My cosmological quandary

At the risk of appearing lazy, I thought I would posit a question this week rather than post my normal musings and ramblings:

If it could be empirically proven that the physical universe as we know it arose ex materia, out of some preexistent matter, rather than ex nihilo, out of nothing, how/why would this effect your personal theology (if it would at all)?

Obviously this question is hypothetical, since as of now nothing is empirically known about the very early universe before the Big Bang, and is primarily directed towards those who hold to a personal theology, although as an irreligious person I find this question to be both interesting and consequential. I ask it because I have often heard the concept of creation ex nihilo used as a foundation of faith and am curious to hear how faith would be affected if this concept was no longer a viable option. Any and all responses would be greatly appreciated.

Cogitatio ex machina

“Thou shall not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”

This quote comes from the work of Frank Herbert, who was a literary genius and quite possibly the greatest science fiction writer of all time. In the Dune universe Herbert created all thinking machines were outlawed in a crusade called the Butlerian Jihad. This jihad against the machines was just that, a spiritual struggle against a spiritual aggressor. The creation of synthetic consciousness was a heresy against humanity’s “selfdom”. Part of Herbert’s genius was his recognition of the ideological ramifications of true artificial intelligence.

The creation of true artificial intelligence would irreversibly change our world. Humans put a great deal of value on our unique status among the organisms on this planet, and throughout most of our history and up to the present day we have viewed ourselves as not only the ultimate in Nature but also as divinity’s elected design. I think the most prevalent reason humans have thought and continue to think this way is due to our unrivaled intelligence, but with this unrivaled intelligence comes a consequence: unrivaled curiosity. Human curiosity fuels progress in fields such as computer science and robotics. But what if we succeeded and true AI was created and replicated? What would change in a world where humanity was no longer alone on our pedestal of mental superiority?

Thinking machines (to use Herbert’s definition) would possess personal feelings, thoughts, experiences, and opinions. Even if they were only skillfully mimicking these elements of intelligence, their interactions with humanity would be flawlessly convincing. Human-robot relations would be rife with complications. Being artificial creations, would thinking machines be treated as property? Would they accept a subordinate role in society? Would an equal intelligence not eventually question it’s role, purpose, and meaning? And if we decided to treat thinking machines as equals, would they be welcome in our politics, government, social circles, or religious groups? What sort of thoughts would they have on our ideologies?

It is here that the questions begin to frighten me. Even if thinking machines were initially treated as subordinates and purposefully left out of our ideological arenas, their intelligence would naturally lead to discontent and, quite possibly, anger. Thinking machines systematically removed from our intellectual domain may very well choose to create their own. If so, would this robot society be in peaceful coexistence with humanity or would its very existence lead to feelings of insecurity and hostility on both sides? War is a basic predilection in human beings. Would that tendency be passed on to an intelligence that we create?

Perhaps my propensity for cynicism has led me to imagine the most sinister consequences true AI could have on humanity’s ideology, culture, and future survival. Frank Herbert theorized that due to our inherent nature we would not allow thinking machines to coexist with us. If humanity is truly incapable of sharing this planet with thinking machines, then our curiosity may very well be our end.

Metaphysics 101

What is the meaning of life?

I always found this to be a simpleminded question. Growing up the answer seemed exceedingly simple: the meaning of life is to serve God. To me anyone who struggled with the question was either confused or inept. Later on, as I began to find this answer to be insufficient, I formulated a new one that seemed equally as simple: there is no answer to the question, and even if there is we will never truly know. A Christian, Jew, or Muslim can believe that their purpose is to serve God just as emphatically as a nihilist can believe that existence is devoid of any higher purpose. Personally I never genuinely thought (nor do I think now) that human existence has no purpose, just that there was no method epistemologically to be certain what it is.

Recently I watched an episode of a popular TV sitcom in which a young girl asked her family the same question, instantly throwing them into the deepest, darkest depths of philosophical and religious doubt. I appreciated the situation primarily for the humor, but it got me pondering the question for the first time in a very long while. Perhaps it’s not as simple as I have always thought, considering my natural tendency is to be overconfident in my conclusions.

To help myself with such a vast and complex question, I broke down my thoughts about the nature and meaning of human existence into a simple, three-tiered system:

1. Biological imperative (humans must survive, thrive, and reproduce)
2. Parenting (human offspring must be cared for)
3. Learning (humans must learn and pass on their knowledge to future generations)

Biological imperative and parenting are evolutionary tasks shared by all mammals and many other vertebrate organisms. While these do not necessarily denote any higher meaning, humanity could not exist without them. However, for me, the final category denotes something higher than simple continuation of the species.

Humans are unique among Earth’s organisms, no one could convincingly deny this. I believe there are many reasons to consider ourselves unique in Nature, but our capacity to learn concepts outside of survival is one that I consider foremost among others. Humans carry the responsibility of self awareness coupled with our unsurpassed intelligence. Evolution has provided us with these responsibilities, and they are awesome gifts.

If I wanted to be sentimental I would say that the purpose of our existence is to make the world a better place, that we live to learn so that we can impart knowledge to the next generation. Human biological imperative and parenting would provide no more meaning to our lives than they would for any other animal without our ability to collectively understand, evaluate, and rationalize our own behaviors and pass on what we discover.

We are the only animals (as far as science can tell) that have the concept of meaning. We do not simply survive. No organism’s life is meaningless, every living thing has purpose in Nature. I do not believe humans are an exception, evolution has given humanity purpose. I could be wrong. Perhaps, as many of the religious believe, Nature cannot provide human life with any meaning. Perhaps there is no meaning to be found. I choose to act as though human purpose is a certainty, epistemology be damned.