But the ancients did have notions of evolution.

Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Anaximander of Miletus (c. 610—546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water, and only spent part of their life on land. He also argued that the first human of the form known today must have been the child of a different type of animal (probably a fish), because man needs prolonged nursing to live.[5][6][4] In the late nineteenth century, Anaximander was hailed as the "first Darwinist", but this characterization is no longer commonly agreed.[7] Anaximander's hypothesis could be considered "evolution" in a sense, although not a Darwinian one.[7]

Empedocles (c. 490—430 BC), argued that what we call birth and death in animals are just the mingling and separations of elements which cause the countless "tribes of mortal things."[8] Specifically, the first animals and plants were like disjointed parts of the ones we see today, some of which survived by joining in different combinations, and then intermixing during the development of the embryo,[a] and where "everything turned out as it would have if it were on purpose, there the creatures survived, being accidentally compounded in a suitable way."[9] Other philosophers who became more influential at that time, including Plato (c. 428/427—348/347 BC), Aristotle (384—322 BC), and members of the Stoic school of philosophy, believed that the types of all things, not only living things, were fixed by divine design.

Chinese
Ancient Chinese thinkers such as Zhuang Zhou (c. 369—286 BC), a Taoist philosopher, expressed ideas on changing biological species. According to Joseph Needham, Taoism explicitly denies the fixity of biological species and Taoist philosophers speculated that species had developed differing attributes in response to differing environments.[18] Taoism regards humans, nature and the heavens as existing in a state of "constant transformation" known as the Tao, in contrast with the more static view of nature typical of Western thought.[19] — Wikipedia

I think we need to consider ideas of atoms and energy and what would have happened to history if these ideas consumed our consciousness instead of religion?

The atomic philosophy of the early Greeks
Leucippus of Miletus (5th century BCE) is thought to have originated the atomic philosophy. His famous disciple, Democritus of Abdera, named the building blocks of matter atomos, meaning literally “indivisible,” about 430 BCE......

The philosopher Epicurus of Samos (341–270 BCE) used Democritus’s ideas to try to quiet the fears of superstitious Greeks. According to Epicurus’s materialistic philosophy, the entire universe was composed exclusively of atoms and void, and so even the gods were subject to natural laws. — Britannica

Like what leaves the universe? All organic matter breaks down and is reassembled. And if we add the science of cells to all this, our thoughts may go into how we handle our bodies when we are dead? I am thinking it might be important to expose our bodies to nature so that carnivorous animals can repurpose our mitochondria.

Sky Burial
In this ritual, bodies are left outside, often cut into pieces, for birds or other animals to devour. This serves the dual purpose of eliminating the now empty vessel of the body and allowing the soul to depart, while also embracing the circle of life and giving sustenance to animals.

7 Unique Burial Rituals Across the World | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/list/7-unique-burial-rituals-across-the-world#:~:text=Sky%20Burial&text=In%20this%20ritual%2C%20bodies%20are,and%20giving%20sustenance%20to%20animals. — Britannica

We want to be one with God but not really. We can not be one with God and maintain our unique identity. Does not our ego hold us separate? Would not love unite us with the universe?

-Well to answer that you will need to define what you mean by that term.
Now the author ↪chiknsld
-"Does our soul come from an eternal source of power such as "Wille zum Leben"? Is there a connection between Aristotle's idea of the "soul" and Schopenhauer's "will to live"?
What do you think Darwin would have to say about people living in the 21st century and still believing in a "soul"? Is it possible that Aristotle was right, and that Darwin was wrong?"
Now I will ignore the pseudo philosophical nature of the options he provides and focus on error he makes.
Obviously he has never read the theory of evolution so he doesn't know that evolution doesn't address theories of Abiogenesis . — Nickolasgaspar

Our soul or our ego? Here I am thinking of the ancient Egyptian trinity. Instead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the Trinity could be us. One part of this trinity dies with our body. One part of our trinity is judged and may or may not enter the good afterlife, and the final part of our trinity always unites with the eternal source/ the one and only true reality.

What might be wrong may not be not Darwin or Schopenhauer but our belief that we are our ego, All living things will to live. I am not sure there is a human soul and that animals do not have souls? I am sure whatever lives, has a will to live.

As for our belief that we have souls, am okay with that as long as we know we do not know. The belief is a possibility but not a certainty. The knowledge that I will die is easier for me to live with the possibility that my death is not the final end. For me, this is an ego problem. I don't think I want to spend eternity with my family and only my limited experience of who I am. I think I might like to be a male who is tall and strong and has a deep voice, in another incarnation. I feel sure people would react to me very differently if I were such a male and I think I might enjoy that. :lol: I have to laugh because we are so fixated on defending who we are, our space, and our time and energy, but right now many are not sure if their true self is a male or female. I am not sure what reality is but I enjoy discussing it.

I was referring to DNA relics, if such exist, the kind that could be reactivated in order to express long-dead
phenotypes. What did humans look like 2.3 million years ago? It probably wouldn't be ethical. Can't believe I'm saying this. :fear: — Agent Smith

I see nothing morally wrong with what you are saying but scientifically there is more information.

Traces of Neanderthal DNA in some Eurasian people prove we didn't just replace them after they went extinct. We met, and we mated.

Elsewhere, DNA tells of other encounters with archaic humans. East Asian, Polynesian and Australian groups have DNA from Denisovans. DNA from another species, possibly Homo erectus, occurs in many Asian people. African genomes show traces of DNA from yet another archaic species. The fact that we interbred with these other species proves that they disappeared only after encountering us. — NICK LONGRICH,

First portrait of mysterious Denisovans drawn from DNA
Scientists analysed chemical changes to the ancient humans’ DNA to reveal broad, Neanderthal-like facial features. — Ewen Callaway

I suppose we could have fun arguing if Neanderthal and Denisovans and other extinct species along the human line had souls. By the way, genetic testing shows my family is connected with Neanderthals. Perhaps no one had souls until modern man caused the extinction of those who came before our species?

:up:

ok....

There’s an interesting current story on neuroscience.com about how single memories (in mice) are stored across many diverse areas of the brain (you can read it here).

What occurs to me on reading it, is the question of what faculty or property unifies a single memory in such a way that it can be deposited across a number of different systems (it is referred to as an ‘engram’). What makes it whole? I don’t discern any comment or speculation in the article about that point. But, philosophically, this is where I think there is evidence for something like vitalism: that there is a faculty or attribute of living systems which orchestrates a huge number of diverse, individual cellular interactions into a unified whole, which operates on a number of levels, including memory.

And, in fact, if you think it through, that is analogous to a form of the hard problem of consciousness. Science can recognise where in the brain these reactions associated with storing of memories occur - the article mentions 267 of them - but how can they identify what it is that unifies all of these into a unitary experience, an ‘engram’? It seems to me another facet of the well-known neural binding problem.

↪chiknsld ↪Nickolasgaspar ↪T Clark There’s an interesting current story on neuroscience.com about how single memories (in mice) are stored across many diverse areas of the brain (you can read it here).

What occurs to me on reading it, is the question of what faculty or property unifies a single memory in such a way that it can be deposited across a number of different systems (it is referred to as an ‘engram’). What makes it whole? I don’t discern any comment or speculation in the article about that point. But, philosophically, this is where I think there is evidence for something like vitalism: that there is a faculty or attribute of living systems which orchestrates a huge number of diverse, individual cellular interactions into a unified whole, which operates on a number of levels, including memory.

And, in fact, if you think it through, that is analogous to a form of the hard problem of consciousness. Science can recognise where in the brain these reactions associated with storing of memories occur - the article mentions 267 of them - but how can they identify what it is that unifies all of these into a unitary experience, an ‘engram’? It seems to me another facet of the well-known neural binding problem. — Wayfarer

Ah, this is excellent information! Indeed wayfarer, there must be something greater than the mere neural circuitry of the brain that is active.

It’s not information, only my opinion, so if someone sets me straight I’ll change my view. But that’s how it seems to me..,,

philosophically, this is where I think there is evidence for something like vitalism: — Wayfarer

I read through the abstract and introduction of the article you linked.

I don't see this as a philosophical question at all. It's a series of unanswered scientific questions. I don't see any need to hypothesize some sort of non-physical process or factor like elan vital.

that is analogous to a form of the hard problem of consciousness. — Wayfarer

I think the only similarity between the issues is that many people are unable to believe that the deeply personal experiences of our minds could arise from physical sources. I have no problem believing it.

I don't see any need to hypothesize some sort of non-physical process — T Clark

What do you think the physical equivalent of such a unifying principle might be? What analogy from the physical sciences might provide a model?

What occurs to me on reading it, is the question of what faculty or property unifies a single memory in such a way that it can be deposited across a number of different systems (it is referred to as an ‘engram’). What makes it whole? I don’t discern any comment or speculation in the article about that point. But, philosophically, this is where I think there is evidence for something like vitalism: that there is a faculty or attribute of living systems which orchestrates a huge number of diverse, individual cellular interactions into a unified whole, which operates on a number of levels, including memory. — Wayfarer

Consider that there are separated points in space, non-dimensional points which have real existence. Between the points is "space" as we know it through our techniques of geometry and measurement. The non-dimensional points are very real though, having some sort of internal structure which is completely foreign to us because it is non-spatial, and we understand physical things only through their spatial representations. Within these points is the immaterial reality which is very intuitive to us. And the activity in here (whatever it could be), accounts for the observed oddities of our universe, oddities which appear to us when the universe is represented by spatial models; like spatial expansion, dark energy etc.. The non-dimensional points though, might be related to each other, through their internal activity, and these relations cannot be represented as spatial relations.

Seeing things in this way opens up a whole "internal universe" which is completely different from the external spatial universe that we are aware of through sensation.

Now, the problem in accessing and understanding the internal universe is the failings of our geometrically based conceptions, which were constructed chiefly for utility in the external, spatial universe. The principal problem today, is the relativistic concept of space-time, which portrays time as a fourth dimension of space. This forms our conception of time around our conception of space, making time a property of spatial activity, instead of making spatial activity a property of the passing of time. The true logical conclusion is that the passing of time is required for spatial activity, not that time is the product of spatial activity. So if we invert the existing conception, to give proper logical priority to time, making the passing of time the logical necessity for the existence of spatial activity, then we allow for non-spatial activity at the base of, or the cause of spatial activity. Then the activity within the non-dimensional points, described above, becomes intelligible to us, as non-spatial activity. And time is properly positioned as the zeroth dimension rather then the fourth.

Then the activity within the non-dimensional points, described above, becomes intelligible to us, as non-spatial activity. And time is properly positioned as the zeroth dimension rather then the fourth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very interesting. :)

What analogy from the physical sciences might provide a model? — Wayfarer

I recognize this is a cliche, but I think tools to mechanical devices to electrical devices to electronic devices to electronic devices using transistors to computers to networks to the internet to Facebook to Skynet is probably a good analogy. I'm not saying the levels of complexity between this and the brain are equivalent. I don't know how they compare.

devices using transistors — T Clark

These are products of human intelligence. Whether they can be understood in physicalist terms, then, begs the question.

The basic problem with that memory paper is mereological - the relationship of parts and wholes. As it says, memories are encoded across hundreds of different neural areas. Yet they retain their identity as a single unitary memory. And this is something that happens at other levels of experience - even though our cellular metabolism is fantastically complex, comprising billions of cells, experience itself is unitary. That is a major difficulty for reductionist, 'bottom-up' accounts life and mind.

Very interesting. — chiknsld

Yes it is, isn't it? But the need for a schema like this is only really understood when one recognizes and accepts the reality of free will.

These are products of human intelligence. Whether they can be understood in physicalist terms, then, begs the question.

The basic problem with that memory paper is mereological - the relationship of parts and wholes. As it says, memories are encoded across hundreds of different neural areas. Yet they retain their identity as a single unitary memory. And this is something that happens at other levels of experience - even though our cellular metabolism is fantastically complex, comprising billions of cells, experience itself is unitary. — Wayfarer

I guess I misunderstood your question. I gave an example of a very complex system that emerged from many interacting subsystems with massive interconnection and where no non-physical explanation is needed. I think that is analogous to the mind arising from the nervous system.

That is a major difficulty for reductionist, 'bottom-up' accounts life and mind. — Wayfarer

My choices aren't between reductionist and non-physicalist explanations. I don't buy either.

I gave an example of a very complex system that emerged from many interacting subsystems with massive interconnection and where no non-physical explanation is needed. I think that is analogous to the mind arising from the nervous system. — T Clark

Computers are the artefacts of human minds, built and programmed by humans. So unless the mind is physical - which is the point at issue! - then you can't claim that they can be explained in solely physical terms.

Computers are the artefacts of human minds, built and programmed by humans. So unless the mind is physical - which is the point at issue! - then you can't claim that they can be explained in solely physical terms. — Wayfarer

I didn't say this proves that the mind is entirely physical. I was trying to do as I thought you asked - provide an analogy of a situation where a very complex system of physical components could integrate itself into a single entity which behaves in a manner which can't be understood by understanding the characteristics and behavior of the components. Other examples; the market, society, the weather, ecology.

Consider that there are separated points in space, non-dimensional points which have real existence. Between the points is "space" as we know it through our techniques of geometry and measurement. The non-dimensional points are very real though, having some sort of internal structure which is completely foreign to us because it is non-spatial, and we understand physical things only through their spatial representations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, we accept it as granted, no need for proof right? Now, how did we arrive at this conclusion, is it from a particular kind of mathematics? Or is this more from logical inference?

Within these points is the immaterial reality which is very intuitive to us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very interesting, I suppose this is the ultimate reason for what you said previously -our intellect or consciousness which seems to be made of immaterial substance.

And the activity in here (whatever it could be), accounts for the observed oddities of our universe... — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. :)

...oddities which appear to us when the universe is represented by spatial models; like spatial expansion, dark energy etc. — Metaphysician Undercover

Dark energy is fascinating indeed. You're saying that dark energy has something to do with the same counterintuitive nature of our immaterial intellect, that same counterintuity is reflective in the current peculiarities of the universe? Very interesting. :)

Okay, we accept it as granted, no need for proof right? Now, how did we arrive at this conclusion, is it from a particular kind of mathematics? Or is this more from logical inference? — chiknsld

It's metaphysics, theory, hypothesis. I wouldn't really characterize it as a conclusion, more like a proposition.

Very interesting, I suppose this is the ultimate reason for what you said previously -our intellect or consciousness which seems to be made of immaterial substance. — chiknsld

Yes, see Wayfarer was talking about memory consisting of a multitude of points, which are somehow united. The relationship which unites them does not appear to be a spatial pattern. What relates them may be a non-spatial pattern.

Dark energy is fascinating indeed. You're saying that dark energy has something to do with the same counterintuitive nature of our immaterial intellect, that same counterintuity is reflective in the current peculiarities of the universe? Very interesting. :) — chiknsld

I would not say that it's counterintuitive. As I said, the reality of the immaterial aspect of the human being, free will, spirit, etc., is very intuitive. It's just that the modern trend toward physicalism and scientism has suppressed this intuition in an unnatural way, making it appear to be counterintuitive. But when you look at the reality of the situation, you ought to be able to see that this physicalist attitude is acquired through the current educational institutions. It is not an intuition at all, but an attitude acquired in our educational process, and this attitude suppresses the natural inclination toward spirituality.

I would not say that it's counterintuitive. As I said, the reality of the immaterial aspect of the human being, free will, spirit, etc., is very intuitive. It's just that the modern trend toward physicalism and scientism has suppressed this intuition in an unnatural way, making it appear to be counterintuitive. But when you look at the reality of the situation, you ought to be able to see that this physicalist attitude is acquired through the current educational institutions. It is not an intuition at all, but an attitude acquired in our educational process, and this attitude suppresses the natural inclination toward spirituality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very interesting, thank you.

One of my ventures in life is the "search for spirit." I ask myself, is this a physical, brain function, or is it some kind of "soul" that is doing it? So far, I have yet to find any evidence of a "spiritual material" or "spiritual quality" in the brain.

I do have some interests in para-normal phenomena, but this hasn't aided anything in my previous mentioned venture. I suppose we are waiting for the next Darwin to write, "On the origins of the soul." If there is such a thing.

Here's another problem, "How are we supposed to measure or find evidence for the existence of something non-physical, if all we have is physicality to apprehend it by?"

The difference between the animated organism propagating life and evolution propagating it is, I suspect, a difference in leadership. Let's take a look at extremist Darwinism, i.e., Dawkinsism. Dawkins delegates the competition between the species to the level of the genes. Genes want to survive and in doing so they mutate spontaneously or accidentally (central dogma, i.e., the organism they are in has no influence, which is a very convenient dogma!), and practice will prove it to be useful or not. So live evolves because of a principle without a soul. The genes are in charge, performing leadership. Though to some extent you can call their will to replicate animated.
The animated life functions differently. The organism itself is the driving force and directs life from a will to life and pass life on. Even genes can be changed by the organisms. Which goes against dogma, but remember that that's all it is, a dogma. There is no proof that organisms can't actually alter genes. This form of evolution, by the way, is called Lamarckian evolution. Not popular, but there is no evidence against it.



What about the fact that if you look at a dreaming person there is actually a conscious world in there?

- "Conscious dreaming?

Are you asking if the dream-world is conscious?

Are you implying that consciousness is the soul?

Do the two inter-relate, in your conceptions? And by the two I mean the soul and the dream-self?

I don't think the dreamworld itself is conscious but that inside of a sleeping person who dreams a world exists. This world has roots in matter. So matter contains something non-material.

- "Matter contains something non-material." Can you say what that something is, other than that it is immaterial? And how is one to extract information about that thing from observation? I still don't understand what this immaterial thing has to do with dreaming, from what you have vaguely divulged?

If this immaterial thing wasn't present in matter then consciousness, dreaming, not even interaction between matter particles could be present. Particles would be massless empty units, wandering into oblivion in the void of space.