Clever Corvids: BBella's approach (Introduction)

by BBella , Wednesday, March 23, 2016, 19:56 (3167 days ago) @ dhw

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”! -I do believe there is a balance within ATI. I don't know why there would be, but I believe it is obvious in too many ways not to be. It's why I favor (allow for the possibilities of) karma, reincarnation, etc.
> 
> 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.
> 
>dhw: 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.-Completely agree.-> 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.
> 
> dhw: 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.-I personally find it very difficult to believe there is ONE central intelligence (headquarters?) of authority. If there ever was ONE, for me, it would be no different than saying that at one time there was just one color and out of that one came many.