I've noticed that you could make the argument that human history has been (in part) the process of creating something much more powerful than humans — bronson

Were we put here to begin a chain of reactions leading to a technological god emerging on Earth? — bronson

Your question intimates the plausibility of a convincing argument regarding a technological singularity as the ultimate goal and culmination of human proclivities.

I will try to extract and examine this sort of argument.

It is apparent that humanity in general has striven for progress throughout history; our modern world certainly reflects remarkable technologies. Indeed, controversies over an artificial intelligence singularity are currently high, debating its actualization as a potential reality.

But does this mean what it appears you have postulated above? Is humanity predisposed to essentially creating a superior entity?

Perhaps your argument would look something like this:


1. If human innovation is historically directed toward the transcendence of human capacity, then the ultimate human instinct is to establish an entity of intellectual singularity.

2. Human innovation is historically directed toward the transcendence of human capacity.

3. Therefore, the primary human instinct is to establish an entity of intellectual singularity. (1,2 MP)


This argument seems valid, however, I'm not so sure it is sound.
Premise (2), as I have extrapolated from your post, seems dubious. While human innovation certainly extends our human capacities, is its primary purpose to build toward the instigation of an intellectual supersession – some sort of superhuman entity?
I tend to think otherwise. While it is true that technology is leading toward the possibility of an artificial intelligence beyond human power (as referred to in the first quotation above), it does not necessarily follow that human innovation is culminating to this realization.

While “technology” by definition implies progression and betterment, many forms of technology are non-sequitur and do not actually culminate toward the realization of a superintelligence.
In fact, Artificial Intelligence has been called a science or a goal, rather than a specific technology. This is, at least in part, because it is an uncertain idea; much the same as terraforming. For example, scientific and technological advances in general are remarkable today and certainly lend themselves to intimations of terraforming in the future, but these advances do not necessarily provide practical progress to the idea, which in itself could very well be impossible.

Similarly, myriad examples of human innovations – while they demonstrate a certain level of capacity-expansion – are not “beyond human power” in the way that an AI super-entity is expected to be. Primitive stone wheels, microwaves, satellites and even self-driving cars all serve to expand human ability, but they do not exceed human cognition or even necessarily progress toward such a technology. Even loftier innovations like robots and supercomputers tend to fit a technological niche that does not necessarily portend AI singularity. While the study of supercomputers and AI is beyond the scope of this post, and much beyond my exposure as well, it suffices here to say that human innovation is not necessarily leading toward the establishment of a super-intelligent entity. Even disregarding AI singularity, historical innovation illustrates human extension rather than a practical progression toward “something much more powerful than humans.” Thus, such technological movements of "extension" and "expansion" can be seen as empowering human superiority rather than ultimately undermining it.

In this post, I have tried to extrapolate an argument from your post and examine its plausibility.
I have attempted to show that historical innovative progress does not necessarily converge on an impetus for a transcendent power.

To close, I will list what I think such an objection would look like.

a. If human innovation is historically directed toward the transcendence of human
capacity, then the ultimate human instinct is to establish an entity of intellectual singularity.

b. Human innovation is not historically directed toward the transcendence of human capacity; rather, a complex web of human improvement and extension.

c. Therefore, it is not likely that the primary human instinct is to establish an entity of intellectual singularity. (1,2 MT)

Yes, our purpose to create God on Earth.

Sweet, I always wanted to do that. Do we get to be part of it? Is it internet?

Philip K. Dick has nothing on you. Let me know when your first (or latest) novel is out!

Could it be that we are unknowingly creating god on earth?

Not bad, but what if we are to unknowingly become gods ourselves?

“You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself"
-- Alan Watts

↪180 Proof
Philip K. Dick has nothing on you. Let me know when your first (or latest) novel is out! — Noble Dust

Thanks! Will do ... :wink:

Sweet, I always wanted to do that. Do we get to be part of it? Is it internet? — Zelebg

You are it.

Where, other than your own mind, can any rendering of any god or ideal exist?

God can only exist in your own mind.

Have a look at the creation of man painting in the Vatican. It shows god laying in our minds.

Regards
DL

God is a concept, and as a concept, is an idea, ideas are not physically existent, neither do they exist in another realm, another plane of existence, they only exist inside or own, creative, mind to suit our own needs.

This^.
Regards
DL

You COULD make this argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is passable. Along with that, the connection between technology and God is lost on me.

Seeing as how most theists consider God to be omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good, technology isn’t technically any of these things and does not have the ability to be so.
I would make the argument that humans have always been good at creating, just in different ways and it has evolved through different vessels.

I would also argue that God would not create beings that could match his all-powerfulness. Attached to this, with the God that theists think of, he would not create humans to be able to recreate the abilities of God Himself. Also it is not God’s only role in the universe to simply create. His beings have abilities of their own, I’m not sure that the things you argue that technology creates have their own abilities.

Are you arguing that because some of the technology that has been created has the potential to create on its own, we are imitating God? Imitating or attempting to imitate is much different than “creating god on earth.”

Perhaps a more detailed definition of “creating” is necessary in this context. I also think very specific examples are necessary in a vague argument such as this if you are wanting to have a strong solution. What kind of technology are you specifically talking about?
There needs to be an exact personified example of what you are alluding to in order for it to be a stronger argument.

There would need to be a build up of an argument to how we were put on this earth to create a “technological god.” What is the definition of God that you are using here?