Menu
header photo

Project Vision 21

Transforming lives, renewing minds, cocreating the future


16 years      OF Archives

WEEKLY COMMENTARY

DISCLAIMER

The commentaries we share here are merely our thoughts and reflections at the time of their writing. They are never our final word about any topic, nor they necessarily guide our professional work. 

 

Will we leave our decisions and our future in the hands of “silicon sages”?

The rapid advance of artificial intelligence (created by us, it is worth remembering), added to the constant evidence of our inability to live in harmony with the planet and with others, have motivated a growing number of people to insist that AI must make important decisions about our future and perhaps even govern our lives.

The new situation has been cataloged by Dr. John Vervaeke, neuroscientist and philosopher at the University of Toronto, as the arrival of the “silicon sage.” For his part, the Spanish scientific popularizer Ignacio Crespo describes the new trend as the arrival of the “binary augur” (an excellent description without a doubt).

Regardless of the name used, it is clear that in the face of our own evident inability as humans to solve our own problems, many people (how many people are unknown) assume that it would be better for AI to make the decisions. And, when it comes to political decisions, there are plenty of reasons and examples that indicate that it would be better for politicians not to decide.

But where are we humans? I mean: what good is it for us to be human if we can no longer or do not want to decide for ourselves? In other words, what have we become (or are we about to become) if we even have to delegate, or intend to delegate, our most important decisions to AI?

It seems that it is not enough for us that algorithms decide what we should buy online or what movie we should watch or what message on social media is or is not for us. It seems that it is not enough for us that AI monitors our emails or generates texts and images (almost) at the level of human creators. Now we want to leave our entire lives in the hands of AI.

This situation, this tendency, has little progress and much regression because it seems to grant the binary augur, the silicon sage, a level of wisdom and justice above any human being and, therefore, it is considered appropriate and even necessary to deposit all our trust (and bet our future) on the decisions made by AI, that is, our own creation.

Where then were the great traditions of wisdom that for millennia have been transmitted, written and rethought in almost all cultures around the world? I dare say that they were trapped (that is, devalued and distorted) within countless “videos” published on social networks, mostly by those who know nothing about these great traditions.

I'm not suggesting either going back in time or turning off AI. But, at the same time, I dislike the idea that humanity reaches the point of surrendering to its own creation, of abandoning all ability to remember, live and think. In fact, that situation terrifies me.

As Dante said in Canto 1 of Inferno, those who enter hell are those who forgot the benefits of the intellect, those who stopped thinking.

Little has changed in our society in the last two and a half millennia

I recently read that in our society “everything is lost” because “bad people serve as a good example and good people serve as mockery.” That complaint sought to reflect the “disintegration of the fundamental pillars” of current society, and, more specifically, the great “ethical challenges” facing the world at this time.

But that was not the only complaint I found published in the media in recent times.

Someone else complained, for example, that we live in a time in which “those who have not yet been humiliated by life or know their own limitations,” in the best narcissistic style, “exalt themselves” and believe they are “equal to the best”, although in reality they are not and hardly ever will be.

Another person, focusing on young people, maintained that today's youth do not respect "neither authority, nor elders, nor teachers," adding that young people prefer to "chat" instead of working or exercising. For this reason, the youngest have become the “dictators of parents and teachers.”

All these observations (even recognizing that they are generalizations and that the exceptions are many) seem to appropriately represent the current situation of our society, where the consequences of one's actions matter little, where “a donkey is the same as a great professor.” (as the Cambalache tango says), and where everyone believes they are better than everyone else and has the right to demean the other.

Furthermore, new technologies, such as the Internet and social networks, instead of facilitating dialogue, prevent it and at the same time restrict communication to short texts, funny images or simply a “Like” (in the best of cases). . For this reason, the observations about current society shared in the previous paragraphs seem accurate and for this reason we must offer an important detail:

The three complaints mentioned above were expressed more than 2000 years ago.

The first quote is from the Greek philosopher Democrates, probably from the 1st century BC, that is, a contemporary of Julius Caesar and the emperor Augustus. Democrates, who some say had thoughts similar to those of modern democracy, complained about the high level of corruption in the society of his time.

The second quote is from the well-known philosopher Aristotle, from the 4th century BC. In this case, the complaint focuses on those who believe they already know everything because they know something. This is (I add) a situation worse than ignorance: ignorance can be remedied with knowledge, but self-deception rarely has a remedy.

The third quote is from Socrates talking about the young people of Athens about 2,400 years ago, although it could apply to young people almost anywhere in the world in our own day. But parents are also responsible for their inability to accept the identity of a new generation.

Let’s keep in mind that Socrates accused of corrupting young people because he taught philosophy to them, thus teaching them how to develop their own ideas.

In short, in 2500 years of Western “civilization”, we have not advanced or improved (almost) anything.

Reality not only does not kill the narratives, but it does not even make a dent in them

The saying that “reality kills narratives” is repeated with some frequency, seeking to express that there are certain irrefutable facts or data that, when presented or when we become aware of them, nullify unfounded or unverifiable stories about reality. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

For example, data and warnings about the harmful consequences of smoking, even if based on solid scientific evidence, do little to change the behavior of those who want to smoke. And the same could be said of many other products and activities that, although harmful, continue to be consumed, used, or practiced.

In the same way, rational arguments, historical research, archaeological evidence or whatever one presents do little and nothing to change the stories of those who prefer to remain attached to their beliefs, dogmas, and doctrines instead of opening their minds. and heart to curiosity and wonder.

And therein lies the heart of this issue: our worst addiction is not addiction to drugs, money, or immoral activities. Our worst addiction is that we have become addicted to ourselves, as Father Richard Rohr once expressed (if I remember correctly).

We have become so addicted to ourselves that any thought that does not conform to our beliefs or expectations is immediately rejected and the cause of that unwanted thought is marked as a heretic, traitor, or liar, being expelled, anathematized, excommunicated, and sent into a real or social exile, so typical of other times.

In this context, there is little place (in fact, there is no place left) for that attitude of curiosity, acceptance, and healthy indignation that Paulo Freire proposed as the basis of an education for liberation. And, as a consequence, the same stories are repeated over and over again with no other basis or support than a mind and heart addicted to themselves and separated from others and the universe.

These stories, or rather, these limiting narratives not only dwarf the world of individuals, but are immune to creative dialogue and empathy, thus perpetuating (and even reproducing and expanding an uncritical, domesticated, and superficial thinking in which based on the current “unjust social orders” that Freire spoke of.

As this influential Brazilian pedagogue and thinker emphasized, (paraphrasing) there is no change in education without a change first occurring in the level of consciousness of educators. In the Theory U (Otto Scharmer) maintains that all change depends on the level of consciousness of the change agent.

But limiting stories do not allow any change, but only lead to repeating the past or perpetuating the present, thereby refusing any dialogue with “facts” or “data” because that would mean an act of introspection and an attitude of humility.

As we already indicated, data does not kill stories, no matter how far-fetched those stories may be. They don't even make a small scratch. But stories can silence data and, even worst, can reduce he totality of reality to just a few slogans. At this time when the future of humankind is at stake, that’s painful to see.

When talking about serious topics, humor yes, giggles no

I recently participated in a meeting of community leaders, businessmen and students convened by the organizers to talk about a topic of undeniable importance: the great challenges facing humanity in this historic moment of transition to a new era. To my amazement (and annoyance), the conversation was almost immediately filled with giggles.

A few days later (not by chance but by synchronicity), I read an article written by Dr. Eric Haseltine (neuroscientist) and published by Psychology Today, where Haseltine analyzes the dangers of the so-called “giggle factor” when the “giggles” are used as a defense mechanism to not talk about complicated or threatening topics.

According to Haseltine, the giggle factor is activated when one finds oneself in a situation “very removed from normal experience,” so removed that it produces “tensions by moving us away from our comfort zone” and, for that reason, makes us lose “the illusion of control and predictability of our future.”

In other words, giggles arise when we are faced with undeniable evidence of “unpredictable and uncontrollable changes” in our lives, so that we simply dismiss that evidence, whether it is climate change, social injustice, artificial intelligence, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life. We do not laugh out of happiness or joy, but out of fear.

Two examples come to mind. For example, several decades ago, I traveled with a group of friends to another country, and upon arriving at a certain city where people dressed completely differently than us, one of the members of the group began to laugh. His initial giggles turned into uncontrollable laughter.

And, closer in time, when I entered the classroom of a private university to teach a philosophy class, one of the students looked at me and started giggling, then laughed so hard that she had to leave the classroom to calm down. . It was not a lack of respect, but, as she explained to me, she had never had a Latino teacher in all her years in college.

In neither of those two cases was there any danger to anyone, but the danger of laughter arises when the issues are so serious that they affect entire countries and even humanity in general, such as climate change, the recent pandemic, and the current wars. and numerous other similar challenges.

In these contexts, giggling is the expression of “an unconscious adjustment of our perceptions to reduce the stress associated with a potentially disruptive phenomenon,” such as artificial intelligence replacing and displacing humans. Instead of responding to the challenge, we laugh and add phrases such as “That will never happen” or “God will not allow it.”

However, in our time, “unanticipated and uncomfortable disturbances” already happen almost daily, as Haseltine rightly says. That is why, in addition to giggles, people now also ridicule and dismiss those who share serious questions about serious problems. However, let us be mindful of who may enjoy the last laugh.

 

We live in such a confusing time that it is difficult for us to even live

I recently read an article on a well-known international news site that said that we live in a time probably without historical precedent in which rules, laws and agreements are no longer respected and in which everything is insatiably focused on achieving more money, more attention, more likes as the goal of life.

In other words, we live in the age of hypernarcissism in which the existence of the other as another like me is not recognized and, in fact, the existence of the other is not recognized. While the individualist says “I am the center of the universe,” the narcissist says “I am the entire universe.”

In that context, social rules, laws and customs, whether paying taxes, respecting traffic signs or holding the door open for someone to enter first, are always solely and exclusively for others, but they never apply to us.

And, for this reason, each one feels that they should no longer participate in a collective reality, creating their own personal “reality”, which has little or nothing in common with the shared reality. This capacity for extreme self-deception (so old that Heraclitus was already talking about it) obviously prevents any genuine and creative dialogue.

For this reason, every encounter with another person becomes a competition, a conflict and, in many cases, a fight. It is not about listening and learning, but about listening to respond, to win an argument. In the absence of humility and respect, each interaction is seen as an opportunity to show oneself as superior to the other person.

At the same time, and as a consequence, practically no one takes responsibility for their actions, much less for their own lives. There is no such thing as being responsible to anything or anyone, and if, due to these twists of fate, someone demands that we be responsible, then we consider it an injustice or persecution, and we look for someone to “blame.”

If I remember correctly, in 2012 a study published by Harvard indicated that in that year the psychological attitude we just described had become the prevalent psychological attitude among adults in the United States, correctly anticipating that in the near future (that is, now ) that attitude would become globalized, as it actually did, with tragic consequences.

In the context of Theory U (a theory of change based on the self-awareness of the change agent), the situation described here is known as “inner absencing”, that is, an existence based on closing one's eyes to reality, seeking someone blaming and (in many cases) using physical or psychological violence to destroy (literally and figuratively) the other.

This social pathology represents a dynamic of destruction and self-destruction (clearly visible to anyone who wants to see it) because it blocks all access to living a life based on reaching our true potential. In other words, we ourselves block the possibility of creating a different future. So much so, that we are collapsing internally without even knowing it.

We should not confuse knowing our problems with knowing our life.

Recently, after a community presentation, a person came up to me and said, “I thought I knew my life, but in reality, I only knew my problems.” My unexpected interlocutor offered a short thank you and promptly left, leaving me with the feeling that her brief statement expressed and at the same time hid a multitude of problems.

Without meaning to, or perhaps fully aware of what she was saying, this person expressed a truth that often goes unnoticed by most of us: knowing our problems does not mean knowing our life. Unfortunately, this confusion of “problems” with “life” reduces all of life to an endless series of unresolved problems.

The question then arises: Why do we confuse having problems with living? Understand well: the question is not “Why are there always problems in our lives?”, a question to which philosophers, theologians, poets, and founders of religions, among others, have given countless answers.

Our question does not focus on the reason for problems (or suffering, or evil, however you want to consider it), but on the reason that leads us to assume that living and having problems are one and the same “thing” ( although, of course, life is not a “thing”). One possible reason, if we can go to Carl Jung, is our level of maturity, or rather, immaturity.

Paraphrasing Jung, we can say that problems are not solved, but rather one matures to overcome them. But in order to mature we must take responsibility for our own actions and the results of those actions. On the contrary, far from inviting us to assume that responsibility, our sociocultural context invites us to look for who we can blame.

Therefore, as Father Richard Rohr teaches, few people (if any) reach that “second half” of life, which is not a chronological half, but precisely assuming responsibility for one's own life, problems included. . But this task of meditation and contemplation requires much more effort than watching a video or following an influencer.

A possible second answer to what leads us to confuse “life” with “problems” is the growing inability to think that there are alternatives, that is, that there are opportunities and possibilities not yet explored. When the only message we hear is that there are no options for us, sooner or later we begin to believe it, even if that message is false.

This situation reminds me of the old story of an elephant that, after years of living chained, when the chains are finally removed, continues to follow the same route it did before, although it could walk wherever it wanted. Our psychological chains are heavier and stronger than those used to chain elephants.

There is yet another possible answer: we are so distracted that we do not pay attention to our own lives. As the well-known saying goes, life is what happens to us when we are busy doing and thinking about something else. If we forget about life, then we are also forgetting about our true self.

We live in the world upside down and we have the evidence to prove it

I recently read a news story about a high school principal somewhere in the United States who went to buy a cup of coffee and, when paying, handed over 75 cents instead of paying a dollar. Instead of alerting the educator about the missing 25 cents, the store employee called the police and filed a theft report.

The police responded, and the school principal was arrested and charged with theft, even though he insisted that this was a mistake (he had inadvertently taken the wrong size cup) and was offered to pay for the difference. However, the employee insisted that it was theft and that, for that reason, charges would be filed. When that happened, the principal was fired from the school.

All for 25 cents.

Meanwhile, other people who surely do not work 60 hours a week (as, according to statistics, educators do) or earn a salary even minimally above the average salary (according to official data), nor are they interested in education or future generations or commit unspeakable atrocities with impunity.

There are those who steal millions and millions of dollars, who loot sites of high historical value, or who sell absolute garbage passing it off as "medicine" or "food", and there, they continue with their great life, their very large bank account and their countless collection of objects quickly destined for obsolescence.

And there are also those who kill left and right, or who send others to do it for them, who steal the culture, the soul, and the future of the people, and dismantle all signs of hope and solidarity. Despite all that and perhaps because of it, they are rewarded, but not punished, for their actions.

Moreover, if an educator, perhaps tired from a long day of work or perhaps in low spirits due to the constant complaints of his teachers, decides to buy a cup of coffee and choose the wrong size, then he is considered a thief. Charges were filed against him, and he was fired from work.

All for 25 cents. If this is not a compelling example of the world upside down, then I do not know what example can convince us that we live in a society with the level of spirituality of a Las Vegas show, the level of intelligence of an amusement park, and the level of ethics of a small, capricious, and hungry child.

All this happens precisely when the problems we face as humanity are unprecedented challenges and when these challenges often arise at a global level, without prior announcement, in an irreversible manner and with no solution in sight.

Of course, this is nothing new. We can express that we indeed live in an “ill-educated society that despises authority and does not respect its elders. People gossip while they are working. We mistreat our teachers.” However, 2400 years ago, Socrates had already said it. The problem is that two and a half millennia later, nothing has changed. We still refuse to live an examined life.

We have forgotten about the future because the past saturates our entire present

There is little doubt that we live immersed in an era in which past exercise has provided omnipresent control in our lives. That control is so strong that many (including influential and controversial politicians) seek to return to the past or, at least, try to relive it.

In this context, the disturbing idea emerges that, by filling the present with the past, we have relegated the future to oblivion.

This proliferation of the past is not merely a manifestation of nostalgia but rather a trend that raises deep philosophical and existential questions about how our relationship with time affects our perspective on the future.

On the one hand, it is clear that remembering and reflecting on the past is essential to our continued learning and growth. As George Santayana rightly pointed out, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

The past, with all its teachings and experiences, has undeniable value that cannot be underestimated. However, the problem arises when the past becomes a “safe abode” that we are not willing to let go of and a “comfort zone” that we do not want to leave.

Moreover, the present has become a scenario in which an increasing number of individuals find themselves trapped in an incessant cycle of memories and past experiences because memories provide a sense of control and certainty, that is, a feeling of understanding what is happening. What does the future hold? However, in this process, what has happened to the notion of the future?

Constant contemplation of the past has relegated the future to a dark corner of our collective psyche. In other words, we have lost the ability to dream, to imagine possibilities and to anticipate what is to come.

We have become hostages of a static present in which tomorrow is glimpsed as a predictable repetition of yesterday. This mentality impoverishes our lives and limits our potential because it prevents us from cocreating a new future.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge," said Albert Einstein, thus highlighting the essentiality of our ability to imagine and anticipate the future in our development as individuals and as a society. By living in an “excess” of the past, we run the risk of neglecting our vision for the future.

The need then arises to establish an adequate balance between the past and the present to not forget about the future. It is not about giving up our roots or discarding the lessons learned. However, we cannot stop there. A healthy plant or tree will never develop just roots. As we grow, we cannot continue living in the crib.

Furthermore, it is imperative that we foster a culture of anticipation and exploration, where curiosity and aspiration are rewarded, both in ourselves and in our fellow human beings.

Forgetting the future, generated by the saturation of the present with the past, is a labyrinth many enter inadvertently. Let us remember that, while the past is a treasure, the future presents itself as a horizon of possibilities.

We are increasingly separated from the source of knowledge and wisdom

I recently had the unexpected opportunity to briefly participate in an introductory philosophy class at a tertiary institution in the city where I live. Since I consider myself a philosopher (both in the academic and existential sense of that word), I accepted the invitation. The class was enlightening, but not in the way expected.

The teacher projected on the screen a five-minute YouTube video on the topic of the day. There was no other explanation than “Listen carefully.” In the video a philosopher appears reading a review of a book written by another philosopher about a dialogue by Plato (Apology) in which Plato quotes Socrates.

In other words, I (level 0) listen to a teacher (level 1) showing a video of a philosopher (level 2) reading a document written by someone else (level 3) of something another philosopher wrote (level 4). ) on Plato (level 5) citing Socrates (level 6).

The result, obviously, was similar to the well-known childhood game of “broken telephone” in which someone whispers a message into another person's ear and so on until the last participant shares the message out loud, only to discover that the final message It does not reflect the original message at all.

But, in this case, it was not a child's game, but one of Socrates' most profound observations about human existence: the unexamined life is not worth living (that is, it is not a fully human life).

Basically, that phrase from Socrates, filtered through Plato, then a philosopher, a review, another philosopher, and a professor, ended up being interpreted as “A life without the comforts or things we like is not worth it.” Nothing was said about the search for wisdom, truth, beauty, and justice, much less about the cultivation of virtue.

That approach reminded me that, in my days as a professor, whenever I asked my philosophy students to tell me what Heraclitus meant when he said, “You cannot enter the same river twice,” inevitably the answer was “ It is better not to make the same mistake twice.”

In both cases (that is, the recent class and my students), the situation is the same: people, including students and professors, can only understand what is presented to them from their own point of view and no other perspective.

The brief experience in philosophy class (actually, a superficial meeting over superficial arguments) made it clear how many levels separate us not only from ancient Greek philosophy, but from every other source of wisdom. For this reason, the thought of Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, and other teachers is trivialized and unprejudiced commercialized.

Even worse, philosophy is presented (as was the case in the class I attended) as a tool for winning arguments. Poor Socrates! He tried so hard to distance himself from the sophists (even paying for it with his own life) and now Socrates appears in a video precisely promoting the sophists!

The Spanish Enrique Santín said that “You think the future.” For us, then, there seems to be no future.

Our loneliness is so deep we now seek companionship among robots and AI

So-called “social networks” were supposed to bring us closer to each other, breaking down the barriers of time and space so we could communicate almost instantly with almost anyone. But the only result was to separate us even more and offer us pseudo “friends”, superficial videos, and dialogues only with “emojis”, but not with words.
 

For this reason, the epidemic of loneliness and isolation has reached levels unthinkable just a few decades ago and, furthermore, has become globalized. And the solution experts offer is to use more of the same technology that has created isolation, indicating that humans can maintain “meaningful relationships” with intelligent humanoid robots and AI.
 

This is at least what three Australian professors (Michael Cowling, Joseph Crawford and Kelly-Ann Allen) say  after studying hundreds of cases of interaction between humans and “companion robots” and concluded that these robots offer the “social support” that these people do not. found in other humans.
 

And this is where the question arises: have we so devalued ourselves as humans and, therefore, devalued the humanity of others that our only alternative to not be alone is to be with robots or “talk” to AI?
 

The problem is not how advanced AI is or how human-like humanoid robots look. Nor does the problem lie in the options that AI and robots can offer us so as not to feel (or be) alone and isolated. The real problem is that many humans already “feel better” with robots than even with close friends.
 

And these people “feel better,” these experts say, even when those people know that they do not enjoy the “social benefits” usually attributed to healthy social relationships. In other words, the relationship with AI (in all its expressions) provides “functional and emotional benefits”, but does not generate a “sense of belonging” to a group or community.
 

At the same time, it seems that humans can no longer generate that sense of belonging among ourselves, since now “friends” are those who appear on our contact list on social networks (even if we do not even know why they are on that list). list) and “enemies” are all those who do not think like us or believe what we believe.
 

Being alienated from ourselves and having separated ourselves, for that very reason, from other human beings (the other is never “another me”) generates as a consequence our separation from nature or, if you prefer, from the universe, or even of divinity, a topic widely analyzed by Otto Scharmer (theory of change) and by Iain McGilchrist (neuroscience).
 

According to Scharmer, our relationship with nature is fractured (ecological divide), there is disconnection between self and other (social divide), and there is a loss of meaning and purpose in our lives (spiritual divide). 
 

This triple separation (from our selves, from others and from nature) is not resolved by approaching robots. On the contrary, in this way the separation grows until it becomes an abyss. In our desire to humanize AI and robots we don't mind dehumanizing ourselves.

 

View older posts »