Tag Archives: World Economic Forum

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, and the Afterlife (Part 2)

03 Friday Jun 2022

Posted by in Apologetics, Comparative Religion, Elitism, Fear, God, Government, Hebrews, Human Experience and Theology, Incarnation, Jesus, Transhumanism

≈ Comments Off on Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (Part 2)

Tags

, , ,

The World Economic Forum’s Eugenics and Ramifications

Listen to the Text of this Article

The WEF’s infatuation with transhumanism partly lies in its deep eugenicist ideological matrix. They recently claimed that their elitist group will be the ones intelligently designing humanity, advancing humanity’s evolution. They go so far as to directly dismiss the Divine as the Intelligent Designer, naming themselves as sovereigns in His place. Yuval Harari, much the prophet for the World Economic Forum, clearly articulated this in his January 25th, 2018, presentation at the WEF annual meeting, in a speech called “Will the Future be Human.” Perhaps one of the challenges of discussing this prophet’s narrative (Harari is a bit infamous for a work he put out called New Religions of the 21st Century) is the vast domains of knowledge needed to interact with this thought. These domains include eugenics, A.I., transhumanism, evolution, naturalism, Darwinism, economics, resource management, the nature of life (or better, bio-ontology), nature of humanity, metaphysics, God-world relationship, and, in some respect, cosmology. We cannot discuss everything here, but we can go through them one at a time. Eugenics typically involves a racial focus, a desire to “purify” the human species of undesirable traits. The World Economic Forum evidently thinks that humanity itself is problematic, of whatever race or sort. This is novel eugenics, one that we should call anti-life eugenics: for my DC comics fan, this is a kind of anti-life equation (Darkseid is obsessed with eliminating freewill, which in that DC universe equates to being “anti-life.”). There is a certain cynicism that may think, “well humanity will kill itself anyway, the WEF is just advancing that eventuality,” especially in light of the wars, genocides, and weapons of mass destruction the 20th century produced.  This thought provides no illumination of the good humanity does and is capable of, and such a thought would belong to a person who would be among the ranks of the WEF’s eugenicist ideology. There is an opaque connection here with nihilism, which is the subtle, indirect, direct, or tendency towards destruction or facilitating it.

Thus, clarifying, the WEF’s transhumanism is recreative, at least I believe they would see it that way; it is a eugenicist cleansing to bring forth, as Harari puts it, “non-biological life.” Cast down human life; raise up cyborg or A.I. life from the ashes.

Nevertheless, this sort of eugenics is also genocidal, even if the WEF and its advocates opine that what they want is to move humanity into its next evolutionary step, akin to how Neanderthals were eliminated so that more advanced forms of Homo Sapiens could thrive.

We have now branched neatly into the domain of ethics or morality, and we will discuss that in the future. Big questions about God, humanity, humanity’s role in the cosmos, what it means to be human, the morality of eugenicide even if done with the best of intentions, and how this vision of the future contrasts with God’s metanarrative for humanity. A few closing points that will extend and summarize what I have discussed herein.

  • WEF transhumanism takes, extends, but modifies the Darwinian principle of natural selection, which is itself a kind of “naturally embedded eugenics.” The WEF believes in the notion of survival of the fittest, but they want to take the reigns from nature in order to make themselves the architects of eugenicized humanity, of digitalized or cyborged Sapiens.
  • WEF transhumanism believes in a modified “Intelligent Design,” which typically means that God designed humanity and the world in remarkably precise ways to fit, operate, and create a plentitude of unities among diversities. The WEF modified form means that “enlightened humans,” those sufficiently illuminated, will be the futurist intelligent designers of this renewed humanity, of cyborgian/digitalized humanity. Who are these humans? The cohort that is the World Economic Forum’s true believers; they will be the little “g” gods who will play the role of intelligent designers, crafting a digitalized, futurist destiny for humanity.
  • This anti-life eugenics entails destruction of old humanity, of that normal biological sort that claims it is made in the Imago Deī (Image of God). I should be more careful here: it is unclear if the WEF wants all humanity’s biological restrictions removed. It might be better to call their futurist vision for humanity “anti-standard-humanity.”

The WEF has a eugenicide agenda, but it entails the destruction of old humanity to bring on this new futurist humanity. This genocide is more likely of the omissive kind; either adapt with humanity’s futurist, non-biological destiny or be excluded from all means of livelihood. Genocides are often thought of as brutal campaigns of death and slaughter for the unworthy, for the unbeliever, blood spilling everywhere. What we have learned since the Great Bioweapon Undertaking of 2020 (the Covid-19 pandemic) is that the globalist elites desire to structure disasters, then be the ones who offer the solutions, so that humanity will willingly accept their guidance. With sufficient fear, many humans will give up everything for security. Of course, you might think, “I would not,” and that is well and good, but the trouble is that these “crafters of disaster” only need a majority to advance their agenda. Once the majority agrees to ever greater degrees of surveillance and compliance, the globalists only need to bind that compliance/surveillance to someone’s ability to buy or sell. Once this is done, it will be ever more difficult to survive without submission to that system. Ergo, those who will not comply will be marginalized, and they will have to decide (and convince their loved ones) whether to accept the WEF’s futurist cyborgian destiny for themselves and their family or to descend into obscurity in some apocalyptic, likely pre-industrial, very discomfortable, living situation.

The other big “God” questions have to do with the divinization, at least in their own minds, of the WEF cohort, albeit in the little “g” gods sense. Is the removal of “the biological (body)” from humans a discontinuing of the human species? If so, and I will speak from my orthodox Christian position here, would the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ “count” for “non-biological” humans, if we can even still call them humans? The Book of Hebrews offers this:

“Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore, he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because He Himself was tested by what he suffered, He is able to help those who are being tested.”

Hebrews Chapter 2

Specifically, the WEF wants to remove the “flesh and blood” of humanity, either more or less, although we should lean to the “more” side since “uploading” is part of their emphasis (= fully digitized human consciousness). The consequence of Jesus’ appropriation of “flesh and blood,” the purpose for which He did it, was the freeing of humans from death and the devil. Jesus “had to become like” humanity “in every respect.” The biological composition of humanity is integral to its essence (or ontology); would disembodied digital “ex-humans’” consciousnesses still be salvageable by Jesus, the Christ? This text is famous in Church History, the Church Fathers creating this maxim from it:

that which is not assumed is not saved”

St. Gregory Nazianzen’s Letter to Cledonius

What does this mean? That the sacrifice of the Christ only applies to the form of humanity that He took up through the incarnation: which is, normal, biological humanity. It might escape out notice, it nearly did mine, but it is not unimportant that the “removal of life” historically means the onsetting of death, life-less-ness. The Hebrews text above notes the mission of this Christ was to remove the power of death. Is the digitalization, the removal of “biology,” of “life,” from humanity the codification of a near immortal reigning of death? Is Harari’s phrase, “non-biological life,” a euphemism for “life-less” or “death-ful.” If this too sloppily put? Certainly, prolonging consciousness would entail a major, or even dominate, feature of what it means to be alive. Has anyone seen the Matrix? Has anyone been in the Warhammer 40k lore? In almost all cases where the “machinification” of humanity is imagined, it is centered on images that are instinctually repugnant to our aesthetic faculty (P.s., I have an objective, historical, view of beauty, where it is not in the “eye of the beholder”). Why should this be the case? These questions set the stage for our next article. I have much to consider as I hope you do as well.

Prime Theologian