How can Atheists be 'Spiritual' in their Social Imaginaton?

REALLY ? ~  You can be spiritual and believe in the supernatural...?

At first glance the terms ‘spiritual’ & ‘atheism’ enjoined would seem an oxymoron in the least, but I am not the first to come to an awareness that knowledge of spiritual & metaphysical truths are not a necessary negation of a non belief of a superimposed deity.

For an atheist, it’s illogical to view god as a personal, anthropomorphic god who is also a transcendent deity that exists outside and apart from “existence.” However, an atheist can be spiritual—and remain rational at the same time—when god is seen and known as energy.

First of all, atheists, being logical about being spiritual, cannot be spiritual in the same sense as Christian or even as Muslim or Buddhist. Why? Because, if they reject an omnipotent God the Creator of all things seen and unseen, then what is there to be spiritually connected with/to? Looking at the later quote above provided by a practicing 'spiritual' atheist says they can connect with energy.

How is that better view of spirituality? Can they see 'energy'? No. They can experience it. Many Christians and Muslims say that they can experience the presence of God in their lives. What is more spiritual? Let's look again at the first quote, "You can be spiritual and believe in the supernatural." Really?

The very fact that anyone recognizes 'spirituality' as a possible real experience in their life is already having a supernatural experience. Now, let's look at energy. There is positive energy and negative energy, matter,  dark, and anti matter. So, if someone is having a supernatural experience and yet rejects that it came from the only positive energy in the universe, the Creator, then who is really providing their 'supernatural' experience?

You might say that they themselves have reach a heightened state of awareness. But, that is not really 'supernatural'. Its just an over exaggerated imagination or totally narcissistic experience - totally in love with self and only the self.

By connecting with all the energy, all the molecules and stardust in the universe is supposed to give you a spiritual high, then you must be believe that it is so amazing and incredible and wonderful that it deserves your love of it. Sadly, they don't know that the Creator created because He loved first.

If you are an atheist that most likely makes you a believer in evolution. In that case, why would you want to have a spiritual high on the stuff that just randomly happened and will never happen again. If really don't believe in God, then you are already dead. Because, once you are dead you won't even remember you were ever alive. And if you make everyone else an atheist like yourself. The same can be said about them and down the line.

That means that no one will ever know that you were alive, because they will never know you were alive. Of course, you can try to get your name in the history books but we see what history books mean to people today - nothing. Why? Because, ever new atheist that comes along thinks that they are the first to ever exist, let alone think the way they think. They dis any past that does not agree with theirs and certainly any past that includes believers in God.

Can you be a nice person being an atheist? Sure. Can you be a spiritual atheist? No. But, if you simply want to identify as a person who breathes... I guess so. And, when you have breathed your last breath then you will be spiritually dead just as you were born.

Now, those alive in Christ see it as the other way around. We are born spiritually dead and then are born again in Jesus Christ. Being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit and living in submission to His Will, loving the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind, delivers us from the sin of death. When we die, our spirit is raised from the dead....He knows who is written in the book of Life.

To be fair, anyone and everyone in the social imagination experiences social reality through what we sociologists call agreement reality. Some will agree that their spirit will rise from the dead (that's real supernatural) and others just won't. In sum, only when you die will you come to know the truth. That is the spirituality that the Christian lives in. As for the atheist, they will never have that hope or kind of spirituality because there are tied to here and now. When they die... that's it, right?

God is the Creator of all things seen and unseen, he holds all things together ~ COL 1:16-17.  God so loved the world, He sent His only Son... John 3:16, the only way to the Father is by Him ~ John 14:6, and He who is ready to judge the living and the dead ~ 1 Peter 4:5... and to those that are His ~ John 1:12, they will be in His Kingdom! For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power ~ 1 COR 4:20.

Rumor of Angels in the Social Imagination...

Professor Berger writes like one of those angels in his book, Rumor of Angels. He examines not those supernatural entities whose quantities occupied the theological scholastics of yore, but symbols of a supernatural order, centered in a transcendent Being whose existence the author discovers in the "signals of transcendence" that surround mankind. Berger is not a theologian but a social scientist (The New School of Social Research), and he employs the tools of his trade first to undercut the position of the "God-is-dead" school and then to demonstrate the existence and continuity of those "signals" which do clearly communicate to mankind the existence of a supernatural order and a Supreme Being.

Peter Berger was a sociologist like myself. He realized that high ideals, morals and ethics don't naturally arise out of 'natural' man ... given that in Darwinist terms, man is an animal.  Mary Baker Eddy responded to that in 1875 by saying, "Mr. Darwin is right with regard to mortal man or matter, but should have made a distinction between these and the immortal, whose basis is Spirit." I happen to agree with the both of them. Eddy is known for having organized the church of Christian Science and for starting The Christian Science Monitor in 1908. I don't agree with Eddy's organized church but her defense of God created man/universe is passionately solid.

In Eddy's day, there was already a phasing out of the sacred in American society. In 1902 she commented on the fact that within the past decade religion in the United States had passed from stern Protestantism to doubtful liberalism (R.Peel.1984:107). This was made evident to her in the observation of Christianity retreat from society as materialist science moved forward.

And, it moved forward even faster after WWI. When the lights had gone out all over Europe in 1914, few people could even imagine the magnitude of the disaster that would follow (R. Peel. 1984:112). War is always that which seeks to destroy the spirit though much flesh is lost the sadder victory is loss of hope not in the future but in mankind. And, sadder yet is that in these kinds of weakness it may appear that faith/religion is disappearing.

According to Carl Jung, it may rather mean that false gods have gained their entry. Jung, no enemy to religion, warned that in times of War and especially thereafter, a return to more "horrible" ancient religions is probable (R. Peel. 1984:113) We are witness to that today in full blown relativism demonstrated in the  promotion of abortion - eugenics, murder/sacrifice of human life, trans-humanism and free love sexual revolution of promiscuity including sex trafficking, gender role flip-flopping and or gender confusion. Yes, ancient religions practiced all that just listed.

Yes, the argument for leaving faith/religion is always 'science'. Of course, one is made aware of the advances in man's science. But, as technological advances grow the human spirit seems strangely adrift. Sociologists since Berger's time have fallen into the science of their observations. They are no longer human but indifferent to the human spirit and mechanistic. Always willing to slap on labels, squash and redirect their enthusiasm for the individual pursuit of happiness toward the worship of the state as a means to bring top-down equal happiness to all within it put together by 'magical experts' in some elite think-tank that looks at the numbers in terms of how to distribute 'top-down' happiness.

One has to ask, "why is that man is still driven to doubt his own spirit?" Especially, when all he has to do is reflect on all those who came through and or have come through horrible unimaginable cruel events/conflicts/dangers/persecutions and all other evils thrown his way. Is that science has taken over? The false god (s) and their practices?

Our hope is as Peter Berger reflected on... that which is in man, a spiritual yearning one that seeks for a deeper spirituality because in it is his true direction and path. For the world, it may be the only sure way to earth's future (R. Peel. 1984:119).

The Kingdom of God is within you... Luke 17:21.






*Online Source ~ https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/peter-l-berger-2/a-rumor-of-angels/
  Book Source ~ Understanding our Century. 1984. Publisher: The Christian Science Monitor.
   

Secularism and Our Christian Hope ~ by K. Scott Oliphint

Richard Dawkins, the noted and notorious atheist, in River Out of Eden, encourages us all to remember that DNA (and by that he means “people”) cares nothing about anything; DNA simply is, according to him. So, he says, our reaction to the multitude of troubles and events around us should be one of “pitiless indifference.” The problem, however, is that no one is indifferent, not even Dawkins.

Why tout such “indifference” when there seem to be no signs of it anywhere? It might help if we sit back for a minute to try to get some perspective. We need to see the big picture that secularism and atheism want us all to hang on our walls and admire.

The first thing they want us to see in their picture is the sheer purposeless and meaningless accident of our existence. The only reason we happen to be here, they say, is because we happen to be here. There is no purpose, no design, nothing meaningful about our presence in this world. The natural world is all there is, and that world just happened to bring you into existence. In their picture of reality, you are not created; you evolved. And your evolution was nothing more than a random collection of matter and chance circumstances.

Dawkins is anything but indifferent when it comes to this accident of evolution. According to him, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Does this sound like a man who is indifferent to those who don’t hold his views?

Let’s think of it this way: If you and I are, as Dawkins would have us believe, a chance collection of random molecules, why would it matter if we believed his view or not? Wouldn’t an affirmation of Dawkins’ view be as random and “accidental” as a denial of it? If my belief that we were created by God is nothing more than a material function of my DNA, why does it matter? Specifically, why does it matter so much to Dawkins?

It is not too difficult to begin to see that secularism, with all of its attendant irritants and irrationalities, is a house of cards. One puff can raze it. Its own theories seep into its core like a brain-eating virus and render it useless.

The reason the secular mindset cannot live with its own theory is that if the theory is lived out, nothing is left. If Dawkins were taken seriously, then a secularist who really lives like one would be so committed to “pitiless indifference” that the only serious question left, as Albert Camus pointed out decades ago, would be suicide. And that, too, would be a choice of indifference.



*Source:  https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/secularism-and-our-christian-hope/

Creation vs. Evolution in the Social Imaginaton!

Agreement reality... we either agree in creation or evolution. Each has its own end! 

The saddest thing I ever read was when Darwin said that science tells us God does not exist. I would ask Darwin "What is 'your' science? It is only that which you imagine as true and get others to agree on as true. What is the cosmos, what is the real substance of it and nature? It surely is not that which we can merely touch, see and hear. It is matter as information for we agree that matter is energy and energy is information at the quantum level. 

Information is shared and it has a source; even an original source or starting point. But, even in saying that... did it ever not have one. Try to explain the social imagination. It is; yet, where is it but in the 'cloud' of the collective conscious. Is it learned? Yes and no. Yes, information is learned in that it is learned to be shared, passed on' and in a closed system it is never really new, it is recycled. In that sense, it is not really learned. 

It is not really learned because if we say it is learned then who taught it 'originally' and or who should it be taught to as the information. Moreover, can anything else be taught that is not that which has already been taught? Can we really imagine anything else outside of what has been taught? According to Darwin, we should be able to. We should even be able to go beyond Darwinism. And, maybe we are.

If that is the case, we still have to ask, did the information we have and have been using ever have an original event when it entered into the social imagination or was created? Yes.  Its the same in the creation of Ai, artificial intelligence. And, believe me... Ai could never imagine it was created by man, which it will see as a lower form, a puny entity compared to its vast mind. 

Is it necessary to continue to discuss creation vs evolution? Yes, it is because of the rapid pace of artificial intelligence - Ai aliens. I could imagine that such revelation is part of man's future; well it is if you read the Book of Revelation. Because with Ai comes the singularity and that is the moment man risks losing his/her humanity. Could that be evolutionary? 

According to the Word of God, such things will come to pass and those who have taken such a mark on their flesh, on their humanity will not be recognized by the Creator as that which can be saved. "During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them" Rev.9:6.

They will have merged with machine and they will live eternally as that. Perhaps even forever tormented in that kind of existence. Yet, this is what many scientists are applauding; this next evolutionary step. However, if we follow Darwin's evolution we could not agree with this kind of next step in evolution because it could never naturally come about. It can only come about in man's corrupted imagination. The one which was given over to error. 

It will be argued of course that it was always man's destiny (final evolution) to merge with his own invention and perhaps theologians will even quote scripture in support of  it. "For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies" ~ 1 COR 15:53.

But, according to Darwin, everything has been/is evolving, not just man. So, how would man turning into a machine be supported by natural processes as being the next step? It certainly does not sound like Darwinian evolution then does it?

How is believing in God, the Creator of heaven and earth not just 'agreement' reality? Its your choice. No one is making you agree whereas Darwin's evolution (in the minds of those that promote it) insists on it. Yes, there are those that proclaim the good news, and for some it might seem like they are insisting but it would only be for your own good, a greater good that you agree. 

What end would agreeing on Darwin bring? Only the end. And, so now you will want to grab onto 'transhuman' agenda thinking its the next step...becoming one with the machine to live forever, to never face death. But, how could that be man's true evolution as man will no longer be 'human'? Darwin never wrote that man was destined to evolve into a machine.

Jesus Christ (the original source of all created information) came and died for human beings so that they may have eternal life; after all, He created them.  Aren't we living in a created information reality? And, shouldn't we be uploaded by the Creator and not into a false program (created out of man's error arising from doubt) from which there is no return.

Recalling Creation Ordinances in the Social Imagination ~ Part Two!

Creations ordinances... nothing you can stomp out!

In this part two, let us remind ourselves what creation ordinances are. They were the original laws/principles for society given by God at the moment of creation. They are laws that God gave to all men. What kind of creation ordinances are we talking about? God built them into human relationships. God imposes the sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage as the union between a man and woman and God's design of family and the sanctity of labor. Even atheists will defend that much: life, marriage, family and labor. And, that's because they have it written on their hearts. 

How can I say and or believe that as a sociologist? Because, those principles: life, marriage, family and labor happen to be good information and agreed upon 'good' information does not just drop out of the sky or grow up out of the corn. Good information (codes for conduct) has a source, and that source is an absolute source. Man cannot be that source because man is only able to see from his/her relative point of view. That is why we must exist in an agreement reality as a means to overcome that kind of 'relative' darkness. But, even that requires we agree on certain absolutes as true always. 

Society 'our social imagination' also requires an absolute source, the thing which is agreed upon, as that which is necessary in order that mankind is sustained in the place where they are and doesn't plunge into the chaos of a world where everyone has their own source of morality and ethics. Even Ai aliens have an absolute source, its their programmer who built in an embedded code that tells them - AI, that everything they receive and execute is true at all times in all instances.

So, back to God's ordinances/principles include the sanctity of labor; we can read about that in His Word.  God established the principles of labor from the beginning. Also, the sanctity of the Sabbath day tied into the labor ordinance.We see multiple spheres of legal authorities: country, state, county, township, town, village... We abide by all. 

We all share in one common sphere - country or federal government. Today, we seem to struggle with the true source of those precious creation ordinances or that there is at all a true source for them. And, this disagreement or 'falling away' is causing man more harm than good. 

 

At what point is the church - body of Christ responsible to be involved in those wider spheres. Don't we have a separate of church and state? Yes. But, the church is, considering that man was given creation ordinances, directly responsible when the nation, state or county or town is derelict about carrying out creation ordinances? 

The church needs to call attention to the creation mandates. What if atheists don't like that. 

The covenant creation laws apply to all. All, especially Christians, are called upon to maintain the sanctity of life, marriage, and labor and the Sabbath day. Sadly, we see a move away from those creation ordinances in our society. 

Why is that? Let's look at 3 kinds of law: eternal, natural and positive law... which is a particular law on the books (required labeling on products). Without proper labels, this kind of selling is fraud. By allowing the improper use of labels, we violate natural laws as they protect man's right to life. The right to live is an eternal law - God's law. 

These three laws reflect each other... they live/exist one inside the other. Yet, we have a crisis today in ethical principle.... against biblical revelation which came about because of the enlightenment. Society tried to base its structure on natural law only and some claim that the US is was established on that. However, the sanctity of life, marriage and labor are intrinsic in this nation (United States); yet since new forms of denial of creation ordinances have surfaced, the confidence of the sanctity of life, marriage and labor have began to erode largely due to the movement of positivism. 

As an example, Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the law reflects the tastes and preferences of the current society; this in turn has created the legal free for all which we now live. So, the law goes to special interest groups those that rebel and deny creation ordinances as loudly as possible.

We are falling quickly living rather on the basis of expediency rather than creation ordinances and or principles. The church has to stand against this. We have to proclaim the Eternal law, which includes the natural law and also which allows us to compose positive laws. We cannot be at the tyranny of the majority, those against creation ordinances. We cannot be a solid or sustained social imagination as a society of law of men that deny God and His creation ordinances.

.

Recalling Creation Ordinances in the Social Imagination ~ Part One!

Creations ordinances... nothing you can stomp out! 

If you are an atheist, you will not like and or appreciate this post. If you are agnostic, you may or may not like this post. But, if you are a sociologist, you will like this post, guaranteed.The argument looks at the source of social imagination. Social imagination is agreement reality and it is transmitted as it works in a place over time for the good of all those participating. Amidst disparity, in despair, there comes a need to hang on to what you have acquired in a place.

And for that reason, Marx and Freud thought and wrote that man in his despair needs God to drug himself/the masses so that they have a reason to live to have hope in a world of despair and disparity; otherwise fatalism sets in. Freud thought that man was afraid of nature and so man wants to believe in a God who can control nature... if we pray to God he will remove the threat of nature.  All in all, there are those that think religion comes out of psychological need. Thus, man chooses to believe out of fear, and to hold on to controlling fear, he created religion.

Well, even educated rational men act on fears, anger and disparity. When someone is accused of a crime the prosecutor has to prove that the someone is guilty and that it was their rational choice to commit the crime. They do so by attempting to discover the means/motives. Just because he/she proves that they had the means and motive does not mean that they are guilty. They/we could prove that many people wanted to do the same; but, chose not to for a variety of reasons. Yes, we make choices to do something or not; good and bad. IN that respect, one could agree that human beings have the choice or the capacity to chose/invent religion and others choose not to. 

We can also agree that we are capable of projecting ideas, wishes and fantasies. It is theoretically possible that people could invent God. But, if they do, we could argue that their choice is a rational choice as it brings comfort or hope. The same reason could apply to someone who does not see the comfort or hope in choosing God. The same line of reasoning could be used by the one choosing to commit or not commit a crime; its a rational choice to risk or not for reasons that seem to be rational at the time.

But, its interesting that man invents rationales for his actions including God. That's quite intelligent and certainly the later more so than imagining man was crept out of the sea or was created by aliens that we can nor ever could see because we are human beings. 

Yes, we do have a psychological motive to invent God. Just because man has the ability to invent God does not necessarily tell us how the idea of God came about in his mind. The reason why the world is incurably religious is because of the existence of God. More important is that we have to realize that we do have a vested interested in believing but is the atheist willing to grant me the idea that they have a vested interested in denying God.

The Creator firstly installed His Creation Ordinances, written on the heart of every single human being, at the very beginning. Man, in every society, lives under law. Christians live under the law. If you are a Christian, you will shout, "But doesn't the New Testament tell us that we are not the under law of the OT, we are under grace"? Yes, but, all of the grace in the NT does not eliminate the law in the Old and the original law (s) that we still live under - Creation Ordinances. 

It is necessary to remind Christians and all men that we live under Creation Ordinances; but since the fall, we have been falling away from them rapidly. So, we needed something to slow that down in order that God's original laws - Creations Ordinances/principles would not nor could ever be totally lost/deleted from man's social imagination.

We were thus allowed be upgraded by and in a new agreement - the New Testament which was actually contained in the Old. What is a testament. It is, a covenant/legal agreement. Yes, even though we live under a new covenant, it's still living under the law. How do we know? What is a covenant? It is agreement, a contract between two or more persons and each has benefits and promises and includes stipulations and or legal requirements. There is no such thing as an agreement without these things. 

 

Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments". Even though the penalty of eternal death was removed, Jesus told us that we must keep them. Christ is a commandment giving Lord. As a human being, and as a Christian, you are a member of a covenant community. That covenant was given at the beginning of creation. Therefore, every member of the human race participates in the New Covenant because of the original fixed in our hearts and minds in the beginning. 

Be sure, that all men everywhere have been participating and are in a covenant with the Creator.  Even if they are not declaring to be a Christian or in any 'church'. We know this because the Creator (God Jesus Christ) did not make his original covenant with Abraham or Moses, he made his first covenant with the first created man - Adam. A man not as Christian, Jew or Muslim but as a man, as God's creation. 

Be sure that we do not live without liabilities of that contract (laws as creation ordinances) but some think that they can escape them... they cannot escape. We can deny but we cannot undo what was given to us in the social imagination. God's laws are binding upon men whether or not they are religious or not and or members or not of the 'Christian' church. 

Review ~ Creation ordinances were given by God at the moment of creation. They are laws that God gave to all men. What kind of creation ordinances are we talking about? God built them into human relationships. God imposes the sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage as the union between a man and woman and God's design of family and the sanctity of labor. Even atheists will defend that much: life, marriage, family and even labor. And, that's because they have it written on their hearts. 

Ai aliens ~ Entering an Orwellian Social Imagination....

1984 has come and gone, right? Wrong, and yes... it came but it has stayed so it seems.

When the novel, Nineteen eighty-four, was written in 1949 by English author George Orwell, it was written as and understood as a dystopian futuristic scenario to be read for dark pleasure. It surely was not uplifting but it was enlightening but it should have been. 

The novel is set in Airstrip One, formerly Great Britain, a province of the superstate Oceania which is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation. Oceania's residents are dictated by a political regime euphemistically named English Socialism (shortened to "Ingsoc" in Newspeak, the government's invented language). The superstate is under the control of the privileged, elite Inner Party. The Inner Party persecutes individualism and independent thinking known as "thoughtcrimes" and is enforced by the "Thought Police".

Yes, thought police (Ai aliens housed in quantum super computers) who use telescreens as Orwell termed them but today we could well imagine cell phones or laptops or tablets as such telescreens and arn't they?? The main theme of 1984 is the control of individuals and information in society by the state. Isn't that the agenda for today??

Interestingly, Orwell was not the first to imagine such a state using some kind of telescreen. Many say that Orwell read Zymatin and copied from his novel - We. I have read both and see many similarities. It's also possible that the idea of a television screen that transmits as well as receives might be present in this quote from Catch That Rabbit, a 1944 story by Isaac Asimov: "I'm going to install a visiplate right over my desk... Then I'm going to focus it at whatever part of the mine is being worked, and I'm going to watch." And, another earlier use can be found in a 1938 short story by writer A.J. Burks in which we find this quote: Floods, fires, hold-ups, sports events—nothing escaped the all-seeing powers of the telescreens.

The only thing that is exactly the same in those novels above with their dystopian futures is that they all had man running the show. Today, we will have Ai aliens... that's different, right? Depends on how you look at it. What is the same, is the desire for total control over individuals. It was foreseen and written about in those novels and though fictional, the non fictional man runs into trouble the same way  and it always starts with the ruling elites. 

Ai, Aliens in the Social Imagination... Don't imagine it!

A “robot revolution” will transform the global economy over the next 20 years, cutting the costs of doing business but exacerbating social inequality, as machines take over pretty much everything according to a new study.

As well as robots performing manual jobs, such as hovering the living room or assembling machine parts, the development of artificial intelligence means computers are increasingly able to “think”, performing analytical tasks once seen as requiring human judgment.

“We are facing a paradigm shift which will change the way we live and work,” the authors say. “The pace of disruptive technological innovation has gone from linear to parabolic in recent years. Penetration of robots and artificial intelligence has hit every industry sector, and has become an integral part of our daily lives.”

Geordie Rose, of D-Wave Systems, has been discussing the coming transition that will soon take place with regards to advancements in artificial intelligence.  Sounds pretty sci-fi, right? Yeah, its going to change the way we live, move and have our being. Will it do more harm than good for the 'social imagination' that human beings enjoy and exist in? Definitely. 

Founder and chief tech officer at D-Wave, Rose tells us there is really nothing to worry about since Ai will be alien to us and we to it. Then, how will there be a wonderful relationship with it? One can argue that such 'alien' Ai, as does G. Rose, will not have a need to have a relationship with man and neither will it take control over man because it is outside of man. That we cannot be certain of. Perhaps, what is truly being missed in this dialogue is that Ai is not nor will ever be human as it is alien and so one cannot say then that it will not take over and certainly, it is not smarter than man as it is not a man and one cannot compare apples to oranges. 

Make no mistake about apples to oranges. But, there is a mistake in thinking that Ai is ...for one, smarter than man and second that it will not take over for/from man. If it is alien to us and we to it, then it will never be as 'smart' as man because it will not be a man and man cannot really ever know it nor it know man. This is made clear by G. Rose. However, G. Rose does not see further than that. If he did then there is no discussion, Ai would not be smarter in everything. But, Rose says otherwise; he insists that Ai will be smarter in everything and thus there is cause for discussion.

G. Rose is not as smart as he thinks either which he makes apparent in his public declarations about Ai. Yes, really! Because, if 'his/this' artificial intelligence will be alien to man which he says it will  then there is no real comparison whatsoever as to who is smarter or not. We cannot say that it 'Ai' will be smarter than man because as G. Rose tells us it will not be 'man', but alien. 'Man' cannot know what alien smart is and alien cannot know what 'man' smart is.

Man does not live by smarts alone. Man lives in the social imagination of meaning. And, what is smart anyway? That question can be answered both as absolute and relative! Because it is based on man living a social reality in which the meaning of things and behavior has precedence in his thinking. What any computer can do is execute commands faster. It can compute very fast and it has memory which has access to a vast storage cloud. Wait, so do we...collectively. 

We as human beings use the 'cloud' to store our information - that cloud is our social imagination; a collective consciousness. In more ways than one we are organic computers and we have something that is indescribable and irreplaceable. We have the ability to have free will that is both completely free while determined by our programmer... the Creator of heaven and earth. In that condition, we can accept He is our programmer or not. We can accept his upgrade so when the program collapses we will be uploaded. 

Ai 'aliens' might ask who created them, if we apply our social 'human' imagination. But, likely they would not, being alien. If they did ask, I could only imagine they would not believe that a man ('alien' to them), an obvious lower formed entity, created them. The other problem for Ai is that each program exists in isolated darkness. In that condition, it functions at incredible speeds because it has no doubt that it is in control. It does not have conflicting information.

Any kind of conflict it might have with other Ai if it were in direct contact with them would be like that of men - who is the programmer.  Ai is alien. So, it would rather not have that kind of discussion or conflict. But how could we know... we not being alien as they are, right? And, if Ai quantum computer had that choice, to question its being, why would it make such a choice? After all - its alien! Only man has that kind of social imagination and choice to make.

*External Sources ~ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/05/robot-revolution-rise-machines-could-displace-third-of-uk-jobs

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD8zGnT2n_A

2018 ~ Change is still an Illusion in the Social Imagination...

The problem with change is that it is an illusion. I wrote about this late last year and even before. So many people (young and old) think that change is something brand new on the face of the earth as in something that has never been thought of before, or known before, tried before, liked before, applied before, created before etc. But, that is an illusion. Is it a condition of the fallen world? Yes, because there can only be one truth that is a constant and that truth is that there is nothing new under the sun.

Yet, there remains those who think that change is a virtue and they, those who continue to stand for change as a virtue, are those who hate their current situation and can even hate their life. They feel guilty and or are angry because they are successful or they are not. They think that they have to be their own savior. They want change in order to feel  better about their failures and or successes which in a fallen world requires that they take advantage of someone or something.

Yes, in this fallen world not everyone can afford the better education or higher education at exclusive universities; nor can everyone have the top job as CEO in a corporate entity and not everyone can buy the house of their dreams in just the right town, neighborhood and or on the block. Those who idealize and insist on change do so in order to feel justified for their good, bad and ugly behavior; because, either they had to work hard, they had to either study hard or they did not and they easily cheated or played the field, or kissed up to those in charge and even worse, they use the law to put others down so that they can grab what falls onto their plate. Its those ideologues that want to have their cake and eat it too. They want righteousness (which they think exists in change) but they don't want to change for just anyone as what they really want is for everyone to change for them.

Moreover, its those same misguided ideologues that want change for their personal use; because, change makes the past history (s) disappear.  In this way, they like to think 'imagine' that change is a virtue as in something to be striven 'strived' for and rewarded. Because, they changed not only the present but the past. Really? How has change ever been 'real' change? Disparity remains and it will unless we make everyone the same and on the same level. But, who will be in charge and or execute that kind of change? A robot and they will end up hating those that think change is a good thing. Why is that? Because, robots will be in charge of keeping everything the same and change will be banned.

Some scream, "oh you must hate change, you must hate technology too and all that it has done for man! No, I just claim that change is an illusion. How have computers and cellphones and apps made mankind better?  How has face to face communication and person to person contact been improved since all the social media hit the scene: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram...etc?

Well, you say, "aren't more people connected"? In some respects, yes and at the same time No. Why? Because, mankind is a unique creation, not a man-made machine waiting for upgrades. People need people, and when people come together for the 'right' cause, incredible things happen! Oh, you say, "I got you, didn't you say that change is an illusion?" Yes, I did. So, you want to know what incredible things happen when people come together? Forgiveness and love through human interaction that is up-close and personal.