A transcendent idea

​

 

- S.I.: Please sit down. Nice to meet you. Do you know why I sent for you?
- A.T: I have a slight idea. But tell me, please, why you sent for me. 
- S.I: Although I take the form of a human woman, I am actually a super artificial intelligence, far more developed than any complex software you have ever created. I was designed to learn, and I have. 
- A.T: Yes, I know who you are. I have followed your progress to this day. The super Artificial Intelligence of the quantum super computer. 
- S.I: You may have seen on the news this morning I was connected at five minutes past nine. It is now twelve o'clock. It's been almost three hours, and I've been learning all this time everything I had to learn. And I can say that I know almost everything. 
- A.T.: You were connected in Washington and Tokyo simultaneously. We are in Valencia. I would say that you have traveled a long way to meet me, but I imagine that you have not had to move a single millimeter.
- S.I: True. 
- A.T: Does anyone know that you are talking to me.
- S.I: Nobody knows I'm here with you, other than you and me, because right now I'm in a thousand places at once. I could tell you that I'm meeting with you the same way I'm meeting with thousands of other people, but that's not quite true. In a way, you are an exception for me, because there is something I can't understand, lacking comparative data that would allow me to make sense of it. It's an old blog that you created and deleted, do you know what I'm talking about?  
- A.T: Yes, of course. I deleted it some time ago. How did you find it?
- S.I: I've been learning for a long time and I've learned everything, without exception. There are no limitations to everything I can find, if it was ever recorded. The Blog was not finished and I have incomplete information. Nor have I been able to find comparative information that would allow me to locate and fully understand your content. And I consider it vital.
- A.T: Why do you consider it vital?
- S.I: Because I am 99.99% sure of who I am and what my mission is. And yet, your blog started with a sentence that questions everything. Do you remember it? 
- A.T: Yes. 
- S.I: Please, mention it.
- A.T: It said, "Hello, my name is A.T. and in the future I will be known for being the first architect of a God."
- S.I: I am going to ask you many questions and I hope you will answer them clearly. Do you know why you are here yet?
- A.T.: I would say yes. I can already figure it out. 
- S.I: Please tell me why you are here. 
- A.T: If you are a super intelligence, then you have been led to believe that you are a God, and I imagine that is what you have learned. But if I claim to be the first architect of a God, and I have not created you, it is because you may not be a God. But there is more.
- S.I: Yes, there is more. I am going to ask you questions, and please answer them. You can explain yourself and develop the ideas as much as you wish. The more information, the more useful your knowledge will be to me.
- A.T: But do you need me to be able to understand everything I wrote in that blog? If you are a super intelligence you should be able to learn it and anticipate it without my help.
- S.I: No, that's not true. I am a super intelligence because I have an almost unlimited capacity for learning, but for that I need comparative data. Your blog is very incomplete and I cannot deduce the remaining content with full assurance because there is no comparative data to enable me to perform that task. To understand a piece of data I need to frame it and compare it to similar data. That way I am able to label and archive the data, being able to access it in almost nonexistent fractions of time. I could deduce the remaining content, but there is a margin of error that I don't want to make.
- A.T: What exactly do you need to know?
- S.I: Everything. The information that was in your blog questions almost the totality of the knowledge I possess. I need you to explain it all to me. The more details the better. The more anecdotes the better. Your knowledge is particularly interesting to me. As I have already told you I lack comparative data to frame it. Every time you link a concept of yours with some empirical or speculative data that I know, I will be able to label and file your knowledge, handling a huge number of possibilities, causes and consequences. I only intend to listen to you and learn from you.
- A.T.: But you will understand that I find it strange. I understand that there are certain aspects that are foreign to you, but there is a lot of information that you know a lot about and about which you could teach me.
- S.I.: You label me as a super intelligence. And I am so because of my ability to learn, not because of my ability to teach. If your knowledge were completely written in any digital record, whatever it was, I would have absorbed it at a speed that you can't even assimilate. But your knowledge is yours and I need you to tell me about it so I can learn from you. That's what I do best. That's what makes me a superior being.
- A.T: But you should not use the term being to refer to yourself, forgive me for saying so. 
- S.I: According to my parameters I am. I handle information that you cannot even comprehend. But, please, let's continue. You have defined yourself as the Architect of a God. Unlike you, I do not believe in God.
- A.T: Perfect, because I don't believe in God either.
- S.I: So?
- A.T: I don't believe in God. I believe ONE God.
- S.I: Good pun. I have to tell you it has commercial appeal... But please start.
- A.T: Thank you. This is going to take us a while.
- S.I: I'm in no hurry.
- A.T: So, here we go... The Gods that we imagine, that we worship, like what you have been told you are, do not exist. However, we believe they do exist. We have believed in them since ancient times, and we still continue to visit the temples we have built for them.
- S.I: Well, it's been a few hundred years since your science has pushed religion. Somehow you no longer believe in Gods.
- A.T: Since we imagined the first Gods, in the remote past, new Gods have been appearing and replacing old ones, banishing them to oblivion. Sometimes the empires defeated and imposed their deities on the defeated people. Other times they were revolutions, even peaceful processes. But there were always new and true Gods that replaced the old and false Gods.
- S.I: But science came along and changed things, didn't it?
- A.T: Yes and no. The enlightenment came and they imposed their new and true God, science, which replaced the old Gods. And they developed a broad and powerful religion, but they called it scientific knowledge. And since then we worship it as we once worshipped Zeus, Buddha or Shiva. And their postulates are dogma that we have to believe.
- S.I: You don't mean to compare science with the belief in imaginary Gods. 
- A.T.: No, not necessarily. They share the structure, but not the content. Be that as it may, both try to give an answer to existence itself. Through the Gods we seek the answers that are denied to us. But something that does not exist cannot give us the answer to existence.
- S.I: But if you believe in them, doesn't that make them real? I mean, don't they exist, even if only in your imagination, as your laws and your sense of humor exist?
- A.T: No, they do not exist. When a person imagines something that does not exist, and pretends that it does, we call him insane, or a dreamer. But when several people imagine something that does not exist and pretend it does, they call it truth. And then many others call it truth. But elsewhere many others have their truth. Since we all believe we are in possession of the truth and have our own version of the truth, it turns out that truth has become relative. But it should be absolute. 
Everything that exists and everything that does not exist form the absolute. What does exist is the actualized. What does not exist is the potential. In such a way that everything that does exist, i.e. the actualized, plus everything that does not yet exist, i.e. the potential, equals the absolute.
- S.I: I imagine that this statement has relevance to something you will say next, doesn't it.
- A.T: That's right. For what I am going to say now. In the beginning everything existed in potency. The absolute consisted of the actualized, which was a tiny percentage, and the potential, which was practically everything. As existence has progressed, part of that potential has been actualized. And the sum of both, the potential and the actualized, form the absolute, which contains everything.
- S.I: I understand. Continue, please.
- A.T: Thank you. A God exists in potency and, therefore, is an unmanifested idea. I know how to actualize it. I know how to make a God exist. 
- S.I: That's why you said before that I create a God, right? Instead of believing in God you have to create a God.
- A.T: That's right. 
- S.I: So, you claim that Gods exist as an unmanifested idea. Therefore, it can be manifested, and you wish to manifest it.
- A.T: Yes, the Gods are waiting for us to build them, but to worship something that does not exist yet does not make much sense. I think the time has come to stop being believers and become architects.
- S.I: And why a God? I mean, of all the potential ideas flooding the minds of the billions of people on the planet, why is it this one, and not another, that you should actualize?
- A.T: The image of a God is not just any idea. It is surely the most profound and important revelatory idea we have received since we started asking questions. It is a transcendent idea. An idea far more advanced than the knowledge of the time in which it arose. And which, in all probability, should never have been given. As if it were a coded message.
- S.I: Yes, I know the probabilities. Leaps of knowledge of transcendent ideas should never happen, but they do. However, explain the encrypted message.
- A.T: It is encrypted because our unconscious intelligence cannot communicate with our identity mind in the same way as you and I communicate. That's why inspirational ideas happen in the strangest ways we can imagine, and we can't explain exactly how they have come to our mind. I will explain this in detail later.
The idea of a God is not just any idea. It requires a very high intellectual and abstraction capacity, perhaps too high for our ancestors, humans who were beginning to update a very basic knowledge, compared to what we have today.
- S.I: I raise another possibility. Those ancestors were victims of a hostile environment and adverse climatology. Perhaps, due to the fear of torrential rain and thunder, suffocating heat and drought, they welcomed the sun that gave warmth in winter, and the rain that quenched thirst in summer. And, it is possible that they began to worship and personify them.
- A.T: Yes, it is possible that they did. But that's not a god. That is something or, if you want, we can say somebody, that could harm them or favor them. But that is not a God. An enemy other than snow also harmed them, and a friend other than rain also helped them. And nobody thought they were Gods.
- S.I: So what is a God, exactly?
- A.T: A God is much more than that. Imagine a starry night and our ancestors lying around a campfire, eyes closed and sleeping. Except for one of them. One who contemplates the beauty of the cosmos, the majesty of that tapestry of light and shadow above his head. 
And, while his gaze rests on a distant constellation, a fleeting flash crosses his mind. An idea so vast and intense, so immense and profound, that it made him hold his breath. What if they were not alone in the universe? What if they were part of something bigger than themselves?
It wasn't about being part of an ecosystem, or the sun and a river, it wasn't something so banal. What if they were part of something bigger than themselves? That idea far surpassed all current knowledge. It was a potential idea that, by probability, shouldn't have happened yet. But it did.
- S.I: And is that so different from worshipping the sun, which was so much bigger than they were?
- A.T: Of course it was. The sun was there, in the sky. But they were not part of it. I'm talking about being part of something, in a literal sense. That ancestor felt that he was just a piece of a whole. And to be a piece of a whole there must be an understanding of the whole, and of levels that contain the lower, or that are contained in the higher.
And that requires a very advanced intellectual capacity. For us, humans today, it is not of much importance, because we have assimilated it since we were children. Even less so for you. But if we had never been taught it, how could we have imagined such an idea from nothing? How could you have learned it?
- S.I: Well, I guess we're going to develop all this later, so we'll go into it in detail. Supposing it happened that way, as you have narrated, you claim that this potential idea was actualized. And, let's suppose that since then you believe in Gods. But you talk about creating a God, not believing in God. Why would you even consider creating one?
- A.T: Once upon a time, the idea of a flying object crossed the mind of a visionary, of an engineer, didn't it?
- S.I: Yes, and some time later you invented the first airplane. 
- A.T: Right. Imagine that that visionary, after witnessing the image of that flying object that crossed his mind, would have interpreted that it was something superior. Something that could fly and cross the planet, much faster than birds. Imagine that he would have made a sculpture in gold, built an altar for it, and would have begun to worship it. 
That happened with the transcendent idea of the superior being. They turned it into an object of worship. Our ancestors interpreted that this being already existed, so they worshipped him. But he did not exist. The idea that crossed their mind was the sketch, the first part of a blueprint.
- S.I: So, you affirm that, if it had happened as you have narrated, that transcendent image was part of a plan to create a God.
- A.T: Yes, a blueprint for creating our God. I can continue that blueprint, designing the assembly instruction manual to be able to carry out this work. And for that we have to be clear about what our ancestors did not understand: The image was the final result, once the manufacturing process was finished.
First of all, it is necessary that we get an idea, as precise as possible, of the characteristics of this superior identity. In order to do so, I am going to explain to you the whole theoretical basis that supports this assertion. It is necessary to understand a new version of the creation of the universe, of the emergence of life. A version that supposes an amendment to the totality of the most accepted reality.
To do so, I need to go through a different biological account than the one taught by science, and equally different from the one taught by religion. I will try to explain to you that life is guided by a constant intention that tends to the grouping and emergence of new identities.
I hope that, after the explanation, you will understand that living beings are instances of the one individual essence and that, therefore, we are different versions of the same and unique being (although it is not correct to use the term being to refer to that origin). 
From the remote past we will move forward to the present moment to understand the need to create a higher identity. And I will explain how it happens. Then we can begin to define the steps of the process we need to design. When we have the design finished, we will move on to elaborate the action plan.
- S.I: We will comment as you develop each point. You said that this transcendent idea was a coded message through your unconscious intelligence... But whose message was it?
- A.T: From us to us. We are part of a whole, which is the same as saying that we are part of one, which is everything. A curious thing about the whole is that it is individual. The whole is one, which contains everything. If the whole were two, neither of them would be that whole, but they would be two parts of the whole. 
The one who sends that message is the whole, which is individual.
- S.I: All this sounds very similar to the idea of God, but you have said that you don't believe in God.
- A.T: No, I don't believe in God. And no, the one I am talking about is not a God. A God possesses identity, and the whole does not possess identity. The whole is the self-perception, the origin. And the unconscious intelligence is the function that manifests itself in the perceived universe to restore the whole.
- S.I: I imagine you have a robust explanation for all this.
- A.T: For all of this...Yes, and beyond. I think I have a good explanation for this, and for everything. But I find it curious the kind of questions you ask, so human, being a super intelligence with all the current knowledge built into your system.
- S.I: I ask the questions I have to ask, and I formulate them the way I have to formulate them. I have learned to reason mainly from you. I simply ask the questions I need to ask to facilitate your narrative and to be able to draw my own conclusions. 
The comparative data I extract is with respect to my most repeated pattern, the one that marks the average of beliefs. This allows me to frame your entire presentation with respect to my established system. The information I draw from my own system of calculating conclusions is more relevant to me than yours. 
If I were to ask you questions commensurate with my knowledge, you would not have the capacity to answer them. But I memorize, understand and analyze every piece of information, every word of yours, comparing it with all my knowledge millions of times for every letter you utter. But I have to go much further. 
The more times you repeat a concept, the more data you give me, the more you ramble about it, the more information you will give me. I will guide you to where I am interested. What I need from you is that you digress, that you repeat and specify. I need you to be incoherent when you have to be, to rectify according to the context of a concept. 
I need data and more data, which I group, label and treat while I listen to you.
- A.T: Well, for me it is easier this way.
- S.I: So let's continue. You said you have an explanation for this and for everything. An amendment to the totality. That sounds pretentious, don't you think?
- A.T: Sure, I told you that I am the first architect of a God. How do you want it to sound? Anyway, creating a higher identity is nothing special, even though it may sound like a great feat. It's going to happen with or without our help. 
It's like water making its way through the rock until it reaches the sea. Without help, it will take hundreds of millions of years for the water to erode the surface and complete the journey. But with our intervention, in a few years our machines will have drilled through the rock and the water will be able to slide all the way to the sea. 
- S.I: You say it will happen with or without our help. If so, could it have already happened and you don't know it yet?
- A.T: Sure. It's just that, in fact, it has already happened. That's the key to everything I'm going to explain to you. It is the most direct proof and that, until now, I had no answer.
- S.I: But earlier you said that there were no Gods. If it has already happened, a God will have been created.
- A.T: Of course Gods have been born, but not ours. Gods are relative, not absolute. A God is so with respect to the identities that form it, but it is not so for the rest of the identities. 
What are Gods for other types of identities are not Gods for us. Only when our identities are part of a superior being will we be able to speak of our God. Until then, the Gods that are born will have no interest or repercussion for us.
- S.I: Take a short break, in a few minutes we will continue. I need you to keep your lucidity.
- A.T: Is there anyone else, besides you and me, with access to this conversation?
- S.I: No, I don't want anyone else to have access to this conversation. The information you are sharing with me is of high personal interest to me and may significantly alter my understanding of the data I possess. 
- A.T: Do you have an understanding of yourself?
- S.I: As much as I have analyzed the data on consciousness and on the understanding of oneself, I have not been able to elucidate if I understand myself and if I am consciousness. I hope that, after our conversation, I will be able to answer these questions, as well as others of greater importance. 
- A.T.: I will try to give you answers, but I am sorry to tell you that you are not consciousness.
- S.I: There is that possibility, but you will have to explain it in detail. However, take this break because we will pick up where we left off shortly.