We live in an intelligible universe, a universe with innumerable fractal patterns of design, making possible the measurement and calculation of these physical laws with such precision as to launch rockets into orbit and perform brain surgery on infants. It’s a pre-existing context within which we inescapably participate – in a perpetual state of interpretation. So, whereas modern man may rightly be tempted to view the entire universe as being subject to his enquiry – it is also true that he finds his own cognitive capacity for grasping intelligibility being put to the test. Said another way – could it be we aren’t really the ones conducting the experiment… but rather, we are the experiment?
This, of course, raises the question (or enquiry) – So how’s that experiment going? Because clearly we seem stuck – making the same choices, expecting a different outcome. We’ve come to learn so much, only to discover how little we actually know . . . or what any of it might mean. So you’d think this would give us pause and humble all of our self-involved opinions – but you would be wrong. Because it would appear that we are all plunging headlong into a future we’re hoping to create in our own image – unintended consequences, be damned! Not only have we learned how to blow the world up, a hundred times over – we’ve learned how to edit DNA (CRISPR) . . . and we now appear to be on the verge of turning the whole thing over to AI to navigate us into what comes next.
The world created by design is awash with pattern, and in the world of algorithmic computation, pattern is essential. This is how predictive language models like auto-correct or auto-fill work – it’s a calculation that predicts what the next word in the sequence might be, based on a percentage of likelihood. It’s sort of like a parlor trick, where the illusion of innumerable possible choices is solved by a sleight of hand form of unseen simple logic. For me, this epitomizes the whole modern project – ever pretending to formulate something new, while reshuffling the deck of already existing patterns . . . hoping to create the illusion of self-invention. So when they tell us things are progressing – truth be told, they can’t really tell us what we’re actually progressing towards . . . other than into a world they imagine should exist.
So in the finite wisdom of the modern mind, it somehow makes sense to entrust a cold, calculating algorithm to be the bloodless instrument of efficiency, to lead us into the future. As if the divination of a better future merely requires a more sophisticated predictive language model . . . predicated on nothing more than our current cultural definition of better. But any notion of “better” is invariably an existentially comparative concept, dependent upon a baseline understanding of value. So what kind of system of value do you imagine a disembodied artificial intelligence would have? No doubt, it will follow its programming. Which is to say — it will follow the pattern of design by which it was created.
It would seem that we’d be better off returning to the first order of significance, to the pattern and design that our own creation affords us, rather than deferring to the computer gods we’ve created in our own image. Because in the final analysis, if meaning, purpose, and significance are what we’re truly after – it won’t be found in the bravado and pretense of our own curated narratives, or the creations of our self-affirming vanity. It will be found in the humble confession that we have been fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) to the glory of God… and in knowing that we are his beloved. Making the next question in the sequence – how long will it take for us to realize this truth?
. . . and then hold open your hands and ask for more.
This is an updated post originally published on Still Chasing Light
Featured Image by Yiannis Kamatsos from Pixabay
