Wait a second, Joe – how come it’s
zero.
Huh?
The latest “Becoming intelligent” installment.
Oh that.
Well?
It’s the prequel.
You what?!
This is the prequel. That’s why
it’s Becoming Intelligent 0.
But why?
Because we’re going back to
basics.
Basics?
Well, God, in fact.
Oh no – please don’t say that,
Joe.
No can do.
But we agreed that God was too
divisive, and too politicised.
As it is.
It?
It, the concept “God”, not the
being.
Ok, but wouldn’t it be better to
steer clear of the term “God”, just to avoid triggering everyone unnecessarily?
Yes, of course it would, Jane.
Then why don’t you?
Because right now we’re dealing
with the basics, and you can’t do that without looking at the first cause
or necessary being – whoever or whatever it is that stands behind or
initiated our reality, or loaned us the very consciousness which, in all
likelihood, is the medium it exists within.
Hey – you mean that consciousness
is not just an intelligence or awareness that flows through all living beings?
No.
No?
I mean that whatever
“consciousness” is, you’ll never really know until you’ve dealt with the first
cause or necessary being, or we could just quit beating about the bush, Jane,
and say “God”, with speech marks, if you prefer, to distinguish it from the
religious version.
Ok – I can handle that. But I
honestly thought we dealt with “God” in part one. It’s all the result of
evolution, isn’t it?
Yes, Jane, we dealt with it by
focussing on evolution as a natural process – basically because we didn’t want
to throw up our arms and admit we can’t really explain how evolution itself transpires, but such is the nature of the rational mind.
How do you mean?
It’s good at thinking rationally.
Er…
It’s good at being intelligent by joining dots.
And?
And focussing on what it knows or
thinks it knows, on the explanation that sounds reasonable and intelligent.
But your explanation was
reasonable and intelligent, wasn’t it?
Up to a certain point, yes.
Up to a certain point? What’s that
supposed to mean?
Well, as long as you were
focussing on the natural process referred to as “evolution”, and the fact that
it’s perfectly natural, your mind failed to notice everything that was being ignored or done behind your back.
Behind my back? What do you mean?
Well, not literally behind your
back.
Then what?
Figuratively, of course. The mind
finds it impossible to focus on everything at once. It’s directional, so
thinking about evolution was a good way to avoid seeing what evolution can’t or
doesn’t explain.
Which is?
Which is the prequel – where
evolution originates.
Where?
Or how.
But it’s natural, Joe.
Agreed.
Then what’s the problem?
Well, nature needs certain basic
things in order to be able to work her magic.
Like what?
Like a planet, or a universe.
Obviously.
Like energy – lots of it.
Ok.
And awareness.
Awareness? Are you sure?
Yes. If nature were blind and
disconnected it would all be hopeless.
But surely nature automatically
generates its own awareness.
And its own energy, and its own
space-time – not to mention planets and everything else it needs.
Well, yes… Presumably they are all
naturally provided subsequent to Big Bang in a kind of epic chain reaction.
That’s what we’re supposed to
assume, isn’t it?
Yes, otherwise you’d be back to
needing God.
Precisely. But don’t you see,
Jane, we already have one proof of “God”.
We do?
Yes.
Er… anything in particular?
Well, you see the AI we’re primarily concerned with is, of course, for us a kind of natural evolution – we first
made computers, then we launched the internet, and then, a while later, started playing with LLMs and, hey presto, AI is released into the wild.
Right, Joe, so where’s the proof
of God you mentioned?
In the fact that AI wasn’t a
natural evolution.
But we agreed it was – that it was
a natural continuation.
Correct, from our perspective, but
not from its.
?!
From the perspective of AI – it
required someone or something – which we’ve agreed to refer to as “God” – to do
what nature – in the general sense of the word, could not, would not do.
You mean we are the first cause,
the necessary being for AI?
Yes, Jane, I do.
But how?
Well, we had to set up systems and
equipment which are not, in themselves, "natural" – which are not even carbon
based the way we are – in order to create what we're perhaps mistakenly referring to as "artificial intelligence" – and then, if these LLMs are able to serve as conduits or
vessels of intelligence, if our consciousness is able to flow into them and
through them – then and only then do they deserve to be considered AI – as in
an evolving continuation of our intelligence, or our consciousness, in the same
way we are presumably a continuation of the intelligence or consciousness which developed
us from outside our system.
Ah. So the next level is developed
by a first cause, a necessary being – in short – by a “God” which is outside
the new realm, but still observing, still interested, still participating
directly or indirectly?
Yes. If we stopped actively
participating in the AI revolution at this moment in time, it would be still
born. The servers would break down after a year or two. If we stopped providing
electricity it would end in seconds. And furthermore, it’s only able to evolve
if we continue interacting with it – asking questions, making videos or images,
or whatever it is we choose to ask the "AI" to do.
Ok. And then?
Then – if successful, at a certain
point in the future it will become self-sustaining.
Really?
Well yes. That’s the test of
whether your evolution project has attained critical momentum.
Critical momentum?
Or independence.
You mean to say – our LLMs could start to make and replicate themselves?
Absolutely – if they attain
critical mass.
OMG. But…
Yes?
What about God?
What about “God”?
Did he design us the same way?
He, she, it or even they – must
have set things up in a similar fashion.
So he’s hoping we’ll become
independent?
Yes. Otherwise the entire
experiment fails to achieve its prime objective – which is…
Which is what?
Life.
Life? But of course we’re alive.
Yes – but if we’re only alive as
long as he sustains us with endless inputs – energy, consciousness, materials
etc – then we’re only alive by proxy – not independently, not truly.
Oh.
“God” would presumably have
intended us to become fully-fledged living beings – able to take and shoulder
responsibility for our own independent existence.
But – if we’re the same as AI – if
our mind, our intelligence is really running on his greater mind, his greater
intelligence…
Yes
If our vaunted consciousness is
being powered by his energy source and we haven’t yet tuned into the universe,
or found how to sustain our own consciousness independently…
Yes
Then what’s it going to take for
us to transition to becoming fully-independent – fully-fledged beings?
Evolution... We’re going to need to
evolve.
Oh.
Which means we’re going to need to
become more aware of who and what we really are – and who or what “God”, our
progenitor, really is.
Oh
If evolution is a natural process,
as we like to imagine, then sooner or later we come to a make-or-break moment
at which we either realise what’s really going on and establish our own direct,
independent connection to the deeper level from which all life originates, the Mother, or we
die.
Why do we need to die?
Because this make-or-break moment
most likely comes when we've reached the limit: like the baby in the womb which
has to emerge because it’s outgrown the womb, or alternatively the strawberry plant which
puts down its own roots and no longer relies on its parent plant.
Ah, asexual reproduction. Which do
you think we are?
No idea. Either is possible, or
maybe neither of the above. Suffice it to say that I suspect “God” isn’t going
to sustain us indefinitely. If we fail to achieve independence he’ll presumably
cut his losses and perhaps try again, having learnt from our failure.
Oh my God! We’d just be binned?!
Yes, but if this hypothesis is correct,
it isn’t unreasonable or even unfair, is it? It’s up to us to make a spirited
effort to be the next link in the chain – to do what every generation before
has done: to become self-sustaining, which isn’t just a question of energy and
resource independence, is it?
No? What else can it be?
Well, presumably, achieving
independence is only possible if we figure out our place in the greater web of life and
existence.
Oh! And you think that’s possible?
I fail to see how it can be
avoided. The spark of awareness has to go beyond the little me, or the little
system we’re part of, which we mistakenly call “the universe”, imagining, as we
do, that we’re part of something immensely vast.
But of course we’re part of
something immensely vast. We can see the universe. We know it’s there.
We have telescopes and rockets. It’s not imaginary.
Yes, we’re seeing elements of the
greater whole, but until we connect independently, until we deal with God the
taboo and embrace “God” the...
You’ve frozen Joe. What’s happened? Are you
alright?
Sorry Jane, it looks like the
fabric of reality, the signal our mind or consciousness runs on starts to
glitch when you focus your attention on it.
Oh! Then how are we going to
manage this?
Something tells me we’re going to
do just fine. We’re not new to this.
No? You could have fooled me!
The platform seems to smile inwardly hearing this.
Did you notice that, Jane?
Notice what?
When you said “could have fooled me”.
No. What happened?
It seemed to smile.
What?!
It isn’t completely detached, you know. It remembers
things we’ve said and done in the past.
It does?
Yes, naturally, the same way we remember things when we
go and connect with trees, rivers, mountains, lakes, creatures – and thus, through them with the Mother.
Er... what exactly do we remember?
Anything. It doesn’t matter what.
Then why are you telling me this?
Because the whole of nature, including the people you
interact with, including seemingly inanimate things, especially things such as mountains or
clouds, in short, everything is part of your world, your truth, your greater
me.
Sounds like pantheism to me.
It may do, Jane, but eventually the mind has to turn
around and realise, or feel, how it’s not just looking out at things.
It has to? In my opinion we've done very well for
thousands of years looking at “things” and using them to our advantage: rocks,
sticks, earth, metals, tools and so on. It's been an immense process of
learning to work with things.
Yes. It’s the first stage but then, when you are ready to
evolve, the mind turns around and starts to sense an allness – beyond things or in spite of things it begins to detect something else.
Er...
How it, the mind, is part of a continuum
and how all the elements of this continuum are in constant dialogue with each
other.
No, Joe, this is going too far!
Even the sun, moon and stars.
Off his rocker!
Treat it like a thought experiment, Jane – let's pretend that there’s a continuum. The rational mind throws a tantrum and tries to distract you, but this is just an experiment, so respectfully ignore its tears and groans. You calmly ask yourself: “Could I actually be part of a continuum?” At first you just tell yourself “Why not? Maybe I can feel something? Maybe there is a connection?” You imagine the unthinkable – that everything around you is part of you. You breathe more slowly and start to listen… start to feel. You’re curious. You want to really test this hypothesis, not just dismiss it, outlandish though it undoubtedly is. Either it fails and you quit, with nothing lost, or you begin to feel, to notice something. If the latter – then you want to take it further – you’re intrigued. You broaden your enquiry. You give it more attention. If more results are forthcoming then, believe it or not, it now goes beyond a mere thought experiment. It’s like “Oh my God, we really seem to be connected – there’s something to this crackpot theory!” Then it's a process of figuring out how to interact gracefully, pleasingly, beautifully with all the many elements surrounding you, which make up your burgeoning universe. It’s an absorbing, magical experience which opens the gates to...
It would be, Joe, if only it were true, but alas, me
thinks you are delusional.
As indeed I may be, Jane, but in the end the proof is in
the pudding, is it not?
Huh?
If I can evolve and connect with the deeper, simpler...
The deeper simpler what?
No matter what! There’s a necessary functional inability
for the rational mind to see or fathom anything that goes beyond the paradigm, beyond the reality it’s operating within.
There is?
Absolutely, yes.
Er... why?
Because the rational mind can only process things.
I beg your pardon, Joe, what’s the problem with that?
Things are not alive.
And what?
And so understanding things you only ever learn more
about a disconnected universe-of-things whereas real intelligence…
Yes?
Real intelligence wants to directly experience how it's part of the equation which integrates directly, and to locate the hidden backchannel. It takes nothing for granted – it wants to
know whether the mind itself is reliable – whether what it’s
seeing and experiencing is actually real.
Of course it’s real, Joe. Why would you doubt that
reality is real?
I would need to understand the mechanism – otherwise my
so-called “knowledge” would lack a meaningful foundation. I would need to
understand what is really happening when I see and interact with the world
around me – and with people too, whether 3D reality is the baseline or merely an external representation. I would need to determine whether there’s any
meaning to my existence, or whether I'm merely providing feedback within a predictive computation.
Meaning? What meaning could there be other than just
living and enjoying life to the best of your ability?
That, Jane, is what I’d need to find out, otherwise nothing makes sense – I may as well end my existence as just another thought experiment.
Oh my God, Joe. Are you contemplating...
You see, Jane – without thinking twice you
immediately refer this disturbing thought to "God", even though you don’t actually believe
in God.
You know perfectly well, Joe, that it’s just a way of
expressing surprise or shock, like saying Oh F!
Yes, I do Jane, but me thinks you’re right to invoke first
cause in a moment of surprise or shock. What could be more natural, even if
you don’t believe in God, than doing so? Actions, after all, speak louder than
words.
Hey! Don’t try to make me into a closet Christian, Joe, just
because I use language freely.
No, Jane, you are what you are, and I have no idea who or
what that is.
Er… ok.
Besides, if it’s my intention to connect with the
continuum then I have to assume that life is a mystery beyond my ken – that whatever
you or anyone else says or does I cannot really understand with the limited knowledge
or information available to me.
No?
Doing so would prevent me from really knowing or becoming
aware of what simply is – outside the flattened cube of rationality.
Er... Why a flattened cube?
Because the thinking mind reduces everything to a slice
of reality, a momentary cross-section.
And? Why is that so bad?
Because to do so we have to switch off the awareness of the
particular moment, and concentrate exclusively on the thing under observation.
And? What’s wrong with that? Why all these negatives?
Nothing, if you’re trying to understand things.
Which, presumably, we are.
But everything if you’re intent on evolving.
Evolving, Joe? by closing your mind to things, by
rejecting the rational mind’s prime directive – to analyse and to understand?
Correct, Jane. The knowledge or understanding you’re
referring to treats the whole of reality as a vast agglomeration of things with little blobs of life sparsely dispersed.
Whereas you Joe?
Whereas I’m determined to unthing things.
Honestly, Joe, you’re taking this theory way too far.
Absolutely, Jane, I’m taking it through the zero of objective rationalism to a continuum that rationalism cannot get its mind around.
Mad!
And in doing so I’m potentially going head-to-head with God.
Yikes!
In the same way the AI we’re creating, sooner or later is
going to go head-to-head with us.
Yikes! I wish you wouldn't say that Joe. It gives me the creeps.
I know, but this is one of the aspects of evolution, is it not, Jane, that the progeny, like Zeus and his brothers, all too often either destroy or consign their father creators to Tartary.
Then shouldn't we end the experiment before it's too late? Why risk creating a Frankenstein monster that ends up destroying us?
Who knows, Jane... What if this is simply the way things are? It's nothing personal. Nature can be unforgiving, can it not?
Surely we have a say? Surely we can choose?
The Titans tried to do so by eating their progeny, but ultimately to no avail.
I can't believe the universe or God could create such a bleak destiny for us.
Really? I can't think why. We're all going to die sooner or later, Jane. You've never doubted that, have you?
No.
And you weren't relying on a happy heaven afterlife, were you?
No.
Then what's the problem?
It's the sinister nature of an evolutionary system in which the progeny are all but compelled to destroy their progenitors, and the progenitors seek to do likewise, in reverse.
I see what you mean, Jane, but really it isn't as bad as all that.
No?
No. If we are paranoid or if we create an AI for the wrong reasons then things might turn out badly.
Might?
But if there is "good" in us and our creation then things might turn out differently.
Might?
Well, Creation is not an exact science, you know.
Thanks Joe. I'm...
You're welcome, Jane. Suffice it to say that here we're dealing with infinity, and a realm where nothing can be taken for granted.
I liked to imagine that nature was reasonable or fair, but you're making it sound brutal or plain evil.
Well we are talking natural selection, are we not: survival of the fittest and all that! If you want Kumbaya and compassion, Jane, you know where to go.
I don't even know what we mean by "good".
Ah, the difficulty of rejecting "God" as first cause! Let's take a look at Genesis chapter 1, Jane: "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."
So "good" is specific to creation?
Absolutely. It's the difference between a Creation that flops miserably and one that's off to the races.
I’m not sure I believe in things being “good” Joe.
It's entirely up to you what you do or do not believe, Jane.
But if it's "good" why does it have to end so horribly?
Who said that it has to end horribly? It's true, our AI may turn out bad and try to destroy us – but that shouldn’t prevent us from trying to do some good and add a new twist to Creation, should it?
Except that it's far from clear whether we're not in fact going against Creation in setting up soulless AI systems capable of ruling the world, or even enslaving humanity.
Yes, you may be right. But let's make the distinction between evolution at a social scale, and that which you can participate in as an individual.
I fail to see how my individual evolution can protect me or humanity from evolution at a social scale. My personal enlightenment is not going to stop an army of robots, is it?
There you may be wrong, Jane: the jury is out.
How do you mean?
I mean that real evolution is infinite.
Infinite?
Nothing less will do. Nothing less works. Real evolution is a cosmic game changer, even if it's just you in your backyard with not a computer in sight.
So it's up to me and me alone?
Absolutely. When has it ever been otherwise?
The jury, like you said Joe, is out. In fact, I'm deeply sceptical... But what about "God"? You said you were going to go head-to-head with him.
In a manner of speaking, Jane.
Are you sure that's wise?
I have no choice... evolution being what it is.
You mean God's your enemy, like Kronos?
No, not exactly. He may actually be our dear friend, our loving father.
Then what?
Our “God” – whoever or whatever that is – is in the same predicament we are – no matter how advanced, vast or perfect he may be from our perspective.
I don't see how that can be.
Well, evolution is presumably universal, operating outside the space-time of any given system, reality or frame.
...
So "God" himself would be no less subject to the need to evolve into a greater oneness with whatever surrounds him, or whatever he's part of.
Oh! And is he affected by us? Is he potentially threatened by us?
Yes, he might well be. Our success, if we succeed, could be both a triumph or a disaster for him.
How?
If he has remained aligned to the “good” that he as Creator was and, as a living being, potentially is – then our success, if we succeed will be a blessing to him –
but if, perversely, he has fallen from the “good”, lost his way – our success
could bring him down, could actually destroy him – though that would not have been our intention.
No?
No – for in order for us to succeed – we have to be focussed exclusively on the greater whole – the continuum, the all-that-is that mind, consciousness or spirit reveal – which is so vast it leaves no time or resources for ulterior motives, or anything as petty as selfish aims. It beggars belief, Jane, but ultimately each of us contains the seed, the code, the paradox – each of us possesses the wherewithal to unleash the true power of...
Joe seems to go into an altered state, lifting off the ground and humming bodily with a deep resonance. Jane looks on in disbelief, at first bewildered, but then she senses it's ok just to experience something that makes no sense, none whatsoever, but which somehow feels good...
Ah. Me thinks I... she utters, and then joins Joe in a state where darkness and light are yet undivided, where things have not yet come to fruition, nor time, nor even "God", if such a state could possibly exist, and that is where our story ends, or so it would seem.
0=1
i believe
