 Our next speaker will be Donald Bradley Jr. Donnie is an 84-year-old, but you may not be able to tell by looking at him due to his advanced life extension technology. In all truth, he's actually somewhere closer to 18. Outside of transhumanism, some of his interests include theoretical computer science, cybernetics, foundations of mathematics, algorithmic information theory, psychology of creativity, literary studies, and especially cognitive poetics. Please welcome Donnie. When we ponder the religious transhumanist quest to emulate God until we ourselves become gods, many strange questions come up. One of those questions is, as beings of art, we wonder what the aesthetic sense of a God would be like. For instance, if a God could read, what kind of literature would a God read? The question is not trivial because in art, we are doing the work of a God in microcosm. Considering that art is a little laboratory for Godhood, if we are to eventually become gods, then its creation serves a very real utilitarian purpose as training for Godhood and is a significant religious practice. I think in many ways, Borges is an exemplary artist for transhumanists. There are some obvious reasons, for instance, the themes of eternity or his uncanny knack for predicting future developments without trying, but I want to focus on some less obvious but I think deeper connections. For instance, the way he glorifies the process of creation and how he navigates the delicate balance of writer control and readerly agency. In the circular ruins, Borges tells the story of a sorcerer determined to create a simulated version of his son in one of his dreams. This goes well but eventually he becomes worried. He feared that his son would meditate upon his unnatural privilege and somehow discover that he was a mere simulacrum, to be not a man but the projection of another man's dream, what incomparable humiliation, what vertigo. In the end, he discovers that he himself, the creator is also a dream, a mere simulacrum. When the temple, he lives and burns down with relief, with humiliation, with tear, he realizes that he too was but appearance, that another man was dreaming him. Since even the man who thought himself a God was a simulated being, Borges leaves no guarantee that whoever dreamed him was not also a simulated being. In fact, in Borges' story, there's no foolproof escape from that idea that every God is the simulation of another God in an ever-ending chain. If we take this infinite chain of creators and add into the idea that each one is directly trying to create a world that will encourage its subjects to become creators, we get a literary theology whose infinitely regressive authors have the same goals for their creations as do the gods of Mormon theology, when Borges makes for good literature and Mormonism makes for good theology. Consider the library of Babel, in which he describes a library which contains every possible work of literature. For any possible sequence of letters, there is a book that contains the sequence of letters. For instance, this paper is contained in the library, as well as a paper containing exactly the same sentences, except where each sentence referencing Borges is duplicated with his name replaced with Ariel of the Little Mermaid. In the universe of this library, the act of writing is redundant and it has been replaced by the act of reading and of selecting the correct book from the library of possible books. Another alternative to writing is translation. Borges describes the possibility of secret languages of the library, whereby we can translate any work from any other work by finding the right language with which to quote unquote translate it. This is striking when we consider Borges' statement in the introduction to his collective fictions that with regard to the examples of magic that close the book, the only right I can claim to them is that of translator and of reader. In the library of Babel, he is describing his own experience of the creation of writing. In fact, his writing becomes auto poetic in the sense of Moderna and Valera. It creates itself, or at least describes a process that can generate it. For instance, in this story, the library of Babel, if we build the actual library of Babel, then we will have created the very text, Borges' story of the library will be, the very text Borges wrote. In the Garden of Forking Pass, Borges implies that the story could be considered as a necessary element of a hypertext referenced with any. The narrator discovers a text by his ancestors, which likes the story, which like the story is named the Garden of Forking Pass. The man who shows it to him describes it this way. The Garden of Forking Pass was the chaotic novel. The phrase, several futures, suggested to me the image of a forking in time rather than in space. In all fictions, each time a man meets diverse alternatives, he chooses one and eliminates the others. Su Pen, the character, the ancestor, she is simultaneously all of them. He creates thereby several futures, several times, which themselves proliferate and fork. Borges' story is ripe with hints that it itself is one of the many forking paths of Su Pen's hypertexts, such as all things happen to oneself and century follows century. Yeah, events occur in the present. Countless men in the air, on the land, on the sea. Yeah, everything truly happens to me. What makes Borges special for a Mormon transhumanist, among all other authors, consider the primary aims that kind of God posited in our theology. A God trying to create an optimal learning environment for teaching others to become gods themselves would have in creating a world. We must create an environment where people are encouraged to create, where the joy of creation is blatant. It must also be one that is sufficiently incomplete such that the inhabitants not only can but must be the creators themselves. I mentioned earlier the stories that the stories of Borges are auto poetic and this too is an important aspect of world creation. The world we make should be created as much as possible by its own initial conditions rather than by an outside force. So it can reveal to its inhabitants who deeply study the processes of its own creation so that from early on they have a blueprint for worlds of their own. In short, the things we will want to do with our worlds, the Koch's creations and the gods are what Borges does with his reader. By reading Borges we can learn a little about how Borges writes. By writing analogous stories we plant seeds of creation that have the potential to grow eternally. If we do have right we can learn a small portion of Godhood by creating our own little worlds, the kind of microcosms we create within our. By doing so we begin to slowly, gradually outline the worlds we will create. And if we share this vision we can by insensible gradations into a state of being of which we have scarcely dreamed.