New Ideas And Solutions From Advanced ET Aliens
Chapter 6

Definitions And Boolean Logic Gates.

It is an utterly pointless exercise, for the rational thinking and scientific person, to go very far beyond an initial discussion about what the relationships are, if any, between Biblical narratives – or any other kind of ancient scriptural narratives – concerning ‘Divinity’ and angelic beings (angelic beings exist in virtually all culture’s religious ideas), and what today’s sci-fi speculative thinking terms ‘ET Aliens.’

Mathematically, we can lay all the possibilities out onto a simple framework of potentials: 1. there are no connections, no relationships because a) ET Aliens do not exist, or b) Divinity and angels do not exist. The sub-text to the whole frame of possibilities is that certainly, it is possible that people have confused one with the other in any case, and so that even were only one to really exist, that means so does what is in the other frame exist too but that it is falsely labelled and incorrectly described.

Or, 2., a1) ET Aliens do exist, but b2) Divinity and angels do not.

Or, 3. a3) ET Aliens do not exist, but b3) Divinity and angels do.

Or 4., both ET Aliens and Divinity and angels also exist.

Now there is a specific problem with items 2. and 3.

We can know from the example of our own affairs on this planet, our planet Earth, that there is considerable contention obtaining between various political systems and outlooks on life. The Earth, is politically contested space, and by that is meant - there is a contest of ideas permanently going on here.

And so with items 2. and 3. there is an obvious question naturally arising in our minds about both of those, which is namely: is ‘space’ in terms of ET Alien life out there, also ‘contended over,’ and is, for that matter too, ‘Divine space’ - some invisible-to-us, spiritual realm – also contended over in terms of a contest for roles of relative or even of absolute apex power.

Let us make an allowable assumption with item 2., which is that ET Aliens who actually travel easily between star systems are advanced sufficiently in their technology to be able to break the time-space wall.

If such ‘civilisations’ operated ever in ‘contested’ political and social power circumstances, in fact they would have either already succeeded in gaining an absolute supremacy of one ‘side’ over any other contending ‘side’ among each other of them, or they would be operating inside of some absolute co-operative civilisation structure by now.

Any permanently, that is terminally, contending super technically advanced ET Alien groups, who were contending for absolute ‘celestial empire’ as it were - due to the levels of available warfare technology – unrestrained, would have wreaked such havoc that they would have punched great holes in their populations so as to number only very few in the end, if any remained left at all after such ‘military’ exchanges. And we can conclude this from the original allowance in the logic that such civilisations had the technology to breach the time-space wall. This is a practical thing in terms of the ‘calculus of the logic’ here – IE, ‘if’ they can come here from massively large distances away, they must be able to breach the time-space wall if they are at all similar to us, in possessing naturally similar kinds of lifespans without resorting to any ‘exotic’ let’s say AI transference or manipulations of personal consciousness.

If the situation is still not yet actually ‘resolved’ in terms of species contention, then firstly there must not be many of any particular kinds of ET Aliens since it must be ‘post-battle’ to a significant extent (in Cosmic history, as it were), and secondly everything would be highly surreptitious and covert in order to not ‘advertise’ activities or expose ‘re-grouping’ and so invite easy attacks.

But being able to breach the time-space barrier presents us with another logic issue in terms of considering the matter of possible ‘contested space...’ It’s pointless contesting anything where the outcome is already known.

Hypothetically, it’s possible that there is a species so mindless, and yet so advanced in technology, that it continues to contend and contest using harmful warfare – where the only possible end result of putative ‘victory,’ is in fact oblivion all round. In modern science fiction we could identify the Star Trek ‘Borg’ as something like this kind of ‘being.’

The problem with that scenario is that we exist. And we should have been overpowered and absorbed or destroyed by now. Unless we are totally not envisaged as any kind of future potential threat, but then why are we not by the same token exploited since we are so powerless?

There remains the possibility for there to be something deep and dark and very hidden whose intention is to prosecute some kind of ‘Borg’ assault – but this cannot be the prevailing characteristic of any even slightly exposed advanced ET Alien group.

The real only logical scenario is that there is no authentic contention by anyone advanced in ‘space’ out there, and that there never will be through the obvious calculations of the outcomes of stark logic – which are namely, unwanted and terminal disaster.

And this then brings into view the interesting question of just what are the mechanisms and processes of a uniform and amorphous advanced civilisation ‘co-operative’ ethos.

You see, for all practical intents and purposes, when it comes to considering items 2. and 3. there is no difference between the two; the two subsist in the same practical identities and Venn diagram mathematical space.

We are talking ultimately the same moral identities because absolute non-contention and genuine agreement and moral and intellectual/spiritual harmony is the Divine Attribute of Divine Intelligence within itself and then of all other things too that must comply with that harmonic.

This is a matter of ‘mathematical identities,’ not just of casual conceptual ones. They are the same thing: 2., and 3., where some terms in 2., and 3., are incorrectly labelled - is in fact 4.

As humans we have this assumption that all things ‘advanced’ are only to do with ‘technology’ – that is, the physical manipulating of material things and the employing of physics through tools...

But there are insurmountable logical hurdles to the notion of ‘contention’ among societies of higher, advanced sentient beings.

Even at our own current level of technology, we know scientifically, that human neurological systems and patterns are ‘see-able’ through looking at EMF pulses and network signalling with our relatively clunky technology of computerised tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The latest brain melanin switching research by people such as Luca Turin and others at the Imperial College London with IBM funding behind it all also offers many insights into precisely how human thinking processes function as material mechanisms, but then, the absolute implication of this is that our instrumentation – our technological tools – will at some point be able to completely ‘read’ what people are genuinely thinking inside, and not merely what they are ‘saying’ or communicating on the outside.

Thus the practical only logical reality possible, is that a truly advanced amorphous or fully consensus-willed intelligent group of beings, can never be one in which there is ever any ‘contested’ power structure. And why? Because everyone knows what each other one of the group is really thinking, and absolute consensus is the permanent and cohesive social modus operandi of the whole group.

Here in our human society, the motivation to supremacy in a hierarchy of power is not necessarily to replace genuine authentic group consensus, but sometimes only the simple satisfying of personal channels of stimuli; we have our five basic senses which provide psychological causes from external sources, that is, which are reasons, to do anything. A major component of the sensation of personal power comes from the brain acknowledging that it has the most possible access to personal sense stimuli satisfaction. Human altruism, whilst it does mean that an individual’s sense of personal satisfaction comes from seeing the satisfaction of others – does not mean nor does it imply actual shared sensations at all.

Yet, even from the standpoint of our own present levels of available technology, we are bound to admit that it is feasible that sentient beings are able to have both socially harmonic consciousness and completely amorphous ‘shared’ sensations. In such circumstances there is no logical point in any one single individual ‘competing’ or ‘contending’ to gain ‘supremacy;’ there is no special hierarchy that gives anyone a ‘better’ or more advantageous set of personal sensations.

...Unless that sensation is, or set of sensations are, malevolently-driven, and the ‘advantage’ perceived, is a dark and a negative one. The proposition there is that the individual’s sensory drivers, are actually more acutely ‘rewarded,’ more keenly-driven, by malevolence against others.

Once again, this provides us with an insurmountable logical problem, in that we have granted that everyone there in that super advanced sentient group, knows and sees what each one of them is thinking. Such a group cannot maintain its integrity if it were to allow such a malevolently-driven individual to remain within that group; that individual is bound to be ejected.

Thus we can advance the idea that the human being, human society here on this planet Earth, is rather unique. We here exist in a crucible system of permanent contention and continuous risk of war, because we are not an actual amorphous consensus-willed group with actual shared sensations, but only symbolic (through language and communication and mechanistic ‘democracy’ and the like) forms of consent.

Contention here on our planet stems from the fact that human beings are a fluid mixture of internal polarities, of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ Those whose predominant qualities are mostly bad are in obvious opposition to those whose predominant qualities are mostly good, and so there must be contention.

If we all were able to wander around with a kind of iPad, on which we had an App that showed us exactly what the person standing in front of us was thinking, then we would have no cause to rely on outward speech to make social or political decisions. A politician could, yes, ‘give a speech’ but then we would check what they were saying against what our device was telling us they were actually feeling and internally thinking.

Eventually people would all just gravitate into groups that were internally harmonious – becoming separated apart from those others they were not disposed to be around.

It is not feasible that some other advanced sentient beings would actually hang around together with people they are not actually attracted to be around. They don’t need to do that. And they won’t do that.

Atheism, the statement that no Divinity exists, depends to some extent at least, on an agreed definition for what ‘Divinity’ is intended to mean. We are already at the stage of technological progress, at which we are able at least, to see ahead theoretically but based in existing science, to some moment when it will be possible to transfer human individual consciousness into an AI matrix of some sort. Whether this satisfies a minimum standard for ‘eternal sentient existence’ and for that to be some kind of ‘Divinity’ in its own right is debatable, but in all events, the argument either for Theism’ or for Atheism, has advanced beyond the simplistic ‘black or white’ and into questions of practical function involving moral questions and hence ‘idealism.’ We must deal with these. At our stage of progress and technology; as logicians, as scientists, as practical rational beings.

No doubt, Stephen Fry’s complaint that God must be sadistic, if He existed, is not just a completely valid argument to be applied to ideas and attitudes of the past, but that basic argument itself must now form into a much more acute focal point, now that we stand on the edge of our own self-derived kind of technological ‘eternity.’

The background to the question is actually two-fold. On the one hand, we must approach the problem because of our own state of progress in technology and science – but on the opposite hand it is not possible to run along on assumptions that there are no external-to-our-planet and its time-line of development of civilisation, other civilisations which may have or in fact most certainly will have, already dealt with those basic issues of absolute moral imperatives.

We know there are external civilisations. We have filmed their craft. Not, ‘maybe’ we have filmed them, but in actuality, in fact we have really filmed them. They exist.

So many people look at all of that, scan through all the stories and narratives offered, and wonder perhaps whether the beings inside of the craft can or will give us ‘technology,’ or better ways to do things, or at least give us an exciting ‘show-ground ride’ in one of their super high-tech spacecraft...

On the whole, they will not. They will not do any of those things – for the greater mass of the human population. There will be no ‘great revelation,’ no ‘official arrival’ – nothing like that at all.

Unless you understand who you are, you will not come to terms with who they are.

The purpose, the point, the beauty – of the human race, is that it continually throws up something new.

Everything bad that is thrown up is not ever ‘new’ – it is ‘of a piece;’ the extreme end of that sine curve, that one of the purely negative possibility is not open-ended.

But what is good and genuinely, authentically ‘new’ – is actually new. It is totally open-ended. It is alive; it is an essential part of Life.

The human race, the human situation, our context, is not absolutely necessary – but it is important.

We are important. You are important.