Blog

One thing that becomes interesting when reading about alchemy is that the people practicing it did not think they were doing something primitive.

To them, it was science.

More specifically, it was the attempt to rediscover a science they believed had once existed but had been lost.

Many of the texts from the medieval and early Renaissance periods carry that assumption. Wisdom was believed to have existed in earlier ages — associated with figures like Solomon or Hermes — and later generations were working from fragments. Symbols, procedures, planetary calendars, and strange diagrams were attempts to reconstruct something whose original logic had disappeared.

In that sense, alchemists were not always trying to invent something new.

They believed they were recovering something old.

Whether that belief was correct is another question. But the intellectual posture is interesting. It assumes that knowledge can be lost, scattered, and partially recovered through study.

Reading those texts today produces a strange feeling because the mindset is not entirely foreign.

Working with artificial intelligence sometimes produces a similar impression.

AI research is often described as creating intelligence, but that is not quite right. Most of the time we are discovering patterns that allow certain behaviors to emerge. We are shaping systems that produce language, reasoning, or prediction, but we are not creating life.

In that sense the technology can feel uncanny.

Not because it is mystical, but because it resembles something older: imitation rather than creation.

If medieval thinkers described alchemy as trying to recover hidden processes in nature, modern AI sometimes feels like a different kind of experiment.

We are not animating life.

But we are building systems that can imitate parts of it.

At times it feels less like creation and more like a kind of intellectual necromancy — raising echoes of intelligence rather than generating a living mind.

That metaphor may be imperfect, but it captures something about the experience of working with these systems.

They behave enough like thinking that we recognize the pattern.

But not enough to believe we have actually created life.

And that tension — between imitation and reality — is probably going to define the next era of technology.

When people talk about alchemy today, they usually imagine something primitive — a strange mixture of superstition and failed chemistry.

But for the people practicing it, alchemy was not superstition.

It was science.

More precisely, it was the attempt to recover a science that they believed had once existed but had been lost.

Many medieval and early Renaissance thinkers believed that earlier civilizations possessed deeper knowledge about the structure of nature. Solomon, Hermes, and other ancient figures were often treated not merely as legendary characters but as custodians of wisdom that later generations only partially understood.

Alchemy, in that sense, was not always seen as inventing something new.

It was often framed as rediscovering something old.

That perspective changes how the tradition looks. Instead of imagining alchemists as naive experimenters chasing impossible transformations, you start to see them as scholars searching through fragments of a broken intellectual inheritance.

Grimoires, symbolic diagrams, planetary calendars, and ritual procedures were all part of that search. They were attempts to reconstruct a system whose full logic was no longer visible.

Whether that reconstruction succeeded is another question.

But the attitude behind it is surprisingly familiar.

In some ways, the modern conversation around artificial intelligence carries a similar atmosphere.

AI research is often described as creating intelligence, but that description can feel misleading. What we are actually doing most of the time is discovering structures that allow certain kinds of behavior to emerge.

We aren’t creating life.

We are coaxing patterns out of systems that already exist.

When a model suddenly produces language that feels coherent or insightful, the reaction is often strangely similar to the reactions described in older texts about hidden knowledge. It feels less like building a machine and more like uncovering something that was already latent.

That sensation is part of why the technology feels uncanny.

Not because it is supernatural, but because it touches an old human instinct: the sense that intelligence and life are mysteries we can approach but not fully manufacture.

In that sense, AI sometimes feels less like creation and more like imitation.

Or perhaps something closer to an ancient metaphor.

Not the creation of life.

But the attempt to call something back into motion.

For most of my life I thought of alchemy as a strange footnote in history — an odd mixture of superstition, early chemistry, and medieval imagination.

Gold, potions, philosophers’ stones.

The usual story is that alchemy was eventually replaced by real science, and that was the end of it.

But the more time I spend reading older texts, the more interesting it becomes. Not because the claims are literally true in a chemical sense, but because of the intellectual world that produced them.

Alchemy did not appear out of nowhere.

It grew in a culture shaped by several overlapping traditions: biblical wisdom literature, classical philosophy, early natural science, and the ritual practices recorded in various grimoires and manuals of knowledge.

When you begin to trace those influences, something interesting emerges.

Many of these traditions assume that the universe is not random, but ordered — and that order can be studied.

In the biblical tradition this appears most clearly in the wisdom literature. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and later interpretations associated with Solomon all assume that reality operates according to patterns. Wisdom is the ability to recognize those patterns and live in harmony with them.

In later centuries that idea expanded into more elaborate systems.

Scholars and monks studied calendars, planetary movements, and liturgical cycles. Time itself was treated as structured. The calendar was not just a schedule but a reflection of cosmic order. Medieval clocks and astronomical devices were built partly as tools for understanding that order.

Grimoires — which today are often treated as occult curiosities — were originally something closer to manuals of structured practice. They recorded procedures, correspondences, and timings. In many cases they were attempts to formalize how human action might align with the perceived order of the world.

Alchemy sits in the middle of all of this.

It was not simply about turning lead into gold. That goal was often symbolic of something larger: the belief that nature itself follows processes of transformation. If the structure of nature could be understood, then those processes might be guided or accelerated.

Modern science eventually replaced the symbolic language of alchemy with chemistry and physics. But historically, alchemy represented an early attempt to unify several ideas:

that the world is ordered,

that transformation follows patterns,

and that careful study might reveal those patterns.

Whether those assumptions were correct in every case is another question.

But the intellectual ambition behind them is worth understanding.

Because in some ways, the same impulse still drives modern research — including the development of artificial intelligence.

We are still trying to discover the structure behind complex systems.

We are still looking for the patterns that explain how transformation happens.

And in that sense, the distance between medieval alchemy and modern technology may be smaller than it first appears.

Engineers tend to think in systems.

Inputs, outputs, feedback loops, constraints.

When something fails, the instinct is to ask how the system is structured rather than blaming one individual component.

Lately I’ve noticed that many ancient wisdom texts can be read in a similar way.

Take Proverbs. It’s often treated purely as moral instruction, but another way to read it is as a long observation about how human systems behave.

Certain patterns consistently lead to stability.

Others lead to chaos.

Discipline, patience, and restraint tend to produce long-term order. Impulsiveness and pride tend to produce the opposite.

That sounds less like abstract morality and more like an early attempt to describe how human systems behave over time.

Modern systems theory uses different language — feedback loops, incentives, emergent behavior — but the underlying observation feels similar.

The vocabulary changed.

The pattern recognition didn’t.

One thing I didn’t expect when working in AI is how quickly the conversation becomes philosophical.

At first glance the field looks purely technical: models, infrastructure, GPUs, training pipelines.

But once systems start producing coherent language or solving problems, the deeper questions show up immediately.

What exactly is intelligence?

For centuries philosophers debated that question without any real way to test their ideas. Now we’re building systems that display pieces of what we call intelligence, and suddenly the debate feels very practical.

Watching an AI system generate something useful forces you to ask a strange question:

How much of intelligence is understanding, and how much is pattern recognition?

That question goes back a long way. Aristotle wrestled with it. Augustine wrote about the nature of memory and reasoning. Medieval thinkers tried to break it down using logic.

AI didn’t invent the question.

It just turned it into an engineering problem.

For most of my career I’ve built systems.

Data platforms, cloud infrastructure, machine learning pipelines — the kind of things that quietly sit behind organizations and move information around.

When you spend enough time building systems, you start seeing systems everywhere.

Not just in technology. In philosophy. In religion. In how people behave. In how organizations succeed or fail.

Artificial intelligence has made this even more interesting. Working close to AI forces you to think about questions that used to belong mostly to philosophers.

What is intelligence?

What does it mean to understand something?

How much of reasoning is actually structure and pattern?

At the same time, when you read older texts — especially things like Proverbs, Augustine, or classical philosophy — you start noticing that people were wrestling with many of the same questions long before computers existed.

This site is mostly a place for working through those ideas.

Some posts will be about AI and technology.

Some will be about philosophy or religion.

Some will just be attempts to connect things that normally get discussed in completely different circles.

I don’t have a grand thesis here.

Just curiosity and a place to think out loud.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!