Intelligence and evolution

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
danmc
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:31 am

Intelligence and evolution

Post by danmc »

warmsylph wrote:
Without syntactic intelligence evolution cannot occur. Without semantic intelligence there is nothing to evolve.
This is an ineresting notion, but I'm not sure how to hold it up. On the face of it, it seems to imply that intelligence is "outside" of evolution, and that worms are capable of "symbology and concept". Are you speaking of evolution in a specialized way?
Alluvion
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:37 am

Intelligence and evolution

Post by Alluvion »

Yes. I don't mean biological evolution which to most peopple is defined as purely the evolving body. What I mean is the consciouss and intentional evolution of mind and spirit AND body, the conscious and intentional evolution of SELF. For example, the tarot is both syntatic (organization/pattern based) and semantic (objects which hold meaning). The tarot, as a 'blueprint' for the evolution of self requires both semantic and syntactic layers , maybe calling these static and dynamic symbolic layers is more approriate. semantics (ie, static symbolics) are discrete and one to one (an apple is fruit, not a stone, dog means animal, etc). syntactics (ie, dynamic symbolics) are relationtional and 'volumetric' (i avoid using the 'spatial' term because in these forums it carries certain connotations, and thats another semantic thread..). Syntax is about relationships at many many scales, harmonically even.

Current science does not consider the evolution of mind in conjunction with the evolution of body and spirit. Current psychology is connecting more and more with the ties between the body and mind, and even lesser the spirit - but doesn't consider 'evolution' per se. Some major world religions do not consider the evolution of body and mind in conjunction with the spirit. OF course I am using three broad generalized categories to make broad and generalized statements.

Intelligence is not outside 'evolution' but is a necessary component of that 'machine'. There is resonance and dissonance only between the body and minds of the human species, being that we are 3rd density beings and need this friction for catalyst and the awakening of spirit. Animals which are not evolving towards individualized beings have only the direct and clear relationships between mind and body because they serve the collective mind of their species, in a sense. To violate that is to throw off the archive of instincts and behavior which permits a species to survive. I gather this means that a gradual biological evolution in a species means the mind of the species is itself evolving. However, that evolution is only within the realm of 2nd density.

Evlution in the 3rd density is concenred with the connective relationships between one's body, mind and spirit - three major semantic components all operating in seemingly unclear and unfathomable ways. To begin fathoming their relationships is to involve one's mind, body and spirit in the syntax of evolution. For example, How does one's spirit respond to the needs of the body? how and when does the body influence the movement of spirit? What is the role of mind in the relationships of spirit and body?

_a
danmc
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:31 am

Re: Intelligence and evolution

Post by danmc »

WarmSlyph wrote:
Yes. I don't mean biological evolution
Gotcha.

WarmSlyph wrote:
Current science does not consider the evolution of mind in conjunction with the evolution of body and spirit.
This is true. But I would add to that it's not really fair to ask this of Science(not that you are), since it's beyond the scope of their inquiry. On the other hand, it's not fair of Science to label as invalid any investigation which does seek to explain evolution in the terms you've described, and for the same reason. Science "decided" at the time of Newton to rid itself of quality (too darn messy!), free itself of the time side of things. This limited it to that which it could measure, and, as you described in another post, gave it a sharper focus, but a narrower one. The upside of a purely quantitative approach is the power it gives in prediction, and controlling the environment, and so led directly to an industrial revolution.

[continueDigression]The time of the publication of Principia coincided with the science that Alchemy pursued being at it's peak. Many people think of Alchemy as a primitive precursor of Science, and that Newton's approach was so far superior, Alchemy was simply rendered road-kill. But Alchemy was nothing of the sort. It was a science of quality, and was involved in a very different enterprise. Science didn't kill Alchemy, it just turned away from it. Of course, you can't really blame Scieince. I think it instinctively saw where a purely quantitative approach would lead, even if it was one-sided[/continueDigression].

WarmSlyph wrote:
Intelligence is not outside 'evolution' but is a necessary component of that 'machine'.
I'm still not clear. Maybe I should have phrased the question differently. Do you regard intelligence as rising from evolution. i.e, a product of evolution?

WarmSlyph wrote:
Animals which are not evolving towards individualized beings have only the direct and clear relationships between mind and body because they serve the collective mind of their species, in a sense.
Which animals are you referring to? Or do you mean "Animals[comma]...? In either case, you don't regard individualization as an inevitable step or stage in evolution?
Alluvion
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:37 am

Re: Intelligence and evolution

Post by Alluvion »

Dan,

WarmSlyph wrote:
Intelligence is not outside 'evolution' but is a necessary component of that 'machine'.
I'm still not clear. Maybe I should have phrased the question differently. Do you regard intelligence as rising from evolution. i.e, a product of evolution?

>>> I think its both a product OF and a motivator OF. I don't think intelligence as a condition of beings moves in a linear manner. Instead there is both continuity (a contiuum or spectrum of intelligence) and a quantization of it (discrete 'level's). The amount of intellgience a being holds and has to work with is directly related to the evolutionary position of that being. As such an animal can only hold so much intelligence before it reaches a quantized level that opens up the gate for the experience of humanity and the activation of spirite. Like the visual/color spectrum, a person's frame of refernece determines the 'markers' of awareness and intellgience (some cultures see less or more colors than others, from a perspective of unity there are an infinite amount of colors, each infinite variation have its own identity). So a being evolves in intelligence and awareness and at a certain level becomes aware of THAT evolution and so commands more intelligence to further expand awareness. I think evolution and intellgience are in a system of 'checks and balances' leading towards spiritual evolution, in that manner there aren't 'human' beings in the bodies of 'animals or plants' which cannot hold or sustain the type conscioussness which our physiology does.

WarmSlyph wrote:
Animals which are not evolving towards individualized beings have only the direct and clear relationships between mind and body because they serve the collective mind of their species, in a sense.
Which animals are you referring to? Or do you mean "Animals[comma]...? In either case, you don't regard individualization as an inevitable step or stage in evolution?

No I do. But I beleive the universe is intelligent and benevolent and so to each the right and correct place. The evolution of mind body and spirit is natural and inevitable for all beings but in their own times and in their own paths. Animals and plant life are conscioussness at certain levels of awareness which can be pulled out and quantized by our intellgience along a spectrum. In truth conscioussness exists in as infinite a spectrum as that of visible light. But we attribute certain amounts of awareness as more readily apparent. Like looking at a rulter with uneven tick marks. The largest measure with the longest so they are easily readible, and, using the english system, an inch is the largest, a half innch the next largest, a quarter the next largest, etc etc - in reality there are infinite divisions of that line without an true 'greatness' over the other. But those discrete (length of markings) markers allows multilayered (maybe, multidimensional?) relationships to be seen in a scale, which is at its root syntactic.

So I guess this brings me to question: how does metaphyical semantics and syntactics operate from a perspective of unity?

_a
Post Reply