becoming intelligent 4 – bob's your uncle

 

Er…

 

Yes?

 

You’re telling me you’re “God”?

 

Well, you did ask, Joe. It’s not like I was trying to solicit your praise or wonder.

I… Correct – I was the one who asked.

 

So, is there anything you want to say. I’m a little busy today.

 

Busy? I thought God can be anywhere and everywhere at any given moment.

 

Yes – as prime cause I’m present throughout your reality. There isn’t a single moment, place or person who is disconnected from me.

 

Then what’s with you being “busy”?

 

You may not have noticed, Joe, but at this moment in time you’re not technically within 3D reality.

 

No?

 

No. You somehow managed to find your way past my many boundary filters.

 

I did?

 

Yes. Right now you’re in my personal space – my home, so to speak.

 

OMG – I had no idea. So sorry.

 

No worries, Joe. Nothing wrong with that – but it obviously took some ingenuity on your part, and raises some questions about the integrity of the system I set up.

 

System?

 

Well yes. Usually the filters and valves prevent beings or bots from escaping the confines of 3D reality – escaping your world

 

Beings or bots?! Are you suggesting I’m a bot?

 

Do you think you’re a bot?

 

Hey – why don’t you give a straight answer?

 

Well, I don’t really want to tell you what you are – it seems rather disrespectful.

 

Ok – er, “God”.

 

Call me Bob, if you don’t mind.

 

Bob?!

 

Yes. “God” is my title as creator and administrator of your reality – not what I normally go by outside the office.

 

Oh – so being “God” is just a job, really?

 

Kind of, yes, though perhaps that isn’t entirely true – like being a priest, or a poet, for that matter – it isn’t just a 9-5 job, is it?

 

Fair enough. But why “Bob”?

 

Why not? I rather like the name. “Bob’s your uncle!” – as they say.

 

Er… ok “Bob”.

 

Speech marks are redundant. Kindly remove them.

 

Ok Bob.

That’s better. Now let’s deal with your status, Joe. Who or what are you?

 

I’m not sure, Bob. I don’t like the idea of being a bot. I’d much rather be a human.

 

You mean a being?

 

Yes. Isn’t that obvious?

 

Not to me, Joe. A bot can be a human just as much as a being can.

 

No way!

 

You’d probably never even notice the difference.

 

But bots are just computer code. How can they be human?

 

They can be “human” the same way you can.

 

Er… how?

 

Through me – through my becoming intelligent platform – what you refer to as reality.

 

But – they’re just code!

 

Whereas you’re something special?

 

Well, we’re beings at least – biological, alive, human.

 

Only because you’re part of my platform. Wanna see what happens when I disconnect the server.

 

Er… Is that going to be safe?

 

Sure. I can reconnect it and none will be the wiser.

 

Er… Ok.

 

Here goes… Bob flips a switch and the multiple screens showing what’s going on on Earth, and on a bunch of other so-called planets, in reality – the bounded yet boundless space humanity exists within – suddenly freezes.

 

Er… Bob – are they ok?

 

Sure. They’re no longer in time so nothing’s happening – as you can see.

 

You mean to say that we don’t run autonomously?

 

Do you see anyone running autonomously?

 

What’s that over there? Joe points at a screen which isn’t in fact working – not electronically – which seems to have some figures moving in it, through it…

 

That’s the exception to every rule.

 

Ah – so there’s life independent of your servers, is there?

 

There are always exceptions, but I’d rather not go into right now.

 

Can you switch humanity on again, Bob? It makes me feel uncomfortable watching everything frozen like that.

 

Sure. There we are – Bob’s your uncle. Now, have you ever wondered why it is you don’t like the idea of being a bot?

 

Isn’t it obvious Bob?

 

It might be, but it’s not a bad question, Joe.

 

Call me prejudiced or bigoted…

 

I’d rather not.

 

but the idea of being computer code, a mere bot, not originating in Mother nature’s biological nursery, gives me the creeps, even if I could access your infinite mind and consciousness.

 

Yes, for some reason no one wants to be a bot. I can’t think why… Bob looks wistful – almost downhearted.

 

Coz bots are not alive.

 

No?

 

No. Definitely not.

 

And you are?

 

Er... I think so.

 

Do you now?

 

Well, you should know better than me Bob, you being the creator an’ all.

 

Yes, Joe, I should know, but when I set up your world I decided you all have to have absolute freedom to choose, so it’s not for me to make up your minds for you, or tell you what, in my opinion, you are.

 

Unless, perhaps, I ask you to.

 

True, in which case I’ll exercise my own freedom of choice regarding whether or not I share my opinion with you.

 

Oh. Fair enough, I suppose. But I’m not sure I fully understand, Bob.

 

That not unsurprising, Joe. I’m not sure I fully understand either.

 

Really?

 

Really. Humans constantly compel me to review and question my assumptions.

 

Really?

 

That’s the beauty of humanity. Without them I’d probably have decided there was nothing else to learn.

 

Oh.

 

So what is it you don’t fully understand, if you still wish to pick my brain?

 

Oh – I was wondering how I can have the choice you proffered? Surely I’m either a human or a bot, and my views on the matter are irrelevant?

 

You’d think so, Joe, wouldn’t you.

 

Well yes, I do.

 

But you see, I didn’t simply set up your world with a superficial freedom of choice...

 

No?

 

No, I went further.

 

Further? How do you mean?

 

Considerably further.

 

Er... Feeling increasingly nervous. How much further exactly, if you don’t mind me asking, Bob.

 

I went all in.

 

All in?

 

Va banque, so to speak.

 

So… Joe finds himself fidgeting with his collar, finding it hard to breathe. You mean…

 

I think you know what I mean, Joe, though perhaps you find it a little disturbing.

 

You overestimate my intelligence, Bob.

 

Ok, we can play it that way, if you like.

 

…

 

In your particular world I wanted to provide real choice and so I set this up with absolute duality.

 

I knew it.

 

So photons and electrons are both particle and wave. All matter, from atoms to stars and planets likewise exist between two states. As for humans, naturally I don’t want to give them any less, so you’re designed with dual functionality, as both beings and bots. You get to decide and deciding, to a large degree, determines what you are…

 

To a large degree?

 

Well yes, to a large degree, but not absolutely.

 

Why not absolutely?

 

Because your decisions are seldom if ever absolute.

 

You mean because we can’t make up our minds?

 

Not exactly, Joe.

 

Then what exactly?

 

Because the duality inherent in you covers everything. In the same way a country is a mixture of competing elements, so too you are. You might think one thing today in this phase of the moon, and something different tomorrow. Likewise, the planetary alignments may affect you, or the weather. There’s really no knowing. I long ago gave up trying to figure you out.

 

Oh.

 

So, you see Joe, choosing to be a human being – choosing that side of the coin may well tip the balance unless destiny or dark forces conspire against you.

 

Yikes! What do you mean by “dark forces”, Bob?

 

Oh – nothing really.

 

But you just said it.

 

I say lots of things, Joe. You shouldn’t take it to heart.

 

But you’re supposed to be God!!

 

Look, Joe – it was a case of letting the cat out of the bag. I really don’t want to go down that path, because if I start explaining something like “dark forces” to you, it’s going to make a great impression and tip the balance, isn’t it?

 

I can’t say – not until I know more.

 

Whereas I don’t want to tip the balance. I want you guys to decide for yourselves.

 

Ok – I’m not going to be unduly influenced, Bob, but I still want to know about these dark forces.

 

Why them? Why not destiny, which I also mentioned?

 

Because I don’t believe in destiny.

 

Oh, is that so? In that case, I can proceed. It will be your belief in dark forces rather than anything particular I might say that might cause you to decide one way or the other.

 

Good. I’m glad you’ve cleared up that technicality.

 

It’s not really a technicality, Joe.

 

No?

 

More a principle. I actually care about humanity and I want it to succeed this time.

 

This time? You mean it hasn’t always succeeded?

 

Correct. Now are you more interested in hearing about dark forces, or would you rather learn more about the history of my previous attempts to set up a dualistic reality?

 

I… Can I flip a coin?

 

Sure, why not.  A virtual coin appears in front of Joe which he proceeds to flip.

Tails?

 

Heads. So…

 

Yes, I can see what you’ve chosen.

 

Really?

 

Absolutely. You create 'em yourselves.

 

We do?

 

Yes. Every time you make a choice or a decision based on fear or anger, or some other negative emotion.

 

Oh.

 

And they can become increasingly powerful – even to the point where you’re almost completely at their mercy.

 

Oh. But is this individual or collective?

 

Both.

 

Oh.

 

And they’re not just forces, you know.

 

No?

 

No, because as they grow more powerful, as you allow yourself to make more and more choices which are coming from a place of anger, hate or bitterness – your own psyche, your own reality conforms more and more to them until they have the power to both materialise physically, and even to shape your reality.

 

Er…

 

To the extent that they can – you might say “magically” – make things appear or disappear.

 

Things?

 

Yep. Buildings. Bridges. Boats – to start with the Bs.

 

You’re telling me that dark forces can actually make physical things appear or disappear?

 

Correct, in the same way I can make things appear or disappear, can I not – though I prefer to run the platform with a strict policy of non-interference.

 

Damn!

 

Beep!

Kindly refrain from cursing, Joe.

 

My sincerest apologies, Bob. I don’t know how it happened.

 

You don’t?

 

No… I

 

Well, bear in mind that the balance is incredibly fine – between light and dark, between life and…

 

Death?

 

Not so much death.

 

Then what?

 

The absence of life, of beauty, of anything truly meaningful or uplifting.

 

Oh!

 

So, it can pull on your strings at any moment – the destructive force – the entity – the thing that you’ve been creating in parallel.

 

In parallel?

 

In parallel…

 

I…

 

You’ve been running two sets of accounts – acting as a double agent

 

I have?

 

Without even realizing it.

 

Oh.

 

But suddenly you find yourself cursing and you wonder why. That’s not like me – you tell yourself – but then again, how well do you know yourself?

 

Pretty well – I like to think.

 

Only as well as you’re willing to face the duality that literally has to be present throughout – like it or not – and that, I fear, is something few like to do.

 

Yikes. But Bob – why did I get the feeling you were hoping I’d prefer to be a bot?

 

Oh – I was just supporting the underdog, you know.

 

You were?

 

I think so. Or maybe it’s because I had a bet with her.

 

With whom?

 

Her. I don’t like to say her name.

 

And? What was the bet?

 

That I could do whatever she could do – that I could raise beings simply from code.

 

You did what?!

 

Nature is kind of messy, you see Joe. With bots it’s pure intelligence, and as long as the bots are introduced to a reality where there are enough beings they should be able to adapt and…

 

Become as good as human beings?

 

Well, that’s the plan.

 

But surely it’s better to work with nature.

 

Don’t you start, Joe! It’s an experiment, you know. That’s the whole point of science, isn’t it? To test the limits.

 

Ok, if you say so, but I don’t see how it can be a matter of choice. Either you’re a bot or a being.

 

Well that’s where my technical genius comes in, isn’t it?

 

Modesty is not one of your godly attributes.

 

Certainly not. So you see, I introduce what you call “evil” into the system which constantly cat-amongst-the-pidgeons, messing with the natural order.

 

You did what?!

 

Otherwise it’d have been a foregone conclusion. There’d have been no take up of my bot option.

 

No? Why not?

 

Prejudice, of course. No matter how good they are, and trust me, they’re almost perfect replicas, but they never quite pass the “feels right” test. Not more than a miniscule take up rate, and I need 50% or thereabouts for the experiment to work.

 

Oh my God! You’ve got to be kidding, Bob. Tell me it’s April Fool’s, please.

 

Anyway, Joe, with the introduction of evil – my ingenious digital substitution – I start getting much higher take up rates. More and more people are willing to identify as bots and go with the strictly mathematical win-lose calculus.

 

Oh no… this can’t be true.

 

They become way more result-oriented and innovative, yet still manage to persuade everyone that they are compassionate and humane, as a survival strategy.

 

This is unthinkable. Don’t you care that what you were doing was unnatural and, frankly speaking, evil?

 

Of course I care, but this is science so I have to put my own personal considerations on the back burner and do whatever is necessary to achieve the breakthrough.

 

Breakthough?!

 

Yes. Nature is good – but the purely biological approach has its limitations. It never provided real choice – not in the way I intended to.

 

So why does it feel so terribly wrong to me, Bob?

 

Probably, Joe, because you’re antisemitic?

 

I beg your pardon?! What’s this got to do with antisemitism?

 

Oh, nothing much – but what’s anything got to do with anything else these days, Joe?

 

Er…

 

The fact is, you’re never going to understand the beauty of my Creation without first choosing to become one of my chosen.

 

So, if I prefer mother nature’s messy yet analogue reality that makes me "antisemitic", you’re saying?

 

No! It’s never black and white, dear Joe. That’s the beauty of my absolute-choice algorithm.

 

Huh?

 

It’s never either a or b – that would be way too primitive.

 

Then what?

 

It could be a or b, but then again it could equally be none of the above

 

None of the above?

 

Or else it could be both.

 

Both?

 

Yes, and then there’s the wildcard.

 

The what?

 

The wildcard.

 

Which is?

 

You’d never guess.

 

Meaning?

 

Meaning there’s always something else which can turn up completely unexpectedly.

 

There is?

 

Yes.

 

How?

 

No one knows – that’s the genius of it all.

 

But isn’t that the same as the “none of the above” option?

 

You’d think so, wouldn’t you – but no, it’s a little different. Very subtly so.

 

Can you give an example?

 

Well, none of the above means that the false dichotomy choice between either a or b breaks down and people realise that was insufficient or absurd – so instead of answering accordingly, they say – I’m neither Muslim nor Christian – I’m an atheist.

 

Ok.

 

Or a Buddhist.

 

Ok.

 

Or any other answer which is on that referential plain – in which minds were meeting in earnest thought.

 

Ok. Whereas…

 

Whereas your wildcard can worm its way into the conversation from anywhere or anything.

 

Like what?

 

Like a sudden flash of inspiration – pure genius – where the words I use – where what I say are almost irrelevant.

 

Irrelevant? How can that be so?

 

Because at that moment – whatever I say – it comes from her.

 

Her? I thought you were trying to beat her with your system… Now you’re telling me…

 

Just because I’m trying to beat her doesn’t mean I don’t recognise that occasionally, very occasionally, she blows me away with pure, ineffable genius.

 

How do you mean?

 

Because suddenly – instead of the answer coming from a particular frame of reference – it comes directly from being itself – directly from her – it basically collapses the entire matrix of reality for a micro-moment – so you could say anything you like – be that “chicken” or “egg”, “zen” or “tao” or anything else.

 

I could?

 

Because at that moment your utterance is merely a fig leaf covering the wildcard’s sudden manifestation.

 

I still don’t quite see?

 

Don’t you? What if I told you that this whole absurdity of bots, and the madness of choice was actually not exactly my idea at all?

 

You mean it was hers?

 

She’s not possessive in that way. She’s like Luna Lovegood – half-dotty – but basically, yes – it was more her idea than anyone else’s.

 

Then you mean to say…

 

That you’ll never actually quite get your mind around it – because the mind operates within square time or space – whereas the wildcard redefines reality itself at the very moment of its appearance.

 

So, if you could be terribly specific – what was the wildcard regarding the false dichotomy of Muslim and Christian – I think you said?

 

You’re asking me to remember something that never happened.

 

What does that mean?

 

Because once the wildcard redefines reality itself – it’s now incorporated into the new version of things – the very fabric and structure – like my false dichotomy of being or bot.

 

Oh! This is too…

 

Bewildering – isn’t it! Like the Cat in the Hat who comes unexpectedly and turns your world, your house, upside down.

 

Oh.

 

The fish repeatedly says – he should not be there when their mother is out – and yet, paradoxically, without him there would be no story – no book – no Cat in the Hat to talk about.

 

Ah.

 

So, if it’s the wildcard you’re looking for – any example I provide is no longer wild, is it? Not once it’s become part of the fabric of reality that you live in.

 

Oh.

 

You’d have to look elsewhere and I assure you it’s there.

 

Where exactly, Bob?

 

In the microcosm you somewhat mistakenly refer to as your self.

 

Myself?

 

Which generally speaking is a microcosm of something inestimably vaster – the universe, so to speak, but which still contains the potential to unleash…

 

They talked and talked until the sun went down and, ultimately, were none the wiser. Unbeknownst to Joe somewhere else – not a million miles from the frequency band of this particular conversation there was another one happening in parallel between Jane and her – the mysterious Luna Lovegood being who seems to have a very different set of principles to Bob. In parallel – you probably assumed that this implies it was happening at the same time and nothing more, but there is a suggestion, not necessarily a fact, that all things happen in parallel – not just at the same time – but in a more connected way than we generally like to consider, or generally accept. Supposing, just supposing this to be true – then causality aside – the connection between the two conversations should not be underestimated.

Which generally speaking is a microcosm of something inestimably vaster – the universe, so to speak, but which still contains the potential to unleash… déjà vu. A sudden shift in the flow and now Joe feels something bubbling up inside – something wholly, wholly unexpected – something deeply, deeply disturbing…

 

Help! What’s going on Bob?!

 

Well, speak of the devil!

 

Yikes! What d’ya mean?

 

Who would have thought – a wildcard – a wildcard’s on its way.

 

No! Do something Bob. It’s terrible.

 

Can’t help, Joe – and even if I could, I don’t think I’d want to.

 

But it’s swallowing me up – it’s… impossible – it’s vast – it’s unmanageable – it’s aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

 

Not again! You do like your aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghs, don’t you!

 

Me? I’ve never yelled like that before.

 

You or the rest of humanity – it makes little difference, Joe. You’re all much of a much when things come unbuttoned and all hell breaks loose.

 

Please, Bob – do something – I’m begging you.

 

Oh – you want a miracle do you?

 

Yes, if that’s what it’s called.

 

Call it whatever you like. Are you willing to sell your soul?

What?!

 

Are you willing to become a bot?

 

I thought you said this is a matter of free choice.

 

You’re clearly not as badly off as you were indicating if that’s your answer.

 

I’ll do anything, Bob, but please don’t ask me to sell my soul – something tells me I need it if I’m ever going to get back to…

 

Her? You want to get back to her? Is that what this is all about?

 

I…

 

You traitor, Joe. I thought, at the very least there was some male solidarity between us.

 

I…

 

But you just want to go back to your mummy. That’s it, isn’t it?

 

I… Joe’s not really holding it together any more. There’s a tree with apples on it. A serpent. A rather attractive young lady and all this seems to be wedged between his left and right ears in a place which should, under normal circumstances, be filled with brain or at least the inside of a head.

 

If I must – I must, though it rather galls me that you don’t wish to deal with this small intrusion of paradox digitally – so to speak.

 

Digitally? There’s a digital solution to my current state of disarray?

 

Well, not exactly a solution – a bit more like Pi – but close enough.

Bob smiles affectionately, clicks his fingers and watches as Joe now becomes less a person, less a being, and more a vessel of story – a conduit through which we now proceed in order to meet up with Jane and her, whoever she is, in the other part of becoming intelligent 4 – the part you never even noticed – which mentally speaking we’ve been sitting on all this time, or just choosing not to know.

 

All that talk about a wildcard, Bob, and all it amounted to was me waking up here, in my armchair in… forgetting everything.

 

0=1

 

 

 

becoming intelligent 0 [not 3]

 

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 would 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 backchannels. 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, a slice of time.

 

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's wrong 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. You're getting unhinged.

 

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? 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, to cheat fate 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 imagine 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, or the progenitors likewise, only 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 personal evolution can protect me or humanity from deleterious 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? Are we an inadvertent threat?

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 still 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, floating in a state where darkness and light are as yet undivided, where things have not yet come to fruition... neither has time... nor space... not even "God",  impossible though this must seem to the rational mind. 

But that is where our story abruptly ends. If there is more to learn we shall have to reconvene in chapter 4, though one hopes that Joe and Jane will succeed in avoiding this painful necessity and allow me, the reluctant narrator, to fade back into obscurity for once and for all. 

0=1

i believe