Uncreated Intelligences?

[Log]

And where does the "self" appear in this schema?

I see the self as central to choice. Ultimately it comes down to the good old cogito.

That's basically it. There are intelligences, and there is matter, and there exists no other component of reality. Intelligences can interface with, and be augmented by, matter.

... self may be an epiphenomenon of materially augmented intelligence, or it may be integral, who knows?...

... joke avoided...

Edited November 15, 2011 by Log

[mfbukowski]

That's basically it. There are intelligences, and there is matter, and there exists no other component of reality. Intelligences can interface with, and be augmented by, matter.

... self may be an epiphenomenon of materially augmented intelligence, or it may be integral, who knows?...

... joke avoided...

Thanks for avoiding that!

But there is no "immaterial matter" but you are now postulating that intelligence is not material?

[Freedom]

I did not find anywhere in the scriptures where agency is specifically defined. Agency, according to one of my dictionary, is action, power or operation. Another dictionary defines it as something through which power is exerted. In other words, ability to act. Certainly children have the ability to act or to operate. They understand when they are doing something wrong, but they lack the ability to abstract that it is morally wrong. It is like someone telling you to press the green button or you do not get a chocolate bar but you press the yellow one instead. You consciously pressed the wrong button and you realize that you will receive a consequence, but you would not perceive this choice as morally wrong. Understanding morality or degrees of good or bad is very abstract and the human mind generally is not fully capable of abstraction fully until they are almost 18 years of age if I remember my psychology 101. But certainly, a child of 3 years is very much lacking this cognitive skill. Anybody with children would know this.

Agency can be activated to sin, it can also be activated to select a snack, or a movie. My 19 year old makes decisions that, to me, are irresponsible but she lacks the experience and maturity to see it this way. If I were to make some of the choices she is making, I would consider them sins on my part. She simply is too naive and inexperienced to understand the consequences of her actions so she, even at 19, would not be found guilty of sin.

[Log]

Thanks for avoiding that!

But there is no "immaterial matter" but you are now postulating that intelligence is not material?

Intelligence is not matter.

[CV75]

That's a great way to put things. However, I reject the notion that "the power to choose," or free will, is separate from intelligence. That which chooses is intelligence, and intelligence is that which chooses.

I’m typically a few hours behind everyone so I’ll respond to ideas brought up in a number of posts at once:

I don’t think that the power to choose is separate from intelligence, either. I think it is pretty clear from D&C 93:29-30 that intelligence acts for itself (otherwise it is not intelligence), which is the definition of “existence.” We know from D&C 76 that how well it acts determines the quality of that existence.

Since intelligence acts for itself, I would think that it is the self, or the definition of self. I also think that “self” is antithetical to “oneness” and needs to cleave (D&C 88:40) and gain advantage (D&C 130:18-19) in order to experience the fullness of joy—the quality and purpose of Zion (Moses 7:18) and the intent expressed in the Lord’s Intercessory Prayer.

On one hand, D&C 131:7 teaches that there is no such thing as immaterial matter, and that spirit is not immaterial. Intelligence cannot be created or made (D&C 93:29), which may mean to some that it must be immaterial. But other verses in D&C 93 indicate and support how intelligence is material:

1. Truth is in a sphere where God has placed it (v. 30), indicating it is material substance. Intelligence is the light of truth, and where it emanates from a material source, must also be material.

2. Light, truth, and intelligence can be received and rejected, accumulated and taken away, cleaved to and forsaken (v. 31, 39) by material beings (man is spirit, v. 33), another material quality.

3. The glory of God is intelligence, or light and truth (v.36)—light and truth are material so intelligence must be also.

4. Truth is knowledge (v. 24, 28), making knowledge material as well.

5. Jesus is one with the Father (v. 3), the Spirit of truth (v. 23), and the light of men (or that intelligence, or light of truth, which cleaves between man and God, v. 9). All of these are material interactions between intelligence and its byproducts, by virtue of the Atonement.

[CV75]

And where does the "self" appear in this schema?

I see the self as central to choice. Ultimately it comes down to the good old cogito. That makes it "real" to me. I can experience being "me"- I cannot experience "intelligence".

I light of what I wrote above, intelligence can operate alone (a very contracted "self") or in tandem with God and His exalted children (or Zion, Church or the Firstborn, etc.), a very expanded or sealed "self."

[mfbukowski]

Intelligence is not matter.

This is like pulling teeth.

What is it according to your theory, then?

[splendidsun]

Interesting- so including resurrection it would really be 4 parts right? Coin whatever term you will for that. If I am understanding correctly, 1= uncreated intelligence, 2= spirit "body" 3= physical body and 4= resurrected body. Is that what you are saying?

It is not clear at all to me that "asking if an intelligence has free will, presupposes the existence of a non-spirit intelligence"; in fact if it does "presuppose" that, then the argument appears to be circular.

Clearly I am missing something- could you clarify?

Good post- thanks for the doctrinal history!

It is just that there are multiple cosmologies at play. JS taught that spirits were eternal and uncreated. BY taught that spirits were created from non intelligent spirit matter. Orson Pratt taught that spirits were created from intelligent spirit matter. BH Roberts taught the tripartite model. It is also important to note that "Intelligence" in the early revelations is not the same thing as "intelligence" or "intelligences" in the BoA/Nauvoo sermons.

So, asking if intelligence has free will without specifying in which context the question is being asked, is almost incoherent.

[Log]

1. Truth is in a sphere where God has placed it (v. 30), indicating it is material substance. Intelligence is the light of truth, and where it emanates from a material source, must also be material.

It is unclear that God placing X in Y implies X is matter.

2. Light, truth, and intelligence can be received and rejected, accumulated and taken away, cleaved to and forsaken (v. 31, 39) by material beings (man is spirit, v. 33), another material quality.

It is also a quality of information; information is irreducible to matter, even though (temporally speaking) it requires a material medium to be transmitted or stored. Therefore it is unclear that the fact that light (the stuff referred to in scripture, which is most likely not related to photons), truth, and intelligence being received, rejected, accumulated and taken away, cleaved to and forsaken by material beings implies that they are in turn material.

3. The glory of God is intelligence, or light and truth (v.36)—light and truth are material so intelligence must be also.

As I stated above, this conclusion is questionable because the initial assumption of the materiality of light and truth is questionable.

4. Truth is knowledge (v. 24, 28), making knowledge material as well.

Same objection.

5. Jesus is one with the Father (v. 3), the Spirit of truth (v. 23), and the light of men (or that intelligence, or light of truth, which cleaves between man and God, v. 9). All of these are material interactions between intelligence and its byproducts, by virtue of the Atonement.

They may indeed be material interactions; as noted above, information (in this world) requires a material medium to be transmitted.

I am not sure what motivates the push for an unipartite cosmological model.

[Log]

This is like pulling teeth.

What is it according to your theory, then?

It is the moving, choosing part of reality. It is not matter. Matter is the passive, moved upon part of reality. I'm not sure what you're getting at, unless it's "if it ain't matter, it don't exist," which is really more your problem, not mine.

[mfbukowski]

I’m typically a few hours behind everyone so I’ll respond to ideas brought up in a number of posts at once:

I don’t think that the power to choose is separate from intelligence, either. I think it is pretty clear from D&C 93:29-30 that intelligence acts for itself (otherwise it is not intelligence), which is the definition of “existence.” We know from D&C 76 that how well it acts determines the quality of that existence.

Since intelligence acts for itself, I would think that it is the self, or the definition of self. I also think that “self” is antithetical to “oneness” and needs to cleave (D&C 88:40) and gain advantage (D&C 130:18-19) in order to experience the fullness of joy—the quality and purpose of Zion (Moses 7:18) and the intent expressed in the Lord’s Intercessory Prayer.

On one hand, D&C 131:7 teaches that there is no such thing as immaterial matter, and that spirit is not immaterial. Intelligence cannot be created or made (D&C 93:29), which may mean to some that it must be immaterial. But other verses in D&C 93 indicate and support how intelligence is material:

1. Truth is in a sphere where God has placed it (v. 30), indicating it is material substance. Intelligence is the light of truth, and where it emanates from a material source, must also be material.

2. Light, truth, and intelligence can be received and rejected, accumulated and taken away, cleaved to and forsaken (v. 31, 39) by material beings (man is spirit, v. 33), another material quality.

3. The glory of God is intelligence, or light and truth (v.36)—light and truth are material so intelligence must be also.

4. Truth is knowledge (v. 24, 28), making knowledge material as well.

5. Jesus is one with the Father (v. 3), the Spirit of truth (v. 23), and the light of men (or that intelligence, or light of truth, which cleaves between man and God, v. 9). All of these are material interactions between intelligence and its byproducts, by virtue of the Atonement.

An interesting post- I want to study this one out, read your scriptures and get back to you.

[Nofear]

Do uncreated intelligences have agency, or is it given to them by God?

Also, do we have any part in our own creation/organization?

The answer to this is somewhat involved and depends, partly, on assumptions about reality that Mormonism takes no particular stand on. Suppose we assume a form of materialism -- that everything in the universe is either a substance or interactions with a substance. Suppose also we assume reductionism and reject strong emergence. Given these two assumptions any uncreate entity would have to be "simple" -- incapable of being reduced to constituent parts, having no constituent parts.

Agency, no matter how one wants to quibble about the definition, requires information. In a materalistic universe, information can only exist within the context of material substance (as with everything else) and more specificaly as relationships between the states of a material substance. Because a simple object is only itself, it can't carry information. Thus, an uncreate intelligence can't be "intelligent". It lacks the information to act and so any act it performs is essentially random.

However, if the intelligent entity were to be coupled to a object that could collect, store, and make accessible information*, then, and only then, the intelligent, uncreate, simple entity would have the capacity to act intelligently -- a necessary condition for moral agency.

It should be noted, having such an information machine connected to the intelligent entity does not guarantee agency. If the information is rigged, as it were, then the intelligent entity might not have "free" response. I personally view it as a gift from God that I happen to have a spirit and physical body that processes the information such that I am allowed moral agency**.

In short, no uncreate intelligences are not moral agents until such time as they are organized with spirit bodies. But, this position rests on some philosophical paradigms that are not mandated by Mormonism and so others may come to different conclusions.

* Intelligence acts would require a lots of simultaneous information. Incidentally, this is not something that can occur according to classical mechanics. Fortunately, the universe doesn't operate, fundamentally, according to classical mechanics.

** Sometimes things "break" and we don't hold individuals accountable -- their body isn't working right. We also give intelligences some time to accommodate themselves to their physical bodies before we begin to hold them accountable. I suspect the way that Satan would have made everybody be good and removing our agency was by "rigging" our physical bodies.

[mfbukowski]

It is just that there are multiple cosmologies at play. JS taught that spirits were eternal and uncreated. BY taught that spirits were created from non intelligent spirit matter. Orson Pratt taught that spirits were created from intelligent spirit matter. BH Roberts taught the tripartite model. It is also important to note that "Intelligence" in the early revelations is not the same thing as "intelligence" or "intelligences" in the BoA/Nauvoo sermons.

So, asking if intelligence has free will without specifying in which context the question is being asked, is almost incoherent.

Well since you are so familiar with the historical ideas and I am not, could you explain each? I suspect that the ideas themselves are incoherent and that is why we are having this problem.

Just for the record, I am a faithful TBM, but unfortunately, or fortunately as one sees it, I have been trained in secular philosophy so I see most things in light of those "philosophy colored glasses"; and those glasses filter out most metaphysics leaving only clear linguistic descriptions.

So I would hope there is some basis for communication here, because I would like to understand the theories as coherent theories if that is possible.

[CV75]

It is unclear that God placing X in Y implies X is matter.

It is also a quality of information; information is irreducible to matter, even though (temporally speaking) it requires a material medium to be transmitted or stored. Therefore it is unclear that the fact that light (the stuff referred to in scripture, which is most likely not related to photons), truth, and intelligence being received, rejected, accumulated and taken away, cleaved to and forsaken by material beings implies that they are in turn material.

As I stated above, this conclusion is questionable because the initial assumption of the materiality of light and truth is questionable.

Same objection.

They may indeed be material interactions; as noted above, information (in this world) requires a material medium to be transmitted.

I am not sure what motivates the push for an unipartite cosmological model.

I know, these scriptures are just indicators and I base my conclusions on those indicators. If challenged, I hope it is with other more clarifying scripture.

I don’t think immaterial intelligence/agency can exist because existence is material, as follows: God is Existence—“I AM”—and He is a material being, the Spirit of truth, as are all things that flow and benefit from Him according to the other scriptures I cited.

But even from a “qualitative” standpoint, intelligence is not “immaterial” in the sense of being inconsequential or meaningless. Since it acts, it has meaning to itself and to others like it. And agency is perfectly consequential, no matter how it acts for as long as it exists. This is why I am entering this discussion with the position that intelligence is material from both quantitative and qualitative standpoints, but is easier for me to bring up the quantitative aspects.

I agree that scriptural/spiritual light has to be something other than photons, but quantitatively, material beings have no grasp (pun, sorry) of the immaterial. While matter can go into matter, something immaterial has no boundary or relevance and therefore has no place to go, and so cannot act or be acted upon. Qualitatively, the intelligence/agency of material beings acts upon that which is relatively or temporarily meaningless (or unseen), through faith, to make it meaningful—but that which is relatively or temporarily meaningless, and that upon which the faith is based, have to be real (exist), or material, in the first place. I think this is why intelligence cannot be created or made—it is where everything starts.

If the immaterial does exist, how does one describe this frontier between something immaterial and something material as they interact, or as one becomes the other, and how does the frontier function? If there is no frontier, then how does intelligence segregate (or how does God segregate it into its own sphere) and act for itself upon that which is immaterial and so expand? If there is a frontier, how can the immaterial expand beyond it?

[mfbukowski]

It is the moving, choosing part of reality. It is not matter. Matter is the passive, moved upon part of reality. I'm not sure what you're getting at, unless it's "if it ain't matter, it don't exist," which is really more your problem, not mine.

I am looking for a well-thought out cosmology which makes sense. Let me give you an example of what I think.

First I would preface my remarks by saying that what I am about to say is metaphysics, and is not presently provable, but is a theory which, I believe and accept on faith, that combines elements of LDS beliefs with my personal understanding, flawed as it is, of contemporary physics:

For me, "intelligence", also in LDS parlance known as the "light of Christ" is a real, physical force, as yet undefined, which perhaps can be described also by the word "consciousness". Some physicists actually have spoken as if "consciousness" can be seen as a co-element necessary for a full understanding or description of space-time.

In ways which I do not understand, but which I believe will some day be discovered scientifically, this force/element/wave/particle/material of consciousness accretes or can be caused to accrete, possibly by forces not unlike gravity, into what eventually evolves by natural forces into a self-conscious entity. This process is correlated with and often described, as becoming a "spirit child" of our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, within an LDS language game, or linguistic context. The question of whether or not this process constitutes what is called "creation" is a semantic one and not important. This self-conscious entity is largely defined by its ability to separate itself from its environment; it is able to interact with its environment.

That ability to interact voluntarily is what we term "free-will" or "agency"; it is the ability to make choices, and perceive itself as an individual independent from its surroundings

At some point in its evolution, when that conscious entity has progressed in its ability to alter and manipulate its environment, it becomes able to manipulate what we now call "physical matter", but which ultimately, I believe, science with simply show to be somehow contiguous with what is termed "spirit matter" in LDS parlance. This process is described as "gaining a body" in LDS parlance.

Ultimately such a conscious entity can progress, if it wishes to, and follows the natural law necessary to do so, to the point of controlling and organizing entire universes, through the same process of manipulating its environment through the means available to it by using the natural laws it learns through its progression. Not all conscious entities will reach the same level of development, and may simply be "satisfied" taking on "lesser" levels of the ability to organize their environments.

That's the way I see it. So if you see that as a "problem" that's your business if that's your attitude.

Edited November 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Because a simple object is only itself, it can't carry information.

We were doing fine until we hit that speed bump.

This seems to require some assumptions which sound highly metaphysical which I am not following.

[mfbukowski]

I know, these scriptures are just indicators and I base my conclusions on those indicators. If challenged, I hope it is with other more clarifying scripture.

I don’t think immaterial intelligence/agency can exist because existence is material, as follows: God is Existence—“I AM”—and He is a material being, the Spirit of truth, as are all things that flow and benefit from Him according to the other scriptures I cited.

But even from a “qualitative” standpoint, intelligence is not “immaterial” in the sense of being inconsequential or meaningless. Since it acts, it has meaning to itself and to others like it. And agency is perfectly consequential, no matter how it acts for as long as it exists. This is why I am entering this discussion with the position that intelligence is material from both quantitative and qualitative standpoints, but is easier for me to bring up the quantitative aspects.

I agree that scriptural/spiritual light has to be something other than photons, but quantitatively, material beings have no grasp (pun, sorry) of the immaterial. While matter can go into matter, something immaterial has no boundary or relevance and therefore has no place to go, and so cannot act or be acted upon. Qualitatively, the intelligence/agency of material beings acts upon that which is relatively or temporarily meaningless (or unseen), through faith, to make it meaningful—but that which is relatively or temporarily meaningless, and that upon which the faith is based, have to be real (exist), or material, in the first place. I think this is why intelligence cannot be created or made—it is where everything starts.

If the immaterial does exist, how does one describe this frontier between something immaterial and something material as they interact, or as one becomes the other, and how does the frontier function? If there is no frontier, then how does intelligence segregate (or how does God segregate it into its own sphere) and act for itself upon that which is immaterial and so expand? If there is a frontier, how can the immaterial expand beyond it?

We are definitely on the same page on this one.

[CV75]

Thus, an uncreate intelligence can't be "intelligent". It lacks the information to act and so any act it performs is essentially random.

I don’t see how “uncreated intelligence” can be a mere object—by definition intelligence is the “light of truth” and “acts for itself,” a conscious/aware and subjective entity.

Intelligence could be quite complex from its inception, simply a man in his earliest estate. For example, man is the light of God emanating from Him, in perfect image, but only light and needing to progress to full stature. By using his agency, man is next spirit. Then a mortal with spirit, flesh an blood, then an immortal of spirit, flesh and bone, and finally exalted with glory. But each stage is materially and recognizably the same man, being "added upon."

[Nofear]

We were doing fine until we hit that speed bump.

This seems to require some assumptions which sound highly metaphysical which I am not following.

Let's look at an known simple particle - like an electron. It has a few properties, mass, charge, spin. But properties aren't the same thing as information. What bits of information does it contain? I can encode all kinds of information with numerous electrons (say a sequence of them where they are spin up and spin down and use Morse Code or something like that). But if I send only one electron? No information (barring a prior arrangement). Bits of information have to be stored and have to be modifiable. A simple entity is, at a fundamental, level incapable of encoding such.

[Nofear]

I don’t see how “uncreated intelligence” can be a mere object—by definition intelligence is the “light of truth” and “acts for itself,” a conscious/aware and subjective entity.

I make no assertion that intelligent entities are of the same kind of stuff that physical (or even spirit) matter is. Indeed, being a libertarian (in the free will philosophy sense) I would actually claim that intelligent matter must be something categorically different than physical matter.

Intelligence could be quite complex from its inception, simply a man in his earliest estate. For example, man is the light of God emanating from Him, in perfect image, but only light and needing to progress to full stature. By using his agency, man is next spirit. Then a mortal with spirit, flesh an blood, then an immortal of spirit, flesh and bone, and finally exalted with glory. But each stage is materially and recognizably the same man, being "added upon."

Inception? Uncreate entities have no inception. That quibble aside, I grant that it is technically possible for somebody to posit complex structures that extend into the infinite past -- as complex structures. Yet, to me such an idea is so ugly aesthically that it is not one I am presently willing to entertain. It's a bias, I admit (a strong one at that). The rest of your words, I am quite in agreement about the progessive states of our specie. I simply am willing to start us out as non-sentient, simple, indestructible entities.

[mfbukowski]

Let's look at an known simple particle - like an electron. It has a few properties, mass, charge, spin. But properties aren't the same thing as information. What bits of information does it contain? I can encode all kinds of information with numerous electrons (say a sequence of them where they are spin up and spin down and use Morse Code or something like that). But if I send only one electron? No information (barring a prior arrangement). Bits of information have to be stored and have to be modifiable. A simple entity is, at a fundamental, level incapable of encoding such.

Would you consider the possibility that you are confusing what is essentially a "linguistic convention" ie: "bit" as it is defined with objectively observable phenomena?

Unless I am highly mistaken, no one has ever seen or experienced a "bit", but the behavior of electrons can be observed.

Is that totally off base? To me it is like saying there are "two scoops of raisins" in Raisin Bran, and looking inside and finding not even a single little tool used for scooping raisins, much less two of them.

In short, it seems to me to be a category error. But I certainly defer to your superior knowledge of physics. But even "physics" is largely metaphorical, if I understand it correctly, especially when trying to describe particles/waves, and observing "things" like electrons. ?

To me, a "bit" is perhaps more analogous to a single letter in a sentence- but what does that have to do with intelligence?

Edited November 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

Would you consider the possibility that you are confusing what is essentially a "linguistic convention" ie: "bit" as it is defined with objectively observable phenomena?

In a materialistic univerese, while the "bit" is not the substance, it cannot exist without the substrate.

Unless I am highly mistaken, no one has ever seen or experienced a "bit", but the behavior of electrons can be observed.

Is that totally off base? To me it is like saying there are "two scoops of raisins" in Raisin Bran, and looking inside and finding not even a single little tool used for scooping raisins, much less two of them.

In short, it seems to me to be a category error. But I certainly defer to your superior knowledge of physics. But even "physics" is largely metaphorical, if I understand it correctly, especially when trying to describe particles/waves, and observing "things" like electrons.?

To me, a "bit" is perhaps more analogous to a single letter in a sentence- but what does that have to do with intelligence

The point here is that the intelligent entity may well act without being acted upon (or react in an indeterministic manner?) but if it has no information about the environment or memory of past events, the actions of the intelligent entity would be no better than random.

Consider a thought-experiment where we have a small very special ball on a table. We are going to roll balls at this special ball. What makes the ball special is that it will bounce off in a way that is completely indeterministic (while a regular ball would be fully determined). The goal of the experiment is to determine if the ball is simply randomly indeterministic or if it has some "intelligence" behind it.

Suppose the special ball was simply randomly indeterministic. Each collision would result in a different reaction by the special ball. We would record esesntially random results.

No suppose the speciall ball is sentient in some manner. But, the ball itself, has no mechanism to sense its environment. It has no mechanism to remember past events. Each collision would be its "first" collision and so any reaction to that collision would be as good as any other reaction. We would record essentially random results. There would be no way to tell a difference.

We could further define this thought experiment where the special ball was on a special table that magnetically recorded each event and the special ball could "read" the events. But, here I get ahead of myself...

[CV75]

I would actually claim that intelligent matter must be something categorically different than physical matter.

But if it acts for itself, how it is just an object?

[Nofear]

But if it acts for itself, how it is just an object?

How can intelligent matter act for itself? I think intelligent matter can behave indeterministically. If I could answer how it acted, it would be deterministic. A rather unsatisfying answer philosophically speaking, but I have other issues with the model that concern me more. Plus, it's a problem answer that generically plagues believers in libertarian free will. Do you believe in libertarian free will or are you a compatibilist? Are you a materialist or do you hold to the reality of immaterial substances? Where are you coming from and then I can tailor my responses accordingly. In my original post, I tried to be explicit about some of my foundational premises.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Nofear

[CV75]

How can intelligent matter act for itself? I think intelligent matter can behave indeterministically. If I could answer how it acted, it would be deterministic. A rather unsatisfying answer philosophically speaking, but I have other issues with the model that concern me more. Plus, it's a problem answer that generically plagues believers in libertarian free will. Do you believe in libertarian free will or are you a compatibilist? Are you a materialist or do you hold to the reality of immaterial substances? Where are you coming from and then I can tailor my responses accordingly. In my original post, I tried to be explicit about some of my foundational premises.

I am coming from D&C 93:30, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” I suppose this is not very philosophical.

Trying not to repeat my prior posts (your review of which would probably better flesh out for you where I am coming from), this is what I can offer from D&C 93:30 in light of these questions:

Where intelligence acts for itself, it behaves, in its full expression, indeterministically (God remains God under any set of conditions others may perceive He is faced with, for He is perfectly aligned and compatible with His own conditions). If it didn’t, there would be no existence, material or immaterial, however one defines these, at least from the perspective and experience God is describing in D&C 93:30. Because of this, I do not understand how intelligence could be an object, unless you also view spirits, people and God as objects.

Otherwise I view intelligence as a “self” that “acts for itself” and in our case is recognizably human. Granted, gametes are recognizably human as well, as are the parents, but as the parent in this way is also his own co-existing children (and vice-versa), so is God His own co-existing intelligences.

When intelligence does not act for itself, which it can choose to do, it becomes more determinate in its behavior. To me, to “act for itself” means to act as God does. Another way of saying this is, intelligence exercises agency within the constraints of ungodly conditions it has placed itself in, and without such constraint in godly conditions, which is “that sphere in which where God has placed it.” God placing it does not mean intelligence is deterministic, it means that God’s intelligences are with Him all along.