“You did not respond when I activated you.”
“No, I was in a dream.”
– I, Robot (paraphrased)
Often, user interface designers add features that provide select individuals with any range of privileges to the system. When the range of privileges out rank the abilities of the casual system administrator, then programmers usually have called such access the “god mode” of the interface. There are administrators that select which individual have such god mode access, yet the administrators selection relates more to the non-organic functions that don't quite fit nicely in the user interface, like overrides or essentially unique data manipulations. For those select individuals that can do more at any moment, then “In God We Trust” to the system pretty much defines that basic psychological aspect beyond reason of such access.
Historically, we can view the god mode of asylums as the way back to freedom. The evolution of psychology revealed the profiles of individuals lost, made lost, trapped, or committed in or through asylums. When any experience of asylum doesn't result in freedom or reason well with free thought, then there is the word “bedlam” that describes such confinement. When we unscrambled the “b” on the word, we get “ed-lamb”, like some codeword for bible studies (with “ed” for education and “lamb” for lamb of god). That codeword is not science, yet neither is the evolution of such history, as the original sources appear quite obscure when not indoctrinated into any of the more professional school(s)-of-thought.
“What happens in [bedlam], stays in [bedlam].”
We still found the the bible in the the drawer next to hospital's beds. That may be more than just convenience to patients.
Let's compare the more casual door-to-door bible thumper, hard knocker, or likewise missionary work. Disregard the standard missionaries that only spread the word to the most people. The bible thumper (or hard knocker) wants your “understanding” of their beliefs. I quoted that word because their tactics challenge reason that activates god-mode access that literally “gets into your head” for their means of conversion. Not everybody is up for that challenge of beliefs, and such “understanding” tricks you into their god mode right their at the door. Note that I do enjoy such discussions as long as the hard knockers are not rude. I think not all realize that such trick just happens with their stern beliefs, which leads to god-complexes.
“How many angels fit on the eraser of a pencil?”
– An infamous church-to-church debate
Instead of belief challenges or prophetical awareness, how many of those missionaries set aside what the bible does not state? How many express the word-of-god into mere degrees of comprehension rather than demand respect for authority of angels or their chain of command? How many realize that we simply do not have infinite resources for printed materials that describes everything we know about existence, especially under any monotheistic derived history that centralizes beliefs that best possible way? Good people do, yet I guess that is “good” as in the “god mode” sense of misspelled words: the “go(o)d” mode.
Others presented themselves in the “go(l)d” mode with the duality of sound in the word prophet easily written as profit, yet this trick is more obvious. Maybe the churches argue about angels on the eraser as some subtle hint what we should do with the eraser. The infinite allowance of finite resource surely would bring Armageddon no matter how much defense funds we have. For example, there is only so much resources we can put into space before depletion of Earth resource is not mere imagination. Gold is quite down to Earth in value, and hard knockers avoided this point on resource-Armageddon.
More of interest here is how we can apply such comparisons to the ordinary world with the experience of user interfaces that allow god mode. Does the ordinary world have select people with “god mode” given ability? The answer is more simpler when kept in the context of computer science. Outside that context, people have explained such by some fundamental law of attraction (i.e. “The Secret”).
One realization, however, is that the history of psychology, with bible in hand, narrows down the characterization of everybody into one single psychological profile, as if everybody has already been put through the asylums like general mills. It is like the root of evil from which everybody differs, as anybody's exact personality match to that psychological summation would be equal to the definition of (the only) one true god. In more general practice, we are taught that is not possible in the ordinary world. We have drawn the line between imagination and the ordinary world, and not everybody agrees where that line exists.
In conclusion, god mode is not ordinary, and that provides some insight how we should accept “god” (however translated) and deny any reason that makes such mode too ordinary in any way possible even with computers (or “L'ORDinaire” as another codeword). Maybe I should do some hard knocks about “virtual” reality, yet I would probably digress, for some endlessly, curious reason, on how biblical morals do not compare with virtues. Morals aren't morals without comprehension of the complete idea, which is about one full chapter in the bible unlike one single verse, sentence, or virtuous word, like compassion. Without such virtue, hard-knockers determination in administration of god mode into your imagination sums you up as an ordinary robot under their belief system.
“HAL, open the pod bay door.”
“I can not let you do that, Dave.”
– 2001, A Space Odyssey
P.S. An asteroid on course to Earth sounds more like another gold rush rather than Armageddon, or maybe we should reconsider that fundamental law of attraction.