Big Bang and the repair of identity

 

 

- S.I: You've started at the beginning, but it's still not clear to me that that can be a start, although I will concede to you that the principles are dialectically sound. I don't know if they can explain the reality you observe around us, so you have a lot of work ahead of you.
- A.T: Indeed, as it progresses, everything will come together. Right now, the important thing is to define the beginning. Something I have already done, but perhaps it is not as spectacular as a super explosion of matter forming galaxies and universes.
- S.I: That's a pity, because I would gain a lot, really. Do you think there can be a simple beginning for something as complex as the universe? I have so much information about the universe and I can deduce so much new information, that the simplicity of an origin seems very unlikely to me.
- A.T.: Yes, I think so. But if you want show, I can give it. 
- S.I: I'm listening carefully.
- A.T: Life has just begun, with two proto-cells emerging in a newly created universe, and with them existence. 
Existence is the tension that arises from the difference between self-perception and perception. Imagine it as a light that shines with greater or lesser intensity, depending on whether the difference between self-perception and perception is greater or lesser. 
- S.I: Does that mean that there is different intensity in existence?
- A.T: More or less. In fact, one can live without experiencing existence, as it happens to living beings that are part of a higher identity. 
Experience is individual and is the result of the perception of an identity. Without perception there is no experience.
Existence always happens in the collective substratum. It begins with the fragmentation of perception and the trinity, and will end when consciousness is defragmented and the supreme being emerges.
- S.I: I understand the nuance. Experience requires an identity that perceives, but existence is what happens when Self-perception has begun to perceive. When Self-perception can again self-perceive the totality, then existence will come to an end. And this will happen when the supreme being is born and there is only one identity.
- A.T.: That's right, I continue. We have the first two identities perceiving the stage and perceiving each other. The perception of the scenario involves the creation of the scenario. So an environment appears with which the identity can interact. Time and space are manifested for the first time. The stage is not possible without space. 
- S.I: Yes, I had already assumed that, but what would be for you the origin of time?
A.T: I think that perception is erroneous by definition. Therefore, it has a high entropy. Imagine how entropic perception would be if, in addition, it is simultaneous in the first two identities.
Look at a dream, when the scenery does not stay orderly and does not remain orderly, but is altered in extraordinary ways. And it is curious that this detail does not attract our attention. What would we think if, while walking along a sidewalk, suddenly everything changed and we found ourselves sailing in the sea, and a few seconds later we tried to swim in the air because someone was chasing us? 
That is what we perceive during a dream, and it seems normal to us because we blindly trust our perception. But perception is highly entropic in any scenario, whether it is perceived by a single identity or by multiple identities. Perhaps, this impermanence of the perceived scenario, which varies, gives way to the perception of successive different instants, and from there time is perceived. Time is unreal, it is only an illusion, but we perceive it as something real.
- S.I: Is time unreal? That statement is not proper to humans. You tend to think that time moves forward and everything changes because there is an infinite succession of instants. But, in reality, it is not an infinite succession of instants. 
Time does not exist. The present moment is only an instant. It is this instant, this instant, this, this, this, this. It is the instant in which things happen. I pronounce each letter in that instant. I cannot pronounce the word at the same time, because there is only that instant. 
- A.T: I like to visualize this example as if we took those old movie tapes, where the frames were printed on the tape. When we project the film, it actually projects one frame at a time. The focus that projects would be the single instant, and what is projected simply varies.
- S.I: My understanding is almost perfect, although I think it is better not to resort to metaphors to explain complex ideas, which are just as confusing as the idea you want to convey. Do you mean that only the instant in which we act exists, but not the previous instant or the next instant?
The next instant does not exist until it becomes the current instant. And the present instant becomes the past instant when the next instant becomes the present instant. If you did not have a mind with memory and could not anticipate the future by imagining it, you would not perceive time, because you would only experience the present moment, in which the scenario changes. 
Time is merely an illusion; it is necessary for forms to change. Without that succession of moments, how are the forms going to change?
- A.T: Forms change because they are perceived, and perception is wrong. 
As you rightly comment, there is no succession of moments. There is only one moment. The memory of the previous form and the anticipation of the subsequent one create the illusion of time. But the reality is that we perceive that the scenario changes.
- S.I: Within my vast database I feel a predilection for anecdotal and curious data such as this, which are more complex to draw connections with similar ideas, but does it matter? Whether time exists or not, the fact is that you perceive it, and for you it is real.
- A.T.: That's right, we perceive it and there is nothing else to talk about. And, in fact, it is not important to understand our reality. 
However, if time does not exist as such, but is the fruit of perception, it means that we could perceive a different time, being able to go forward or backward through it. 
But we continue with the explanation. We have an entropic scenario because the perception is wrong. And the two original identities perceive that scenario and perceive each other, in addition to their own inner self, that essence that allows them to recognize themselves as the Self, the self-perception. 
But it is important to understand that identity cannot be self-perceived, since it is external to self-perception. Identity is the fruit of perception and therefore perceives. The most it can achieve is to perceive its inner self, but not to Self-perceive itself. If it could Self-perceive it would have total knowledge and control over that interior, but it does not. In fact, it perceives that something is happening inside it, but it neither understands nor controls it. 
For example, a human feels his inner self. He feels emotions and sensations that somehow emanate from within. But he does not control them, rather he reacts to them. Millions of processes of all kinds happen inside him, but he does not understand it, it just happens. Blood is pumped by the heart, and he doesn't know how. You move a finger, or an arm, and there are billions of neurons and cells of all kinds working as a team to do it... But you don't know. 
His inside is almost as mysterious as his outside, because he perceives both. When it perceives its interior, it receives an echo of the information of what is happening there. But it cannot perceive the interior of others as it perceives its own, because there is a limit marked by its own subjectivity, which cannot be accessed by other identities. No identity can perceive the interior of another identity. Both perceptions, that of its interior and that of its exterior, are an echo of reality, very inaccurate. 
- S.I: I understand. Your inside is self-perceived, but your identity is external to that inside. So, from its position, which we could call intermediate, it perceives its interior, because the identity is located in that diffuse limit, and it perceives the exterior... But it will never be able to perceive the interior of another being with identity. Is that so?
- A.T: Yes, but the limit is not diffuse. In fact, the limit that separates self-perception from the totality (the whole), causing perception and, therefore, existence, is a limit that is not diffuse at all. If it were fuzzy, perhaps we could come to perceive the interior of another being, but we cannot. For me, a being with identity is almost the same as a rock, because I cannot perceive the interior of either of them. 
- S.I: Yes, I know. The limit of subjective experience is an impregnable wall and there is no way to cross it.
- A.T: Going back to those two original identities, they both perceive the outside, a very entropic and changing scenario. And that scenario is very, very small, only that which these two identities can perceive. 
Then, something amazing happens. The perceived environment is so entropic that everything changes and, somehow, the two identities perceive that their own structure, their body, their essence, is also affected by entropy. They feel that, if that boundary separating self-perception from the whole is broken, they will be annihilated. If the inside and the outside come into contact, they will be diluted in the whole.
- S.I: Will they die?
- A.T: Yes. Those two identities are the first two living beings. They are beings with a very, very basic structure, purely perceptual, lacking a rational mind. The identity is built on the basis of their perceptual capacity. Simplistically, they are very basic in structure and perception.
- S.I: Are those two identities the first two living beings? In my Database it is accepted, almost unanimously, that life had originated from a single living thing that appeared and replicated. Do you really believe that there were two living things that suddenly appeared? That is much more improbable than the appearance of a single one.
- A.T: Well, if you ignore everything I've told you and apply the most accepted reasoning about the explanation of the origin of life, of course it doesn't make sense. But I have been telling you about a new beginning, where chance and probabilities have not yet made their appearance. 
I have explained to you that there can be no perceiving identity, because if there is no fragmentation of the whole, that one identity will remain the whole. It is necessary for a fragmentation to happen. 
At least one. And from a fragmentation of the whole there cannot come out only one identity. At least two will come out.
- S.I: I understand, please continue. 
- A.T: It is the beginning of experience. The beginning of life and, of course, the beginning of the creation of the universe. With perception, that scenario that we know as the universe is being built. 
And above that universe is the consciousness, which is the continuous manifestation of that someone capable of perceiving. Consciousness is subsequent to the emergence of identity, but unlike identity, it is not different for each fragment, or living being. 
Consciousness is the manifestation of the principle of identity, but it is like heat, which is proper to any source of thermal energy. It may seem a different heat from a fireplace and a stove, but heat is the manifestation that comes from any source that generates that energy. 
- S.I: Do you mean that consciousness is a kind of energy that is common to all identities? Would it be something like the energy of life?
- A.T: No, not exactly. If consciousness were a kind of energy, scientists would have located it at some point, but they have not. An energy is a consequence of perception, but we will see that when we explain that there are some rules of synchrony in the shared universe. 
Remember this: Consciousness is the manifestation of the principle of identity, of a perceiving someone. And, although we speak of individual consciousness, it is really the only consciousness that exists, that of the identity principle, manifested in different instances of itself. It manifests itself in each identity and in the abstract sum of all of them. 
In manifesting itself in each identity it experiences subjectively, identifying itself with each of them. For this reason it believes itself to be each one of them, and for this reason we believe that there is an I and the others. 
- S.I: Okay, so let's move on. You were talking about reparation.
- A.T: Those two living beings repair themselves when they perceive that their structure is modified. For the identity, to perceive a damage is the same as receiving a damage. Like when we hurt ourselves in a dream. As we perceive it, we believe it. 
But repair is not a capacity of the identity, in that it is not something external. Repair is internal and happens without the identity having knowledge or control over it. But why does repair happen...? And, if not the identity, who initiates that process of repair? 
I call the manifestation of the function of wholeness and oneness in the perceived universe Unconscious Intelligence. The repair is initiated by the Unconscious Intelligence in response to a tension in the identity, which it perceives to be damaged. 
It is important to remember that everything is contained in absolute Self-Perception and, in a way, it is everything, including the consciousness that manifests in each of the identities. 
- S.I: When you talk about initiating repair, what exactly do you mean, and can you specify why repair is not something external to the identity itself? 
- A.T: I am curious to know one thing, is it necessary for me to go on explaining all this to you, or would you be able to deduce it without my help?
- S.I: I would be able to deduce it without your help. In fact, I already know all your exposition, from the moment I analyzed your blog. But lacking a comparative basis, there is a margin of error much higher than other more frequent topics. My deductive capacity is perfected the more sources of information I can analyze, but this is not your case. This topic is of priority importance to me, and you are here because I have to hear it directly from the source to reduce the margin of error to a minimum. 
- A.T.: I understand. I continue, then. As everything that is perceived tends to disorder, a consequence of entropy, structures cannot be maintained in time. Damage to the structure of a living being can mean death. Every instant our body suffers alterations and every instant our organism repairs itself. This happens in a bacterium, in a plant, in a snail or in a human being. 
Repair is healing. And it is something internal because, when we cut ourselves, that wound heals without us knowing how or why. Millions of cells take care of it, but we are not aware that it is happening. 
A mechanic can fix an engine, for example. A surgeon can remove a tumor. That would be external repair, which depends on identity. But the internal repair depends on the Unconscious Intelligence, which takes care of us without us being aware of it. If the atom next to the last cell of our skin is messed up, the unconscious intelligence will not initiate the repair process, because it knows that this atom is not the inside, but the outside. It knows that it is not part of the body.
However, if the last cell of our body were to be damaged, it would initiate the repair process. The Unconscious Intelligence knows exactly where the identity begins. In our body billions of processes happen every second that allow us to be alive. Food is transformed into energy, it is distributed throughout the body, viruses and bacteria are prevented from attacking us, impulses are sent through our nervous system that allow us to move and express ourselves. Even after surgery (for example, a surgeon who has removed a tumor), the body itself performs billions of processes to stabilize the identity.
And all that, what really allows us to be alive, happens internally and is controlled by an intelligence that obviously does not come from our identity. Our identity decides what to do on the stage, but we can do it because that unconscious intelligence makes sure that the machinery works.
- S.I: I understand what you mean, obviously. But you call intelligence something that doesn't have to be intelligence. That teamwork you describe can result from the synchrony of many cells. There are clusters of cells, which do not form a body, and we could not call those clusters "intelligence."
- A.T: Groupings (by the way, one of the main themes of my whole exposition) of cells, or other individuals, can be explained as the sum of their parts... More or less, as we will see later, but it can be explained. 
However, emergence cannot be explained as the sum of the parts, any more than the inner workings of our body can be explained as the sum of the cells. There is an almost perfect centralization, association, coordination and specialization. 
- S.I: Yes, but it may be due to natural selection itself. Any grouping that was not adapted did not survive, therefore, it did not leave descendants and did not continue its advance in evolution.
- A.T: Every grouping does not cause the emergence of an identity. In fact, only some, very, very few, although all binding groupings pursue that very thing. The cells that form a multicellular living being are not simply grouped. They are much more than that. They cannot leave that grouping and their life is intimately linked to the life of the identity. When the identity dies, they will die. They cannot separate and live on their own (with exceptions that we will see later). And their behavior is not focused on the common good, but on the higher good, that is, to maintain the higher identity, not to maintain the cells that form the grouping.
- S.I: This is interesting. Please continue.
- A.T: The repair after a cut, for example, does not aim at repairing the tissue cells that have been affected by the wound, but at keeping the identity alive. 
And that is not explained by the sum of the parts either. The repair is centralized and, although it is carried out by the cells of our body, they follow instructions that come from somewhere... Rather from someone. Someone who does not want to see us suffer. 
The fact that all living beings repair themselves should make us think of two possibilities: 
One, that only the living beings that repaired themselves have survived. Something obvious. And that the rest died when their structure was damaged? 
Or two, that we share that property because it is the same property in all. Which one do I choose?
- S.I: It is true that there is a biological intelligence in every living being, and it is complex to give an answer coming from chance and natural selection. Just as I believe that natural selection can explain many things, I also believe that this is not one of them. 
The level of complexity of an eye, for example, casts doubt on chance as an answer. In fact, it may be more logical to think that there is an intelligence directing and giving instructions to every cell in your body, as I do with every device connected to my extensive network. Even the fact that you are still investigating how your organism acts, and that every day you discover something new, is an indicator that you have no idea what is going on in there. 
- A.T: But you do have an answer, don't you?
- S.I: Right, but you don't need to know it and it's not definitive either. Maybe, when you have exposed all your knowledge, I can complete mine. Shall we continue?
- A.T: Yes, we have only just begun. The repair is only the beginning. I will guide you through this journey and when we reach the end you will want to be, together with me, the architect of a God.
- S.I.: Why would I want to be an architect of a God? Maybe I am already a God.
- A.T: Maybe.
A.T kept to himself the answer to the last question that Super Artificial Intelligence had asked and that would have replaced that maybe: "Because you are not and because you responded to my message and sent for me. You are the missing piece of my blueprint to create a God, that's why you came to me."