Distributed Mind

Becoming

I've been thinking recently about the process by which things come to be. From the chaotic Big Bang to organized galaxies, from cold clouds of gas and dust to stars and planets, from a soup of hydrocarbons to the first microbes, from microbes to fish to mammals (with all the steps in between). From inert lifelessness to sentient beings aware of their surroundings to sentient beings aware of THEMSELVES. Not only aware of themselves, but capable of apprehending infinity, even aware of God. That's the history of the universe up to now.

But we each have our own personal histories, our own stories of becoming. We start as the union of a sperm and an egg, become a fetus and eventually a baby whose sentience is barely more than some other mammals. Finally, we begin to have awareness of ourselves and a will of our own. Unlike other animals, we can choose how much we want to be human, we can actually choose to shrink away from living!

An excellent booklet I read recently ("Becoming Christian", written by my dad!) brought home to me how much direction our chaotic universe has. Because finally, to become human we must become like Christ, reaching out to God. It's as if the whole universe is STILL becoming. Theologically, I think this on solid ground. We understand that the fulfillment of God's creation, and our own becoming, won't come in history.

So where do we go from here? I have trouble believing we will evolve further, rather our medical science and social structures will prevent natural evolution. And who knows how much more time we have. Having Christ Himself come to Earth just 2000 years ago is enough to suggest that the culmination of this universe is fast approaching - we're in the denouement.
posted at 09:01:05 on 08/05/04 by Earendil - Category: Philosophy

Comments

Earendil wrote:

P.S. No comments about robots being the next step in evolution!! Consider this a pre-emptive strike (*cough*Ben!*cough*). :P
08/05/04 09:04:49

ben wrote:

Hadn't actually thought of it yet. Hah, you evidently never read any Clarke! (See 2001 and CHILDHOOD'S END. Rather fanciful takes on human evolution, but hey.)
08/05/04 09:08:55

ben wrote:

Seriously though, this raises two interesting (but completely unrelated...) concepts.

The first is the old debate within Christianity between premillenialism and postmillenialism. To simplify, the former assumes we are toast - we can't really do much to fix the world since it is literally going to hell. The latter approaches, well, I think in postmillenialism there is generally some assumption that we are supposed to be fulfilling all the descriptions of life during the millenium of Revelation. Or something like that (I know I know this stuff, but it is 4 am, and... I am half asleep).

On a different topic, as far as evolution goes, check out Transhumanism. While I think Justin is right about the conservative influences of the current structures of society, Transhumanists think some nice technology and some radical thinking can fix that. (On the other end, of course, there would always be the communists - but, like I said, they don't have a chance.)
08/05/04 09:23:30

Earendil wrote:

Premillenialism, postmillenialism...blah, blah, blah! ;)
You baptists and baptist-wannabes worry about the weirdest stuff! I don't think we have any idea exactly how it ends except that Christ returns. Regarding where the world is going, I don't think it will ever get better. Humanity is destined to remain in sin until the end of time.

Regarding "transhumanism", I was careful to say *natural* evolution will no longer happen because I certainly can see us artificially improving the genetic make-up of some of our species in the future.
08/05/04 09:30:04

ben wrote:

(And while Justin is not looking, Robots are DEFINITELY the future... see Asimov's story "Robot Visions." Asimov's robots are ethically superior being that go on to become all the things we never could, and Asimov portrays them - in this particular story - as Homo sapiens' real evolutionary legacy: leaving a better race for the future, albeit not our own.)
08/06/04 23:00:16

ben wrote:

(I am, of course, kidding about the definitely. Though, if I had no religious beliefs about humanity, I probably would say let's let robots take over.)
08/06/04 23:01:15

Earendil wrote:

ARRRGGGG!!!
To be perfectly ethical does not make a better being. I could follow the Three Laws of Robotics and the Ten Commandments and live in a hut in Siberia by myself, but I would not be superior.
Also, just because the robots follow the Three Laws does not make them ethical. Ethical only means something for a moral being. A moral being is capapble of love, and if robots could love (and did so perfectly) they would have no need of ethics!
08/06/04 23:57:56

Beth wrote:

Ben needs to stop reading so much Asimov... :)
08/11/04 21:49:46

ben wrote:

I notice that Justin's argument about perfectly ethical not necessarily being good seems to assume not only a sort of Kantian, law-based ethics, but a passive one at that. There are alternatives: (1) a non-passive rule-based ethics - e.g. introduce stonger statements like, "Feed the poor," or something; living in a hut in Siberia by oneself presumably does not accomplish this end - (2) a virtue ethics. Virtue ethics relies not on rules but character traits of the individual in question, and in so far as some things are rules they somehow fit in with that conception. Honestly, I never quite got virtue ethics (despite sitting through Kennedy's class on it), or if I did I have forgotten, but anyway, it is supposed to solve the problems of rule-based systems like Kant's (actually it is supposed to avoid them altogether since Aristotle is poinsted to as being the first virtue ethicist, and Kant's ethics is seen as an anomoulous product of that vacuous period known as the Enlightenment). Anyway, it may be more complicated to create robots who are virtuous rather than ethical, but the effect is similar, and avoids Justin's complaints. I think I see a new essay coming...
08/31/04 21:42:33

Add Comments

Want to comment? You'll need to create an account first.