It is said that science and technology never forget their
past. That's because no matter how advanced science and technology become, they
build on their past achievements. The most glaring example that can be cited to
illustrate this reality is the windmill. It was invented in Persia
thousands of years ago, yet here it is, back again competing with the most
advanced of methods in the production of electricity.
What this means basically, is that science and technology –
which are artificial – go through an evolutionary process that resembles in
some ways, the natural evolution we refer to as organic evolution. Well then,
given that the two processes are competing against each other, and they have at
least one thing in common, it is reasonable to ask if the artificial process
will someday come to equal or surpass the organic one.
As a matter of fact, in terms of physical attributes, the
artificial process is already well ahead of the organic process. This point was
clearly made long ago with the argument that every tool and every contraption
we invent serve as extensions of our body. For example, what we cannot do with
bear hands we do using pliers. What we cannot do with our feet, we do using the
wheel … and so on. The question is still open, however, regarding artificial
intelligence. And so the question is this: Can it equal or surpass the power of
organic intelligence?
The problem in trying to answer this question is that we
don't know what components organic intelligence is made of. If we say things
like consciousness or self-awareness, for example, we don't know how to define
these terms, let alone how to replicate them artificially. Until we do, we have
no choice but to start thinking about the subject the way that our ancestors
did thousands of years ago when they began constructing the body of scientific
knowledge they amassed by indulging in philosophical speculation. So then,
where do we start?
Let it be known that there exists a publication calling itself
the American Thinker. Published in it is a recent article that is devoid of
substance. It came under the title: “The Middle East 's
Problems Are Really Our Problems,” written by Shoshana Bryen and published on
November 15, 2017. This article can help us begin the process of understanding
the differences that may exist between an artificial process and an organic one
when the attributes we try to compare are moral and not physical.
In fact, Bryen's entire article is a long comparison between
what may be called the American/neo-Yiddish culture, and what may be called the
Arab/Middle-Eastern culture. The author makes it clear that in her view, the
first is superior to the latter. Be that as it may, what cannot be denied is
that the Middle Eastern cultures have been evolving organically since the
beginning of Human Civilization.
By contrast, the Yiddish culture is an artificial concoction
that was put together by Jews who did not want to be assimilated in the
existing cultures of Europe . Its offshoot, the
neo-Yiddish manifestation, which is dominant in America , is even more of an
artificial concoction. As to the American “nativist” culture, it started out as
an artificial construct when Columbus first
landed in the New World half a millennium ago.
It has struggled ever since to evolve organically by opening itself to the rest
of the world and actively absorbing as much of the authenticity that the
newcomers brought with them.
Thus, what Shoshana Bryen has done is compare the naturally
organic culture of the Middle East against
what is essentially an artificial one, and called the artificial concoction
superior. To prove her point, she attributed to the artificial, the lofty clichés
with which “Western Democracies” are associated. And she attributed to the Arabs
the denigrating stereotypes with which the local governments are associated.
In addition, the writer skipped defining what's good or
what's bad about each of those attributes, and concluded that the political
set-up in Israel
was as stable as the American set-up, whereas the Arab set-ups were not. But
again, she failed to define what she meant by “stability” or how it relates to
the survival of a culture.
This leaves us with no choice but to verify Bryen's claim by
first defining the word stability. We then measure to what degree it applies to
the various cultures. So here we go: If the stability of a culture is measured
by how well it has survived the test of time, and how well it has remained
self-reliant despite the periodic ups and downs that every culture suffers at
one time or another, two undisputed truths jump out.
First, we find that every Arab and Muslim culture passes the
test with flying colors. Second, we find that neither the Jewish nor the
Yiddish or the Judeo-Israeli concoctions even qualify as being worthy to take
the test. They are simply as devoid of substance as the Shoshana Bryen article.