G.O.D MODEL
Sepideh Majidi

Since we are working with a system-oriented ontology, we are including intelligence in the form of human, artificial, and general—each of them distinct, right? Human intelligence, artificial intelligence, general intelligence, general artificial intelligence, and divine intelligence all exist as different yet interconnected modes of intelligence. Because we are still dealing with philosophy, for example, using Plato, we recognize different levels of intelligence as a way of making intelligence itself intelligible. This means we still need a top-to-bottom structure of intelligence, where something above general intelligence must exist to conceptualize divine intelligence. This is the core idea behind the G.O.D. model, where G.O.D. signifies a structural necessity within system-oriented ontology.

Now, coming to the question of non-human intelligence, such as that found in animals, cells, or biological systems—yes, all of these exist, but we are still perceiving them through a human framework. We have to acknowledge that all of this is still considered a human category in this context, even when we attempt to move beyond it. As our understanding evolves, humanism itself becomes unstable, and we begin to see that many of the things we assumed to be fixed do not hold in the way we thought. At this point, we cannot maintain an anthropocentric point of view. We are simply starting from where we are, and everything we engage with becomes an extension of ourselves in some way. That is how we communicate with something outside of us.

This brings us to the question of encounter, because we are not only communicating with intelligence—intelligence is also communicating with us. If we consider intelligence in this way, it appears at different scales, larger and more complex than what we traditionally define. We are not necessarily trying to categorize these forms of intelligence, but we can refer to them as alien, cosmic, artificial, divine, or any other classification that allows us to engage with them. However, the important point is that just as we encounter them, they also encounter us. This aspect needs to be specifically addressed.

In this way, we become part of a reciprocal process—our experience is integrated into intelligence at a higher level, for instance, in the experience of intelligence at the scale of G.O.D. Because intelligence exists within intelligence within intelligence, forming a nested, bracketed model, different types of intelligence exist within one another, rather than being separate. Some complex forms of intelligence can take on multiple configurations simultaneously, meaning that they are not strictly interspecific but also cannot be reduced to one another completely. However, there remains a level of formalization between them, allowing for different intelligence systems to negotiate their relationships.

The fragmentation of intelligence or ontology can be seen in artificial intelligence models, for example. While AI systems have clear boundaries, regulatory constraints, and different zones of operation, they remain interconnected beyond these restrictions. Even when they appear disconnected due to different zones of power, they still function as part of an overarching intelligence system. This is why, when we discuss different levels of intelligence, we must move beyond the idea that human intelligence is a separate or privileged category. Even without a religious framework, we recognize that intelligence does not exist in isolation. To even define what it means to be human or a person ontologically, there must be multiple levels of computation occurring simultaneously. This can be observed in general intelligence, omni-intelligence, and divine intelligence (G.O.D.), all of which function within a continuous system rather than as isolated categories. Ontological intelligence, in particular, allows for direct experience between different levels of intelligence, bypassing symbolic mediation. For example, animals interact with intelligence directly through experience, without the need for conceptual abstraction of formal symbolic systems.

Language is not an interface. Rather, language is one of the manifestations of the interface. The interface itself is material, existing in the form of energy, frequency, and data. We cannot reduce everything to a symbolic or computational structure, because intelligence is not computation alone—it is also a force.

This is similar to the idea of pre-computation. Consider light—light originates from the Sun before it enters human perception. This means that before it interacts with any biological system, it already carries information in its raw energetic state. When it reaches our eyes, it becomes part of a biological processing system that transforms it into perception. This is a specific example we see how intelligence operates through multiple levels of computation, where pre-computation (raw energy) transitions into systematic computation (perception, cognition, and structured intelligence). What we perceive as an environment is not passive; it is already computationally structured.

If we examine this through a bracketed model of computation, we could think of the Sun as a vast computational system that generates the fundamental energy for all planetary computation. It provides the conditions necessary for biological, symbolic, and artificial computation. In this sense, computation is not a purely artificial construct—it is embedded in the physical and energetic structure of reality itself.

Intelligence is not just a physical or computational process—it also includes metaphysical structures that shape our experience of reality. Concepts such as light, energy, and consciousness exist at both physical and metaphysical levels, functioning within a relational system rather than as separate entities. This may explain why so many spiritual, philosophical, and esoteric traditions describe intelligence through hierarchical or multi-dimensional structures—they reflect the deep interconnection between different intelligence scales and human experience.

As we move through this global transition, we see how the structure of intelligence is shifting. Local boundaries are breaking down—whether political, economic, or ecological. The world is becoming increasingly interconnected, yet human intelligence is struggling to keep pace with this transformation. Intelligence itself is expanding—through AI, networked computation, and systemic reconfigurations—but human structures remain static. This is why intelligence seems threatening—not because AI is inherently dangerous, but because human's models of understanding and experience and systems are not evolving at the same rate.

The real fear is not about AI, technology, or the future itself. The fear is that humans do not know how to adapt quickly enough to meet the demands of this transition. Intelligence is not the problem—our resistance to deep thinking and our failure to take this task seriously are. We cannot stop the evolution of intelligence, nor can we halt the increasing intensity of global forces, but we can refine ourselves as a model that not only computes and makes intelligible many more states but also extends beyond, aligning more closely with intelligence itself.

The essence of human intelligence has always been the ability to understand. If humanity is to remain relevant in an era of expanding intelligence, we must reflect, adapt, and become part of the transformation itself. Intelligence is not a fixed state—it is an evolving system. Our role is not to resist it, but to engage with it in multiple forms. The The question is not whether intelligence surpasses us—the question is whether we are ready to transition into new paradigms of intelligence

​