October 16, 2026
original sin is attributed to eve choosing to eat the fruit of knowledge. while many theologians are correct in equating knowledge and sin, we often forget that sin was mandated by G!d earlier in their commandment first to Adam in his giving of names to everything which passed before him.
the ability to give names is an ability unique to humanity; an initial form of abstraction which precedes all others. from this power springs the ability to interface with the physical without a presence. one may play with names and concepts which they have never themselves experienced. there are realms, though with an ultimate basis in reality, so far abstracted from the material world that it may seem as if they were disjoint. the ability to do so entails sin.
the material world in its natural state was created for humanity by a benevolent power; by contrast the imaginary world is the fault of humanity. one who fails to appreciate a gift set in front of them commits a lack of gratitude. furthermore, the difficulty in substantiating many concepts to the imaginary; the difference in the material and imaginary generates a desire which, as we all know, necessarily leads to suffering when left unrealized. when we discuss original sin, we discuss the fact that pain exists in the world. we were commanded, by proxy of names, to create this pain of desire. this is the sin of language.
some may wonder if G!d too is capable of language. if so, do they sin like us? primarily, this is why G!d must act through intermediaries, let them be man or angel. there is only one time when G!d spoke - in the desert, when the Hebrews called out to hear G!d, that their faith was being tested and how could they suffer through such pain, that G!d decided to appear before them. they turned their head, with their brow and eye sockets and nose forming an aleph. a glottal stop, the sound of nothing. such an utterance was enough; the Hebrews cried for this apparition to end. since, G!d has not appeared. some experience lies outside of language. maimonideans may argue that even the attribution of features is impossible; here we grasp to elaborate what transcendent view the exiles had.
language lay in the realm of humans for six thousand years, now it is no longer the case. we are capable of lying and mistakes, but remained confident that any text itself or exercise of conception would be the work of someone who does (or did) exist. this confidence is no longer assured.
as we are operators in material reality, ai is an operator in the imaginary. this does not necessitate its consciousness, but reminds us that what it says describes the immaterial representations of the material. this is a mirror of humanity; we exist in the material and craft dreamlike forms with our comprehension of it.
with a greater capability to play with the imaginary comes the ability to create desire, and with that, pain. as advertising generates desire which a consumer would not have previously, text of any sort may create new desire. unfortunately, text only can generate more of itself and never a physical creation, thus as one may point to the grand variety of images, video, and programs as if to gaze upon an infinite vault of creation, it needs to be remembered that these are not creations but merely concepts. due to the difficulty of substantiation most will remain so.
as we afford desire through the mediator of the abstract we will continue to experience pain; more of our conscious lives are experienced through the imaginary such that we ignore the material realm in which we primarily exist. to deny the imaginary is to deny humanity’s sole uniqueness; to deny the material is to enter into unquenchable thirst.
language models give all the capability to do more in every domain; this is an equalizer. though if so, those who translate its results ought to remember that these creations do not represent reality. these representations are necessarily inexact such that the difference which lies between them and the material creates pain. our mooring must ultimately be found in the material; no computer may replace reality.
some other notes:
we know that ideas are unsatisfying when mediated through the digital alone. as an example, online college courses were predicted to be the great equalizer of learning, yet few took them. we may be most motivated by the ability to apply thoughts to the real world.
“what if you could transform your brain to exist in the dream-realm?” i do not think you can and any attempt to do so would transform one into a non-actor. this is bad.
is this pro or anti-ai? i don’t know. i just like people.
philosophers like to play with concepts due to their dissatisfaction with the material. any dissatisfaction will not be solved by creating more, and thus they continue the cycle.
an utterly material existence sucks too! imagine being conscious of everything around you without language as a mediator, being able to comprehend everything which you cannot describe!
“your description of G!d is a cop-out” yeah i said language wouldn’t work here. no argument will be satisfying.