I am fairly certain that “syncretizer” is a madeup word; however, it may become a real word in the future because it does not violate the phonological and morphological rules of English (e.g., see Crystal, 1997, 2006). I have attempted to create an agent for the process of syncretizing—analogous to labeling a person who synthesizes as a synthesizer—which is a word, albeit one with multiple meanings. Inspection of any online dictionary (e.g., Dictionary.com [https:// www.dictionary.com/browse/synthesis]; MerriamWebster [https://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/synthesis]; The Free Dictionary [https://www.thefree dictionary.com/synthesis]) can provide a definition (or more) of either “synthesis” or “syncretism.” After conducting a critical analysis (or an act of syncretism—pun intended), I deduce that both processes are related, may even be interchangeable. But—I suspect—each construct is most likely associated with certain disciplines or topics. For sure, unpacking some ideas relative to these constructs should shed additional light on what it means to be a critical thinker—the topic of my previous editorial (Paul, 2018)— or, perhaps, what it means to be an innovative critical thinker. The other construct in the title of this essay in need of a few words of explanation is “Homo techno sapiens.” Modern humans (i.e., those of our present evolutionary era) belong to the class labeled “Homo sapiens sapiens.” However, some scholars and writers believe that we are now at the beginning of the era of Homo techno sapiens, or perhaps will be in the very near future. For example, the physicistwriter Alan Lightman (2018) contends that “in short, the human being of the future, Homo techno, will be part animate and part inanimate, a hybrid of living animal and machine, a heart and soul fused to a computer chip” (p. 194). On the other hand, technology theorist (and bilateral cochlear implant wearer) Michael Chorost (2011) argues that we are already there, especially when you consider the workings of cochlear implants. Chorost maintains that eventually there will be a substantial physical merging of our “Paleolithic” bodies with “Pentium” chips, resulting in a radical new way of social interaction, including mindtomind or mindtotechnology communication. For our purposes, it has to be wondered whether the synthesis or syncretism of Homo techno sapiens will be radically different (or more exciting!?) than that of the current Homo sapiens sapiens. Could Homo techno sapiens provide better solutions to our current Homo sapiens sapiens challenges (improvement of literacy levels in d/Deaf and hard of hearing children, resolution of dyslexia, amelioration of poverty, etc.)? Or, as I suspect, there will be a newer set of challenges for Homo techno sapiens—whose resolutions may be better addressed by the next generation of “humans.” (Technically, we will not be Paul, P. V. (2019). In search of a creative “syncretizer”: From Homo sapiens sapiens to Homo techno sapiens

中文翻译：

---

寻找有创意的“同步器”：从智人到智人。。。。超越。

我相当确定“ syncretizer”是一个虚构的词；但是，由于它不会违反英语的语音和形态规则，因此将来可能成为一个真实的单词（例如，参见Crystal，1997，2006）。我试图创建一个用于融合过程的代理程序（类似于将合成的人标记为合成器），尽管有多种含义，但这是一个词。检查任何在线词典（例如，Dictionary.com [https：// www.dictionary.com/browse/synthesis]； MerriamWebster [https：//www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/synthesis]；免费词典[https ：//www.thefree dictionary.com/synthesis]）可以提供（或更多）“合成”或“合体主义”的定义。在进行了批判性分析（或合谋行为-双关语意）后，我推断这两个过程是相关的，甚至可以互换。但是，我怀疑，每种构造都最有可能与某些学科或主题相关。可以肯定的是，提出一些与这些构想有关的想法应该进一步阐明成为批判性思想家意味着什么-我之前的社论的主题（Paul，2018年）-或许，成为一名创新性批判性思想家意味着什么。本文标题中需要解释的另一种结构是“智人”。现代人类（即我们当今进化时代的人类）属于标记为“智人”的一类。但是，一些学者和作家认为，我们现在处于智人时代的开始，或者也许不久的将来。例如，物理学家艾伦·莱特曼（Alan Lightman，2018）辩称：“总之，未来的人类，技术人将成为有生命的一部分，是无生命的一部分，是动物和机器的混合体，融合了计算机芯片的心灵”（第194页）。另一方面，技术理论家（和双侧人工耳蜗佩戴者）Michael Chorost（2011）认为我们已经存在，尤其是当您考虑人工耳蜗的工作原理时。Chorost坚持认为，最终我们的“古石”身体与“奔腾”芯片将发生实质性的合并，从而形成一种全新的社交互动方式，包括mindtomind或mindtotechnology交流。出于我们的目的，必须怀疑智人的合成或合体性是否会与当前智人的根本不同（或更令人兴奋！？）。智人能为我们当前的智人挑战（提高d /聋人和听力障碍儿童的识字水平，解决阅读障碍，减轻贫困等）提供更好的解决方案吗？或者，正如我所怀疑的，对于智人来说，将会面临一系列新的挑战-其分辨率可能会由下一代“人类”更好地解决。（从技术上讲，我们将不会是Paul，PV（2019）。寻找有创意的“同步器”：从智人到智人 我们不会是Paul PV（2019）。寻找有创意的“同步器”：从智人到智人 我们不会是Paul PV（2019）。寻找有创意的“同步器”：从智人到智人