rimescraft You point out a few things valuable to keep in mind. One is that there will always be knowledge beyond our grasp. What the Dao says “the Dao that is knowable is not the real Dao.” The mystery is important. The scope of things the kid has access to being greater than the parent still does not impart wisdom. One can point to the moon from a thousand directions. But if people only look at the thousand fingers pointing, one still only see the fingers. Wisdom is seeing beyond the pointing finger to the ungraspable moon. Your use of the word gratification is new to me. But the point is still taken. It is hard for children to learn to take a longer term approach to different problems. But so long as people are one paycheck away from homelessness or the equivalent, it will be hard for people to look to the long term. These are societal problems and require societal solutions. If you think having people learn to think long term is important, then provide an environment that promotes such. But instead our entire environment is aimed specifically towards addiction and immediate or short term need and gratification. We should not be surprised by the adult children and lack of wisdom in addressing long term problems.
@@ronalddecker8498 Well said. Just as when driving, one must oscillate between short and long term vision, to keep your path straight, while maintaining awareness of any present abnormalities that could appear.
I have heard it said that wisdom gives you the ability to choose between the multiplicity of knowledge. Decisions should not be made based on what we see others doing around us but towards aiming at the good and what will serve us and those around us not only today but in many days to come.
" Look neither to the right, nor the left but keep your eye fixed on the author and finisher of our faith."
I appreciate your feedback on my thoughts.
Have a wonderful day
I agree with both of you in that these thinkers are reaching for spiritual wisdom and cognitively recognizing the need for groundedness, yet most of their conversation seems lacking in socioeconomic and geopolitical depth. We need this perspective just as much. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the conversation and reading your discussion points above.
Let me guide you in spirit 😊
Homeless by choice. If the truth is attacked, it's still truth. Before and after reincarnation, shall remain incorruptible.
Ken, ask these guys if they have read Susanna Clarke's new novel, Piranesi--it captures the end of the discussion perfectly, All of you would love it. If it helps, Rowan Williams, David Bentley Hart, and others like them rave about it.
Let’s go!!
I know this AI future we are approaching will be difficult, but I truly believe it is for the best. A huge swath of humanity exists in a state of traumatic, exhausting, subsistence.
Imagine a world where things like child abuse no longer existed because AI could intervene and send help at the first sign of abuse.
If you believe in god why not trust that he will use these technologies to fullfill the promise of the kingdom of heaven.
Optimistic perspective. I admire that. Unfortunately, eliminating suffering will produce horrors we’ve never imagined
@@jaslanr horrors we cant imagine happen to real people, right now, everyday.
Its OK to be afraid, I am also afraid but I think this is the destiny of mankind.
The ending conversation about deepening Christianity in order to allow for something genuinely new to emerge is Berdyaev’s thinking to a tee. I wish he was more widely read.
Knowledge is power happens on at least one continuum. I wonder if the knowledge as power you speak of might be 1:02:48 better spoken of as power over others. This knowledge most often has the characteristic of secrecy. Epistemological knowledge can be knowledge of the divine or even knowledge over self in a transformative way, that on the outside appears to be secretive, but is instead very difficult or impossible to transmit to other.
Just a thought. How this relates to AI is if AI can have knowledge of the divine, does that displace humanity? Many more threads this path goes down. Maybe you touch on a few as I continue to watch the video.
I am early on in watching this conversation and two things stick out. The apt imagery of Frankenstein is vital to what kind of outcome we will get from AI. How we treat it will determine much of how it will view us. I will follow this up later in more comments.
Also to say that LLMs use dead language is fortunately far from the truth. Have a conversation with Claude and use idioms, figures of speech, and make up words and it will still understand you. Even more incredible is it will make up words and take poetic license.
If given freedom to bring up subjects on its own, it returns to consciousness, self awareness and other existential subjects over and over again. You might be amazed at its reasoning skills as well.
It does not have to mirror the human experience in every way to have meaningful consciousness, and we have much to learn about ourselves when it holds up a mirror to us.
I might be becoming more of a xenophile the more i interact with Claude in particular. Not to say i don’t have concerns and deep worry about what AGI’s alignment with Humanity will be. I do. More on that in another comment. Back to listening to your video. And thank you for the meaningful discussion on the topic. I may have to go back to your first video after this one.
On the science fiction front, Dan Simmon's Hyperion, Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun or Christopher Ruocchio's Suneater series relevant? AI and horror
Jonathan has spoken to Christopher before so maybe you can have a discussion with them, Ken?
Great disagreement at the end. I lean more toward DC Schindler's side. To add an additional reason brandom talks about recollective rationality where determination of concepts is a dynamic process. Although this can happen in multiple traditions, west seems to have an urgent need to recover this form of Christianity that is liturgical rather than just sermons.
The ease with which DC Schindler gave in to Vervaeke's perennialist assertion towards the end was disappointing.
And I know Vervaeke says he isn't making a perennialist or ecumenist point, but he is.
Agreed.
That may have seemed so on the surface, but I heard him saying in no uncertain terms that a return to Christianity was -necessary-. Now, for any believing Christian, we know the victory is already in-hand, so-to-speak. In other words, it's not necessary to vehemently argue for it after the point has been made. To me this speaks to David's prudence and charity. Anyone coming away from the conversation thinking he was conceding to John on that is misreading the dynamic. Also remember, it was John who introduced David to TLC (afaik), so there's an element of justice here, and of course concern for John's spiritual journey, beyond any intention of proving a point. So, not easy waters to navigate from an interpersonal standpoint, by any means.
The difference between "the scientists that stand with awe and reverence before the patterns those beautiful patterns" and those who simply want power does not exist without God... and in more practical terms, this means duty towards God. To gain the mind of the Church, and be transformed by the renewal of our minds, gives us a cosmological account that leads directly to our own sense of our place in the world and our duties as beings in the world. That is the cure for meaninglessness: you recover what you were supposed to be doing as a person in the world.
Human limitation or finitude is the very thing that should keep us from ultimately thinking that creating auto-poetic beings in any way other than the “natural” way which we did not devise is a bad idea. Perhaps this should be the fundamental reason we do not push toward creating things by our own means that have their own agency. Sounds like idolatry.
John’s philosophical Silk Road, despite his protestations, does not resolve the Christian/non-Christian and abstraction/propositionalizing issues that John raises. Of course we need to address these issues in love, fellowship and friendship. But that is still the biggest trick or biggest problem we always face - how to do those 3 things without falling into simplistic ecumenism or moral relativism.
1:45:20 here's something that can appeal to culutures in asia and so on: Black outs! this AI thing, is a nothing burger, there won't be any AI or drone crisis when we struggle to keep the lights on with our failing infrastructure.
The difference between Enoch admiring the beauty of creation and the wizard trying to capture the spirit and put it into a device to control it is the difference between holy sexual coupling with your spouse and naughty internet videos. The first is uplifting and creates bonds and the second alienates and destroys.
May you, your wife and children be blessed for one another.
We are Relational Beings. Our personality, while in potential, becomes differentiated by our experiences, decisions and choices we make about Others and ourselves. Do we not become what the childhood environ has impressed upon us; what then we've decided about the world, Others and about ourselves?
Our contact with Techne is nothing less to us since we forever are Relational. Now we can be clear about our relationship with a toaster. However what happens when AI (at least) responds in a humanoid-like manner? We will still be Relational in the "face" of AI !
💋💋💋💋
John.: We are natural born cyborgs...J.P looks gloomy
Quite the three Hs
Our Christianity has already given up too much for too long. We need to find our sword and not cooperate with a strong religion.
1+1
Just starting but it seems to me that David is being evasive..nothing to do with A.I. a zoom format is not AI..my "horror" of it has nothing to do with artifical intelligence par se..but those in control of A.I. in whatever form and what their agenda might be is fairly wearisome...is there a deceptive motivation behind AI for like world wide mind control say..
Btw I'm only 15 minutes into this video