Category Archives: WEF

The World Economic Forum’s transhumanism, After Death Documented Consciousness, & the Afterlife (part 7)

09 Saturday Jul 2022

Posted by in afterlife, Dimensions, God, Near Death Experiences/Consciousness, Transhumanism, WEF

≈ Comments Off on The World Economic Forum’s transhumanism, After Death Documented Consciousness, & the Afterlife (part 7)

This is part seven, so if you’ve missed what has been said up to this point, here is a run down since we will be building on former articles: art. 1, the WEF wants to become digital gods by uploading human consciousness to remove biological restrictions; art. 2., the WEF envisions a world where humanity is stripped of their biological restrictions which will entail a eugenicide campaign on standard humanity, either reducing their numbers, cyborging some of them, and for the privileged, digitally uploading their consciousness; art 3., the WEF views humanity as problematic, and also believes that humanity is hackable through big advancements in biotech data and massive computational ability; art. 4., the WEF is learning from the voluminous scholarly studies on Near and After Death Consciousness, which evinces that a functioning consciousness need not be embodied; a sign inquiry salient for the topic although not part of the series per se, “A.I. will amplify bias of its creators,” art. 5., the law of entropy and the notions of eternal “digital life”; art. 6., dealing with the claim of the WEF that humans don’t have mysterious souls, and it unpacks what a spirit and a soul is and then discusses this with the claim of the WEF that humans are just hackable animals. We are building on the WEF’s relationship with Near and After Death Documented Consciousness today. As we have investigated the WEF, we have tumbled into the realm of science fiction except it is something like science cult reality. Recently, July 5th, 2022, the largest particle accelerator came back online with her goals in tow. To steer clear of conspiracies, let’s only cite two relevant pieces of data that may tie into “dimensional” discussions as related to frontier science. Sergio Bertolucci, Director for Research and Scientific Computing at CERN, famously stated back in 2009 while discussing dimensions,

Out of this door might come something, or we might send something through it.”

https://www.theregister.com/2009/11/06/lhc_dimensional_portals/

That was some time ago; on CERN’s website now, it discusses its aim at revealing dimensions:

Another way of revealing dimensions would be through the production of microscopic black holes. What exactly we would detect would depend on the number of extra dimensions, the mass of the black hole, the size of the dimensions and the energy at which the black hole occurs.

https://home.cern/science/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes

What is with my claim that science is looking less like traditional science and more like science fiction? Historically, science functions on the assumption of a closed system, which is to see the universe as such. If new or different dimensions are revealed, then either

(a) the nature of the universe is not a closed system or

(b) the contours of the closed system as formerly understood were off.

Anyone of a theistic persuasion — Christians, traditional religious Jews, Muslims, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. — has long been an advocate of understanding the natural world, or the universe, as an open system, or partially open system. I don’t want to be misunderstood as suggesting that these religions envisage the same god-world or gods-world relationship; they most certainly do not. Another misunderstanding is semantic: although the theist might be categorized as “open” in the binary “open system vs. closed system,” the way a person constructs the contours of his or her closed system will determine and frame what is within the closed system box or what is outside of it. Mathematics, for instance, frames all of nature, and some theologians might call it the language of God. If the inherent orderliness, implied intelligence, and entailed concepts like “infinity” — all proper to mathematics — invariably demarcated a divine management of the ongoing structural integrity of the natural system, then “God-presence” could be included in an otherwise natural closed system.

Expanding access to dimensions other than those historically recognized by scientists is transformative on both scientists and humanity’s understanding of the universe, and how the closed system is understood and its viability. I’d be amiss to pass up an excellent opportunity for a brief excursus on developing scientific knowledge: it is a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation to suppose that science is a largely static body of knowledge or that science represents altogether irrefutable axioms. Indeed, to the curious, the scholar, or to the person liberated from their own biases’ utter control, some part of science is always developing and revisable. Some science has tremendous surety. Nevertheless, when a student ascends to the domain of the theoretical — which exists in every serious domain of intellectual inquiry — it becomes perspicuous that science is less rigid than often touted or assumed.  

How the closed system (the universe) is or should be understood will remain and be reinforced by scientists’ avowed confidence, often insisted upon with a dedicated dogmatism, until some need for major revision. There is a recent, seismic example of revising the way the closed system, which is the universe, is understood. Through most of the 20th century, the universe was viewed as a closed system that was eternally existing. It is shocking that the scientific community allowed for such a religious concept as “eternality” to be assigned to the cosmos. Through advancements in tracing light backwards and microwaves, the closed system of the universe — as it was understood at the time — had to go from being an eternal entity to becoming one that had a beginning: the big bang theory was born and prevails in the scientific community until this day. I cite this example because of how huge a change this was on the contours of the closed system. The change, in philosophical terms, could not be bigger: the universe literally went from being a necessary entity to a contingent one. The nature of the cosmos is not easily or quickly discerned, it would seem.

Dimensionality, that there could be more dimensions, and that such would change the contours of the closed system, evinces either the need to abandon the old closed system for something much more fluid or the scientific community could join with theists in affirming the likelihood of a partially open system. I am indifferent in which option is chosen. As scientific inquiry breaks into ever new proposals about differing or new dimensions, the field of After Death Consciousness will be drawn together with it. Religious persons have long advocated for consciousness after death and consciousness apart from the body (that died and is in the ground): and hence differing dimensions or realms. Going back to Sergio’s quote above, it is not clear if Sergio is suggesting that whatever might come through this dimensional door would be sentient or personal. If he is suggesting sentience, the religious person might feel again validated: most major religions hold that there is a Mind or minds quite apart from and different from humanity. It might be equally argued that the fascination people have with ancient and modern mythologies, like the Marvel, D.C., or 40k universes, suggests many subconsciously are drawn to the concept of other minds very different from our own. We are about ready to tie together a few pieces of what may appear to be unrelated data, but there is one piece still to introduce. How many knew that John Hopkins University launched a study in 2018 asking volunteers to complete a survey if they have

had encounters with seemingly autonomous beings or entities after taking DMT.”

https://nationalpost.com/health/aliens-machine-elves-living-slinkys-scientists-to-study-the-entities-people-meet-on-drug-dmt

Who headed this study up? Roland Griffiths, a behavioral biologist with expertise in psychedelics that induce “mystical-type and near-death experiences.” I’ve cited the story here which goes on to consult with expert McKenna, who elaborates on these autonomous but seemingly real entities. When Alex Jones discusses the same with Joe Rogan in 2019, he gets labeled a loon. Alex Jones alleges the University of Washington was experimenting with DMT while turning people’s hearts off to attempt to commune with these entities.

That a respected University like John Hopkins would be already publicly investigating the relationship between DMT, near death experiences, and these autonomous entities, in 2018, and that it would be public, makes the marginal step to experimenting with it only a very small step. The field of Near and After Death Consciousness pairs neatly with experimentation looking into what the consciousness might be doing or with whom it might be involved during the death state.

For the orthodox Christian, notions of other minds and consciousnesses out there that are not human is no big deal. The Bible already documents many such examples. For a naturalist, someone devoted to science as some immovable norm that they dogmatically defend as unbreakable, the project at CERN, Near/After Death Consciousness, and the University of John Hopkins’ dedicated research into “autonomous entities” related to near death experiences, should raise quite a few questions about the sufficiency of their naturalist beliefs. Arguably, every dimensional boundary shattered, if CERN does what it intends, forces the wooden, closed system regarding the nature of the universe to revise its contours. If dimensionality is and is demonstrable, how useful is the scientific naturalist’s closed system beyond its evident pragmatic results? What I mean by this is that much repetitive predictability has been produced using the scientific method, which itself prescribes running the experiment in a closed system. These results as practically changing our world should not and cannot be denied. That the universe itself is a closed system would be repudiated by CERN showing that other dimensions are and can connect to the dimensions we exist within. The dangers that playing with cross-dimensional potential might present should not be dismissed readily. To incessantly affirm that the universe is a closed system while breaking or having to continually revise that thesis to make it accurate of the world as we find it is to die the death of a 1,000 qualifications.

Disembodied consciousness has largely been archived in the annuls of science, via the sizable data regarding near and after death documented consciousness (see my former short article on this if wanting to know more). Consciousness apart from the body is now not only a maxim affirmed by religious persons but is one that those as worldly as the World Economic Forum would likewise affirm. If we were to speak of after death consciousness in a scientific or more scientific way, we might state that disembodied consciousness moves the person involved into a different mode of being, or a different dimension. In some sense, this is nothing more than semantics. Historically, religious people call this mode of being the afterlife. That we might now discuss it in terms of crossing into a different dimension seems little more than contextualizing it to the conversation at hand. Again, how can evidence for after death consciousness, wholly without the body, not suggest or demonstrate that some dimensionality does exist well beyond what David Hume could ever imagine? Strikingly, the WEF might be aligned with a certain Humean atheist predisposition, but that anti-God tendency does not disallow the WEF from courting and using the religious notion of disembodied consciousness.

Lastly, the WEF is set on advancing A.I., which I mean here not only “artificial intelligence” but also “alien intelligence.” Those intimate in the development of A.I. know that there is the possibility that humanity will create “unintelligible intelligence.” This means that humans will not be able to know or understand how the A.I. is coming to its conclusions, and the WEF has affirmed in more than one place that such an A.I. is laudable. Unintelligible intelligence cannot but suggest that this A.I. would be likewise an alien intelligence. My point is that humanity is already courting alien intelligence in its machinations. These alien A.I. intelligences might be birthed by humanity, but that does not mean these A.I. will not become altogether cryptic and unknowable. In fact, one A.I. has already begun to create its own non-human language. It is a little-known fact, but John Hopkins University is tied to the Rockefeller Foundation (which is part of the WEF and globalists) going as far back as the 1940s (as documented by Reuters) precisely in relation to horrible medical experimentation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-lawsuit-infections-idUSKCN1OY1N3

If the WEF is interested in alien intelligence, as I’ve discussed that here, and a University that has engaged in unethical medical experimentation in the past is now involved in near death DMT research, then is it a strange question to wonder about “other dimensional entities” being in the WEF’s purview. Yuval Harari, the WEF’s philosopher and prophet, has already written a book about his/their movement being about establishing 21st century digital religions (Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind). To me, it is an oddity that the WEF with Harari as their mouthpiece see themselves as a kind of new religion. To be fair, the way Harari defines “religion” is entirely idiosyncratic, but it does not change the fact that he advances a “se-apothesis” by claiming that the homo-sapien became god by its own merit. Tying alien intelligence (via A.I.) together with these frightful notions of eugeniciding humanity certainly casts a dark shadow over the question of whether the WEF is courting any other alien intelligences, especially as we see their interest in disembodied consciousness. Some have called the WEF a death cult due to these religious overtures it presents and because of its dedication to, and I quote a chapter at the end of Harari’s book, “The end of Homo Sapiens.” As science breaks down traditional notions about how the universe is a closed system, the experimentation of cross dimensionality (CERN), after death documented consciousness, and alien intelligences entering the fray — whether A.I. or whatever these “autonomous entities” communing with humans in these DMT/near death experiments — it is justifiable to ask more questions about the dangers we as a human species court. Asking these too is not the result of some fanaticism or conspiracy conjured insanity. Indeed, the precipice we find ourselves upon is one where science and religion are conjoining, where notions of other “minds” is becoming part of the conversation for the technological class even as the Christians, and other religious persons, stand steadily on their working thesis that the Mind gave birth to this human dimension’s minds and a whole host of other worldly beings known as angels and demons.

Dr. Scalise

World Economic Forum’s Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (part 6)

20 Monday Jun 2022

Posted by in afterlife, apotheosis, artificial intelligence, Elitism, soul, Transhumanism, WEF

≈ Comments Off on World Economic Forum’s Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (part 6)

Tags

, , , , , , ,

WEF Claims that Humans don’t have Souls; They are just Hackable Animals

Listen to the Text of this Article Read Aloud

The WEF has not made many definitive statements about the soul and the spirit. Their thoughts on this matter are implicit mostly, but Yuval Harari does announce that humans . . .

“should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls — we are now hackable animals.”

Yuval Harari, Jan. 24th, 2020 WEF Annual Meeting

Speaking from his bias, we see the WEF are metaphysical naturalists: a worldview that assumes only the natural world exists — there is nothing outside of it or beyond the cosmos. Traditionally, such a worldview is at odds with and opposed to theism, any theism. We have seen already that the WEF is set on something far darker than mere metaphysical naturalism. They offer a new brand of religion, a 21st century kind, where the elites, those who control the biotech and programming data, will become the gods who edit genes, design humanity, remove biological living humans, and establish an absolute biotechnocratic tyranny. The U.S. Declaration of Independence warned about agendi that pursue “invariably . . . a design to reduce them under absolute despotism” and said that humanity has not only the right but the duty to throw off such government — and in this case I might advise that such a government should be utterly undone. I cannot think of a better contrast than setting the WEF’s vision for future humanity next to these statement from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.  The WEF wants utter surveillance and degrading of human status to nothing more than hackable animals; the U.S. Declaration of Independence states humanity has inherent value and should have autonomy, or independence.

The way the WEF uses “soul” reflects a platonic or neo-platonic view on it. The soul in that system of thought is the immateriality of humans that survives the death of the body. The WEF combines the notion that human consciousness can be digitally uploaded while holding to metaphysical naturalism. This combination should not be conceivable since it suggests that after death consciousness (or disembodied) can be while holding to metaphysical naturalism that denies after death consciousness can be. This is why the WEF is a technocratic cult more than a shear advancement in reckless science. ‘Soul’ is part and parcel to Western thought; Platonism belongs to that line of thinking; however, the Scriptural notion of ‘soul’ is quite different from Platonism. ‘Nefesh,’ from the Old Testament Hebrew, is sometimes translated as ‘soul’ but it has the meaning of ‘person,’ ‘individual,’ or ‘vitality.’ Scripture does not have a term for ‘person’ or ‘individual’ so ‘soul’ functions to serve that purpose. More than anything, ‘soul’ reflects the living quality of someone or something based on its breathing and it denotes “individuation” or a measure of autonomy. There is a close connection between ‘nefesh’ and the Hebrew ‘nishmat,’ which means ‘breath,’ ‘spirit,’ or ‘wind.’ Nishmat can sometimes be used interchangeably with Ruach, which is the word commonly used for “Spirit” in the phrase “Spirit of God.” When we get into the Greek of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, or LXX) and New Testament , we find psyche is used for soul, but it has nearly the same meaning as the Hebrew counterpart, ‘person,’ or ‘animating vitality.’ The NT uses pneuma for ‘spirit,’ ‘wind,’ ‘breath.’

All this to say that Yuval’s naturalism leaves him with a view of humanity deprived of much of its uniqueness. He says that humans are no longer mysterious souls but hackable animals. There is question begging that Yuval himself seems to transgress since (1) digitally uploading human consciousness is desirable (to the WEF) and (2) because whatever the excellence in computing power and data storage ability that computers or future A.I. have over humans, all this is built from the blueprint of humanity. What makes uploading human consciousness desirable and thus better than uploading the mind of a dolphin, an ape, or a turtle? Where does the logic for computers, for algorithms, comes from? Is it not the human mind? Yuval’s applause for biotech, computer tech, and human innovation leading to the possibility of any of this points to the potency, uniqueness, and the superiority of humanity over other animals. In a naturalist world, a metaphysical naturalist world, isn’t the radical ability over other species quite mysterious? I mean Yuval is comfortable to announce that futurist ‘ex-biological’ human consciousness or A.I. will be the intelligent designers of life’s (or artificial life) future, implying little ‘g’ gods’ abilities akin to being able to create — a category reserved for God and God alone. Psalm 82:6 literally says that humans are called ‘gods’ and Jesus’ quotes this in John 10:34 as a kind of defense against the allegation that Jesus “declares” himself God. That humans would gain such abilities to control the world around them is not at all mysterious in the Psalm 82 world, a world with God who created these incredible images of Himself called humans. It is precisely humanity’s uniqueness in this respect that advances all these marvels! The soul, then, for Yuval is something unimportant all the while seemingly imperative for every advancement he himself champions!

In Judeo-Christian thought, the soul is a summary word for a living, somewhat autonomous, person. It is the spirit of a human that acts as the trans-dimensional bridge between this world and other dimensions. The Spirit of God, the Spirit, crossed the incredible divide between Creator and creation to create what was not. Radical words, aren’t they? “What . . . was . . . not.” Thus, the Spirit crossed that divide; it is the little ‘s’ spirits in humans that have the same capacity to cross from this creatural side to unite with the Creator’s side. The soul, then, is a kind of demarcater of “this life from that life” while it is the spirit in a human that enables transcendence, imagination, self-ascension, to think beyond the bounds, and to commune with the Spirit from whom all spirits came. I’ll need to do another segment on these matters.

Primus Theologoumenus

Transhumanism of the World Economic Forum, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (part 5)

15 Wednesday Jun 2022

Posted by in entropy, eternal life, law of thermodynamics, Transhumanism, WEF, World Economic Forum

≈ Comments Off on Transhumanism of the World Economic Forum, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (part 5)

Tags

, , ,

The Law of Entropy and Complications for Consciousness

I laid the groundwork for how transhumanism via A.I. will not solve the problem of bias; for how an ex-biological human digitally uploaded consciousness — is it still human — will still have limitations and therefore err; for how after death consciousness is a scientific data point from which to debate and theorize; and for how the World Economic Forum wants to eugenocide biological humanity. With this data laid out, let’s do a very short foray into why prolonging consciousness in this world, in this cosmos, is ultimately an act of futility. We will then, in the next article in this series, investigate components that typically go into ideas of afterlife as religiously and traditionally understood. The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics state:

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy.

First Law of Thermodynamics

This law is sometimes known as the law of entropy: as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. Entropy increases in a closed system (like the universe), energy moving from more orderly to disorder, degenerating the amount of energy with which to do work. Another way to put it: in all energy exchanges if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state (= entropy increases).

Second Law of Thermodynamics

A few scientific points to put out there — in a very rudimentary way. The universe or cosmos is considered a closed system. This means there is nothing coming in from the outside, no energy input can be expected. Recall that this fits with how the scientific method assumes methodological naturalism in its development; it is a control on the experiment contours. The physics of the quantum realm are generally characterized as one of chaos, a realm in which logical or discernable order is difficult or impossible. The two laws of thermodynamics, when applied to the universe as a closed system, results in the well-known scientific conclusion of the ‘Heat death (deprivation) of the Universe.’ At some hellish point in the future, all energy will have been transferred from orderly to disorderly, and the entropy of the universe will be maxed out.

There will be no life, A.I., digital, or otherwise because all things require energy. The destiny of the universe (as a closed system) is death, utter futility, emptiness, a frozen abyss populated by the death of all things.

This is the context of prolonging consciousness in this world. The other naturalistic alternative for the closed system we call the cosmos would be that the universe ceases to expand, collapses in on itself, destroying all that was, and then re-exploding in a new big bang. Strictly speaking, this is highly theoretical and puts the continuity of this universe in the realm of mystery since investigating the original big bang along naturalist lines is unhelpful and generates more questions than answers. Most religions on the planet have a creation myth, mostly because one of the tasks of religion is to answer the big questions of existence. We translate that into the scientific talk here: religions generally agree that the universe is not a closed system, and its origin came from the “outside” and that its destiny resides in realizing this trans-dimensional bridge.

The World Economic Forum’s notions of transhumanism imply they intend to digitize human consciousness as a kind of consciousness prolonger. Although I contend the WEF’s transhumanism is intent on advancing themselves as little ‘g’ gods, digitally granting themselves false eternal life through abandoning their biology, it is nevertheless resoundingly naturalistic, likely functioning on metaphysical naturalism (that the natural world is all there is) but not naturalistic materialism (because the WEF believes consciousness is not identical with the material brain). This is decided logical if you are the WEF or a metaphysical naturalist because you believe, “who cares if the universe ultimately dies in the future, I’ll be dead in 50 – 100 years, and I will cease to exist. At least if I go digital, I can prolong some measure of existence for however long is possible.” Zoom out though and we see that prolonging consciousness with whatever temporary meaning that has will be consumed by the death of the universe and all meaning made vacuous by the lack of any mind or consciousness to give it standing or continuity. It is messed up that Scripture can speak of all this in such a dismissive and decisive way:

“For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own choice, but by the will of the One who subjected it in hope …”

Romans 8:19 – 20

The WEF faces the prospect of oblivion; its answer is extending consciousness in a realm destined for death. Might it be easier to reject naturalism? The adage, “better to rule in hell than serve in heaven,” comes powerfully to mind. Is death the destiny of all things? Is it really the god humanity should be worshipping, the end all roads lead to, the inevitability no one can escape? The WEF might run from death, but death will haunt their steps, demanding it sacrifices, its homage, which will be paid by all things when death’s domain is absolute, when entropy reigns supreme. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

Primus Theologoumen

World Economic Forum’s Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and Afterlife (part 3)

06 Monday Jun 2022

Posted by in human error, Transhumanism, WEF

≈ Comments Off on World Economic Forum’s Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and Afterlife (part 3)

Tags

, ,

The pertinent thesis and potentially one I might agree with is the supposition by the World Economic Forum that “humans are the problem.” We need to nuance this: for the WEF it is the biological restrictions of humanity that are particularly problematic. They might also say that the limitations of biological brain computational power and data storage (memory) is an inherent flaw of this phase of humanity’s evolution. Why is it that I might agree with the claim that “humans are problematic?” The problem of evil and humanity’s susceptibility to doing great evil, both in kinds of evil and magnitudes, leads me to accept that “humans are problematic.” This is on-the-ground-evidence of a big time issue with humanity. The Scriptural teaching on that matter summarizes this human problem as “sold under sin (Romans 7:14).”  Whether you call it “sin” or “human error” matters little at this point in the conversation. In matter of fact, Scripture has a clear term and concept for what we call “human error,” σάρξ (sarx), “flesh.”

My objection to humanity as it currently behaves is centered on the evil humans engage in, not on the inherent weakness implied in “human error.” The WEF’s objection to humanity though is due to its inherent weakness, which they mistakenly think is due to humanity’s biological restrictions. Thus, although the WEF and I might both say that “humanity is problematic,” we say this for very different reasons and from very different foundations about what humanity is.

Let’s focus on how “doing evil” and “human error” or “human weakness” relate for a moment. Broadly speaking, human weakness is frailty evinced in humans intending some goal, task, or aim, and missing the mark. For instance, I shoot a soccer ball at the net, but, because of my human error, human weakness, human frailty, I miss. In standard conversation, we would not say that a soccer player did evil because he missed a shot. I cannot here get into the metaethics of defining good and evil, so I will have to just summarize evil as willingly doing things destructive to oneself or others, roughly following the 10 Commandments for a shorthand (commissive evil). In addition, evil is likewise knowing to do the good, dismissing it, and allowing indifference and inactivity to take its place (omissive evil). Human weakness is far afield and clearly demarcated from humans “doing evil.” Human weakness is due to this one simple qualification: limitation. Anyone personal that has limitations will have error arise given enough time. Don’t miss the fact that breaking those limitations is what makes the stuff of legends too though, what makes watching that football game with the game-changing play so thrilling.

I pointed out above that the WEF mistakenly thinks it is humanity’s biological restrictions that are problematic. I am saying, however, that it is humanity’s tendency to perform evil action intentionally that grounds my view of the “human problem.” What is common between these two views? Humanity is what philosophers describe as contingent, i.e., not necessary in itself. Said with a different emphasis, humanity is limited, or incomplete. In Scriptural terms, we would say that humanity is created and that it is therefore dependent on something outside of itself. Earlier I said that anything limited, given enough time, will perform erroneously; by this, of course, I meant anything (a) personal, (b) capable of morality, and (c) significantly free. In sum, it is the limitation of humanity or, said differently, it is human nature’s incompleteness (or contingency) that gives birth to error and evil. Let’s take a look at the WEF’s solution to this problem; we will then compare that with the Scriptural proposition on how to solve it.

The WEF wants to build out humanity into some sort of cyborgian entity or a fully digital consciousness, as I argued in my first article. This requires the eugenicide, more or less, of biological or normal humanity. Does the WEF’s formula really solve the problem?

C + D = AHH: Yuval Harari explains that this is ‘computational power + data = A hackable humanity.’

World Economic Forum Presentation, January 24th, 2020

Although we could spend time on how this formula is the essence of tyrants’ dreams, we need to look at C and D in terms of solving humanity’s limitation issue. More fully, we must contextualize the question within modern cosmology: specifically, that the universe’s expansion is ongoing and may even be accelerating. I’ll cut to the chase: this cheerleading by the WEF of “oh look how great we are, we have such big computational power and data” is utterly relativized and made to look silly by the magnitude of creation/cosmos/universe. Given more and more computational power and data, plus time, plus human consciousness transhumanified into non-organic digital consciousness, the limitations of consciousness and super computers and A.I. gods (as Google claims they are making) will still be. What is more, none of this can transition A.I. or super computers or a non-organic digital consciousness into becoming necessary in itself. We should also note that there is the possibility that the universe/cosmos could end its expansion and contract back in on itself — some cosmologists muse this is certainly probable. Thus, that there would be “time” enough for compiling the data of the universe, vast as it is, is not a given at all. What does all this drive at? Precisely that humanity is dependent, limited, and insufficient, just as any super computers, A.I., or digital consciousness will likewise be. What I am saying is not to be confused with an attitude that disavows innovation or whatever scientific advances humanity can make: within ethical parameters, I love and enjoy human innovation. My so-called religiosity does not entail aversion to innovation per se. I am devoted to the truth, and the truth here is that humanity and all the cosmos itself is contingent, unnecessary, and limited.  

Well, that was a mouthful, but the Scriptural solution is short and sweet. Namely, admit that humanity is incomplete (and the cosmos too; Romans 8:19) and reunite with the One who can complete it, the One who can marginalize time itself, make time irrelevant, the One who united humanity to itself in the form of Jesus the Christ, and the One who provides you the universe as an eternal sandbox for fun. Whether we come to the insufficiency of humanity and cosmos through science or by listening to the Scriptural revelation, we might find ourselves reaching the same conclusion. I love this quote by Jastrow because I love innovation, reason, and science, but I love theology, Scripture, and anthropology even more.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, & the Afterlife (Part 1)

02 Thursday Jun 2022

Posted by in afterlife, Near Death Experiences/Consciousness, Transhumanism, WEF

≈ Comments Off on Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, & the Afterlife (Part 1)

Tags

, , , , ,

The World Economic Forum’s Focus on Transhumanism

Why is the World Economic Forum — and the globalist elites it represents or entails — focused on Transhumanism? There is a myriad of implications in this one question, not least of which involves the worldview of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The goal of transhumanism is essentially the cyborging of humanity. This can be conceived in several ways, but perhaps the most dominant is the digitalization of human consciousness or the union of human consciousness with digital forms of existence. Much of this is still theoretical, but that gap is closing quickly, and, as such, the questions of the origin or humanity as well as its telos (destiny) rise in relevance. Elon Musk’s Neuralink is deploying even as I write: it embeds a chip in your skull that is surgically-robotically connected to the brain’s electrical neurological framework. Another recent discussion involves a Bluetooth for your brain, being used to help paralyzed individuals regain some functionality since a computer might be able to tell their body what to do even when their brain would fail on its own: ABC interviewed the CEO of Syncron who elucidates the process.

Transhumanist of the WEF sort frequently laud the notion of uploading the human consciousness digitally. This is where the question of the human soul and spirit arise along with humanity’s origin and destiny. Presumably, the WEF is interested in the prospect of immortality, a prospect conceivably made possible by casting off biological “restrictions.” Is the human mind nothing more than electrical signals? An important distinction is that “brain” refers to the physical material in the human body while “mind” refers to the immaterial information/data/intel that composes or constitutes human identity or “person.” There is much to discuss, and nuance must guide it.

The other obscured topic looming over all of this is the “God-world relationship.” This topic really is a principle meta-narrative, and how the transhumanist agenda advances — what it discovers — will have direct bearing on how we understand not only the God-human relationship, but the God-world relationship as well. Lastly, we will work with the scientific data of documented consciousness apart from brain functionality. This concludes part 1, with which I only intended to set the stage for this discussion of transhumanism, human destiny, and the fate of the God-world relationship.