| The man, being the image of the Holy Trinity, is incommensurable with the artificial intelligence and the human personality, as non-identical to its body and soul, but paradoxically containing and surpassing them, can not be artificially created with the help of arbitrarily subtle, but always natural schemes, which will always remain only an attempt at the level of nature to simulate the human mind. Artificial intelligence is non-hypostatic and therefore incapable of genuine union with another intelligence or with a person. The consequence of this is the absence of consciousness and such basic personal properties as sacrifice, responsibility, freedom of moral choice, as well as the inability to imitate emotional life, especially sympathy, prayer and other conditions. Considering questions about the connection of the human body with his soul, and the brain with the mind, the author speaks about the need to follow the God-established hierarchy, according to which the mind should determine the state of the human soul and the soul should determine the state of his body. Being created in the image and likeness of God, man has a unique potential for deification as a communion with the uncreated energies of God and the transcendence of the created existence. At the same time the nature of each person born into this world is in a damaged, uncoordinated state due to the primordial sin, transmitted from generation to generation and stipulating an incorrectly directed willing. In revealing to man his high vocation, theology of person calls not to be deceived by the illusions of modern technical achievements, not to be afraid of them and not to be enslaved by them due to the development of passions, fantasies and predictability of behavior according to the passions. Among the dangers of introducing of AI into life, the author calls the weakening of the volitional component of man, an increase in the desire for comfort and power, early mental dementia, de-actualization of personality, that is, the loss of genuine personal properties and higher meanings of being. |
| La más vigorosa de todas las comunidades ortodoxas era la serbia, que llegó a Austria a finales del siglo XVII como aliada de guerra contra los turcos, y que, por lo tanto, había retenido facilidades de culto e instrucción que eran negados a otros miembros de la Iglesia ortodoxa. Tenía su propio seminario en Karlovci, y esta pequeña ciudad, no lejos de las fronteras serbias, se convirtió en centro de su vida cultural y religiosa. Hacia finales del siglo, los ortodoxos en Hungría y Austria adquirieron una apariencia de civilización occidental, pero se hallaban más apartados de su tradición original que sus compatriotas menos educado de los Balcanes, quienes lucharon con éxito por la libertad política de formar su propio destino. La «Intelligentsia» Rusa y la Iglesia Ortodoxa La derrota que sufrió el Imperio Ruso durante la guerra de Crimea (1853–55) desacreditó el orden militar y burocrático que Nicolás I había impuesto (1825–55) a la nación rusa durante treinta años. Terminó, por fin, su rigidez artificial, y su hijo y sucesor, Alejandro II (1855–81), inauguró reformas liberales, siendo la más importante la emancipación de los siervos en 1861. Este retardado cambio de la estructura social del Imperio Coincidió con la aparición de la intelligentsia, fenómeno sin paralelo en la vida de otras naciones. La intelligentsia rusa no era ni una clase social, ni una élite intelectual, ni un partido político. Contenía gentes de todas las clases, de diferentes niveles de educación, de ideas políticas opuestas, pero con ciertos convencimientos fundamentales, que se pueden resumir bajo tres denominaciones: que la injusticia que sufrían los campesinos era un pecado nacional y que la minoría privilegiada era moralmente responsable de él; que la autocracia era un mal que causaba retraso económico y desigualdad social y, por lo tanto, se le debía dar fin; y que las teorías políticas y filosóficas radicales de Occidente, si se aplicaban a Rusia, podían producir mejoras inmediatas en todas las esferas de la vida. Se aceptaban estos principios con un fervor religioso que venía de la ascendencia cristiana de la mayoría de la intelligentsia aunque el ateísmo y el materialismo eran considerados como señales de una visión progresiva. Estos entusiastas rusos del radicalismo y socialismo europeos identificaban a Europa con la irreligión. |
Не удалось извлечь искомое из базы ((( |
|
|
| A dichotomy has existed for centuries, starting with Peter the Great, of attempts to impose a Western veneer over Russia. This is called Petrinism. The resistance of those attempts is what Spengler called ‘Old Russia’. Berdyaev wrote: ‘Russia is a complete section of the world, a colossal East-West. It unites two worlds, and within the Russian soul two principles are always engaged in strife—the Eastern and the Western’. With the orientation of Russian policy towards the West, ‘Old Russia’ was ‘forced into a false and artificial history’. Spengler wrote that Russia had become dominated by Late Western culture: Late-period arts and sciences, enlightenment, social ethics, the materialism of world-cities, were introduced, although in this pre-cultural time religion was the only language in which man understood himself and the world. ‘The first condition of emancipation for the Russian soul’, wrote Ivan Sergyeyevich Aksakov, founder of the anti-Petrinist ‘Slavophil’ group, in 1863 to Dostoyevski, ‘is that it should hate Petersburg with all this might and all its soul’. Moscow is holy, Petersburg satanic. A widespread popular legend presents Peter the Great as Antichrist. The hatred of the ‘West’ and of ‘Europe’ is the hatred for a Civilization that had already reached an advanced state of decay into materialism and sought to impose its primacy by cultural subversion rather than by combat, with its City-based and money-based outlook, ‘poisoning the unborn culture in the womb of the land’. Russia was still a land where there were no bourgeoisie and no true class system, but only lord and peasant, a view confirmed by Berdyaev, writing: ‘The various lines of social demarcation did not exist in Russia; there were no pronounced classes. Russia was never an aristocratic country in the Western sense, and equally there was no bourgeoisie’. The cities that emerged threw up an intelligentsia, copying the intelligentsia of Late Westerndom, ‘bent on discovering problems and conflicts, and below, an uprooted peasantry, with all the metaphysical gloom, anxiety, and misery of their own Dostoyevski, perpetually homesick for the open land and bitterly hating the stony grey world into which the Antichrist had tempted them. Moscow had no proper soul’. Berdyaev likewise states of the Petrinism of the upper class that ‘Russian history was a struggle between East and West within the Russian soul’. Katechon |
| La lucha entre el cristianismo y la doctrina de Lenin del materialismo dialéctico continua todavía. Los comunistas tenían la ventaja de un monopolio de la educación y podían excluir a los cristianos de todos los puestos principales, temían y desconfiaban de la libertad, y negaban a los cristianos el derecho de defender su religión mediante argumentos, y esto fue su principal debilidad. La causa cristiana sufre a causa de las restricciones artificiales impuestas a las actividades de la Iglesia, de la falta de libertad intelectual y de la exclusión, respecto de su liderazgo, de personas considerados por los comunistas como demasiado independientes. Sin embargo, su fuerza estriba en la verdad de su enseñanza, y, en cuanto se refiere a la Iglesia rusa, en la experiencia eucarística de sus miembros, que les asegura el amor divino y la realidad de su unión con el Cristo resucitado y ascendido. La Iglesia Rusa en el Exilio Los años 1918–22 fueron una época de guerra civil en Rusia. Después de la derrota militar de las fuerzas anticomunistas, tuvo lugar un gran éxodo; fueron desterradas más de un millón de personas. Estos fugitivos eran de diversas nacionalidades, credos y opiniones políticas, pero la mayoría de ellos pertenecían a la intelligentsia rusa. La dureza de la vida fuera de su propio país y la amargura de la derrota alteraron su modo ver. Muchos de ellos reconocieron la verdad de las advertencias de Vekhi, que habían predicho que el comunismo, por cuya victoria habían trabajado los rusos occidentalizados, no produciría igualdad y libertad, sino una dictadura cruel. La desilusión política ayudó a muchos a retornar a la Iglesia, que se convirtió en centro de los grupos de rusos exiliados, particularmente numerosos al principio en los Balcanes, Francia y Alemania. La generación joven de la intelligentsia había comenzado este retorno al cristianismo aun antes de la Revolución, pero el proceso se vio acelerado por la emigración. Los miembros de la Iglesia rusa en el exilio se enfrentaron con muchas tareas difíciles: podían organizar la vida eclesiástica sin interferencia política, pero se veían entorpecidos por la inseguridad, la pobreza y la degradación social; también deseaban ayudar a sus oprimidos hermanos de religión en Rusia; y se veían obligados a definir su actitud frente a los cristianos occidentales, entre quienes tenían que vivir y trabajar. |
Не удалось извлечь искомое из базы ((( |
|
|
| 731 II, 24, с. 579В: Filium artem omnipotentis artificis vocitamus, nec immerito, quoniam in ipso, sua quippe sapientia, artifex omnipotens Pater ipse omnia, quaecunque voluit, fecit, aeternaliterque et incommutabiliter custodit. 732 II, 21, C.561C: Filium Patri coaeternum esse omnino credimus, ea vero, quae facit Pater in Filio, coaeterna esse Filio dicimus, non autem omnino coaeternä coaeterna quidem, quia nunquam fuit Filius sine primordialibus naturarum causis in se factis. Quae tamen causae non omnino ei, in quo factae sunt, coaeternae sunt; non enim factori facta coaeterna esse possunt; praecedit enim factor ea quae facit. Nam quae omnino coaeterna sunt, ita sibi invicem coadunantur, ut nullum sine altero possit manere, quia coessentialia sunt. Factor autem et factum, quoniam coessentialia non sunt, non coguntur esse coaeterna, coguntur autem semper esse relativa et simul esse, quia factor sine facto non est factor, et factum sine factore non est factum. Ill, 5, C.635C. 734 III, 1, с. 622В: Ideoque per seipsam bonitas dicitur, quia per seipsam summum bo-num participat. Cetera enim bona non per seipsa summum et substantial bonum participant, sed per earn, quae est per seipsam summi boni prima participatio. Et haec regula in omnibus primordialibus causis uniformiter observatur, hoc est, quod per se ipsas participationes principales sunt unius omnium causae, quae Deus est. 735 II, 2, C.529Ä Ipsae autem primordiales rerum causae a Graecis πρωττυπα, hoc est primordialia exempla, vel προοροματα, hoc est, praedestinationes vel definitiones vocantur; item ab eisdem θεα θελματα, hoc est, divinae voluntates dicuntur; δαι quoque, id est, species vel formae, in quibus omnium rerum faciendarum, priusquam essent, incommutabiles rationes conditae sunt, solent vocari. II, 36, C.615D. 736 III, 1, C.624Ä Et notandum, quod ordo iste primordialium causarum, quem a me exigis, ad certum progrediendi modum inconfuse discemi non in ipsis, sed in theoria, hoc est, in animae contuitu quaerentis eas, earumque, quantum datur, notitiam in seipso concipientis, eamque quodammodo ordinantis constitutus sit, ut de eis certum aliquid puraque intelligentia definitum pronuntiare possit. Ipsae siquidem primae causae in seipsis unum sunt, et simplices, nullique cognito ordine definitae, aut a se invicem segregatae; hoc enim in effectibus suis patiuntur. C.626C: Quis enim in his, quae supra omnem numerum omnemque ordinem excelsitudine suae naturae a conditore omnium creata sunt, ordinem vel numerum rationabiliter quaesierit, dum sint omnis numeri omnisque ordinis initia in semetipsis sibi invicem unita, et a nullo inferioris naturae contuitu discreta? |
Не удалось извлечь искомое из базы ((( |
|
|
| 18 . Софроний (Сахаров) , схиархим. Аз есмь. Сергиев Посад: Свято-Троицкая Сергиева лавра; Свято-Иоанно-Предтеченский монастырь, 2009. 19 . Софроний (Сахаров) , схиархим. Рождение в Царство непоколебимое. Эссекс: Свято-Иоанно-Предтеченский монастырь, 1999. 20 . Пружинин Б. И. Ratio serviens? Контуры культурно-исторической эпистемологии. М.: Издательство РОССПЭН, 2009. 21 . Ракитов А. И. Эпистемология социально-гуманитарных наук//Вопросы философии. 9. 2016. С. 63–71. 22 . Шиповалова Л. В. О возможной совместимости историчности и объективности научного знания//Вестник Санкт-Петербурского университета. Сер. 6. 2012. Вып. 4. С. 19–23. 23 . Шмалий В., прот. Космология святых отцов каппадокийцев: вклад в современный диалог науки и богословия//Альфа и Омега. 36. 2003. URL: обращения 27.01.2020). Abstract The article is devoted to the problems of modern social, cultural and scientific development in the context of the theology of person. The understanding of man as a person, arising from the Biblical revelation and its patristic interpretation, is presented not just as one of moral value, but as a tool allowing to comprehensively consider various aspects of human development and answer relative philosophical and ontological questions. The authors emphasize the profound difference between the theological understanding of the notion of person and the viewpoint on it in the modern world, including a variety of pseudo-religious and religious movements and existential philosophy. While the theology of person, based on the idea of the unity of Nature and the trinity of Persons in the Holy Trinity, postulates the need for a personal-natural balance in a paradoxical combination of uniqueness and unity, modern approaches to personality are not aware of this paradox, offering separation of the person from the nature or even completely excluding the importance of the material component in man. From the standpoint of the theology of person the problems of phenomenology of classical texts, historiosophical interpretation and evaluation of the ideologies of national-socialism and communism, problems of the development of artificial intelligence are considered. The analysis presented by the authors confirms the deep scientific potential of theology of person, the possibility and even the need to apply its potential in various scientific fields and in the interdisciplinary research. The authors express hope that with time the potential of theology of person will be in employed in the social, cultural and scientific development of mankind. Читать далее Источник: Кирилл (Зинковский), иером., Мефодий (Зинковский), иером. Богословие личности и современное общественно-научное развитие//Церковь и время. 2020. 2 (91). С. 31–48. Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное |
| And, sadly, there is not a shred of evidence for intelligent life in the universe apart from us humans (not counting the unseen powers). Even more disconcerting is the complete absence of any sign of any life anywhere off this little green and blue marble, floating in space, that we call home sweet home. The notion that life must be present elsewhere, since there are so many many stars splayed out in the night sky, is just that: only a notion . No: probability does not at all demand that we should presume extra-terrestrial life (I think the Drake Equation is an egregious instance of the misuse of probability in particular and math in general). There is not a single piece of evidence for extra-terrestrial life. And there never may be. I’m such a spoil sport. I know. But I’m not a cranky one. I only want to think with you about a strong possibility: what if we were the only beings capable of real thought? of real planning, of hopes and wishes? of real memory (not just habit)? of consciousness, being and bliss? of real intelligence? (and please don’t mention artificial intelligence, for all that will ever be is a higher more complex development of computation: the only reasons why we assume the possibility of artificial intelligence is that we’ve confused intelligence with computation … secondly, and worse, we’ve denied the reality of spirit). And what if the only place in fourteen billion years since the Big Bang (yes, I believe that) that ever nurtured not only intelligent human life, but any life is this single world? What if the only place where a mere single cell that ever existed was this place? If that were so, then that changes everything. Because life — all life, not just human life — is itself an unprecedented miracle, confined to this place. What in the world (or off of the world) does any of this have to do with what Jesus said to the Samaritan Woman at the Well? The poor woman, who had migrated from one disastrous romantic entanglement to another, had told Jesus that she — as a Samaritan — worshiped God on Mount Gerazim. And that she could really not talk about religion to Jesus, because He was a Jew and everyone knew they worshiped God at the Temple in Jerusalem. |
|
|
