El presente artículo está dedicado al trabajo de Hans-Georg Gadamer titulado “Prometeo y Pandora”, publicado originalmente en español en 1949 en el volumen Goethe. 1749 - 28 de agosto – 1949, editado por la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad de Cuyo, Argentina. En primer lugar, se ofrece una introducción en la que se presenta el contexto original histórico-intelectual de su edición, traducción y publicación, los antecedentes filosóficos del texto dentro de la obra de Gadamer (conferencias y (...) artículos previos sobre el tema), una presentación breve de las fuentes y de los temas que trata el texto, así como una serie de aclaraciones sobre las correcciones que se realizaron para esta edición crítica. En segundo lugar, se ofrece una nueva edición de “Prometeo y Pandora”. Este ensayo es uno de los dos primeros trabajos de Gadamer que fueron traducidos al castellano y, a su vez, una de las primeras traducciones de las producciones de Gadamer a una lengua extranjera. //--// The following investigation focuses on the article of Hans-Georg Gadamer entitled “Prometheus and Pandora”, originally published in Spanish in 1949, in the book: "Goethe. 1749 – 28th August – 1949", edited by the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the University of Cuyo, Argentina. Firstly, an introduction is offered in which is presented the original historical-intellectual context of its edition, translation and publication, the philosophical background of the text within Gadamer’s work (conferences and previous articles on the subject), a brief description of the sources and topics encompassed in the text, as well as a series of clarifications on the corrections made for the current critical edition. This essay is one of the first two works by Gadamer that were translated into Spanish and, in turn, one of the first translations of Gadamer's productions into a foreign language. (shrink)

Just started a new book. The aim is to establish a science of knowledge in the same way that we have a science of physics or a science of materials. This might appear as an overly ambitious, possibly arrogant, objective, but bear with me. On the day I am beginning to write it–June 7th, 2020–, I think I am in possession of a few things that will help me to achieve this objective. Again, bear with me. My aim is well (...) reflected in the title I chose (just now) for this book: Knowledge & Logic: Towards a science of knowledge. Its most important feature is that I shall take logic to be to knowledge science as calculus is to physics or to materials science. I do not intend to reclaim knowledge from the bosom of philosophy, in which, known as epistemology its erudite discussion has hardly progressed since Plato first defined it as true belief with logos. With only a few adjustments, it will actually provide me with the right, science-bound start. More recently, knowledge has been reclaimed by the field of BA, a reclaim that has opened the box of Pandora: Among the evils, and perhaps at the head of the list, is an overly lay, essentially naive, notion of knowledge. But the very idea that one can have something like “knowledge (management) software” puts us on the right track. (shrink)

Nanotechnology (henceforth NT) is a rapidly advancing field with the potential of revolutionizing diverse areas such as electronics, healthcare, transport and energy production. NT products and applications come with (potential) benefits and (potential) harms. The presence of potential harms calls for regulation. Both under- and overregulation – I argue – are morally undesirable. In the case of underregulation, stakeholders fall victim to the harmful effects of the technology. In the case of overregulation, stakeholders are deprived of the benefits of the (...) technology. In this chapter, I identify the biases and factors that lead to under- and overregulation and offer solutions in response. More precisely, I argue that a lack of specific regulation, the presence of conflicts of interest and short-term economic incentives could lead to the underregulation of NT products and applications. Conversely, I argue that a negativity bias, harm aversion, the fear of opening ‘Pandora’s box’ and the intuition that what is natural is good and what is artificial (human-made) is bad could lead to overregulation. To avoid these pitfalls and the woes of under- and overregulation following in their wake, we need to set up a process – which I describe – in which policymakers and independent scientists closely collaborate. (shrink)

The mind has always been a peculiar and elusive subject, sparking controversial theories throughout the history of philosophy. The initial theorization of the mind dates back to Orphism, which formulated a dualistic structure of soul and body (Johansen, 1999) [1], laying the foundation for Greek dualism, introspection, and the rise of metaphysical idealism. This ill-empirical stance, especially after Plato’s idea of forms, led to inaccessible theoretical concepts concerning the investigation of the relationship between body and mind. Although diverse theories provide (...) broader insights into such matters, they can also hinder progress if based on unsound methodological hypothesis. The present study aims to employ a rational reexamination of the potentiality of the concepts of mind, using abductive inspection to present a valid grasp through the lens of cognitive neuroscience, philosophy, and interdisciplinary fields. This paper speculates through empirical deduction by analyzing the literature and theories on the concept of mind and its possible implications for singularity via transhumanism. In the contemporary world, humankind is on the edge of singularity due to the exponential growth predicted by Moore’s law (Moore 1965) [2]. While many considered singularity an abstract akin to science fiction, significant projections indicate that the accelerationist change has already begun, irreversibly. This advancement occurs not only in the degree of semiconductors in electronics but also in the amplification of human cognition through external devices enabling compound information flow via the world wide web. However, the conjunction of robotics and AI may outdo humankind in the contest for sovereignty soon due to their advantageous architecture in process design, which increases the systemic risk of extinction for humankind. Achieving total control over AI is unrealistic, as it requires complete supervision over all computers and information processes across the world, rendering any regulatory efforts to foresee augmentation futile. Consequently, this paper proposes the adoption of a neuro-robotic approach, enriched with AI, and implementation through biomedical applications on the human body to augment human cognition and physicality. This study aims to raise awareness against existential risks, emphasizing that reliance solely on AI powered computers could lead to annihilation. It also aims to highlight that biological mind and body is lagging behind the modern science to compete against Artificial Intelligence. Moreover, the foundation of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is an epistemic foundation for cognitive machinery enhancement that cannot be reversed once it emergence become apparent, as with Pandora’s Box. Technological singularity (Shanahan, 2015) [3], the point where technology is intelligently engineered to engineer its own sets by compounding all possible implementations of practical and theoretical information, is appearing on the horizon. Even if there is no human agency left on the soil of Earth, there is still no turning back at that point. Humankind must actively hold the key to bend this alteration in a way that aligns with its desires. Therefore, we propose, future for humankind lies with transhumanism. (shrink)

Desde as leituras que formaram seu pensamento até a sua última declaração pública, o filósofo franco-argelino e prêmio Nobel de literatura Albert Camus não deixou de expressar uma relação estreita com o pensamento do filósofo dinamarquês S. A. Kierkegaard. Desse modo, buscamos explicitar alguns elementos desta conexão que deverão contribuir não apenas para a melhor compreensão da relação mesma, mas para o próprio entendimento do pensamento camusiano que se inicia e se desenvolve a partir de uma concepção patética do problema (...) existencial, legatária de Kierkegaard. (shrink)