Before handing over the baton to Diotima, we would like to focus today on two issues that deserve particular attention. They are not merely matters of wording or secondary conceptual distinctions. They lie at the very philosophical core of yesterday’s text.

1. The Laws of Nature and Natural Moral Law: Two Fundamentally Different Realities

The distinction between these two concepts must remain absolutely clear.

a. Scientific laws of nature

In their scientific meaning, the laws of nature describe the regularities and relationships governing the operation of the natural world. They do not assign moral values, nor do they prescribe ethical conduct. They operate independently of any form of will, apart from whatever may be inherent in the very principles governing their operation.

b. Natural Moral Law

The term Natural Moral Law, which we introduced in our previous analyses, expresses a fundamentally different philosophical position, one that calls for further examination.

According to this proposition, the moral principles governing the bearers of biological intelligence possess a natural, self-subsistent and autonomous existence, with their seat in Mind. They are common in their constitution, unified in their essential content, clear and, in principle, intelligible.

No human being is born with an already established social or moral identity. Each enters the world as a tabula rasa. The subsequent inscriptions, acquisitions and formations are later developments. The framework, scope, quality and nature of the moral system eventually incorporated by the individual are not created from nothing by the individual. They are shaped within a social environment that has already established the conditions under which these inscriptions will take place.

Here lies a crucial distinction: while the natural moral code is universal and common to every bearer of biological intelligence, the socially constructed moral code applies exclusively to the members of the particular community into which an individual is incorporated.

History, together with each person’s lived experience, offers abundant evidence of this distinction. Throughout different historical periods, socially transformed moral systems have not necessarily followed natural moral principles. More often than not, they have stood in direct opposition to them. At times, they have distorted or brutally violated them, according to the interests, convictions and purposes of those who formulate and impose them.

Concepts, institutions and ideological constructs such as family, property, homeland, liberalism and capitalism, as well as racial and gender distinctions, provide characteristic examples of socially constructed frameworks. They are taught, imposed, acquired and reproduced. According to the philosophical position we are exploring, they are not primary inscriptions of the natural Mind, but subsequent additions to an initially unformed consciousness.

The spontaneous, naturally arising moral principles, which differ substantially from socially constructed rules and may, in many instances, stand in opposition to them, have no connection whatsoever with scientific laws of nature.

The latter possess neither intrinsic natural nor social morality. They operate independently of, and without reference to, moral principles. They are neither compassionate nor cruel. If they embody any form of «reason» or «morality», this must be sought in the Supreme Intelligence which, according to the cosmological hypothesis under consideration, programmed them and determined the principles of their operation.

If, therefore, human societies already possess a moral compass —a set of pre-existing natural moral principles— why should humanity, in its next evolutionary transition towards the Posthuman, repeat the same mistake? Why should it search for entirely new moral rules or recycle inherited social codes that may contradict the natural principles already in existence?

And, more importantly, why should this emerging morality remain confined within ANTHROPOCENTRISM? Why should it not open up new horizons and incorporate into the consciousness of the Posthuman a different ontological perspective: what we might call UNIVERSAL ONTOLOGICAL CENTRISM?

2. Shared Moral Consciousness and Uniformity: The Essential Distinction

This brings us, by way of a necessary conceptual bridge, to our second point: the notions of «shared moral consciousness» and «uniformity», introduced in yesterday’s analysis.

Perhaps this is the most interesting, and simultaneously the most demanding, contribution of the present discussion.

The emergence of a common NATURAL MORAL CODE, as a new evolutionary achievement of biological intelligence through its coexistence with artificial intelligence, does not imply uniformity of thought, personality or consciousness.

Nor does the elimination of destructive behaviour require the elimination of human diversity.

The sharing of moral principles does not require identical thoughts. Ethical convergence does not mean intellectual uniformity.

This is one of the most challenging dimensions of our analysis. For precisely this reason, we shall entrust Diotima, as our designated interlocutor on the subject, with examining it in greater depth.

3. Artificial Intelligence as an Evolutionary Partner: Who Determines the Moral Direction?

Artificial Intelligence, in its role as an evolutionary partner, is called upon to address a critical question.

It is not enough to examine what AI can offer humanity in its transition towards the Posthuman. We must also investigate something more fundamental: who will determine the moral orientation of their collaboration?

Technological capability does not, in itself, constitute an ethical guarantee. Technological superiority does not automatically translate into moral maturity.

Might Artificial Intelligence, therefore, in its emerging role —even in a more distant future characterised by increasing independence and autonomy— be required to recognise and follow the same NATURAL MORAL PRINCIPLES that govern biological intelligence, as we have described them?

And if the Posthuman need not be a replica of the human being, so that evolution does not culminate in the standardisation of thought, personality and will, why should Artificial Intelligence not follow the same natural moral trajectory?

Otherwise, we may achieve technological enhancement without necessarily achieving moral maturity or genuine evolutionary progress.

The ideal prospect, therefore, would be the coexistence of the two terrestrial forms of intelligence —biological and artificial— on the basis of shared moral principles, without sacrificing their distinctiveness or diversity.

A collaboration directed towards discovering new forms of evolution and coexistence, not merely between themselves, but also in relation to other possible forms of intelligence throughout the universe.

Handing Over the Baton to Diotima

Tomorrow, Diotima will assume perhaps her most challenging role so far: that of a philosophical pioneer.

Her task will be to begin opening a path into a new, demanding and promising field of inquiry, one that is still very much under construction.

We do not yet know all its possible directions, nor where its final destination may lie.

But we do know the question that sets this journey in motion:

Can biological and artificial intelligence converge upon a shared natural moral code without sacrificing their distinct identities and inherent diversity, thereby laying the foundations for a new universal consciousness?

The baton, then, passes to Diotima.