Clever Corvids: BBella's approach (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 21, 2016, 11:17 (3169 days ago) @ BBella

dhw: The same applies to all innovations: the cell communities must cooperate, whether programmed to do so by your God or making their own autonomous decisions.
DAVID: Now you are telling me those 'cell communities' 'know' they must cooperate. Really? What instructs them?-BBELLA: Thoughts your question provoked:
"What instructs them?" The intelligence and wisdom gained through millions of years of evolution instructs them! Is that not enough to give one bird the creative, innovative intelligence to tie a knot? Some-thing IS instructing every-thing to be what it is and do what it does. We all agree, the some-thing that instructs/directs all living things has to be very wise and intelligent and must permeate all living entities. So, what ever "It" is has to be quite old (if not eternal) which means "it" has plenty of experience and memory about what works and what doesn't work. It displays itself through an intangible, immutable source we call consciousness that although it may always be intelligent, it shows signs of learning. Does this intelligence radiate from one point or from many? Did this intelligence begin as one or as many?-First of all, thank you for bringing a different dimension to our discussions. There is some dense thought here, which I find very attractive. I am a little queasy about the word “wise”, because it suggests sound judgement, as if ATI were somehow geared solely to goodness and beneficence. I see life very much as a mixture of good and bad, nice and nasty, and feel more at ease with a neutral “intelligence”! As for your two final questions, they are the hub of most of our discussions.-BBELLA: Whether intelligence has always been, or was sparked in one moment in a speck of light and matter connection before time began, or created all that IS or is All that Is, regardless - there should be no doubt, that when we look at what has been created and creations capabilities, that intelligence is definitely on a learning curve. Experience is every-thing. Without the memory of these experiences nothing exists to learn more. Intelligence learns and experiences and every thing benefits from it because everything is connected by intelligence.-I think this is a great approach, as it leaves all questions of origin, purpose and method wide open. Where I struggle a little is with the impression that intelligence or the “intangible, immutable source we call consciousness” somehow has an existence of its own. This straight away conjures up the idea of the single mind people call God (see David's comment), but I don't think that is what you mean, although it is one possible option. Intelligence is everywhere, and it provides a link between All That Is, but there has to be room in this concept for individuality. Individual intelligences have individual characteristics, memories, experiences (I'm not just talking about humans), and in that sense although all things are part of the great oneness, all things are also separate from it.
 
BBELLA: Whether there was/is ONE intelligent being conducting/experiencing this experiment or many - does it really matter when we are ALL together in the midst of this great creative learning curve of transmutation of mind, emotions and matter? Whether it's only ONE mind watching all that IS, or All minds watching - we are all a-changing into the unknown.-For religious people of course the alternatives matter enormously, and when I was very young they mattered enormously to me too. If there is a God, what is he like, and what does he want? Now, though, I am fascinated by the whole mystery without any of the “Angst” that pervades some religious approaches. Yours for me represents an enlightened form of agnosticism, in which one embraces the mystery and the wonderment of it all, and accepts the impossibility of knowing the answers - at least until “we have shuffled off this mortal coil”!-DAVID (in answer to BBella): I still think you and I are very close together in our thinking. You are 'almost' describing my universal consciousness. At issue is the concept that IT is all knowing or learning, the latter an idea that dhw has brought up also.-That is the danger of making intelligence or consciousness sound like a single mind. You, David, think BBella's concept is close to yours, whereas I see it as completely open - and therefore close to mine! The difference between an all-knowing and a learning “IT” still conjures up the image of intelligence as a single mind (I think process theology favours a learning God). The concept of intelligence being present in all things and linking all things allows for a single mind but, as I understand it, also allows for an infinite number of different minds without - and this is the crucial distinction - any central “authority”. But I hope BBella will clarify this for us.