 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Irina Gennadievna Mikailova
Full-Text PDF
XML 441 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5313/2023.11.005
Saint Petersburg Humanitarian Centre for Education, Saint Petersburg, Russia
The article is focused on discussing a new methodological approach to the study on specifics of transferring human beings to the posthuman cyber society. The approach in question assists in rethinking interconnected problems both of human origins in the universe and mankind’s digital future. And, besides, such an approach allows to deal with self-organising interconversions between the poles of the cardinal dual opposition of the Global Noosphere Brain and the Artificial General Intelligence. Herewith such phenomena of digital social life as Global Digitalisation, Digital Immortality, Mindcloning, and Technological Zombification being the constituents of Technological Singularity Concept, are rethought as paving the way for oncoming Posthuman Digital Era. This concept is evidently exemplified by a bifurcation resulting in two alternatives to be chosen by human beings, to wit, either to be undergone Mindcloning and become digitally immortal or being destroyed by powerful intelligent machines. The investigation in question is based on such a progressive methodology as the Law of Self-Organizing Ideals, as well as on the Method of Dual Oppositions. Rethinking interrelationships between the problem of a sense of social history and the meaning-of-life of local societies members which any intelligent machine is devoid of permits to substantiate specific regularities of Self-Transforming Homo Faber into Homo Digitalis and Technological Zombies ready to be transferred to posthuman cyberspace.
Law of Self-Organising Ideals, dual oppositions, Homo Faber, Homo Digitalis, Technological Singularity, Artificial General Intelligence, cyber society, cyberspace, Mindcloning, mindware, mindfiles, Synergetic Historicism
Irina Gennadievna Mikailova. (2023). Homo Faber Scapegoated, or Apocalyptic Artificial Intelligence: Rethinking the Technological Singularity Concept From the Synergetic Historicism Position. Philosophy Study, November 2023, Vol. 13, No. 11, 496-506.
Baum, S. (2017). The social science of computerized brains. Review of the age of Em: Work, love and life when robots rule the earth by Robin Hanson. Futures, 90, 61-63.
Benedict, M. (1991). Cyberspace: Some proposals. In Cyberspace: First steps (pp. 119-224). Cambridge MA: The MII Press.
Bostrom, N. (1999). The doomsday argument is alife and kicking. Mind, 108(431), 539-550.
Bostrom, N. (2002). Existential risks. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 9(1), 1-31.
Bostrom, N. (2005). A history of transhumanist thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14(1), 1-25.
Bostrom, N. A. (2008). Global catastrophic risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2010). The singularity: A philosophical analysis. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(9/10), 7-65.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York: Back Bay Books.
Dennett, D. C., & Kinsbourne, M. (1992). Escape from the Cartesian theater. Behavioural and Brain Science, 15(2), 234-247.
Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.
Eden, A. H. (2016). The singularity controversy, Part I: Lessons learned and open questions: Conclusions from the battle on the legitimacy of the debate. Technical report. New York: Sapience Project.
Egan, G. (1994). Permutation city. New York: Harper Prism.
Floridi, L., & Jeff, S. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349-379.
Georgiev, D. (2020). Quantum information theoretic approach to the mind-brain problem. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 158, 16-32.
Geraci, R. M. (2010). Apocalyptic AI: Visions of heaven in robotics, artificial intelligence and virtual reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geraci, R. M. (2010). The popular appeal of apocalyptic AI. Zigon: Journal of Religion and Science, 45(4), 1003-1020.
Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.
Good, I. J. (1965). Speculations concerning the first ultraintelligent machine. Advances in Computers, 6, 31-85.
Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics. An introduction. Nonequilibrium phase transitions and self-organization in physics, chemistry, and biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hanson, R. D. (2016). The age of Em: Work, love and life when robots rule the earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herzfeld, N. (2012). Cybernetic immortality versus Christian resurrection. In Resurrection: Theological and scientific arguments (pp. 192-202). Eerdmans: Grand Rapids.
Heylighen, F. (2012). A brain in a vat cannot break out: Why the singularity must be extended, embedded and embodied. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 19(1-2), 126-146.
Huxley, A. (1932). Dust jacket of brave new world. London: Chatto and Windus.
Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking Books.
Levit, G. S. (2000). The biosphere and the noosphere theories of V. I. Vernadsky and P. Teilhard de Chardin: A methodological essay. Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences, 50(144), 160-177.
Le Roy, E. (1928). Les origines humaines et l’évolution de l’intelligence. III. La Noosphère et l’Hominisation. Paris: Boivin et Cie.
Michaud, Th. (2008). Science fiction and politics cyberpunk science fiction as political philosophy. In New boundaries in political science fiction (pp. 65-77). Columbia: University of South Caroline Press.
Mikailova, I. G. (2016). Social and cultural ideals and global artistic culture. In 2 vols. Vol. I. Social, cultural, and religious ideals and their role in dynamic reproducing human civilisation. Saarbrücken: Palmarium Academic Publishing. (in Russian)
Mikailova, I. G. (2019). The synergetic model of global development of humanity: Its part in self-organizing social and cultural processes. International Journal of Innovative Studies in Sciences and Engineering Technology, 5(4), 26-36.
Minsky, M. (2006). The emotion machine, commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of human mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Moravec, H. (1988). The future of robot and human intelligence. London: Harvard University Press.
More, M. (2003). Principles of extropy. An evolving framework of values and standards for continuously improving the human condition. London: Extropy Institute.
Preston, T. M., & Dixon, S. (2007). Who wants to live forever? Immortality, and living forever in the present. The International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 61(2), 99-117.
Rothblatt, M. (2014). Virtually human. The promise and the peril of digital immortality. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Russell, B. (1924). Icarus or the future of science. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company.
Synergetic Philosophy of History. (2009). The collective monograph. V. P. Bransky and S. D. Pozharsky, (Eds.). Riasan: Copy-Print.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock: The third wave. New York: Random House.
Turchin, A., & Denkenberger, D. (2018). Classification of global catastrophic risks connected with artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 35(I), 143-163.
Vernadsky, V. I. (1988). Philosophical thought of naturalist. M.: Science. (in Russian)
Vernadsky, V. (2012). The transition from the biosphere to the noosphere. Excerpts from scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon, 1938. Washington: The 21st Century Science and Technology.
Vinge, V. (1984). True names. New York: Bluejay Books, Inc.
Vinge, V. S. (1988). Threats and other promises. Wake Forest: Baen Books.
Vinge, V. (1993). The coming technological singularity: How to survive in the post-human era. Whole Earth Review, 81, 88-95.
Yampolsky, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Artificial general intelligence, and the humen mental model. In Singularity hypotheses: A scientific and philosophical assessment. The frontiers collection (pp. 129-146). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.