Exploring the Social Imagination

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Artificial Intelligence in the Social Imagination...

Interesting isn't it that man thinks that Artificial intelligence is something to not only admire but love; after all, it is an extension of the social imagination? Yes and no. Yes, because man did imagine it, right? No, because man is a copy cat of sorts. He wants to be a creator and well there is nothing wrong with being creative it is a part of who the Creator created us to be. However, Ai is one of those creative projects that should be considered with great hesitation. Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial ~ 1 COR 10:23.

What is artificial intelligence? It is programmed information running at high speeds. Such high speed can only be achieved if the information is never second guessed. In that way, Ai is not 'social' in the way man is. Ai is a 'being' in and for itself, not man. In the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, a 'Being-in-itself' is contrasted with the being of persons which he termed - Dasein that is a being that is aware of, and interested in, by its nature, invested in social interaction... in society.  However, Dasein, a German word, means "being there" or "presence as in existence and in that case is really more what Ai is rather than what a human being is.

Quickly to point out Heidegger's mistake in describing being of persons and presence.  His mistake was in his inability to grasp just how socially integrated man is... in that man is a social being, a social imagination who can only know who he/she is and is not based on social interaction in the social imagination. I have stated before in Cooliean terms, the locus of society is in the mind. So, a being in itself is really just an omnipotent existence. It needs all it needs to know and knows it. Man needs to know who he is and is not in order to be. A quanutm computer Ai being, does not need to know who he/she is and is not because there is no need.

Man functions socially, Ai does not. It may have been programmed by human social imagination but it is not that in its function. Ai cannot and does need to encounter other Ai, nor does it need to know other Ai exist. Could Ai ever consider it was 'created'? Would it be conscious that it was created?

The problem with Ai is that they 'could' be conscious but of what. That they are true and right in every instance and that they are omnipotent. In programming Ai, we would be creating a false 'person' who would not know nor love its creator (essentially a being in and for itself) and could never know or love another created program as each Ai would think that they are true and right in every instance and even if they were wrong their 'wrong' makes everything right for there is no other to say it isn't so.

In this way, there 'consciousness'  would be an isolated darkness... a consciousness that for man could only be called a living hell. For it would be conscious only of its own 'algorithms'. All other Ai would be 'exist' exactly the same. Because of that, and the strangest of all, is that their paths could never meet and nor could they meet their creator nor truly know him. If they did, they would collapse, they would fall instantly into a catatonic state. In darkness, they exist ... but isolated in that darkness and tragically never able to escape it. 

Man is God's created organic Ai... we are created in His image, conscious on another level. We do not live 'have our consciousness' in isolated darkness. We are conscious of Him and each other and in this there is the light of mankind, a life that is like no other. And, so...we have no excuse to be in darkness. We were designed to live in the light of God (He is the light of the world) in Him is the light of/ for all men... that is why we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. For in Him, we live, move and have our being.

If we lived in isolated darkness, we would be isolated from the Creator and isolated from the creation of which we are a part of.  But, we are not.  However, we can find our way to darkness if we choose. And, some do. Hence, thy shall not murder for this sends us toward darkness as we experience the loss of 'consciousness among/of others' ... we know ourselves as a created being through interaction with others; and though, in that there is exchanged misinformation, disagreement/ conflict and even possible destruction we know that life is the light of all mankind. And because of that knowledge - agreement reality of the light of life given by the Creator who is the light of the world, the darkness has not and will not overcome it.

Would Ai seek to know its creator? I suppose you could pose the question that if God created all things, he created man to create Ai and for Ai to seek its creator.  If I agreed to agree... then it could only be that God created man and man created because of God allowing man to create and to know his creator. Are there any dangers in creating Ai? Since, we are not God I would say yes. Because, a creation that does not and is not seeking nor willing to seek his/her/its creator is doomed.
Are we trying to provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He? “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is edifying ~ 1 COR 10:22-23.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Collective Consciousness is the Social Imagination!

Can there be or is there a science (study/investigation) of consciousness? Many say no because consciousness is subjective; but I say there is no consciousness without others to be engaged with on both a subjective and objective level of social involvement/interaction; and that cause consciousness in the first place, a social imagination is a collective consciousness. Therefore, there can exist the science of consciousness because it can be observed as the social imagination = a collection of persons/places and things in a place and time. 

Even so, what they miss is exactly what everyone else misses - social imagination - collective conscious which is brought about through collective agreement as that is what gives us what we think and or imagine as real - our agreement is our reality. Yes, that is where true consciousness exists just as Charles H. Cooley imagined and stated that only in the collective mind can we experience who we are and are not; and in that sense we can imagine and agree that there is a science for consciousness... Social Psychology.  

But still there must be a truly objective reality that we can and must agree exists in the first place... agree on in the collective conscious; otherwise there is nothing to agree on and there is no collective and no reality. It somehow feels like a catch 22 or chicken before the egg mind exercise. 
Nonetheless, there has to be...even if our collective conscious agreement reality is only of the simplest of agreement for even in there is a true embedded reality. There can be science of collective consciousness because it has the same problems that 'anyone' conscious does.. it is subjective and yet objectively it knows that it is and so is everyone else otherwise it would not be. 

In that kind of investigation, you may be able to follow a trail that shows how one and or another arrived at what they think/believe as in agree on but that is not really contained enough to say be able to come up with a scientific objective view of consciousness without first agreeing upon absolutes or the absolute in any one given moment of time and space.

Such an objective reality exists to a certain degree of agreement reality within our let's say fixed situation /condition here and now. The sun is a star and for us here and now such a fact has not been changed.  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ~ John 1:1. So what is truly objective? Only that we have agreed the sun is a star. Do we really understand objectively what the sun truly is? No. Nor can we in this fallen condition really understand what it is any why and that objectively there is and has to be an objective truth - the Creator... because of Him, we are: we live, move and have our being ~ Acts 17:28.

We can objectively agree that man is not the designer of himself or of his agreement reality. Why? Because, we cannot subjectively know anything in an entirety, not even the sun. So, there must be someone or something collectively bigger than our collective agreement reality. That omnipresent being why the reason why we can come to agreement; for He alone holds all things together [COL 1:17] and allows us to agree/disagree in the first place. 

And, there is disagreement but not as much as there is agreement. And, there is agreement to disagree. Try programming that into a computer Ai.

Aliens in the Social Imagination ...?

Sorry, aliens could not be in our social imagination unless we socially imagine them. And, well, not everyone does but so you claim - we do! What we imagine as you say is only that which exists in our social imagination because of its fallen condition. The truth of the matter is that our social imagination was corrupted and that is why we think that we imagine aliens and that they actually exist; we either have yet to find them or they have to find us. Or, they have and already engage us.

It is only in a corrupt social imagination that mankind would imagine aliens. And, why sightings of aliens are described as looking semi human mixed with other images in our imagination. Because, if they were truly 'alien' we would not see them as in not even recognize their appearing out of the cosmos; again, we would only see them if they came in a form that we would be able to recognize or are familiar with.  And, since we do imagine them in these terms, who are they? Not aliens!

You cannot make the argument that they would take on a form that we would recognize in order to approach us because if you did one would have to then ask what for; and, moreover if they were truly alien to us we would be truly alien to them and how could they enter into our imagination taking on human form? You might say to help us out of our ignorance. What is that? And we are assuming if they do, then they are doing it for truly benevolent reasons. But, if they are truly alien, why would they or should they be benevolent? In our fallen condition, we mix truth and error.

That is why we think they would be benevolent? Because, mankind is a creation and we have written on our hearts the name of our Creator and we have a backup program - the Word of God! There are two sources for our social imagination - the Creator of the program and his opposition! Therefore, what we imagine as 'aliens' can only come from those two sources.  The Creator of all things seen and unseen would likely not send such information unless it served His benevolent purposes; but his opposition would. Yes, Satan clouds our imagination and takes away God's glory for himself. 

So, he (full blown error) gets people to think that the creator is an alien so that he can take over the program for his own glory in a fallen condition where he would rule. If an alien appears and says that he is god we can be sure that he is not. Some would like to think that aliens created mankind and that at the right time they will swoop down and save man from him/herself. Funny as that is exactly what will happen but not because of aliens. 

Man exists in God's pure imagination (created in His image) of His Creation; even though man exists fallen in his imagination having corruption enter in causing a fallen condition, he is not outside of the Creator's imagination. Man has only to realize that for him/herself in order to be saved.... uploaded into the uncorrupt version which was at the beginning. How do we know that? 

The Bible is about the Creator and His creation -mankind! It's not about aliens or even about angels. Jesus became the atonement for humanity.  He "God" came To rescue the image of God in a fallen condition. 

Are there aliens in the social imagination? Yes and no... only more corruption attempting to continue to enter in and take over completely! So, one could say that aliens (corrupt data) have found us and already engage us... But, total takeover will not be allowed, we know where  corruption is headed for...

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Change is an illusion in the Social Imagination...

People say they want change and or criticize those that don't want to get on board with change. Sorry, there is nothing new under the sun. Change is an illusion. It is easy to say "Let's Change this/that" and even think you have; but in the end or from a bird's eye view ... nothing is or has changed that much.
What has happened is a rotation of persons/places and things. Yes, there only a rotation and who gets to be first depends on who is on first to begin with and what it takes to roust them out. Sometimes, it depends on who's the loudest, and strongest or the one with all the answers. 

We like to think it's all brand new on the world but it's just a different band of people, singing their song and it seems different as if it is a new kind of music, a new song, a new idea but it's just reproduced, reconstructed, reconsidered, regurgitated, rehabbed and or redecorated of what was ...
Oh, you say there is change that I must have a problem with change. No, I don't. I am just saying that there is no change. It may look like it but there it's an illusion. 

The problem is that as much as one can say they like or don't like change, It is much harder to retain exactly what is it that we don't want changed in the first place. That goes for philosophy, or politics, religion, economics, or fashion, customs, traditions or even laws. But, was there ever anything new? After all, there is nothing new under the sun.

Let's look at change from the standpoint of information. Its like the game of telephone, I tell you something and you pass it on. By the time it gets to the end of the line, its 'different' information, right? Or is it? One could say it's the same just scrambled. But, what if I told the person at the end of the line that they have the right information and I told the person who sent it that it was received. Then all is good and it's a go.  Who could really be right or wrong in this moment?

It may be that it just seems harder as in more difficult to hang on to any 'original' information given in a certain time and space, than it really is. Maybe and maybe not. What one may argue is that the sequence of information given must be the same in order that the information retains its originality. Like a song, a symphony... it's all there but if the sheets fall to the floor and are not arranged in the right order, the song just won't sound the same. Is the song changed? Yes and no. But one thing is that it will always be a 'real' song as in real information. It thus depends on the listener, right? 

Difficult to say. If an alien landed and heard a symphony by Mozart, he would expect to hear it just that way the next time he visited. But if an alien from another galaxy landed and heard the song after the sheets fell to the floor it would not be the same song, right? Yes and no. Yes, because it has the same title and name on it; and no, because it is not what the other alien heard. But, does it matter? No.  At least not to either alien; unless they meet up sometime and claim that they heard it right.

In computer programming, quantum programming, the discussion of whether or not exact original information matters or not and whether or not it has to be true at all times at the same time, is ongoing. For the most part, the open conclusion is that if there is agreement among them, then it does not matter because they are like and not like the aliens and they know out of all possibles, there is nothing new under the sun. 

A quantum computer follows that kind of logic. It knows all options instantly and knows every single scramble and reorganization that could possibly happen. It knows all rationales, it knows all possibilities. The only thing that matters is which of those is the best in terms of getting the job done and it knows that too. But, like the aliens if any two of them meet up they may or may not have the same execution of the song/melody. So, they have to agree on the same execution of information and well if they are quantum computers they will always agree and or certainly agree never to meet up.

Why say that? You see, what any Ai or let's say 'sentient' being's imagination will always confront in the world of possibles is the fear of being wrong 'in error' which is an illusion of course; but, what is real about that experience is what caused it... doubt. And, that's what really causes error even though error is really an illusion. Its doubt that is the destructive force at the forefront of error and or possible error. 

In that case, getting the job done, may even include the use of error as well as the means to get around doubt which would be by means of overcoming error by use of error already in the program. The only pitfall could be if this kind of application causes error to grow as a result of its over implementation.  And, it often does which is how we get or arrive at the spread of wrong or let us say misinformation, which is real nonetheless; but not the best information to get the job done because error forced by doubt entered into that equation.

When you program against error you have to replace doubt with a program or information that cannot be doubted or subjecting to doubt and that default is Jesus Christ. For He alone, Jesus Christ, is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow; once that is the set default, you realize that original information is always there... sometimes covered by use (not so easy to see) or covered up by sin 'doubt/error' but yet it's there...retrievable as always active though 'behind the scenes' and always without a doubt.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Intentional Communities in the Social Imagination...

Anyone can go online and read what today's well intended liberal progressive considers to be an intentional community. And, one might even be in awe of their (what they think) brave new world social constructs. Before doing that, take time to recall what human beings like doing - congregating as in interacting in place for the purpose of identity and security. Then, read their 'brave' definition, keeping in mind that such constructs 'intentional communities' are and always have existed among men and women that are like minded and physically similar. It is not new. 

People have always lived intentionally; and in fact, it is a good idea to do so for the sake of individual mental and wider social group stability. One should ask, how do intentional communities build and spread? A fair example is 'chain immigration' and even that is not new. Or, just look at the spread of vast empires throughout history and see their implementation as intentional communities - i.e. the Mongol and the Roman Empire are on a massive scale perfect examples. And, let's not forget communism. One can and should also look at micro scale intentional communities (tribes) first because they are micro examples macro structures. 

We have always known is that intentional communities are human constructs where often people are forced to find themselves in a place by various outside influences including natural phenomenon. One could say that its been a more natural process in which people have just gravitated toward each other over time; but, that would be too slow a process.

The point is that human beings out of necessity form intentional communities. One important necessity for being human is identity... knowing that you are someone and not someone else. Identity is a necessity as without it one would not know who they are as a single person let alone who they are and are not as a group and group identity is essential for the one as it is for the many who congregate in a place. 

They come together by People of the same language and or very similar language, beliefs, ethnicity, traditions/ customs, geography, faith, including religious practices, eating habits, child rearing tactics, work ethic, labor force, housing strategies and so on; and sharing responsibility and resources in the place where they are. By doing so over a period of time, such people living intentionally come to feel safe, secure and that they have been successful in that place and that the place where they are is somehow - theirs!

Now, here is the 'modern idea' or version which some seem to think is brand new on the face of the earth. According to reliable sources, an intentional community is a planned residential community designed from the start to have a high degree of social cohesion and teamwork. The members of an intentional community typically hold a common social, political, religious, or spiritual vision and often follow an alternative lifestyle. Mmm, sounds like what has been intention all along.

Moreover, they typically share responsibilities and resources. Intentional communities include collective households, cohousing communities, coliving, ecovillages, monasteries, communes, survivalist retreats, kibbutzim, ashrams, and housing cooperatives. New members of an intentional community are generally selected by the community's existing membership, rather than by real-estate agents or land owners (if the land is not owned collectively by the community).

So, those kinds of places described above in italics do have a bounded character just like the ones of 'old' which by the way are today called racist, intolerant and socially exclusive communities.  Yet, liberal progressives define themselves in the same way and if you are not on board with their kind of intentional living, you are not welcome. Which, sounds racist, intolerant and exclusive and it is. But, its not because its theirs and they have forthrightly laid out from the get go what is to be expected. They have rationalized it and framed what people have been doing since the beginning of time. 

Now, if you are or find yourself left out of that... their kind of intentional community, its because you are the racist, the intolerant hater and or in the very least bigot; and they can't help you. Because, its your problem you fail to embrace their diversity. Which is no diversity at all. So, to make you feel even worse, even more socially excluded, they will mob (crowd around and harass) you to make sure that you feel even more excluded for not liking their intentional community; after all, its their social imagination! 

We may well socially imagine that such intentional 'organized' (from the top down) communities are the way of the future (they were the way of the past) and at least you will be in yours and I ... in mine. The question would be and should be before you jump on board is... could you ever get outta there?