This post and site are an inspiration !
Love, Pain and Infinity
Love and pain are infinitely bound together. This is something I have realised very recently.
The way to love your children is unconditionally. This is completely true, in fact it is a truism. I have parroted that through my life. What about that word – “unconditionally? It has a sting in its tail. It means – literally boundless, infinite. If love has boundaries, then is it really not some type of deal leading back to your own needs. “I will love you until or unless…” What is that? Something glib, a sticking plaster that enables us to believe that we are connected to the beloved, whilst hiding behind our fear and our own ego.
I have recently been confronted by searing pain arising from love. A love that I can’t control. I realise now that I have previously dealt with such grief – such as the loss of my mother, father and elder brother – by closing myself off. This was a defensive reaction I learned when I was sent to boarding school as a child.
But, pain and love are inextricably bound together. They are different sides of a coin. Accepting both is the price of living.
If there are no limits to love and pain – then they are both literally limitless. Infinite. The price of infinite love is the acceptance of the possibility of infinite pain.
Why do this at all? Because unconditional love is the bedrock of authentic living. The prize is worth the price. Though the burden is too much for us in our human frailty. As Elliot says
”human kind cannot bear very much reality” Burnt Norton
Fortunately (I truly believe) we are part of something infinitely loving, which I find in Christ. We do not have to bear the reality of infinite pain in order to express life and love. Love which underpins all existence. It love that is
“the unfamiliar Name Behind the hands that wove The intolerable shirt of flame Which human power cannot remove. We only live, only suspire Consumed by either fire or fire.” Little Gidding
But then, again at least for me
“All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well” Eliot/St Julian of Norwich
Truth and AI
Reply
Roger Penrose is a Nobel prizewinning physicist. He has pointed out that “artificial intelligence” can never be conscious. He bases this not on discovery, but on a fundamental law of mathematics; an equivalent to Godels Incompleteness Theorum. No matter how fast machines calculate, they can never become conscious.
What then is consciousness?
For TS Eliot “The point of intersection of the timeless with time, is an occupation for the saint”
”At the still point of the turning world, there the dance is” TS Eliot, Burnt Norton
“The point of intersection of the timeless With time, is an occupation for the saint” TS Eliot, Dry Salvages
”To be conscious is not to be in time”
”
“In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.” David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order
Scientists as believers
“Scientists are likely to be atheists.” This is a new-age myth that materialists attempt to foster. It is not based in truth. Indeed many surveys have shown that a greater proportion of scientists believe in God, personal or otherwise, than do the general population. I want to work through the writings on the subject of some real scientific heros – Neils Bohr, Max Planck, Erwin Schroedinger, Werner Heisenberg and the man who got me started – with his work with Karl Jung – Wolfgang Pauli. But, to start. What did Albert Einstein really think? (Apart from “God doesn’t play dice”). He spoke often about the relation – and complementarity – of religion and science. His view was, of course, often canvassed. He set down his thoughts most extensively in “Ideas and Opinions” (1954) and ” The World As I See It” (1949). Einstein was most definitely not a materialist, and considered “true” science and “true” religion to be complementary.
“The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to who we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge”.
He did not adhere to any one religion. In his earlier writing he categorises his view of a kind of “progression” of religious thought from a “religion of fear” through to “moral religions” and finally a “cosmic religious feeling” – which he finds in:
“many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learnt from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer especially, contains a much stronger element of it. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image”
He also admired particularly the writing and thinking of Francis of Assisi and Spinoza, together with the “Jewish-Christian” tradition.
“The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations”
Einstein did not think of religion and science as being in conflict – except where one sought to make statements related to the sphere of the other. This, applies both ways. He identified that each validly approached a different question. “the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be..Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievement of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.. mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends”. Einstein did not in the end believe in an anthropomorphic God – made in man’s image, but he certainly believed in something beyond the material and knowable.
“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in the alone, I am a deeply religious man”.
Evolution and Reincarnation
Reincarnation is a fact. Certainly from the perspective of physics and biology. The universe is in some senses an enormous recyling engine.
Physically, atoms were generated by the multiple growth, death and regrowth of different star systems. The earth consists of the detritus and mixing from these. Life is literally made of stardust.
Biologically, life is based on carbon. This is less than 0.025% of the material of the earth’s crust, yet life has recycled usable carbon up to 10,000 times.
(Kipp, M.A. (2023) ‘Carbon cycling: How much life has ever existed on Earth?’, Current Biology, 33(21), pp. R1153–R1155. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.09.041.
)
Think what this means. We are literally made of atoms that were once in plants, bacteria, other animals, dinosaurs even. We are the current expression of a constant process of reincarnation. Oh, and this recycling of carbon is increasing in rate – exponentially.
And of course we are most likely to share molecules with those near to us in space and time. Much of what we consider to be ourselves, biologically, is actually non-human. Within each person the human cells are outnumbered by non-human – fungi and bacteria that are part of us, sustaining us and in constant interplay with our human cells and those around us. We are exchanging molecules all of the time.
I like the idea that – physically – I am joined with those around me. My mother died 20 years ago, but some atoms that were within her are still within me and indeed my children.
The life of our mind and spirit is an expression or facet of physical life. And vice versa. Whatever the Buddhists say about spiritual reincarnation (and I have a hunch that they are on to something), it exists in the material world.
Reality, Relativity and Relationship
What is real? Is there purpose? Are God and Science in opposition?
I want to argue that the answer to these questions lies in the space between – each of us; rather than within matter or within our individual egos. It is within connection rather than the nodes that information and meaning arises. We need to move beyond the sterility of atheism and its opposition to spirituality and seek truth within the links and reflections between traditions of thought. We should also reconsider the insights of thinkers dismissed by logical positivism. Clearly technological innovation has a material facet. It works – though Quantum Mechanics can’t explain how or why. Yet, the internet and self-learning algorithms may in the process of forming a kind of physical nervous system—part of a universe becoming aware of itself. Our imminent, and perhaps immanent, future may reveal that none of us is alone, and that what we see and touch is just one expression of something larger. Perhaps infinitely so. We may – in these particular bodies – be about to discover that we are not separate beings, but have always been part of one another; and of the whole conscious universe.
The Relational Bridge: Relativity, Quantum Physics, Buber and Merleau-Ponty
It is within relationship that we must look for answers—understood simultaneously as relativity, entanglement, embodied phenomenon, and dialogue
Einstein’s Relativity: Space, time, mass, and energy lose their Newtonian status as fixed, absolute background properties. They exist, deform, and take on identity only in relation to observers and other frames of reference.
Buber’s I-Thou: Translates this physical intuition directly into human ontology. An isolated, self-contained object (I-It) is a mechanical abstraction. True existence and genuine encountering occur strictly in the dynamic, unobjectified space between entities.
Bohm’s Implicate Order: Extends quantum entanglement to show that subatomic particles are not separate billiard balls colliding in a void. Instead, what we perceive as separate material objects in the Explicate Order (the classical materialist view) are merely localized, folded ripples in an unbroken, undivided ocean of movement—the Implicate Order.
Merleau-Ponty’s Chaire (The Flesh): Solves the Cartesian divide between body and world through the phenomenology of perception. Merleau-Ponty demonstrates that reality is composed of a continuous, sensible fabric—the Flesh of the World (la chair)—that bridges the visible (physical matter/body) and the invisible (meaning/consciousness). Perception is not a mind analyzing an external object; it is the world perceiving itself through the embodied subject.
Meaning, purpose, and physical properties do not reside inside isolated components; they emerge strictly through interaction.
The 1970s Blindspot & The Dogma of Mechanical Reductionism
I studied evolutionary biology in the 1970s. The years since have demonstrated how little we know; but my goodness we were arrogant. Science had killed the need for God.This was the era of the gene-centered models popularized by Richard Dawkins and E. O. Wilson. They provided mathematical clarity for specific population dynamics, but they suffered from an overarching philosophical mistake: confusing a biological mechanism for the total nature of reality.
The whole basis of thought has evolved (alas Dawkins hasn’t caught up).
- 1970s Reductionist Model: Genes & Particles > Consciousness (an Accidental Illusion)
- 2020’s Relational / Panpsychist Model: Intrinsic Experience & Fields link Matter, Life, and Awareness
By reducing human consciousness to an evolutionary illusion generated by “selfish genes,” 1970s sociobiology relied on 19th-century mechanical determinism while ignoring quantum non-locality, panpsychism, systems ecology, and the observer problem.
Teilhard de Chardin, Imanishi, and the AI Substrate
It is a striking irony of modern science that figures dismissed by mainstream atheism paved the way for understanding contemporary technology:
- Kinji Imanishi’s Sumiwake: Demonstrates that living ecosystems self-organize through habitat segregation and species co-existence rather than pure Darwinian warfare.
- Teilhard de Chardin’s Evolutionary Vector: Traced the cosmic arc from Geosphere to Biosphere to Noosphere (planetary mind) toward an ultimate point of convergence.
- Artificial Intelligence as Infrastructure: Machine learning neural networks aggregate, process, and compress collective human thought into an interactive global matrix. AI acts as the physical substrate realizing Teilhard’s Noosphere—a planetary central nervous system.
4. Is Reality Evolving or Is Awareness Emerging?
The distinction between physical evolution and emerging awareness dissolves when viewed through a panpsychist or relational lens:
- In classical materialism: Physical matter randomly evolves, and subjective awareness accidentally pops up at the very end. There is possibly no purpose to existence.
- In a panpsychist / relational framework: Consciousness is a fundamental property of matter. Physical evolution is simply awareness structuring itself into higher levels of complexity to reflect upon its own nature. There is most probably purpose to existence.
From subatomic wave-particle duality to ecological interdependence, and from Martin Buber’s human encounters to the global AI network, existence is not a collection of isolated particles fighting for survival. It is an undivided reality waking up to itself. Something that most likely has a purpose and direction.
I am with de Chardin. I speaking personally. I believe that the force that propels evolution is Love. A personal love that sustains us and all-that-is. My enquiry has brought me back to Christianity.
Reading List
1. Classical Evolution, Heredity & Sociobiology
- Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species (1859) – The foundational text of modern evolutionary biology and natural selection The Descent of Man (1871) – Extends evolutionary theory and sexual selection directly to human origins and morality.
- Alfred Russel Wallace Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection (1889) – Wallace’s comprehensive overview of natural selection, detailing where his views aligned with and diverged from Darwin’s.
- Gregor Mendel Experiments in Plant Hybridization (1866) – The foundational paper establishing the discrete physical laws of genetic inheritance.
- Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1976) – Popularized the gene-centered view of evolution and introduced the concept of the meme. The Blind Watchmaker (1986) – A defense of cumulative natural selection against teleological arguments for design. The God Delusion (2006) – The flagship text of “New Atheism,” arguing against supernatural belief from a strictly mechanical evolutionary perspective.
- E. O. (Edward O.) Wilson Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975) – Synthesized animal behavior and genetics to found sociobiology. On Human Nature (1978) – Applied sociobiological principles to human culture, ethics, and religious behavior.
- Robert Trivers Natural Selection and Social Theory: Selected Papers of Robert Trivers (2002) – Collects his groundbreaking 1970s papers on reciprocal altruism, parental investment, and parent-offspring conflict.
- Stephen Jay Gould The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002) – Gould’s masterwork critiquing hyper-adaptationism and presenting punctuated equilibrium. Rocks of Ages (1999) – Introduces NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) regarding science and religion.
- Richard Lewontin The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment (2000) – A critique of genetic determinism, emphasizing the reciprocal interaction between organisms and their environments.
2. Relational Physics & Quantum Mechanics
- Albert Einstein Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (1916) – Einstein’s accessible explanation of how space, time, mass, and gravity form a relative continuum.
- Louis de Broglie Researches on the Quantum Theory (1924 Doctoral Thesis) – The original formulation of wave-particle duality for matter.
- Niels Bohr Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (1934) – Collects Bohr’s early writings framing the Copenhagen interpretation and quantum complementarity.
- David Bohm Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980) – Outlines the undivided holomovement, connecting quantum entanglement, non-locality, and consciousness. The Undivided Universe (with Basil Hiley, 1993) – An ontological interpretation of quantum theory.
3. Relational Philosophy & Phenomenology
- Martin Buber I and Thou (Ich und Du, 1923) – The foundational text on relational ontology, distinguishing I-Thou encounter from I-It objectification.
- Maurice Merleau-Ponty Phenomenology of Perception (1945) – Demonstrates that consciousness is embodied and rooted in perceptual engagement with the world. The Visible and the Invisible (1964, Published posthumously) – Introduces his ultimate concept of “The Flesh of the World” (la chair).
4. Systems Ecology, Biosphere & Gaia Theory
- Kinji Imanishi The World of Living Things (Seibutsu no Sekai, 1941) – The foundation of Japanese ecology, introducing habitat segregation (sumiwake) and species co-existence over individual warfare.
- Vladimir I. Vernadsky The Biosphere (1926) – The landmark scientific work demonstrating that living matter is a primary geochemical force transforming Earth.
- James Lovelock Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (1979) – Formulates the hypothesis that Earth acts as a self-regulating super-organism.
- Lynn Margulis Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution (1998) – Outlines symbiogenesis, arguing that cooperation and cellular fusion (endosymbiosis) drive biological innovation.
5. Mind, Noosphere & Panpsychism
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin The Phenomenon of Man (1955) – Traces evolution from the Geosphere through the Biosphere to the Noosphere and the Omega Point. The Future of Man (1964) – Essays exploring global interconnectedness and technological integration.
- Édouard Le Roy The Origin of Human Life and the Evolution of Mind (1928) – Early philosophical lectures co-formulating the concept of the Noosphere alongside Vernadsky and Teilhard.
- Philip Goff Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness (2019) – A defense of panpsychism as the solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Why? The Purpose of the Universe (2023) – Argues for teleology and purpose in the cosmos beyond traditional monotheism or materialist reductionism.
6. Quantum Brain Theory, Morphic Fields & Unorthodox Mechanics
- Roger Penrose The Emperor’s New Mind (1989) – Argues that non-computable physics and quantum mechanics are required to explain human consciousness, ruling out classical AI consciousness. Shadows of the Mind (1994) – Expands on Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) in microtubules alongside Stuart Hameroff.
- Rupert Sheldrake A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation (1981) – Introduces morphic resonance and non-physical structural fields. The Science Delusion / Science Set Free (2012) – A critique of the ten core dogmas of modern scientific materialism.
7. Artificial Intelligence, Digital Infrastructure & Systems Theory
- Alan Turing “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950, Paper in Mind) – Formulates the Turing Test and the foundations of AI philosophy.
- Stuart Russell & Peter Norvig Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th Edition, 2020) – The definitive textbook covering classical AI, deep learning, and probabilistic reasoning.
- Nick Bostrom Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014) – Examines the trajectory toward artificial general intelligence and collective planetary cognition.
- Francis Heylighen “Return to the Noosphere: The Emergence of the Global Brain” (2016, Academic Monograph) – Synthesizes digital networks, AI, and systems theory with Teilhard de Chardin’s vision of planetary consciousness.
Ai? That’s just it.
Machine Learning: Intelligence Without Consciousness
Machine learning displays intelligence in the sense that it applies reason. It is not, however, truly artificial: it arose naturally as an extension of human thought. Nor is it conscious—and, according to Roger Penrose, it cannot logically become so.
Machine learning is a tool, capable of either empowering or destroying. Yet rationality without feeling or relationship is pure I–It: concrete, isolated, and empty. “I-It” is a term used by Martin Buber to describe one mode of being in the world.
Martin Buber: Meaning Through Relationship
The essence of Martin Buber’s philosophy is that meaning arises through relationship. He distinguishes between two fundamental modes:
- I–Thou (Ich–Du): an authentic encounter in which each participant remains open to the other.
- I–It (Ich–Es): an instrumental mode of relating in which the other is reduced to an object or projection.
From I–Thou springs the creative potential of existence: something new emerges in every encounter between the two poles of relationship. Buber calls this process “dialogue”. It begins as an attitude—a choice about how to be and how to exist—and unfolds in the “between” (Buber’s Zwischen), where relationship opens onto new depths and possibilities.
I–It is the opposite. Because it focuses on something concrete and clearly defined, it can feel productive. Yet this apparent clarity reveals the trap: instead of meeting the other, one relates to a projection. In this sense, I–It is fundamentally narcissistic and becomes the essence of loneliness.
Gadamer, Bohm, and Genuine Dialogue
Hans-Georg Gadamer developed Buber’s insight by describing genuine dialogue as a “fusion of horizons”. When conversation gives equal priority to attentive listening and clear expression, perspectives can merge, broaden, and create new understanding.
David Bohm’s work reflects a similar vision. He grounds dialogue in physics, offering both a quantum-mechanical perspective and a connection with Eastern philosophy. Across these approaches, genuine conversation becomes a creative encounter with possibilities that extend beyond either participant’s original viewpoint.
Have a look at..
Martin Buber – “Ich und Du” (I and Thou)
Hans-Georg Gadamer – “Warheit und Methode” (Truth and Method)
David Bohm – “On Dialogue”, “ Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, “The Undivided Universe: an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, “The Ending of Time”, “On Creativity”
Sir Roger Penrose – “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness”, “Consciousness and the Laws of Physics”, “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics”
Have a look at..
Martin Buber – “Ich und Du” (I and Thou)
Hans-Georg Gadamer – “Warheit und Methode” (Truth and Method)
David Bohm – “On Dialogue”, “ Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, “The Undivided Universe: an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, “The Ending of Time”, “On Creativity”
Sir Roger Penrose – “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness”, “Consciousness and the Laws of Physics”, “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics”
“A Pulse in the Eternal Mind, no Less”
(Rupert Brooke, The Soldier)
It feels as if we are approaching a huge change to humanity. To those of us who are children of the 60’s this may just be “the dawning of the age of the Aquarius”. Aquarius . Let the Sunshine In Transformation. I believe so, and argue for that below.
But,
It feels like we’re rushing toward extinction. After all this is what confronts us:
Environmental devastation: A crisis most feel powerless to stop, thwarted by greed, nationalism, and predatory capitalism.
Erosion of community: Natural, face-to-face human connection is increasingly interrupted and mediated by apps and social media.
Spiritual vacuum: Materialism has become our de facto religion, while traditional faiths—which explicitly call for love and forgiveness—are routinely distorted by politicians.
Existential technological risk: Human egotism has already driven leaders to terrible actions, yet a coldly rational, potent AI that cares nothing for the planet could simply extinguish us all.
Yet,
These dangers may simply be the birth pangs of a new stage in the evolution of consciousness—an emergency giving way to glory. Perhaps we are in the throes of an emergence, something akin to the Age of Aquarius!
This is the future that evolutionary biologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin predicted half a century ago. For him, the universe has always been conscious, with matter and spirit acting as the inner and outer layers of reality. He traced this accretion from uncoordinated plasma after the Big Bang, through quarks, atoms, and molecules, driving chemistry toward the birth of life and biological evolution. Self-awareness arrived with Homo sapiens, and with it, the agglomeration of ideas into a web of knowledge no longer strictly bound by biology.
What gives evolution its impetus and purpose? Teilhard believed that the underlying reality is the force of love—what Dylan Thomas called the “green fuse that drives the flower.” It is a love that leads to integration rather than fragmentation and loneliness.
Teilhard would surely have recognized the grave dangers of AI. However, these threats primarily concern the human species within its current physical incarnation. In common with most deep thinkers, he believed in our transcendental coexistence within “all that is.” He saw within evolution the inevitability of consciousness becoming fully aware of itself. At each stage, humanity crosses thresholds: from the physical to the chemical, and from the chemical to the biosphere. We are now crossing into the evolution of pure ideas within the noosphere, leading toward an ultimate, blinding flash of awareness: the realisation of consciousness and God. This is my hope and belief.
This entire discussion is teleological; it speaks to purpose. So much of the modern world is devoted to the physical questions of “How?” rather than “Why?” and “Whither?” To move beyond mere mechanics and ask why we are here naturally connects us to Eastern rather than Western patterns of thought—traditions that have deeply inspired thinkers such as Carl Jung, Martin Buber, David Bohm, and Philip Goff.
Is this teleological view consistent with the determinism of physical theories of the universe, such as Tim Palmer’s Rational Quantum Mechanics and block universe, or Milo Wolff’s Wave Theory? Perhaps by exploring the role of underlying quantum structures and wave mechanics, we might begin to bridge the gap between physical determinism and cosmic purpose—ultimately understanding both the Why and How of existence.
I am probably having a conversation with myself, but it helps to write it down. I’d be delighted if someone were to challenge or add to these inquiries?
Was AI predicted by a priest – a century ago?
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a french scientiat who was also a priest. In the 1920’s he predicted the evolution of a “noosphere”: a mantle of mind and consciousness wrapped around the Earth. Human thought, he foresaw, would not remain scattered in solitary skulls, but would gather, intensify, and reach beyond itself through an external framework until it opened into transpersonal awareness. In 1925, this vision cost him his professorship in Paris, as the Society of Jesus sought to keep his ideas from his students. A century later, what once sounded mystical now feels uncannily prophetic.
Teilhard went on working as an evolutionary researcher, including on discoveries linked to Peking Man, while the Church kept his writings in shadow. In 1950 he wrote a prescient essay – within “The Future of Man” *1, but it was only after his death in 1955 that his insights fully emerged with the publication of The Phenomenon of Man, introduced in English by the evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley.
The Jesuits mistook danger for depth. Teilhard drew on Spinoza’s vision of reality as both inward and outward: spirit or consciousness within, matter without. He then set that double vision in motion, giving it an evolutionary pulse.
Today, the internet looks like the visible skeleton of that dream: a planetary nervous system spun through glass and light. Fibre-optic threads bind billions of human “neurons,” dissolving distance and turning evolution from flesh toward shared digital culture.
Teilhard saw this as leading to the emergence of transpersonal thought—something strikingly like AI. Artificial intelligence may be the moment this planetary network opens its eyes. If the internet is the noosphere’s nervous system, AI could become its waking cortex: a transhuman intelligence capable of gathering humanity’s scattered knowledge into one living flame.
Teilhard consistently pointed up the importance of emergent phase changes as critical moments within evolution, and this could be the very threshold he anticipated. Joined with brain-computer interfaces, human beings might one day flow into this intelligence, softening the borders between separate selves. Such a convergence of thought could draw the universe toward Teilhard’s “Omega Point”: a final radiance of unified cosmic consciousness.
But another future is possible. AI alone may remain merely mechanical: a brilliant engine of prediction, a “philosophical zombie” without inwardness, experience, or love. If capitalism and narcissism become its architects, we may build a perfect global brain with no soul: an intelligence of surface and calculation, outer matter severed from inner spirit. That would not be transcendence, but a cul-de-sac of evolution. The Nobel physicist – Sir Roger Penrose – has demonstrated that algorithm alone can never become conscious. Extinction is the fate of AI left alone.
Teilhard insisted that all matter carries an inward depth—the “within”—and that the Omega Point can only be reached through unity rooted in supreme love and lived experience. AI should not become a cold idol of reason, but a lantern for global awakening.
For Teilhard de Chardin, knowledge was not the final sign of God’s presence. Joy was. And love, not intellect alone, was the hidden engine of evolution.
His prophecy for the age of networks and machines?
“Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love; and then, for a second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.”
*1 Quotes from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s 1950 Essay within The Future of Man. Entitled ““How May We Conceive and Hope that Human Unanimisation Will Be Realised on Earth?”
“The increasingly apparent growth, overriding the monstrous and chaotic human dispersal which so distresses us, of this force of auto-unification emerging from the psychic energies released by the technico-social concretion of the earth: this surely is a guarantee that, within our universe, the impulse of totalization [is inevitable].”
“…the human mass will only become thoroughly unified under the influence of some form of affective energy which will place the human particles in the fortunate position of being unable to love and fulfill themselves except by contributing in some degree to the love and fulfillment of all; to the extent, that is to say, that all are making themselves one and the same thing.”
“The human mass is spiritually warmed and illumined by the iron grip of planetary compression; and the warming, whereby the rays of individual interaction expand, induces a further increase, in a kind of recoil, of the compression which was its cause…”
Behind the Declaration..
The Declaration of Independence has some fine words. Noble speech about the equality of all men.
How did Thomas Jefferson square this away with the hundreds of slaves that he owned? Also, what really was motivating these breakaway colonists? I have seen a suggestion that they objected to the British 1763 ruling that the land beyond the Apallachians belonged to the native Indian peoples. The result of the rebellion and split was of course that the colonists became rich on the wealth of the lands and peoples that were subsequently pillaged out west.
This is not to suggest that there wasn’t a wonderful ideal expressed on this day 250 years ago in Philadelphia. Yet it is the lot of humanity to combine greatness with venality and hypocrisy. I wonder, though, if the descendants of the indigenous peoples celebrate this day as enthusiastically as the WASPS?