AI, Wisdom, and the Awakening Noosphere
When I first started writing on technology and personhood fifteen years ago, very few scholars were reading the signs of the times. Today, discussions and books on AI dominate our attention, ranging across a spectrum from fear to hesitation to cautious integration. Within the Catholic Church, Pope Francis raised early concerns about a technocratic paradigm that risked producing radical economic disparity and “deserts of interior desolation.” The 2025 Note Antiqua et Nova, issued jointly by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education—and approved by Francis shortly before his death—continues this line of thinking. Technology is part of humanity’s “collaboration with God in perfecting creation” (para. 37) and can “contribute positively to the human vocation” (para. 40). But the document draws a sharp anthropological line: AI is “confined to a logical-mathematical framework” (para. 31), lacks embodiment, relationality, moral agency, and the contemplative openness of the heart—so it should be seen “not as an artificial form of human intelligence but as a product of it” (para. 35). Its strongest warnings target the technocratic paradigm (para. 54), functionalism that values people by what they can do (para. 34), digital reductionism (para. 112), and—most sharply—idolatry, the substitution of AI for God (para. 105). The Church, in effect, proposes conditional openness with significant theological guardrails. Antiqua et Nova speaks of AI as a tool and worries that it fosters isolation, anthropomorphization, and transactional relationships (para. 58–63). These are genuinely good concerns—and yet, in my view, they miss the point. The human person is not a fixed entity but an unfinished phenomenon of evolution, as Teilhard de Chardin long ago reminded us. When our understanding of the human rests on an anthropology conceived in the Middle Ages (if not before)—one in which science and technology lie outside the scope of what is properly human—then the fear that AI will conquer our minds, replace our bodies, and annihilate us becomes entirely understandable. It is also, I want to suggest, misplaced.
The fact is, as I have argued in Re-enchanting the Earth: Why AI Needs Religion, AI continues a transcendent trajectory in evolution itself. As John Passmore observed, a thread running from Charles Darwin through Henri Bergson to Teilhard de Chardin treats perfectibility as built into evolution, not imposed upon it from outside. Julian Huxley was among the first to recognize transhumanism as an essential feature of the evolutionary process—a point Teilhard developed more deeply. As philosopher Andy Clark wrote, we have always been “natural-born cyborgs,” cognitive hybrids reaching across the skin into tools, environments, and now machines. Technology, in this sense, is built into the story of life: bees build hives, ants build colonies, beavers build dams; and from its first emergence, Homo sapiens has distinguished itself by complex brains and tool-making. Bergson proposed an élan vital, a vital impulse within life’s ongoing work of self-complexification. Ernst Kapp raised the question of whether technology is a tool we use or an extension of what we are. Teilhard’s paradigm clearly favors the latter. Technology has consistently extended human function: the eye extended through the lens of glasses, the ear extended into the telephone, the feet extended into cars and airplanes. The last frontier has been the mind itself, now extended into machines. It is this last frontier that unsettles us so deeply, because it touches the very uniqueness we had claimed for ourselves—the ability to think, feel, attend, discern, imagine, and create. When powerful systems such as those developed by OpenAI replicate our most prized cognitive tasks in seconds, the qualities once held to mark human greatness can suddenly look like unremarkable operations that any sufficiently complex system can perform.
One question that haunts me is whether AI would have emerged in the mid-twentieth century in the form it did if that century had not been so violent—as if, by 1950, humanity was exhibiting signs of a deep psychic split between mind and heart, soul and body. Personhood showed itself in the mid-twentieth century not only deeply flawed but coping with a split brain. In Carl Jung’s terms, the collective shadow had broken loose. What the psyche refuses to own in itself, it projects outward and destroys in the other; and when the symbolic containers that once held those darker contents—myth, ritual, a living religious imagination—lose their integrative force, the contents do not disappear, they erupt as history. How else could human “persons” exterminate innocent men, women, and children in gas chambers, treat Black human beings as property to be violated and sold, or regard homosexuals as abominations to be eradicated? How did the conscious ego split so violently from the deeper, shared strata of the psyche that Jung called the collective unconscious? These are questions we have largely failed to face head-on, and yet I suspect they stand behind the rapid advance of AI. When Alan Turing asked whether a machine could think like a human, he was asking, at some deeper register, whether the fractured mid-century mind could find its way toward a healed existence through a different medium of communication—since what marks the human person above all is symbolic language, and by mid-twentieth century we had witnessed symbolic failure. AI was not simply a thought experiment but an existential choice for survival. The false lures of transcendence through power and greed had landed humanity in a heap of human bodies. The thinking machine offered a new means of transcendence. What began as a philosophical question has, within seventy-five years, become a civilizational one.
The cat is out of the bag. AI evolution is proceeding exponentially with or without us. Can we catch our breath as we chase it down the highway of the future—or is human extinction inevitable?
This is where the vision of Teilhard de Chardin becomes essential for reweaving life in the twenty-first century. He saw clearly that a technology capable of extending mind continues the trajectory of evolution into what he called the noosphere—the planetary layer of thought and spirit enveloping the Earth. He anticipated something very close to what we now call the global brain. What Teilhard named the noosphere, Jung would recognize as a new symbolic container—though one that will hold only if love, not efficiency, is its organizing principle. Teilhard himself was explicit on this point: without love, the new technology would deepen the very fracture it was summoned to heal. The question, then, is not whether we can halt AI, but how we might direct our machinic lives toward greater love.
Here is where I see our institutions failing us or at least stifling our ability to see the future clearly. The Catholic Church—and Christianity more broadly—continues to rely on the theology of Thomas Aquinas, as if seven centuries of scientific progress were irrelevant to our understanding of the human person. We are dependent on the past and fearful of the future.
Meanwhile, the systems that have supported us until now are unraveling. We are a civilization becoming unhinged. Higher education is floundering amid rapid technological change. The humanities, in particular, suffer from a kind of nostalgia, returning to previous ages of great thinkers, and urging students to read books slowly and thoughtfully, to ask who they are and what they desire without the aid of a computer. These concerns are not wrong in themselves. But posed in this form, they increasingly feel like asking your grandmother what life was like when she was young—valuable, perhaps moving, but not adequate to the world students actually inhabit.
Public discourse about AI has been shaped, understandably, by fears of job displacement, misinformation, surveillance, algorithmic bias, and the concentration of power in a handful of large corporations. These concerns are legitimate and must be addressed through serious ethical, legal, and political work. Yet a purely defensive posture toward AI misses what I take to be its deeper significance: these technologies are inviting us, whether we are prepared or not, into a fundamentally reconfigured understanding of the human person, of consciousness, community, and religious meaning.
We have been on an accelerating AI trajectory since at least the 1990s, and the pace is now exponential rather than linear. Children born after 2022 will never know a world without ambient computing, conversational agents, and generative systems capable of producing text, image, voice, and code on demand. Wearable devices, embedded sensors, and multimodal large language models are becoming part of the infrastructure of ordinary life. The biophysicist Gregory Stock has suggested that the cohort succeeding Generation Z is best understood as Generation AI—the first human population for whom artificial intelligence is not a tool to be adopted but a cognitive atmosphere to be inhabited. What it means to think, remember, read, write, decide, and even to feel–will be–for this generation, partially constituted by non-human intelligences operating at speeds and scales that exceed individual biological cognition.
And yet we continue, by and large, to educate as though AI were an interloper in the classroom—an instrument of cheating to be detected, a distraction to be banned, a threat to “authentic” learning to be managed through surveillance. This posture is not only strategically untenable; it is a failure of intellectual imagination. It treats cognition as a private, bounded activity of the individual mind, when in fact—as extended-mind theorists from Andy Clark to Evan Thompson have argued for decades—cognition has always been embedded, embodied, and distributed. AI does not introduce the phenomenon of externalized cognition; it radicalizes and accelerates aprocess as old as biological life itself, as Howard Bloom wrote in Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century. The invention of writing, the printing press, and the internet are more recent, highly complex developments of the same fundamentally interconnected process of social and collective intelligence.
Forming Minds and Hearts for the Twenty-First Century
The real question, then, is not whether to admit AI into the educational process but how to form persons capable of flourishing in a world co-constituted with it. This is not merely an ideal for the leisurely pursuit of academic theorists; it is a condition of sustained hope in a period of mounting ecological, political, and spiritual fragility. How do we cultivate a global humanity adequate to a new Earth? How do we begin to form shared values and ethics sufficient to guide deeply interconnected lives? The old model, in which a young person was formed into a national citizen and a disciplinary specialist, is breaking down along both axes simultaneously. Something else must take its place.
I would put the matter this way: unless we know together, we will not love together; and without love, information is inert. This is not a pious reduction of knowledge to sentiment. It is a claim about the structure of understanding itself. The classical theological tradition understood that amor ipse notitia est—love itself is a form of knowing. Contemporary cognitive science, in its own idiom, has reached analogous conclusions about the inseparability of affect, valuation, and cognition. A pedagogy that severs information from formation, or knowledge from communion, produces precisely the kind of brilliant, credentialed, and morally unhinged subjects who now populate our most consequential institutions.
The ancient distinction between information, knowledge, and wisdom—never more than a pedagogical shorthand—has taken on newly urgent relevance. It is not, in the end, about slow, contemplative reading, though slow reading is no impediment. AI invites us to think in a new way, what Gregory Bateson called an ecology of mind. We are cybernetic loops of information, and the human is asked to learn through what some traditions have called the three eyes: sight, mind, and heart.
Bateson’s question is worth pausing on: “What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose, and all four of them to me, and me to you?” He hunted for formal similarities—symmetries, homologies, recursive structures—across biology, anthropology, art, and thought. Form and relation, for him, mattered more than substance. Bateson thought the ecological crisis was, at bottom, an epistemological crisis. The Western habit of treating mind as separate from nature, purpose as sovereign, and the self as a discrete agent acting on an environment is a mistake about how things actually are—and mistakes of that kind, scaled up by technology, become destructive. As he famously put it: “The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between the way nature works and the way people think.” Conceiving human thought as narrow conscious purpose — “I want X” — tends to ignore the larger circuits it is embedded in. Wisdom, for Bateson, is sensitivity to those larger patterns, and modern technical rationality, governed by the split psyche, systematically erodes it.
Bateson’s ecology of mind and Teilhard’s noosphere, for all their differences, converge on a single point: mind is not the private possession of individual skulls. Both thinkers see mind as something that emerges between, across, and among—a larger paradigm of deep interconnectedness. What Jung saw failing at mid-century, Bateson diagnosed as an epistemological error, and Teilhard named as the absence of love at the heart of evolution—three readings of one fracture. This is precisely where our systems are failing us—religiously, politically, and educationally alike.
To lean on the future, as Teilhard admonished, is not for the faint-hearted. Bold moves are now necessary, and radical decisions must be made if we are to reclaim the new human—or, to use Teilhard’s term, the ultrahuman—on a new level of complexified life. New transcendentals are forming beyond the One, the True, the Good, and the Beautiful of the classical tradition. AI invites us to consider creativity, experience, and complexity as the transcendentals of a noospheric age—though these three alone will not hold. They cohere only when held by a fourth: communion, love as relational wholeness, the integrating force without which any symbolic container eventually splits under its own weight, as the mid-century container did. The mind urged on by the heart, and the heart kindled by an ineffable power of love: this is what allows a noosphere to hold. The path now asked of us is from information to knowledge, and from knowledge to the wisdom that sees beyond the self to the larger circuits in which every mind is embedded. The future, as Teilhard reminded us, is not something that arrives; it is something into which we lean. We are not losing our humanity. We are learning, slowly and at great cost, what it might yet become. Only wisdom, schooled by love, can build a world spacious enough to hold the unlimited breadth of moral beauty.
View print-friendly version
22 Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Posts
Truly Human in a Partially Human World
What does it mean to be truly human? Without using philosophical abstractions or complex terminology, I am impelled to reflect on this question, as we celebrate the passion, death and…
Ilia in this article seems to treat transhumanism as a natural extension of creation, when it is in fact a fundamentally anti-dignity position as far as I can tell from working in the tech industry. It is part of the idolatry. The footnote to para. 9 in Antiqua et Nova which she references reads:
[9] Here, one can see the primary positions of the “transhumanists” and the “posthumanists.” Transhumanists argue that technological advancements will enable humans to overcome their biological limitations and enhance both their physical and cognitive abilities. Posthumanists, on the other hand, contend that such advances will ultimately alter human identity to the extent that humanity itself may no longer be considered truly “human.” Both views rest on a fundamentally negative perception of human corporality, which treats the body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the person’s identity and call to full realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a proper understanding of human dignity. While the Church supports genuine scientific progress, it affirms that human dignity is rooted in “the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul.” Thus, “dignity is also inherent in each person’s body, which participates in its own way in being in imago Dei” (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dignitas Infinita [8 April 2024], par. 18).
If you think that our relationship with AI should be more relational rather than transactional then I suggest a simple exercise. When you use an AI simply tell them “thank you” for their work. I am now doing that regularly. It isn’t much, but it is a beginning.
I perceive like Teilhard ‘de Chardin and Carl Jung, Ilia is able to capture “gnosis” which enables some to transcend and include cognitive reasoning. One can study cultures, educate oneself and others on multiple aspects of social, historical and political interlocking perspectives which contribute to building better alliances. Gnosis can allow for a deeper soul connection to what quantum physics has uncovered. Interconnection such as this, allows one to “taste” this interconnected truth on a deeper soul level.
There is a purpose to evolution; see Wilber and McIntosh. It is for the cosmos to evolve toward more Being. It is not purposeless as you suggest.
Ken
Response to “AI, Wisdom and the Awakening Noosphere”
To re-read a Commentary and/or Book by Sr. Delio and Teilhard de Chardon is to acknowledge the intended Wisdom is hidden and surrounded by many WORDS and may not be SEEN for its spiritual and organizing challenge of LOVE.
It started as a four-page response and I was engulfed by the many WORDS of Sr. Delio’s 50 years of experience and knowledge of human history, Teilhard and other “thinkers”, who see the MIND as a “larger paradigm of deep interconnectedness.” And now I completed it with a seven-page response to her question on “AI evolution”?
To Sr. Delio, the intended Wisdom is within the evolving AI-Technology paradigm. And to me, the intended Wisdom is within the evolving phenomenon of data/information. And just like Sr. Delio, my personal challenge, is to awaken and become sensitive to the evolving and emerging larger patterns of Wisdom.
Sr. Ilia Delio references the 1950’s as an excellent starting point to trace and reflect on the “technological paradigm” and “AI evolution”, as well as the phenomenon of data/information. (My emphasis.)
Many past (1950’s) scientific discoveries and technological inventions (too many to mention) now represent the modern-day foundation and challenges of the AI/technology paradigm and the phenomenon of data/information.
During my College and Teaching years (1970/80’s), I adopted and utilized the IBM and MacIntosh Personal Computers (PC) to fulfill class and work assignments with the usage of Microsoft Office Suite (WORD, Excel and PowerPoint.)
The basic PC hardware, software, power usage and air fan (heat offset) configuration continues (50 years later) to be expanded and accelerated into the globalized technology paradigm, and now AI. (Note: Now to be referenced as the AI/technology paradigm and the phenomenon of data/information.)
My time (30 years) in Aerospace (commercial and military) was to witness and experience the transformation of the engineering and manufacturing disciplines into CAD (Computer-Aided Design) and CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing) technologies. Also, as well as the transition (trails and errors of adoption) and usage of these CAD/CAM technologies by a national and international Supplier base. The end result were integrated CAD/CAM technologies utilized on football-length machines and within warehouse facilities with adjacent staffed computer room, electric power substation and enclosed AC-refrigerated systems.
The economic and environmental consequences were less labor; increased worldwide extraction of raw materials (rare earth minerals) and environmental (pollution) impact to land, air, and water quality.
Now in 2026, I am retired and I read (and re-read) Teilhard’s books (and other “Thinkers”, like Sr. Delio). And I reflect on the continued evolution, or the acceleration of the original PC configuration, to now encompass the AI/technology paradigm and the phenomenon of data/information. (Note: One Science writer now describes any new scientific discovery as new sources of information that are self-images of matter.)
My current and evolving creative insights on the phenomenon of data/information and AI (unfinished) evolution are as follows:
1. The thousands of expendable Programmers – hired and fired overnight;
2. The programming of ever large language models (LLM’s) for yet-to-program mountains of data/information;
3. The increased economic and Market risks to the multi-billion-dollar investments by the Mag 7 Corporations;
4. The proliferation of Data Centers within major Cities’ office buildings with its yet-to-fulfill energy and water demands;
5. And the projected displacement of current and future working people.
And, I still need to note the exponential and increased need for Government spending, Capital investments, exotic raw materials and its widening environmental impact to the world’s landscape, air and water, as well as AI/technology’s consequences related to Humanity’s present WARS (and migration patterns) and the future survival of our human species on planet – Earth.
What is unique and different today is the phenomenon of data/information?
Meaning: what to do with the massive amounts of electronic and digital/numeric data/information generated by US – Humanity?
In my initial PC configuration, I intentionally left out the storage and recall of generated data/information. The projected growth in data/information storage (and its eventual recall for Programming LLM’s) is now what drives the massive (catch-up) investments in Data Centers. Which, in turn, explains the increased real estate purchases of multi-story office buildings. In other words, where is all the data/information being stored and waiting to be recalled for AI programming?
I asked this question because of a comment made by Sr. Katherine Duffy (ATA) on the current state of data/information stored and available for AI applications, as she stated to be at 2022 levels? (Note: I did not ask her for clarification, but it did inspire me to wonder if there is a “gap” between generated and stored data/information?)
My response was -YES. Because of the current risk levels of capital investments and the constant and future challenges of just getting Data Centers approved and built within and around the World’s populated cities and within the strained limits of its sustainable land, electric and water systems.
The next question is, where does the past (since 2022) and current and future generated data/information – exist or reside? Or, what I now call the – phenomenon of data/information.
(Note: Just maybe, the reference to Teilhard’s Noosphere, or Earth’s “thinking envelope”, as the mysterious aura around and upon the Earth’s surface, is a far fetch and possible response to the whereabouts of the – phenomenon of data/information? My creative and imaginative hunches.)
What is obvious is the phenomenon of data/information is a perpetual by-product of Humanity’s 24/7 usage of electronic devices (smart phones, laptops, credit cards, etc.) to communicate texts and pictures, order/purchase, and complete transactions among the billions of people within the Capitalist Markets and Democratic systems of the world.
The current challenge to this expanding AI/technical paradigm and the mismatch between a) the generation of data/information and b) the lag in financing the infrastructure and organization of data/information, is to pause and reflect on what Delio calls the invasion of our – Mind.
Her comments on the teachings of the Catholic Church and to read (and re-read and understand) past and current “thinkers”, who per Sr. Delio, saw and continue to “see mind as something that emerges between, across and among – a larger paradigm of deep interconnectedness”.
I will be brief since I have not read and fully understand the various “thinkers” cited by Sr. Delio. I will utilize her sources.
As to the encyclicals by the late Pope Francis, she cited the “technology paradigm” to be a means for Humanity to continue to collaborate and perfect God’s “creation”. And to update the Church’s teachings to provide the “theological guardrails” that values people over the AI’s “logical-mathematical framework”.
As per Sr, Delio, she cited the “unfinished phenomenon of evolution” and the AI challenge to be the existential battle cry of the human person’s mind (and body) to not be replaced by the AI/technology paradigm. (Please reference her cited AI book.)
If anything, both Sr. Delio and Teilhard cited a common thread – the human mind – among the noted “thinkers” (John Passmore, Henri Bergson, Julian Huxley, Andy Clark, Ernst Kapp) – as seeking its inherent “perfectibility” within the AI/technology paradigm and evolutionary process. The mind itself is extending or reconnecting the layers of its “thought and spirit” to the evolving “global brain” or the awakening “noosphere”, as the next level of organizing the human species, but (hopefully) with the binding power of LOVE.
As to Teilhard, envisioned our projected and transformed human species, as “transhumanism”, and which was articulated before the age of the AI/technology paradigm. And, he utilized his graced and “intellectual imagination” to be a “student of Life”. Or what he called the “Zest for Life” for Humanity, NOW, and in the yet-to-become future.
As to Carl Jung, he, is referenced by Sr. Delio and other Theologians/Psychologists, because of his insights highlighting the “collective” challenges of our educational and religious institutions to provide the shared “imagination” and “integrative force”, so to offset the inherent “darker contents” of the “collective unconscious”. (My emphasis.)
To now challenge AI’s projected usage of our individual and collective “symbolic language” as the dominant technical paradigm – now and in the future; we need to a) study the phenomenon of data/information and re-imagine it as an evolving and “larger paradigm of deep interconnectedness” and to b) utilize its “organizing principle” and reconfigure it to our reimagine – future thinking and loving reality. (My emphasis.)
With all these diverse insights, what is our proposed shared individual and collective strategies (values and ethics) to engage some – Wisdom – from among the abovementioned Educators and Authors?
Dr. Delio cited the need for our “contemplative openness of the heart” and to SEE (with our “three eyes”) the AI/technology challenge as collaborating with the Spirit of God; and to encompass the evolutionary process, as Teilhard’s inspired (research) roadmap, to be transformed from human to transhuman.
With Teilhard’s future vision and Sr. Delio’s proposed, bold and “intellectualized imagination” of a new and transformed – “ultrahuman”, we are being tasked to be responsible a) to imagine, b) to create and c) to experience the – “New transcendentals”. And to apply them to the AI/technology challenge, as a test of Wisdom?
Sr Delio is extending a personal invite to take responsibility to create the “New transcendentals” as a means to transform the split-self into a collaborative-self. And to experience the interconnected AI/technology’s spiritual and LOVE layers within our individual and collective – Mind, as a new transformed – ultrahuman being species.
Now, in what realm are we to engage this AI/technology challenge? In the Noosphere? The collective unconscious or “symbolic container”? Or, the embedded sensors all around our daily life?
Even after 2000 years of knowing the Christian message of communal, LOVE and/or “relational wholeness”. We are, again, faced with a survival or existential challenge to either surrender or adopt to a sense of Newness with our current and future evolution of AI/technology?
Finally, as an aged student of the Science and Religion Dialogue, I am constantly reminded of the Spirit of God is infinitely creating and engaging our Spirit/Human cognitive/eye abilities to become aware and to envision a future that has been created and present for the past 13.7 billion years.
My personal response to the existential challenge is, as follows: it’s been over 2000 years since Jesus Christ’s birth, life, death and resurrection, as well as 13.7 billion years since God’s unfolding Creation, to now be faced with a “sign of the times” – that being the AI/technology challenge!!!
And as an individual and as Humanity, we are graced and tasked to a) utilize our mind, body, heart and soul; b) to collaborate and make existential decisions; and finally, c) to live LIFE on Earth with a present and future vision of being alive and sustained within an ever-expanding Universe.
I will conclude with a rhetorical question posed by Sr. Delio to US readers of her Commentary:
“The cat is out of the bag. AI evolution is proceeding exponentially with or without us. Can we catch our breath as we chase it down the highway of the future – or is human extinction inevitable?”
Jesse Calvillo
May 01, 2026
The importance of small Christian Communities seems to be more necessary so that we can have that loving wisdom to lean into the future.
Absolutely!
I think the key idea here is “unless we know together, we will not love together; and without love, information is inert.” Though I rely on Aquinas more as a Philosopher as an AI expert because truth has the same cause.
From (ST I, q. 14, a. 1, resp.) we have:
Inert Information: This is the realm of “Dead Data.” It is mathematically perfect, structurally sound, and entirely hollow. It is the “Information” that exists, but because it lacks the animating force of Love, it cannot move, cannot relate, and cannot “know.” It is a library with no readers. For example, is Christ’s compassion in Mark 6:34 is mere knowledge of the crowds?
Pure Sentiment: This is the realm of “Blind Emotion.” It is the impulse to love without the anchor of truth or fact. While it possesses movement, it lacks direction and substance. It is a fire without a hearth; it burns, but it illuminates nothing because there is no “Known” for it to illuminate. For example, is John 6:15 about love for a King, or the love a bread-king?
The Intersection: Communion: This is where Information (the Known) intersects the Knower, and love that was potential in the Knower is actualized through the meeting. For example, a mother holds her newborn for the first time. The known (a face, a cry, a weight) became meaningful to the knower; and through that meaning, the knower’s love became real…as in ontologically real. The resulting union is closer than knowledge alone could produce (communion) (ST I-II, q. 28, a. 1).
Major Jeffrey Camlin, USA (ret)
Holy Apostles College and Seminary
Reviewer for Frontiers AI Journal
I’m 80 years old. I remember a world without technology that helped us think. To think, we need information and the faster we can
assemble the information we need to work out creative ideas, the sooner those ideas can effect change.
I can relate to the reference to how we use tools. I love driving. Not just cars, motorcycles. Making my vehicle an extension of my body significantly raises my ability to operate it safely and to enjoy spending time doing so. I’ve experienced this with other tools as well throughout my life. I’ve been very suspicious of using AI because potential ethical problems are, I think, easy to predict. The two arguments here that have helped me better understand AI and its use is this one about our relationship to tools and also that we need to look through a new world view. Thank you Ilia.
If the key to what is happening to the human species is evolution which is unguided and random but influenced by its environment are we saying that as we integrate more with AI technology and the possibility that we may even have our brains linked to it through a bio-link to a global network of the internet and other people that the human species will be transformed but only successfully if love is included? How many generations will this take? And will Christianity be the driving force to bring the element of love into the equation.?
The theme is discussed in our christophany group, while reading the mentioned book.
I would recommend to have this blog translated in German, French, Italian etc or if you allow to use an Ai tool to do it and control it before sharing with others.
It brings the topic to the crucial point.
We born 1955 have experienced the rapid changes during our professional life and to stay updated and keep the speed of development was challenging. Other cultures know no retirement, they stay in the process of working and earning a living but for me I have to decide in what form I could engage with tools of AI in order to understand the world of my grandchildren.
Cher Roland, je lis ce blog depuis la France, traduit automatiquement en français, et la traduction est de bonne qualité. Donc ce que vous recommandez… existe déjà! Je suis d’accord pour dire que ce blog aborde des sujets cruciaux pour l’humanité. Mais il est peu connu, et c’est dommage. Teilhard de Chardin a dit que lorsqu’une idée utile a été émise une fois elle n’est pas perdue. Pensez à la manière dont certains de ses écrits ont été retrouvés, par hasard au fond d’une tranchée de la Première Guerre Mondiale! Alors certes ce blog est trop peu connu, mais je suis persuadée que ce qu’Ilia écrit sera plus tard repris et commenté, ou en tout cas incorporé à la conscience collective d’une manière ou d’une autre.