A Creature Among Machines

🌿Sapling 😁Strongly-Agree 📝Essay

---

Importance: 95%

Scripture Focus

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

• Proverbs 14:12

Thesis

Human beings are not best understood as a compilation of parts with a main driver but as a holistic creature eluding any tight definition. 

---

A Brewing Crisis 

We live in a world slumbering on the edge of yet another technological revolution. Artificial Intelligence is jumping out of the pages of science fiction (or so we are told) into more and more everyday forms. At the time of writing, asking an AI for assistance with something has reached the point of being rather impressive (from my subjective judgement). Not to mention, well known Large Language Models like ChatGPT or Gemini are but one type of AI model arising from the underlying technology of Neural Networks. Theorists have clearly outlined the exponential nature of technological change.¹  Meaning that our projections of emerging AI should not follow a mindset of small regular improvements, but that of a snowball effect. This trend has already played out in the development of AI up to this point. Initial theorization and experimentation with the basic concepts behind today’s top AI models started in 1949 with Donald Hebb.² Here we are seventy five years later quickly passing a tipping point. No longer are developments measured in decades, or years, but every month there is a new announcement of a breakthrough and additional capability of some sort. Regardless of if these technologies ever reach the mythical level of Hal 9000 (or not) the trajectory and pace of change is clear. 

More importantly than if AI is actually smart or not, are the implications of how humans have begun to treat them. It really does not matter what level of intelligence this “other” has reached if humans willingly surrender to an unquestioned source of information (i.e. let’s ask google). Or completely outsource things like reading and writing. These human decisions have deep significance for how we conceptualize the world around us.

All of us have a certain capacity to healthily cope with change, but if our great grandparents, and grandparents struggled to adapt to the rate of technological change in their lifetime (from car to moon landing), this problem is set to be unimaginably worse in ours and our children’s generation. Even the companies developing these technologies do not always seem to have a clear picture of what they are building or why.   

Consequently, this burgeoning era of technology has brought with it an explosion in philosophies and attitudes used to approach AI. On one end we hear of proponents arguing for the grandiose emergence of AI sentience and AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). While on the other end a human centric approach sees AI as yet another tool to magnify data and augment human intelligence, productivity, and discovery. Still others caution of danger for humans to “offload” and subsequently loose basic capabilities like critical thinking, reading, and writing.

The future from these various perspectives are wildly different. One approach imagines a world where human workers are by and large replaced by AI agents. While the other imagines AI as a trusty partner. The apocalyptic scenario is easily floated around as well. Yet no matter one’s chosen approach, picturing human flourishing in the midst of this new world relies on underlying assumptions of what a human is and what humans should be doing. 

A potential side effect of this technological boom is that the list of human abilities that make us unique are positioned to become fewer and fewer. I doubt we are prepared to live as humans in a world where our reason, creativity, and productivity (to name a few) are dwarfed by the sear force of an emerging AI. Even if only in perception, this sentiment will most likely grow into full blown reliance on AI in one capacity or another. What will it be like to watch our prized abilities be set aside or “out classed” in as yet unseen ways by the machines around us?

Not only this, but we live in a world where questions of identity are increasingly subjective and vague. For example, the already overwhelming reality of puberty is made even more difficult with additional “decisions” surrounding sexual orientation, and even “species” as evidenced by the presence of litter boxes in public school bathrooms. 

All of these, and many other swirling realities, make answering questions of human anthropology and identity from a Christian (and more specifically Lutheran) perspective more important than ever. These kinds of foundational answers shape our understanding of the world around us in deeply meaningful yet often subliminal ways. For example, I have been surprised to hear individuals near death proclaim a stalwart platonic ideal of shedding this prison of flesh in order to float up to heaven. It is often in these deeply liminal moments (like death and birth) that we get glimpses into an individual’s basic assumptions about what it means to be human. 

Yet not only during key times do these foundational beliefs bear weight on the path of an individual.  Everything we do, including the way we approach theology and practice, are affected by our basic answer to the question of human anthropology. Yet the world we live in does not lend itself as easily as ages past to clean and tidy arguments and frameworks. The air tight perspective of modernity has largely cracked and crumbled under the chaos of our postmodern world. Many look back longingly to repristinate the classical perspectives of a world before the world wars. While such a sure perspective is no doubt attractive, it would no doubt continue to fail as badly as the pacification of Hitler. A monolithic and “clean” definition of the world around us has been seen to fail miserably at addressing real world complexity.  

However, the fluidity of postmodern thought places humans in an equally vulnerable position as we enter another age. Losing our sense of humanity has been a danger in every era. Think of all the child labor working the great turn of the century industrial lines - some kind of progress that was! Yet our era couples a rapid rate of technological change, cultural obfuscation of human identity, with a general postmodern milieu to create a recipe for mass confusion and disillusionment. A world moving too fast and in too many directions for anyone to catch a breath. 

In light of this background, the current discussion seeks to lay out a biblically founded understanding of the human person that is prepared to tackle the realities of our world today.

A Costly Oversimplification 

What is a human? A question that has been looking for an answer since sin shattered the human creature. Yet it is a question that observes a kind of universal need to (at some level) explain and explore the constitution of our human experience. Which is ironic since every one of us experiences being human every single day. Yet defining ourselves is maddeningly complex and simple all at the same time.

This seems to explain the main move many schools of thought make in describing the human creature. Rather than take on the impossible task of explaining all facets of humanity, why not seek after the “essence” of what makes us human. Since after all, we do share many commonalities with animals. Why not narrow the search to things that make us distinct? 

In this quest, many seats of human essence have been elucidated. The Platonic soul trumping the evil flesh. The Enlightenment mind overcoming lesser superstitions and emotions. The Romantic’s love and self-conviction burning a true path through conventions and restrictions. The Pietist’s reliance on a holy attitude and way of life. The Hedonist’s surrender to any and every bodily urge. The list goes on and has filled many books and lectures. Yet, no matter the school, all attempts to describe humanity in this way seek to find a primary driver or characteristic.  

To get a sense of this variety and commonality, let us walk through three examples. The first of which is the famous philosophy of René Descartes.  “I think, therefore I am.” This ubiquitous phrase cleanly sums up his reliance on human reason as the core of being.³ In contrast, the work of Frank Senn returns to a model of embodiment. Senn summarizes his perspective by citing the work of Pope John Paul II: “I do not have a body, I am a body.”⁴ From this perspective, the human creature is defined primarily through the lens of embodiment. This perspective has an eye toward a more holistic approach but still reduces the essence of a human person down to a body. This is true even to the extent that mental state is attributed to bodily state. Finally, the work of James K. A. Smith pushes for the most expansive model conceptualizing the human creature as formed and oriented by a core of desire or: “I am What I Love.”⁵ This shifts away from defining humanity based on the executive function of a particular element of the human creature and into being defined by a more general primary driver. 

Yet despite their differences, all of these perspectives attempt to organize the human creature around a singular primary driver. While both Senn and Smith are concerned to avoid the reductionism of other philosophies, they nonetheless still come back to locating the human creature within a kind of “essence.” This no doubt offers a cleaner framework and sense of security by narrowing one’s philosophical focus. However, they still suffer from the inability to adequately address the true complexities of life. In other words, the major problem with these approaches is found in their constriction of definition. In attempting to find a conceptually sound and reasonable framework, each perspective more or less jettisons unhelpful aspects of the human person. Descartes disposes of all but reason, Senn more or less dismisses any “unembodied” elements of a person, and Smith is almost there but still dismisses much of the complexity between human reason, emotion, etc. in favor of placing desire as the primary driver. 

As we have seen, this quest for a singular primary driver has produced many definitions of the human creature.  However, the negative side of this approach needs to be addressed. As each approach defines a singular seat of “power” (for lack of a better term) adherents to each school of thought begin to think of themselves and others in terms of a subset of our constitution. In other words, in attempting to understand who and what we are, we end up sketching caricatures rather than the vibrant reality. By defining a unilateral center, we excluded the importance and integration of other parts of the human person. 

The untenability of these reductions can be seen all throughout our daily life. For example, all of us have experience being “driven” by different aspects of our being. Reacting in an emotionally charged situation is very different from a calm discussion over tea. From moment to moment we may be more or less driven by any part of our being. Emotions, our body’s physical state, mental reasoning, memory, etc. all weave together to form our experience of each and every moment. Therefore, to say that any one part of a human creature can be unequivocally identified as a primary driver is to flatten and do away with the variety of our lived experience. 

A simple case study in this is sleep deprivation (a physical state). Anyone who is a parent (or finds themselves sleep deprived for other reasons) knows that this singular environmental factor deeply affects everything from patience levels to thinking speed. Yet one would scarcely argue that sleep is a comprehensive human driver. If we did, we could end up with some ridiculous theories of Human existence like “the human as hibernator.” Instead, a more comprehensive approach that can acknowledge the multifactor nature of human existence and motivation is needed.   

A Machine or a Creature?

The Philosopher/Architect Christopher Alexander lays out a further explanation for this systemic reductionism surrounding Western thought about our human constitution. He argues that Descartes, Postmodernism, and much of Western thinking all share a mechanistic explanation for the universe. In other words, the Universe is something like a great clock (mechanism) that tick on by itself without any outside intervention.

Even as Christians we often operate with this assumption. The world is running by its laws and physics and God “breaks into” things now and again, but the actual daily moment by moment participation and perceptible reality of God is left in church.

This mechanistic assumption believes that if all processes within the universe could be recorded, measured, and explained adding them up would produce a full understanding of everything in the universe. Whether we realize it or not scientific inquiry is built on this very premise. For example, if we understand how precipitation works, and how the sun rotates around the earth, and we keep adding bit by bit all these pieces of understanding together we will get to a more accurate and provable theory of this or that. And as you add theories together the goal is to create a comprehensive picture of what the universe is.

We can see how this mechanistic perspective has been applied to Humans in the form of modern medicine. Just about every tiny piece of the human body has its own specialized doctor (even down to a retina specialist!). This has been generally motivated by the overarching conviction that if every little tiny part of the body can be studied, understood, and treated then full health and wellness will be in reach.

While this approach has achieve many incredible feats of physical healing, it is worth noting that there are many cracks in the facade. This is not to say that scientific research or mechanistic inquiry is evil. The specifics of how things work mechanistically can (and will always be) a worth while pursuit of science. However, as a comprehensive picture of the universe, the mechanistic worldview leaves us with an understanding of ourselves as machines. Even the way we commonly talk about our minds quickly drift into machine language.

Health and wellness coaches and plans often operate from this perspective as well. If I can just get all the mechanics of my mind and body to work right, then I should have a happy and fulfilling life. As simple and straightforward as it may seem this wholesale reliance on the mechanics of our body and mind one way or another devolve into a mad rat race to maintain equilibrium. An equilibrium that always ends up going down hill in the end.

Other than being depressing, another problem with this kind of reliance on the mechanistic perspective is that if you have even a few bad parts your picture of the whole can get very distorted.

Example of Social Darwinism in Nazi “research.”

Not to mention it is also impossible to judge which mechanics are more important or accurate until you have tried them out. Which in some cases dooms whole generations to deal with the consequences of the experiments of their predecessors (think of the early industrial revolution or colonialization, both very effective mechanics but generally not very humane or balanced).

What if breaking humans down into composite parts, or obsessing over the innerworkings of this piece or that, is not the most productive or faithful way forward? In a world where machines are increasingly being made in our image, how do we perceived even a glimmer of God’s image in ourselves? Are we truly just squishy broken down machines? Destined to be outclassed by our own technological creations?

A way to move beyond the mechanistic worldview proposed by Alexander is to think in terms of wholeness. Rather than seeking to put together our understanding like an erector set, wholeness starts from the opposite end. In order to understand a human, we must first start with ״the wholeness” of humanity.

In this perspective, wholeness is the overall cohesiveness and interrelated nature of everything. A building functions as a whole. Missing a roof, or doors, or plumbing affects the ability of the whole to operate. Even the earth functions as a whole and therefore humans are affected by the environment in which we live. We are not unattached, but are to a certain extent influenced and contingent on our environment.

In Alexander’s more philosophical terms:

the wholeness in any part of space is the structure defined by all the various coherent entities that exist in that part of space, and the way these entities are nested in and overlap each other.

• Nature of Order, bk 1., p. 81

A metaphor for this is to think of two frogs on a table. One is alive and whole the other is split open and pinned on the board. Which frog gives you a better example of what a frog really is? The dissected frog can teach you a lot about the mechanics of how a frog works internally. But if that is all you ever have access to you will never really have a good idea of what a frog is like, or how it sounds, or where it lives, or any of the other things that makes a frog “a frog” as a whole created creature. In the same way, seeking to understand ourselves as created creatures rather than machines must begin from this broad perspective of wholeness.

Starting from Parts or Wholeness?

Christopher Alexander approaches from an empirical and architectural frame and sometimes goes off in weird places

But I seek to show how the idea of wholeness and centers can help us more effectively understand ourselves and the world around us that is harmonious with the way Scripture speaks and presents the human person

Relation of righteousness and shalom with wholeness

How wholeness lines up with how scripture talks about humanity

the idea of fuzzy zones or “centers” as Christopher defines them

the way god reacts to sin in the Israelite community makes so much more sense from this perspective as does the corrosiveness of original sin

The corruption in the whole of one human can’t help but affect the whole of the next generation which is literally what God says

A Creaturely Anthropology: The Intermingling and Dependence of Parts 

Keeping this need for a more expansive view in mind, the writer proposes an alternative perspective to consider. Although this perspective no doubt exists somewhere outside the author’s knowledge base (Ecclesiastes 1:9), nonetheless for our purposes it will be called: A Creaturely Anthropology. 

Unlike the anthropologies that seek a singular primary driver, this perspective conceptualizes the human person as an altogether complex, messy, and at many points mysterious creature. Rather than seeking to diminish perplexing parts of human experience, this perspective welcomes them. For it is only through the interrelation of all parts that we begin to understand the whole. In other words, a Creaturely Anthropology defines a human not as differentiated by a particular primary driver but as the interrelation and overlap of dependent parts. 

To put it more bluntly, Emotions by themselves do not make up a human, nor does Reason. Even a Body alone is not a human. Just as a frog on the dissection table is no longer living, so too are elements of a human when treated in utter isolation. Even one missing or malfunctioning aspect of the human creature leaves us marred and broken.  This perspective is quickly supported by even the most basic structures of the human body itself. For example, one missing chromosome is enough to deeply affect a person in ways scientists still do not fully understand. 

Granted, dividing a human into parts can be helpful for identifying and talking about specific aspects of the human experience. Yet the lines between individual parts are more blurrier than we often admit. For instance, where exactly do my rational thoughts and emotional reactions begin and end? I know they are different but they can also be very similar. Especially in moments of high stress their difference can be hard to distinguish. 

Furthermore, Scripture describes the true telos and issues of humanity. Yet over and over it refuses to offer a singular definition of the human creature. Maybe Scripture refuses to give this sought after definition on purpose. What if one definition is too small to capture the extent of humanity? 

In addition to this, the vast variety and complexity with which Scripture depicts humanity can be addressed honestly using this perspective. While seeking a primary driver tends to favor ignoring any unhelpful passages. A creaturely anthropology meshes well with the language Scripture uses to describe humanity. All forms of addressing the human creature can be seen as a particular expression of the unified whole. Therefore the answer to whether a human is made up of “heart, soul, mind, and strength,”or is a “living nephesh filled with the breath of life,” or is “spirit, soul, and body,” is - yes. 

No singular description can truly capture the full variety and complexity that God has created within us. Even within our own experience we do not always understand every emotion, or thought that wanders through our consciousness. Acknowledging this ambiguity is honest about our everyday lived experiences as well as matching the manner in which Scripture describes humanity. 

This proposed creaturely anthropology is therefore not focused on a purely rational definition of the human creature. Rather it gives us an honest foundation from which to address questions surrounding the meaning and purpose of our lives. Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Psalm 1 and Psalms in general, the parables of Jesus, Romans 12:4-5, Galatians 5:22-23, 1 Peter 2:4-5, and the book of Revelation to name a few, are all Scriptures that outline a whole host of metaphors through which to picture the meaning and purpose of our human existence. Every single one of these metaphors holds a depth of wisdom to address and illuminate the question: what does it mean to be human?  

Yet so often alternative anthropological bases belittle or disqualify one metaphor or another as less important because it does not address their chosen primary driver. For example, reason and rational thought is not addressed by the metaphor of being built as living stones in 1 Peter 2:4-5. In fact it is against and in spite of the logical rejections of humans that God is accomplishing the beautiful construction of His people. 

Having had a taste of application let us now turn to applying this creaturely  anthropology to a long standing philosophical issue and see how it allows us to approach things in a more well rounded and biblically founded fashion.

lenses of perception and organization based on universal common characteristics

Towards a workable perception of humanity

Since individual parts can get us lost in the forest so quickly

Starting from clean and clear common characteristics that are true of all humans in every culture and time allow the ability to stay focused on humanity as a whole

Two main characteristics are:

• time bound
• Space bound We are always so focused on transcending these boundaries but what if they are a core part of what makes us human and give us meaning

Maybe see how first commission backs this up or not

From there jumping into the metaphors that address particular parts of our existence

Case Study: The Universal Problem of Internal and External Congruence 

Idea that internal state needs to match external state 

When external state looks good but internal is bad:

Jesus to the Pharisees are whitewashed tombs 

Rend hearts and not garments 

Jesus says out of the heart is what condemns you 

When internal state is “good” but external is bad:

James faith without works is dead 

Amos addressing injustice of princes and Israel

A needed piece of healthy human living is congruence between internal and external state. But there is a certain amount of lag between change in either side. This is also a way more complex piece of living than anyone likes to admit. But it is clear that neither internal or external is better to have in line if the other is not. In other words it is only in the healthy congruence of the whole human person that any true benefit can be found

Taking us back to the original definition of a Creaturely Anthropology: The Intermingling and Dependence of Parts 

This is great and functions as a solid foundation to operate from but does suffer from being so general it is not immediately helpful in day to day life 

Proposal to move to using common characteristics to help us organize things rather than reliance on a primary driver

One example of a common characteristic is the idea of rhythm 

A Proposed Lense of Application: Human Rhythms

The Common characteristic of rhythm. Everything has a rhythm to it from our heart beats, to our brain waves, eating schedule, to the cycle of a day, schedule or work and rest, to our worship as a community. Everything can be expressed in terms of rhythms. We can also identify unhealthy and healthy rhythms. 

Example of unhealthy heartbeat

In the boiling down and distillation of doctrinal theology have we lost the basic character by which Scripture describes and teaches the salvation story and humanities place in it?

We cannot directly access or organize the fullness of our own existence much less the grand realities of God and his plan of salvation. 

Example of mother’s and baby’s body communication to get the baby the nutrients it needs from the mother. Totally out of the rational control of either but Mom does have instrumentality to encourage skin to skin contact. 

The lens of rhythm is an honest tool to help us organize and access particular aspects of ourselves without claiming an absolute. Many lenses could be pulled from the basic scriptural and natural experience of being human. These lenses need not be in conflict but can exist side by side to help broaden our available categories for engaging with and thinking about our human existence. 

Rhythm can account for the paradoxical nature of human existence. Body soul, mind emotion, Saint sinner. 

Does not make a claim to completely capture all aspects of what it means to be a human 

We need to take seriously the scriptural basis that we only “see in a mirror dimly” 

Rhythm is a Basic creaturely lense that we can all understand regardless of background. If you are reading you are also breathing according to a rhythm 

Metaphor of rhythm helps illuminate the interplay of passive and active righteousness 

Healthy rhythm is literally just something doing what it was created to do. Paul’s verse we cannot boast in good works 

Way the creation story is told is another foundation for seeing rhythms. 

The continuity between major areas of human existence is another reason. 

Beat and rhythm. Beats can help us think of a single occurrence or activity that makes up a rhythm. 

Rhythms suffer from entropy. You start a child swinging and eventually they will stop. Decay and death of both natural and spiritual aspects of ourselves is outside of our ability to fix on our own. The deep need for the Gospel in our daily lives.  

Rhythm helps us hold together both our worship practice on Sunday with our daily lives in a congruent manner. One feeds into the other.  

Input and output is a simple way to conceptualize rhythm and how things are operating. What am I putting into myself and what am I expending or putting out into the world?

Example of consuming online content through social media or other means. What am I taking in and what am I putting out? What kind of rhythm does that produce in my life?

Possible future applications:

Application with two kinds of relationships 

Application with two commissions 

Application to doctrine 

Application to worship and liturgy 

Application to liturgy of church meeting 

Application to work a productivity 

Application to architect, aesthetics, and the built environment 

Application to beauty, art, and creativity

Footnotes

1. Oliveira, A. (2017). The Exponential Nature of Technology. In The Digital Mind: How Science is Redefining Humanity (pp. 3-18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262036030.003.0002 on 29 February 2024. ↩

2. Oliveira, A. (2017). The Exponential Nature of Technology. In The Digital Mind: How Science is Redefining Humanity (pp. 3-18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262036030.003.0002 on 29 February 2024. ↩

3. Watson, R. A.. “René Descartes.” Encyclopedia Britannica, February 7, 2024. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rene-Descartes  on 4 March 2024. ↩

4. Senn, F. (2016). Embodied liturgy: lessons in Christian ritual. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/embodiedliturgyl0000senn/ on 4 March 2024. ↩

5. Smith, S. (2009). Desiring the kingdom : worship, worldview, and cultural formation. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/desiringkingdomw0000smit/ on 4 March 2024. ↩