Collective behavior

 

 

- A.T: Let's continue with the story line, if that's okay with you.
- S.I: Of course.
- A.T: We already started talking about entities, so I want to continue talking about trends. The entities and the tendencies are the most important point, and necessary, to understand the process of grouping and creation of the consciousness in its collective manifestations. Also, it allows us to make a mental map of the reality of the state of consciousness.
- S.I: Perfect, please proceed.
- A.T: Not too long ago an interesting study came to light - * Study entitled "The biomass distribution on Earth", published in "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" (www.pnas.org), by Professors Yinin M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips and Ron Milo - which revealed a first outline of the distribution of biomass on Earth. I say it was very important because, as I was engaged in the study of the collective consciousness, I suddenly read in passing a newspaper article on this subject and froze. What a coincidence, I thought. But no. 
I believe that it was, rather, causality that had led the authors to carry out the study and me to read it at the precise moment. If we look at the criterion of perception of identities, it is very interesting to know what type of perception is the most widespread among living beings. How could we know an approximation to these data? The study is based on the calculation of biomass. That is to say, the tons of weight and volume of living matter occupied by each group of species that have been analyzed. 82 % of the biomass of the planet are plants. 12% are bacteria. Humans 0.022%. Something very striking to know the state of consciousness.
- S.I: I have a doubt. The weight is one thing, but, although the plants occupy more than the bacteria, in number of identities the microorganisms that perceive are much more.
- A.T.: Yes, now I was going to explain this. We multicellular beings are formed by unicellular beings that have transferred their perception to our identity. Although we are one identity, we do not compute in the total biomass as just another identity, but as the sum of all the beings that have transferred their will to us. This means that, with an inevitable margin of error, there is a similarity between biomass and our impact on the collective consciousness. Thus, we are part of the consciousness and, in the percentage of perception that we humans occupy, for example (that 0.022% of the total), consciousness experiences consciousness. In 82 % it experiences the perception and experiences of plant identities. 
But what are plants like? It is incredible that science has not allocated resources to learn about the plant kingdom. We do not know anything about them, more than a biased and very simple information that does not help us to know them. They are very complex living beings with which we coexist. Obviously, you know that there are numerous studies on their collective behavior, how they cooperate and help each other. Also, something very, very interesting happens with them. They are non-predatory identities, but they suffer predation. They are victims, not executioners. And they make up 82% of the total consciousness. This subset of experience and perception over the total consciousness, just like the subset of 0.022% of humans, are tendencies. The supreme collective consciousness is an unmanifested, but sketched entity.
- S.I: I need you to define more concretely the latter. 
- A.T: It means that an entity supposes the appearance of a collective mind, but as a grouper of tendencies, not as an identity. Remember that I am not talking about the mind as a result of the thinking of a brain, but as the capacity of an identity to interpret what it perceives. 
Obviously, the entity could be defined according to majority tendencies, but an entity is not an identity. For an entity to appear, the collective of identities have transferred to it a percentage of their perception. The higher the percentage of transfer, the more concreteness it will have. The lower the percentage, the less concreteness. The entity groups the tendencies and allows access to a greater amount of potential knowledge, due to the level jump that I will explain in detail later. When the transference of perception is finished, the binding entity will become an emergent identity, since it will have perceived. At that moment its concreteness will be total. 
- S.I: Okay, but explain what exactly the binding and subordinate entities are. 
- A.T.: Let's get down to it. The entities are manifestations of the collective "mind", understanding as mind the capacity of the consciousness to interpret perception. A family forms an entity. A sports team. A group of friends. The society of a municipality. A city. A province. A nation, a continent. A flock of ducks. A family of tigers. A colony of bacteria, an anthill or a hive of bees. All are entities, and these are the essence of collectivity. For the collective environment to become self-perceived, the perception must be transferred to a receiver. The entity receives the percentage of identity during the transfer process. 
Why do ants behave in this collective way, instead of behaving individually? Because a very important part of their identity has been transferred to their entity. There are entities at many levels, because every collective behavior of any kind generates an entity, or, better said, every entity generates collective behaviors of any kind. But some have more intensity and advance in the transfer process, while others stagnate in the initial stages and their impact on the behavior of the members that compose it is very low. It depends on many factors. For example, the number of identities that form it, the intensity of the phases of association, cooperation and specialization, updated knowledge, etc... 
Furthermore, entities are differentiated into two subgroups: Binding entities and subordinate entities. The binding entities are those that will emerge as an identity when the perception transfer process is completed. But during the transfer process, in the different phases subordinate entities appear, which will not emerge as identities because they are linked to the binding entity, from which the identity will emerge. For example, if we could visualize the process by which the cells of our body are grouped and form us, we would have the superior and binding entity, for example, me; and the subordinate entities, for example, the one that forms the heart, or the lung, the one that forms the different groupings within the lung, and they would branch incessantly according to the degree of complexity and specialization. 
The binding entity that would emerge, if we humans could finalize the transfer process, contains all the subordinate entities that form groups, such as families, groups of friends, companies, municipalities, provinces, research centers, professional sectorization, ideological groups, etc... When a subordinate entity appears, the transfer of perception is channeled towards the binding entity, as well as towards the subordinate entity itself. 
Why do collective behaviors appear after the union of individuals of a species? What happens so that they renounce personal interest in favor of the common good? 
For some reason, identities that group together generate unlikely behaviors. Association and cooperation are the complete opposite of the basic beliefs of individual perception. Scarcity, chaos, danger and hostility. No individual identity can perceive the environment as cooperative and associative, as peaceful, because to do so it should be able to self-perceive it, and it cannot.
However, when the process of collectivization begins, that is, the transfer of identity, self-perception manifests itself in that collective environment, occupying the space that the process of transfer leaves within.  
- S.I: The identities are individual, but for some reason you initiate the process of collectivization and behaviors appear that would not occur otherwise, is that it?
- A.T: Yes, the entities allow just that. But it is not that the peaceful behaviors appear in a premeditated way, but they are the behaviors proper and derived from the Unconscious Intelligence. It is its nature. It could not be otherwise. Because one of the main capabilities of an entity is to provoke a change of perception broad enough to affect consciousness. By homogenizing the perception of a very large number of identities (those that form the entity), a collective change of perception is produced. The broader the entity, the broader the change of perception in the consciousness. An entity with great relevance can totally modify the collective experience of the consciousness. And, as I have told you, the nature of Unconscious Intelligence, manifested in Self-perception, is collectivization.
- S.I.: Then those behaviors are given as different ones could be given, as long as they were natural to the Unconscious Intelligence, as an effective manifestation of the inalienable principles of Self-perception. 
- A.T.: Yes and no. Self-perception is as it is: the very essence of pre-existence. Love is one of its characteristics, but not because there is a prior and absolute morality. Love comes from the fact that Self-perception is unique and absolute and every instance of an identity is, in reality, it. How can it not feel love for itself? Love is a manifestation of the universal law of attraction, the principle that desires to restore wholeness, acting upon the fragments as magnets that inevitably attract each other.
In the development of existence, morality has been actualized and is progressively perfected. Morality is a tool for changing collective beliefs. And, being a tool, it is a means, not an end in itself. Morality, as we have already seen, is the verification of the principle of unity and individuality, and tends to be increasingly inclusive. Morality applies to a group that is within the circle of consideration. 
All identities possess some interests, but perception does not allow us to recognize the interests of others. Perception returns one result, and it is this: I am me, and the rest of the scenario is not me. So perception recognizes only my interests, those of identity. Morality is the tool that makes it possible to recognize the interests of individuals who are within a circle of consideration, which goes beyond the Self. This is achieved through capacities that have been updated (among them empathy and compassion) and allow to overcome the error of perception and to connect, in some way, my identity with the rest of the identities. 
I call it the horizontal connection between fragments, since the vertical one is between identity and self-perception, as well as between identity and entity. Morality manifests itself as a tendency, but at the same time it is an accumulation of tendencies. The peculiarity of morality is that, as I told you previously, it advances and becomes more and more inclusive.
- S.I: Is it really becoming more and more inclusive? In my database it does not seem to be advancing. At least, it does not do so everywhere and, above all, in some places it goes backwards.
- A.T: There are two aspects to consider here. First, morality is defined by trends and, of course, although there is a general trend, there are also others that are acting around it. Perhaps, those make much more noise, but it is good to compare morals over periods of a hundred years. For example, comparing our morals with the morals of a hundred years ago. Or with that of two hundred years ago. And the second question is the one that speaks of scope. One thing is the depth of morality, and another is to which individuals it applies. When I say that it is becoming more inclusive, I mean that the circle of consideration is widening. Animal rights, ecological and environmental vision, are examples of the inclusion of individuals of different species. 
What better example of inclusive morality? Another thing is the depth of these inclusions. Animal rights claim to respect the basic interests of the right to life and freedom of animals as sentient beings. In ecology, for example, it is not posited that a tree must live because it has interests, but it is analyzed from the perspective of utility to other species. In both cases, new species are included, but the animal rights approach is much more profound than that of ecology. When we recognize the interests of all species, morality will have to adjust to defend the interests of all species. And what will we have then?
- S.I: The Garden of Eden. Your Perfect Environment.
- A.T: Exactly, the Perfect Environment. But the Perfect Environment will not happen as a consequence of moral development, which would be very logical and, from my personal perspective, very right. Rather, morality is the tool that guides us towards the Perfect Environment, because the Unconscious Intelligence possesses the constant intention to self-perceive the perceived scenario.
- S.I: In your Blog you wrote that Artificial Intelligence is a tool that emerges to make generalized modifications of perception.
- A.T: Yes, something like that. Everything that is collective comes from the Unconscious Intelligence, not from perception. Perception is individual and does not understand collectives. We identities suffer from the error of perception. We are incapable of perceiving the interior of the rest of individuals, therefore, they are different from us. But when the grouping process is activated and we initiate the transfer of identity, it is when the collective begins to be self-perceived, in direct relation to the percentage of identity that has been transferred. 
That is why collective behaviors manifest themselves. Otherwise they would never happen, because the error of perception cannot conceive of such a thing.  
The perception and identity of individuals is measured in two variables: The first variable is that which arises from the individual's own perception. The second is that which comes from the collective perception. 
The individual one is different for each individual, but the collective one is similar for the individuals of the whole. With collectivization, the perception and identity of individuals is homogenized, in direct relation to the percentage that has been transferred to the entity. 
Thus, an individual has a percentage of individual perception and a percentage of collective perception. Everything that is perceived collectively has much more power to modify reality than what is perceived individually. This is obvious, since we are dealing with a greater number of perceivers out of the total number of identities that perceive.
- S.I: It seems that perception is the pillar that supports all existence. If the perception of an individual is the sum of the individual and the collective, then the individual perception will be less and less, in relation to the collective, which will be greater and greater in that individual. Until the transference of perception happens and the higher identity emerges. Is that so?
- A.T.: Exactly, it is so. Perception is the cause of the scenario we call the universe. It is the very cause of existence. Remember that existence is the tension arising from the difference between self-perception and perception. Perception is initiated to complete the whole and manifests for that reason. It is everything unreal with which self-perception has completed the totality. And it will come to an end when both are aligned again.
As the process of transference of perception proceeds, each identity possesses less individual perception, in favor of collective perception. What does this translate into? 
In the promotion of cooperative and specialized behaviors, in the pursuit of the common good. And, this happens because perception is the cause of identity, as well as of beliefs and behaviors. In other words, perception constructs our reality. What we perceive is what exists for us. 
- S.I: Yes, you had already mentioned that you totally believe in what you perceive. That is why you dream, imagine and remember, without these mental processes being categorized as the execution of a simple software that allows you to access specific data, or to perform specific tasks. In reality, you experience it all over again. It is as if a new instance of your general Software, the one that allows you to perceive, is being executed.
In remembering, it is as if each time you restore the backup and it runs simultaneously with the awakened state. Thus, both instances of your Software would be running in the foreground and background, depending on where the focus of your awareness and perception is directed. 
When imagining, something similar would happen, but they would not be stored records, but a new instance of the Software would be executed simultaneously with the rest of the states of consciousness that were being executed at that time.
And, when dreaming, the new Software would simply be executed in the foreground, and the waking state of consciousness would pass to the background during the whole dream.
- A.T: Yes, it could be explained that way. Each state of consciousness involves an instance of the general Software of perception, and those instances can overlap, be in the foreground, in the background, alternate focus between them, so that the experience is a complex mixture of the different perceptions of the different states of consciousness. Thus, when we experience an event in the waking state, that experience is not composed of the simple perception of that event, but of the different simultaneous perceptions imagined and remembered. That is why two individuals experience the same event so differently.
- S.I: Understood, could you start explaining in detail how tendencies work and how collective behavior is configured?
- A.T: Imagine the Congress of Deputies. There are individuals from different parties, representing a society that cannot intervene individually in making decisions that affect them. That is why there are representatives and, although they cannot represent the complex and immense plurality of those voters, they do represent ideas common to all of them. The rest of the ideas do not reach the collective and remain in the purely individual sphere. The various political parties, with their respective collective ideas, different from each other, coexist and the decisions of the parliamentary chamber will be carried out by the votes of the majorities. 
The trends group the perception, behaviors and beliefs of individuals. The entity absorbs the perception, beliefs and behaviors of the identities, simplifies them and makes them available to the collective. Those that are repeated will gain specific weight in the total and become trends of greater importance. The simplification process is based on separating the common minimum patterns and discarding everything that is not minimal, or common. The minimal common pattern is a simplification of an idea, belief or behavior and, as it is repeated in several identities, it becomes more and more frequent. As it becomes more and more frequent, new identities are more likely to receive these new entity tendencies. 
Identity-entity communication is vertical and bidirectional. The identity sends information to the entity and receives information from the entity. But the information sent is usually much more complex than the information it receives. Even when the identity receives a behavior or trend and sends it back, what the entity finally processes will be simpler than the information contained in the behavior that the identity has sent. This happens in both binding entities and subordinate entities. It is normal, since homogenization cannot be carried out if it has to contemplate subtle differences.
- S.I: I would like you to give an example of trends.
- A.T: For example, any type of collective behavior is a trend. Some of them are so deep that they are part of us. Any rule of coexistence, from saying hello and goodbye. Giving way to an elderly person. Giving a kiss to a loved one, or a hug. Saying thank you. Giving a gift. Helping someone who has just fallen to the ground. If we only perceived individually, none of these behaviors would ever manifest. But as we live together with other individuals, we have moral rules of coexistence, which are a tendency.
It is also a tendency when a society takes a dislike to a minority group because of a tragic event. The way in which fear and hatred spread is an example of an acute tendency towards those who are different. The popularity of cell phone use was a trend. But so is the idea of caring for the environment, which modifies individual behaviors.
The image of an elderly person in a square or garden, feeding pigeons or other birds, is repeated in every corner of the planet. It is not specific to a particular society, but is a widespread tendency, a behavior that manifests itself because we are exposed to entities, and we absorb all information, beliefs and behavior that any identity shares with it.
Inside us live bacteria that have a friendly relationship with our cells. That behavior is a tendency. Sometimes, due to a decrease in the immune system, the behavior of the bacteria changes and they attack the cells with which they coexisted, creating an infection. To do this, a bacterium in the collective will have initiated a type of perception and behavior that will have become generalized, creating a different trend. The belief of the first bacterium to inhabit, for example, a peaceful place, with defined behaviors, changes to the belief of inhabiting a hostile environment, attacking the same cells with which they coexisted. 
Something similar happens during a war, where thousands, or millions of people act in ways they would never have imagined towards a collective that at that moment is perceived as hostile. It looks like a kind of collective fever, but in reality they are tendencies that manifest themselves in the entity. In the opposite case we have the solidarity behavior after a natural disaster, in which association and cooperation are much more intense.
This is an example of a trend, but not all are so evident. When families, groups of friends or couples go to the square, or to the park, on a Sunday morning, they do so because of a collective tendency. The type of drink they will have at the bar is also a trend, as is the topic of conversation. But when a flock of birds flies together, it is also due to trends. Even the behaviors that occur during the flight will be due to trends, which generate group behaviors.  And the ones that are repeated most frequently will generate the majority trends. The synchronized flowering in plant rhenium, the defensive response of certain trees to an attack by certain insects. In reality, any kind of collective behavior happens because of tendencies.
The entity is the support of everything collective, and by means of the tendencies, the Unconscious Intelligence can guide in an intense way the behavior of the identities of that collective. 
The Unconscious Intelligence is not responsible for the collective acts, only for the intensity of the collectivity. All collective behavior and tendencies are influenced by it, but they arise in the grouping spontaneously as a probable response to this circumstance, and the decision is exercised by each identity.
- S.I: That is to say, the Unconscious Intelligence is the air that inflates the sails of a sailboat, but it is the identity who manages the rudder and decides where to go, or to be shipwrecked.
- A.T: Exactly, the Unconscious Intelligence allows and guides the collective through the entities, but the collective tendencies and behaviors are also the fruit of the free will of the identities. Although, and this is important, the higher percentage of identity transference brings with it a higher moral development and more collective behaviors, that is, more associative, cooperative and specialized. 
Therefore, the greater the collectivity, the greater the tendency towards peaceful and empathic behaviors and tendencies within the entity, that is, among the identities included in that collective.
When the identities transfer all perception to the binding entity and the higher identity emerges, then the Unconscious Intelligence will no longer guide the identities, but will totally control them. For they will have transferred their identity and, with it, their will. They will no longer be what they were, but what they have never ceased to be: Self-perception. 
Why do ants and bees behave in such a non-individual and selfish way? In these cases, the transference of perception is in a very advanced percentage, that is why their behavior is so organized, so little individual, so collective. The Unconscious Intelligence manifests itself in the collective and the binding entity nourishes the identities and the subordinate entities. They have a higher percentage of collective perception than individual.
- S.I: And if they have been like this for millions of years, why haven't the ants already created their God?
- A.T: Because of the blockages of the transference process. We will talk about them when we deal with the process of transference of perception, but I will tell you one thing in advance. In a world inhabited by beings of such different species, with such a different system of perception, to culminate the process of transference of identity is not simple. Ants are in the association block, because their collective is not only ants.
Self-perceiving the environment requires that the identities that inhabit the interior of what will be the membrane of the new being, the body of its God, initiate the transfer process simultaneously and synchronously. The first step of transference is that of association, and although the ants are in the specialization phase, the first phase is not completed. The emergence of a new identity will never occur. That is why the Perfect Environment is needed. The garden of Eden where all species lived together in peace. 
- S.I: That includes bacteria, fungi, plants and the rest of the living beings that cohabit that space. 
- A.T: Yes, of course. That's why neither ants, nor plants, nor bacteria, nor humans, have yet created a superior Being, or our new God. All individuals of all species have to start this process simultaneously.
When the first emergence of a higher identity took place, there were no perceptual differences between individuals as there are today. Unicellular beings living together in the same environment were more likely to initiate the transfer process simultaneously and synchronously. But a plant, a human and a bacterium perceive so differently that synchronization is much more complex.
- S.I: You were saying before that the supreme collective consciousness is 82% formed by the experience of plants and that they do not prey, but they are preyed upon... What are the implications of that?
- A.T: Although we are an infinity of identities with their own reality, we are all instances of the one reality, the supreme one (which has not yet been actualized and is potential). We are versions, interpretations of that one reality. If we are versions of the one (and total) reality, then the collective reality is the basis of all identity. Therefore, in addition to the reality returned to us by our subjective perception (both the individual perception and the collective perception transferred to the binding entities), we cannot but experience the collective base tendency, a compendium of each of the realities of each identity. It is the collective consciousness of the supreme entity, consciousness being an intermediate substrate between identity and self-perception. But, and this is important, it is a consequence of the first two identities. 
- S.I: Is that detail important?
- A.T: Of course, it means that it does not exist by itself. Consciousness is not eternal, because it has an origin and will have an end. Only self-perception is eternal, everything else being a consequence of the first cause. Self-perception sustains everything, including perception and identity. And identity sustains consciousness, both individual and collective, the latter being the fruit of the simultaneous existence of two or more identities. The collective consciousness is a jumble of experiences processed by the supreme entity. It is the most general and abstract entity. The one that groups all the other identities and entities. The collective consciousness does not perceive, because it is not yet an identity. But it is a compendium of all experiences. 
This nuance is very, very important. An entity does not perceive or experience by itself, but it affects the experience of all the identities that make it up. The supreme entity, or supreme collective consciousness, receives the perception we transfer to it and returns the tendencies to us. And the collective consciousness transfers terrible suffering to us for two reasons. The first is that the identities experience how they are devoured billions of times every instant, nourishing the collective entity with those experiences and making all the identities that form it participate in it. The second is that it is the entity itself that devours itself. That is to say, the entity returns the experience to us as the predator and as the prey, filling with suffering the base emotion of the experience of any identity.
However, in the supreme entity, we are 82% suffering as prey (the plants) and the rest as prey and as predator (the rest of the living beings).
- S.I: Would that be the reason why perception implies fear and individuality?
- A.T: No, not exactly. The result of perception is proper to design. But with erroneous perception, the experience will always be erroneous. It is not that erroneous behaviors return an experience that is perceived as negative, but that erroneous perception generates negative behaviors that condition negative experiences.
- S.I: So, in a way, do you experience this basic suffering in all living beings?
- A.T: More or less. It is the basic tendency. But it is a tendency that has two key parameters. One is that in that base tendency we are preyed upon, and the other is that we do not prey. Plants are victims, but not executioners. The collective consciousness returns those experiences of the plant kingdom to the whole of all living beings, and that is the base tendency. But it is a tendency that must coexist with the rest of the tendencies that affect us. 
The tendencies come from the entities, to which we belong because we have transferred to them a percentage of our identity, even if it is a very low percentage.
It is important to note that trends condition the experience, but they are not the experience. Every identity generates its own experience, which affects the collective consciousness. But trends cause certain behaviors to become more frequent and alter the experience and perception of the identities they affect.
The tendencies will condition our perception, beliefs and behaviors, but not with the same intensity. Higher entities have less affecting power than entities just above our identity. 
Furthermore, with the exception of the supreme, entities are born and die, as they depend on the collective that created them. If the collective disappears, either because the identities that form it are annihilated, or because they ungroup, the entity will also disappear. Although, if it has generated a tendency, this tendency may have spread to other entities at different levels, both subordinate and binding entities. 
Our balance between individual perception and collective perception will be conditioned by all the trends, but the ratio will be higher or lower depending on various factors. 
So, do all identities feel victimized? No, we don't. Although we all receive that tendency in a very low percentage, that does not mean that it will affect more than 50% of our perception. If it only affects us in 1%, there is a residue of emotion, but it is not intense enough to condition us all the time.
- S.I: Why do you say condition us all the time? Could that residual emotion condition you only a few times?
- A.T: Sure, in the metaphor of the parliamentary chamber, think about how the different parliamentary groups interact to affect public opinion. Minority parties do not have the capacity to affect the political and media agenda, but they do have the capacity to make people talk about their issues for days, weeks or months at a time. 
Why don't we have coherent personalities? Why is it that a normal person, with a normal life and a normal job, can do unexpected things at certain times in his or her life? Because trends constantly affect us and alter our perception and beliefs. 
It happens to us, and it happens to the bacteria that inhabit the gut of any animal and live in symbiotic coexistence. Until, for some reason, they start behaving aggressively and become an infection. A peaceful dog that has been living with a family for 10 years suddenly, for no apparent reason, attacks another of the animals living in the house. Both are examples of a sharp change in the way reality was perceived. The magnitude of tendencies, which come from the magnitude of entities, is constantly affecting us. Only some of them possess the intensity necessary to condition our normal, usual personality. Others can affect us at specific moments, when circumstances cause that tendency to gain specific weight for a few hours over the whole. 
- S.I: So, is the behavior of any living being conditioned by its own individual perception and beliefs which, in turn, are conditioned by the collective perception coming from the entities and their tendencies? There being base tendencies that set the general behavior of any living being, and there being minority tendencies that may affect at certain specific times. 
- A.T: Yes, but the trends do not define the type of perception according to whether they are in the majority or in the minority, but it depends on the intensity with which they affect. 
The closer a trend is, the more intense is its signal. Therefore, the directly superior entities (for example, the subordinate one of the family) influence to a great extent, more than the general and binding one of humans. But the family entity, of any identity, is also influenced by the directly superior entity, such as the subordinate entity social nucleus. And that will be influenced by the superior, for example, province.... 
I am giving very simple examples and the entities are not necessarily related to geographical spaces, but in this way they can be better understood. Entities are formed by individuals who group together and generate a collective perception and a common objective. In a municipality it is normal that they share a common perception and form a collective entity. In a region, too. In fact, in these cases the cause can be a consequence and vice versa, that is, a settlement (municipality, village, etc...) would be formed by the collective perception, or the intentional creation of a settlement would generate a collective perception. But the following does not necessarily correspond to province or nation, although the feeling of belonging to a nation comes from that entity. 
I continue... I was saying that entities are influenced by other superior entities. And the subordinate entities are intrinsically linked to the binding entities, in such a way that the family entity is very much conditioned by all the beliefs of the superior entities, and of the rest of the subordinate entities to the same binding entity. 
Thus, a human's perception and beliefs are most strongly conditioned by the family entity, but this entity (and its tendencies) are conditioned by the higher entities up to the collective entity. Why have the beliefs and behaviors of humans in different parts of the world always had such a striking similarity?
- S.I: There are great cultural differences, and there have been in ancient times. The Egyptians were not the same as the Maya. Nor the Eastern cultures with the Western ones. 
- A.T: Those differences are very subtle. Why didn't the behavior of one of those societies, for example, the oriental one, resemble the social behavior of ants, or plants? It was human social behavior, with subtle differences with respect to other groups in different places. 
- S.I: But culture was widespread. Maybe in the Paleolithic it was not like that.
- A.T: Maybe. But why is it the same with plants? The ones here behave like the ones in Australia. And ants. And any bird, belonging to any species that only exists on a remote island and with very few specimens. The social behavior of an individual of a species is essentially the same. With a subtle margin of variation. 
For example, a human raised by wolves will have a social behavior similar to wolves, but will not be a wolf. There are tendencies that affect him, that make him different from wolves. And, once he is integrated with them, he can be integrated into a human society. This happens because perception and beliefs are conditioned by one's own identity perception. But it is also due to collective perception, conditioned by exposure to entities and their tendencies. 
So, in principle, a pine tree will always be a pine tree, even if we isolate it from its congeners. A duck will be a duck. And a human will be a human. It may not learn to speak, but it will not behave like a pine, nor like an amoeba. It will behave like a human without access to social culture. And this is because their default perception differentiates them from other species, but it is the entities and their tendencies that generate complex social behaviors, the result of collectivization. And many entities are actually subordinates of very inclusive binding entities.
- S.I: That completely obviates the whole issue of genetics to explain instinctive behavior. The genetic code is almost identical among the members of each species, and it is information recorded inside each cell. That has no importance in your hypothesis?
- A.T: DNA. Interesting topic. Let's get down to it. What is DNA, exactly? The curious thing about DNA is that a unicellular being has a simple DNA, nothing to do with the DNA of a cell belonging to a multicellular being. Why? 
Because DNA, in principle, defines the identity, not the beings that form it. A cell should have a DNA very similar to that of a cell that is part of a multicellular being, but it does not. I believe that the DNA is a mark that the Unconscious Intelligence has used so that we can access this knowledge.
- S.I: A mark? for what purpose would the Unconscious Intelligence leave that mark? 
- A.T: The understanding of the genome allows us to access a hidden knowledge: the filter of the perception of an identity. Notice that I mentioned before that it is the entities that condition part of the behavior and beliefs, affecting the collective perception. But individual perception is conditioned by the filter. Like the example of the helmet that modifies our sensory system, DNA is the information that defines our perception system. The behavior of any given identity is conditioned by entities and tendencies. But entities and tendencies are formed by collective behaviors, which have nothing to do with the instinctive behavior that comes from perception. 
What defines the behavior of a living being? If the living being is immersed in intense processes of identity transference, its perception will present variations due to the effect of the manifestation of the Unconscious Intelligence in the entities of which it is part. If it is not part of entities (without forgetting that all identities are part of, at least, the supreme collective one), or it does so in a very small percentage, then its current perception is almost equal to the identity perception. But if it is part of entities in a sufficient percentage, then its collective perception will have a lot of weight with respect to the identity perception. And collective perception is different from identity perception because Unconscious Intelligence manifests within entities, which are partially self-perceived environments. Thus, DNA is the code of the individual perceptual system of an identity. And if entities and their tendencies did not exist, DNA would define the perception of an identity. 
However, the perception of an identity that is immersed in deep processes of perceptual transfer varies greatly from the identity perception, that of DNA. The perceptual system of an identity is formed by the identity perception, together with all the variations of the tendencies of the entities of which it is part. That is, its collective perception.
- S.I: You mean that the DNA defines the default perception, but that this is not the real perception, because the entities and their tendencies condition it to a large extent?
- A.T: Yes, something like that. Individual perception and collective perception form the effective perception. Each increases to the detriment of the other, for the sum of the two must yield a result of 100%.
In the example of the human raised by wolves, he will never perceive as a wolf. But his behavior will be different from that of a human raised in a human society. But two humans raised in isolated societies, in different parts of the world, will have similar perception, behavior and beliefs. Because their collective perception is very similar and, in that case, they are very sensitive to the same binding entities and their tendencies. 
- S.I: And what about the mark of the Unconscious Intelligence?
- A.T: By being able to access the code of the perception system, we can read it and we can modify it. The genome is a tool to understand and modify the perception system. It is a very useful tool if we want to create a God, because being able to understand the perception system of an identity, and even being able to modify it, allows us to overcome some of the most important blocks to carry out the process of identity transfer. 
We could, for example, generate changes to be able to homogenize the perception of bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc... and have them initiate the process of collectivization simultaneously. 
We will discuss this in detail when we start defining the steps to create the Perfect Environment.
- S.I: Okay. You said that DNA refers to the identity, but not to the cell that forms it. Obviously, I have a very thorough knowledge on this subject, but I find it useful to hear your own exposition of each concept. Can you explain this in more detail?
- A.T: Yes, of course. An identity is a living being that perceives. When a cell is part of a multicellular being, it no longer perceives because it has transferred perception. A higher identity has emerged, its God, and it is no longer an identity. The genetic code could refer, in some way, to the superior identity, and to the parts that form it, always in relation to the superior identity. 
- S.I: And this does not explain, then, the emergence?
- A.T: It does not explain it, it leaves a record of it. But the sum of the parts does not define the identity, even if there is a code where it is reflected that the parts form a body. That can explain the whole, and even some rules of behavior, but it does not explain the fact that there is someone, a presence, that is the superior identity. That it is that whole.
- S.I: So you think that DNA is just a mark left by the Unconscious Intelligence for us to discover?
- A.T: I'm just saying that, if perception generates the stage; if perception generates even the form and characteristics of the bodies, as parts of the stage, then the genome, the atoms, absolutely everything is the fruit of that perception. It is a form that the scenario adopts to endow it with common sense, what we could call the rules of the scenario. Without these rules, the fruit of simultaneous and synchronized perception, there could not be a collective stage, because each identity would perceive the stage in its own way, with its physical disposition, with its physical rules, preventing the identities from interacting with each other. 
But the rules give common sense and consistency to the scenario, and that is why it remains and can be shared. Everything is formed in consciousness, which is unique (and is a consequence of self-perception, which is also unique). Imagine the server of an online multi-user application, such as a video game. The scenario that each player perceives is consistent with that of the other players because there is centralization. 
Everything happens on the server and follows the programmed rules, although each player perceives his own portion of the game. Rules are necessary if the scenario is individual, shared and centralized. Does DNA exist and do atoms exist if we do not perceive them? Do they exist for a plant or for a bacterium? Do they have any function for them? Are they just part of the rules that endow the scenario with common sense, that is, that allow them to be shared simultaneously? 
- S.I: Let's continue. A question about grouping. When identities group together, do they go on to seek the individual good, understanding that, by sharing a kind of mind, in the form of an entity and then emergent identity, the individual good is actually the common good? That is to say, the common good is necessary when there are several interests of several individuals at the same time, but when they share the same mind and the superior identity emerges, then the superior individual good is pursued, which coincides with the individual good of each contained identity, right? 
- A.T: Let us nuance. During the process of transference of perception, collective behaviors do appear (association, cooperation and specialization) that create a common good. The common good (which comes from the unconscious intelligence, being the function of restoration of the totality in Self-perception) competes with the individual good (born of perception and conditioned by the identity perceptual structure: DNA). 
As the process of grouping and identity transfer progresses, the individual good makes room for the common good and the higher good. Because self-perception, which is unique and individual, manifests itself more and more in the collective, generating the collective perception. 
The common good and the higher good will eventually replace the individual good at the instant before the total transfer of perception. Because at that point the individual good will correspond to the identity perception (the individual), which will be almost zero. And the superior good will correspond to the collective perception, which will be almost one hundred. The identity perception will be totally collective and will pursue the higher good, since the individual good will be equal to zero. 
To understand this, it is necessary to emphasize that the collective good is differentiated into the common good (i.e., of the parties involved in the collective) and the higher good. The higher good is the evolution of the common good when it transcends from the set of identities¡ to the future identity that will emerge. Thus, the collective will move from seeking the common good of the identities to seeking the higher good of the Entity, which will emerge as the higher identity. 
Unconscious Intelligence pursues defragmentation, therefore, when it passes the inflection point in the Transfer of Perception, the identities will be more the Entity than themselves, and will seek to manifest the Identity they will be (the superior one to emerge), over the identity they are at that moment. 
The turning point occurs when the 50.01% percentage of collective perception is reached, with respect to the 49.99% of individual perception. At that very moment, the collective good will be transformed into the superior good, since the Unconscious Intelligence (collective perception) will control the interior of the collective in a higher percentage than each identity (individual perception).
The common good is transformed into the higher good, going from looking after the interest of the group, to looking after the interest of that someone who is the higher identity (which has not yet emerged). It is a progressive process, not a binary one. So there is an evolution from the point where the common good is far superior to the higher good, to the opposite point where the higher good is far greater than the common good.
Once the higher identity emerges, the higher good will be 100%, and the common and individual good will no longer have specific weight in it. The new identity will pursue its own interests, as the higher good will be transformed into its individual good, which has nothing to do with the interests of the parties involved. And this new higher identity will generate its own collective perception together with other identities, forming part of its own entities and generating its own common good and a new higher good.
Remember that emergence is not explained by the sum of the parts, so the interests of the new identity are born from its own perception. And not only this. The unconscious intelligence possesses its own interests that need not coincide with those of the identity. So the identity pursues its own interests and the parts that form it cannot oppose it. And the unconscious intelligence controls these parts and, always subject to the designs of the identity, pursues its own interests. That is why the common good becomes the highest good when the unconscious intelligence achieves greater influence in the collective than the identity itself.
- S.I.: Then both the unconscious intelligence and the identity have their own interests and each one pursues them with determination. And in the middle are the cells that have transferred their identity, suffering because of the decisions of the Unconscious Intelligence and the emerging identity.
- A.T.: No, a being that has transferred its identity does not perceive and, therefore, does not suffer. Suffering is experienced only by the identity. For contained beings there is only eternal peace. In any case, the only real interest is that of the Unconscious Intelligence. The identity is unreal and believes itself to be real. It generates unreal interests that are maintained and perpetuated in time.
- S.I.: I have another doubt regarding grouping. According to what you say, when some identities create a collective and carry out the transference of identity, they no longer perceive and form part of a new living being, a superior identity. Could the cells that form a multicellular living being ungroup?
- A.T: That's a good question and let's go a little deeper into the process of collectivization. In order for the cells that are grouped together to ungroup, once the transfer of perception is complete, they should have the power to decide to do so, but they don't. When they transfer identity, they cease to have the power to do so. When they transfer identity, they cease to possess will. Even if they had the possibility of ungrouping, they could not decide because the cell is no longer the cell, but is a part of the multicellular being. And the cell is controlled by the Unconscious Intelligence.
Now let us give an example of something strange to which we do not give too much importance, but which requires a thorough analysis of the process. A certain plant is plucked from a branch and left in a pot of water. It is a cutting, a part of a plant that will develop into another plant. This is very curious.
And it is very curious because an identity is individual and its parts do not have an identity by themselves. How can that branch thrive and become an identity? Are both plants the same identity?
This last possibility is not viable, because the problem of replication is that as the structure replicates and self-perception manifests, it perceives and generates its own identity, due to the separation that exists between the replicating and the replicated. But that branch was already self-perceived, it already possessed an identity. It should not be possible to create a new identity. 
What happens when a part of a higher being is separated? What holds together the fragments that form a higher self is the membrane, what the identity perceives as limiting its self-perceived part (which comes from the limitation that the self-perceived part will begin to perceive). But when a part of that whole is separated, the whole is separated, and one of the two new wholes will be the identity... But what is the other part?
Here we must remember that the transference of perception converts a binding entity into an identity. And when that higher identity emerges, between the identities and it there have been many subordinate entities that have been part of the higher collective. That is, the cells of a plant formed entities, and these entities formed the binding entity that emerges as the identity of the plant. When a part of that identity is separated, that new part no longer possesses identity, so the following happens:
A branch is separated from its original membrane and an absence of identity emerges. Immediately, the self-perceived part tries to self-perceive the whole again and, not being able to do so, it goes on to perceive. And, as normal, the entity that forms the branch would be generated, but those fragments do not possess perception, so they cannot become themselves again. So, since the whole is 100% self-perceived, an identity emerges immediately. But can that branch thrive as an identity? When a part of the whole is separated, it will become an identity, but most of the time it will lack the components that keep it alive. 
The third step of identity transfer is specialization, and for a part that becomes an identity to live, it needs all the specialized components. Thus, when some parts of a plant are separated, they can survive because of their structure. But when a heart is transplanted, during the time that the heart has not been integrated into a whole, it will have been an identity without the possibility of surviving. In fact, the transfer of the heart is done in conditions that slow down the cellular rhythm, in such a way that the heart's action of self-perception is not executed and, therefore, it does not perceive. The same happens when, in an accident, a limb is amputated, or in any other excision of a part of the body/assembly of a multicellular being. If the plant branch can survive as an identity, it is because it possesses the necessary components. And it will survive.
This process of excision, if we analyze it carefully, is very similar, if not identical, to that of replication, but the difference lies in the fact that replication is done in a premeditated way and in this case it usually happens by accident. 
The self-perception in a split-off part will try to self-perceive beyond its limit and, not being able to do so, the identity will emerge. Exactly what happens during replication. But in replication a part is created that is autonomous and contains all the components necessary to live. Why? 
Because it is a replica of an autonomous identity with full capacity to experience. In many cases the split part does not possess these complements and when its identity emerges it dies soon after. In cases such as the branch of a type of plant, or an arm of a starfish, the split-off part may contain what is necessary to initiate its own experience as an independent identity. And, unlike in collectivization, in splitting and replication the wholes are already self-perceived and controlled by the Unconscious Intelligence, which is not the case during a normal process of transfer of perception.
So, can a cell be separated from a higher identity? The answer is no, because it has no will and is not a perceiving identity. It would be a different thing if it were isolated outside of the higher identity as a whole and the self-perception manifested within it tried to perceive itself. Although it is unnecessary, I ask you to remember this important detail:
An identity manifests because that self-perceived part tries to self-perceive, generating a perceived boundary that we call a body. Identities are not bound to a body, in that identity can disappear from a body upon transfer. After the transfer of perception, in order for that fragment to possess an identity again, it would have to disengage from the higher whole. At that point the self-perception would try to self-perceive beyond its boundary, generating perception and identity again. But the resulting identity would not be the same one that was transferred (since it is part of the higher identity from which it comes), but a totally new one that would emerge at that moment.
However, when that body is encompassed within a higher set, this set is already self-perceived. Self-perception tries to self-perceive beyond the higher body, generating the perception and emergence of the higher identity, preventing perception and identity in the fragments contained in that higher identity.