The “essence” of the technosphere is no longer human or non-human, because it is not a thinking machine or a tool for other purposes. Ultimately, the “essence” of artificial intelligence is that it is a thing and not an object that thinks and moves. It tends to be an autopoietic machine of cognitive calculation/planning/constructing events that do not exist in reality. Therefore, the onto-logic of the technosphere is pure digital constructivism.The technosphere consequently becomes a synthesis of metaphysics and cybernetics in post- and transhumanism. Such a synthesis presupposes a transition or becoming (devenir) into a postbiological or posthuman state, which we call the singularity. Therefore, autopoiesis is the last fundamental word or concept of metaphysics at its realized end. I try to give a treatment of this problem, taking into account the question of whether “modernity” under the sign of the rule of the technosphere is possible from the horizon of the figure of the overman, who, in fact, like homo kybernetes, loses his “ontological” meaning.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Technosphere and Nihilism: Autopoiesis as the End of Metaphysics

  • Źarko Paić

摘要

The “essence” of the technosphere is no longer human or non-human, because it is not a thinking machine or a tool for other purposes. Ultimately, the “essence” of artificial intelligence is that it is a thing and not an object that thinks and moves. It tends to be an autopoietic machine of cognitive calculation/planning/constructing events that do not exist in reality. Therefore, the onto-logic of the technosphere is pure digital constructivism.The technosphere consequently becomes a synthesis of metaphysics and cybernetics in post- and transhumanism. Such a synthesis presupposes a transition or becoming (devenir) into a postbiological or posthuman state, which we call the singularity. Therefore, autopoiesis is the last fundamental word or concept of metaphysics at its realized end. I try to give a treatment of this problem, taking into account the question of whether “modernity” under the sign of the rule of the technosphere is possible from the horizon of the figure of the overman, who, in fact, like homo kybernetes, loses his “ontological” meaning.