The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?

Vitalism is a belief that starts from the premise that living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things.

The elan vatal talked about by vitalists is not generally considered the same as soul as understood by Christians and some other religions, although there are some who make that connection.

Quoting chiknsld

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?

Darwin was pretty clear that he didn't know how life began. Natural selection only applies to already living organisms.

Although differences between believers in a soul and those who believe life is a physical process exist, seems to me that setting that up as a conflict between Darwin and Aristotle is misleading. There are plenty of people who believe in both Darwinian evolution and the existence of the soul.

The difference between life and non-life can be boiled down to a fundamental. Non-life reacts and finishes. Life is an integration of reactions that seeks to sustain itself and other reactions like it as long as it can.

If you're going to propose something like a soul, it needs to be more than an untested concept. Being unable to comprehend that you are a self-sustaining set of chemical reactions does not suddenly make another proposal correct. What does a soul mean? What does it do that sustained chemical reactions cannot? How can we see the soul act? How does it interact with these chemical reactions?

If you can't answer questions like these, not just with a soul but with anything, then what you're talking about is something you've imagined. Nothing wrong with imagining things, but we shouldn't let what we imagine be assumed a part of reality, until we can observe it is part of reality. Its the unicorn test. If you can't prove something exists in the same way that you cannot prove a unicorn exists, then you know your claim is purely imaginary.

Quoting T Clark

As I wrote in my last post, Darwin's work didn't say anything about where life came from and what it's nature is. In his view natural selection only acts on already living organisms. Your summary of Darwin's position is, to be kind, inaccurate. If you haven't read "Origin of Species," I suggest you do.

I believe you're on the mark. :up: The title of Darwin's book is On the Origin of Species and not On the Origin of Life. Two very different topics, one explicable and the other not (yet). Which is and which is not explicable now obvious. Hindsight, they say, is 20/20!

Elan vital, if memory serves, is about a so-called life principle that is infused into the physical (chemical soup?) for life to exist. Not a bad hypothesis if you ask me as the genesis of life hasn't yet been put on a firm physical foundation. Until such a time as that's done, we're free to speculate as much as we wish, oui?

Quoting T Clark

You knowingly misrepresent Darwin's positions for cheap rhetorical effect and so you can feel like a smarty pants. There is nothing serious about your post and you know it.

:lol:

Quoting chiknsld

Aristotle was truly ahead of his time.

but Democritus was even more ahead of Aristotle's time. Aristotle's doctrine was almost immediately accepted. So he was about 5 minutes ahead of time. Democritus' doctrine had to wait about two thousand years to be accepted.

So who was more ahead of his time? Which is earlier: 5 minutes early, or two thousand years early? If you don't agree that 2000 years is earlier than 5 minutes is, then get out of here.

Quoting Agent Smith

Elan vital, if memory serves, is about a so-called life principle that is infused into the physical (chemical soup?) for life to exist. Not a bad hypothesis if you ask me as the genesis of life hasn't yet been put on a firm physical foundation. Until such a time as that's done, we're free to speculate as much as we wish, oui?

Non. On ne peut pas spéculer sans comprendre.

We know enough about how life began to understand that there's nothing magic about it. No elan vital. All the materials are standard stuff - carbon, hydrogen, iron, water, oxygen, nitrogen, calcium, etc. They're all put together by chemical processes that follow the rules of organic chemistry. Of course there's more to it than that, but it's clear it's one of those things science is good at figuring out and will.

Quoting T Clark

Non. On ne peut pas spéculer sans comprendre.

We know enough about how life began to understand that there's nothing magic about it. No elan vital. All the materials are standard stuff - carbon, hydrogen, iron, water, oxygen, nitrogen, calcium, etc. They're all put together by chemical processes that follow the rules of organic chemistry. Of course there's more to it than that, but it's clear it's one of those things science is good at figuring out and will

:up:

Quoting chiknsld

Aristotle was truly ahead of his time. Do you believe that humans have a soul? Where does our soul come from?

'The soul' might be thought of as shorthand for 'the totality of the being'. After all, humans are possessed of all manner of inclinations, proclivities, talents, dispositions, memories, intentions, and so on. Only a minor aspect of that is apparent to either the individual or others. So the soul not 'a substance', like an enzyme or hormone, so much as 'the totality of the being'. And besides, what Aristotle means by 'substance' is nothing like what we mean by 'substance'. 'The soul' is not magic pixie dust, and it's not something you 'have', like an appendix or a big toe.

Vitalism is associated with a late-nineteenth-early-20th-c philosopher called Henri Bergson. 'Élan vital (French pronunciation: ?[el?? vital]) is a term coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of self-organisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. Élan vital was translated in the English edition as "vital impetus", but is usually translated by his detractors as "vital force". It is a hypothetical explanation for evolution and development of organisms, which Bergson linked closely with consciousness – the intuitive perception of experience and the flow of inner time.' There's actually nothing in that which contradicts Darwinism, it's more that Charles Darwin didn't think along those lines. Whereas his associated, Alfred Russel Wallace, did, and although he pre-deceased Bergson's work, I'm sure he would have found it congenial.


Quoting chiknsld

Is there a connection between Aristotle's idea of the "soul" and Schopenhauer's "will to live"?

Quite possibly. Aristotle and Schopenhauer are very much representative of a specific intellectual tradition.

Quoting chiknsld

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?

It's not one or the other. Evolution is an indubitable fact, but what evolution means is wide open for reassessment. There are plenty of dissident movements in evolutionary biology, not even counting 'intelligent design' - like the The Third Way.

Quoting T Clark

All the materials are standard stuff - carbon, hydrogen, iron, water, oxygen, nitrogen, calcium, etc.

There's nothing about chemical and physical laws which in itself will give rise to living organisms. I mean, it's a kind of magical thinking - people used to think that mice were spontaneously generated by piles of rotting cloth. But Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern biological synthesis, insists that living organisms are fundamentally different to inanimate matter. In The Growth of Biological Thought he says: ‘… The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’

So there's something other to, and beyond, what is in the carbon, hydrogen, etc - there's memory, and there's intentionality, even if its rudimentary in the very simplest forms.

Quoting Wayfarer

...humans are possessed of all manner of inclinations, proclivities, talents, dispositions, memories, intentions, and so on. Only a minor aspect of that is apparent to either the individual or others.

Hello Wayfarer, I really love what you say here. I must agree that there seems to be an inherent mystery between our own consciousness and the sub-consciousness, and even more the central nervous system.

Our consciousness is at the forefront -the periphery of our awareness, but what lies behind it may conceal a far greater mystery than all the wonderful discoveries of the world, as rich as it is with knowledge and information.

Quoting Wayfarer

Vitalism is associated with a late-nineteenth-early-20th-c philosopher called Henri Bergson. 'Élan vital (French pronunciation: ?[el?? vital]) is a term coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of self-organisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. Élan vital was translated in the English edition as "vital impetus", but is usually translated by his detractors as "vital force"

Much appreciated :)

Quoting Wayfarer

...It is a hypothetical explanation for evolution and development of organisms, which Bergson linked closely with consciousness – the intuitive perception of experience and the flow of inner time.'

This is a profound sentiment. It appears that our consciousness is several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the biology from which it arises. If perfection does exist, who's to say that it could not interact with biological systems.

Quoting Wayfarer

There's actually nothing in that which contradicts Darwinism, it's more that Charles Darwin didn't think along those lines. Whereas his associated, Alfred Russel Wallace, did, and although he pre-deceased Bergson's work, I'm sure he would have found it congenial.

Much appreciated :)

Quoting Wayfarer

Quite possibly. Aristotle and Schopenhauer are very much representative of a specific intellectual tradition.

You know, I had an intuition that this was the case. I am glad that I was not totally off on this one.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's not one or the other. Evolution is an indubitable fact, but what evolution means is wide open for reassessment. There are plenty of dissident movements in evolutionary biology, not even counting 'intelligent design' - like the The Third Way.

Having a gander at the site, it seems like it may offer fruitful information regarding biogenetic diversity and the processes therein.

Quoting Wayfarer

There's nothing about chemical and physical laws which in itself will give rise to living organisms.

This is an ambiguous way of saying it. Life is completely consistent with chemical and physical laws. If you look closely, you won't find any molecules acting in ways that don't follow those laws. On the other hand, one couldn't predict that life would arise or what it would look like from those same laws. This is what strong emergence is about. Reductionism but not constructivism.

Quoting Wayfarer

living organisms are fundamentally different to inanimate matter

Ok. And organic chemistry is fundamentally different from physics. Neurology is fundamentally different from mind. Again, that's emergence.

Quoting Wayfarer

there's memory, and there's intentionality, even if its rudimentary in the very simplest forms.

@apokrisis and I just had this discussion in a different thread. He said something similar. I rejected the term "intentionality" in this context. As I wrote in one of those posts, you are palling around with Thomas Merton and his hippie noosphere cohort.

Quoting Wayfarer

the The Third Way.

Interesting website. Thanks.

Quoting chiknsld

Could there ever be a unification between evolution and vitalism?

I think our soul can be explained with science and is best without religious or supernatural notions. For me, this is an ego issue. Are we part of the universal whole, or are we separated individuals that may or may not pass into the good life?

When speaking of Aristotle we might consider Socrates and his belief that we exist before being incarnated and know everything but forget what we know when we begin a new life. We could add concepts of reincarnation to our wondering about souls. I like the notion of reincarnation. But the following is more of a universal expression of being through science.

Quoting Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Quanta Magazine

s a biological concept, the inheritance of acquired characteristics has had a wild roller coaster ride over the past two centuries. Championed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck at the beginning of the 19th century, it soared to widespread popularity as a theory of inheritance and an explanation for evolution, enduring even after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Then experimental tests, the rise of Mendelian genetics, and the wealth of discoveries substantiating chromosomal DNA as the principal medium of genetic information in complex organisms all but buried the idea until the mid-20th century. Since then, the theory has found at least a limited new respectability with the rise of “epigenetics” (literally, around or on top of genetics) as an explanation for some inherited traits.

Most recently, some researchers have found evidence that even some learned behaviors and physiological responses can be epigenetically inherited. None of the new studies fully address exactly how information learned or acquired in the somatic tissues is communicated and incorporated into the germline. But mechanisms centering around small RNA molecules and forms of hormonal communication are actively being investigated.

Quoting Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Quanta Magazine

the inheritance of acquired characteristics has had a wild roller coaster ride over the past two centuries.

When I read "Origin of Species," I was surprised to see that Darwin included inheritance of acquired characteristics as a potential mechanism for evolution in addition to natural selection.

Quoting T Clark

When I read "Origin of Species," I was surprised to see that Darwin included inheritance of acquired characteristics as a potential mechanism for evolution in addition to natural selection.

You know this is a politically explosive issue right? It goes with a king's right to rule and slavery as a kindness to inferior humans. I think completely denying racial and class differences would be a hard stand to defend, on the other hand basing decisions on the science of inherited differences, is a very dangerous thing to do.

I think Greeks worked with a notion of individual difference and merit that is workable but then determining a person's merit is also a little problematic. Yikes, that is moving away from the notion of soul, but those considerations can make the notion of souls even more interesting.

Humans are very reactionary and their circumstances can shape them. Knowing advantaged people are shaped by their experience of advantage and things can happen to people like post-trauma syndrome and constant fear and insecurity and violence all around them can shape people differently, I find the notion of judging souls extremely unjust.

Quoting Athena

You know this is a politically explosive issue right?

I made a statement of fact about what Darwin wrote in "Origin of Species." Any political interpretation is yours.

Quoting Wayfarer

living organisms are fundamentally different to inanimate matter

This may not be the thread for my question, but I need to ask, how are living organisms fundamentally different from inanimate matter?

Quoting T Clark

I made a statement of fact about what Darwin wrote in "Origin of Species." Any political interpretation is yours.

I was just thinking out loud. Not drawing any firm conclusions except to recognize a political aspect to questions about what makes us as we are, besides being just a religion versus science issue.

Quoting T Clark

Life is completely consistent with chemical and physical laws.

But it's not. Or rather, they are included, but there are other levels of organisation which are not apparent on the level of physics and chemistry. You're preaching reductionism, whereas I'm saying there's a (warning: philosophical terminology) ontological distinction in play.

Quoting T Clark

As I wrote in one of those posts, you are palling around with Thomas Merton and his hippie noosphere cohort.

And you're looking at the entire discussion through the spectacles of an engineer.

Quoting Athena

This may not be the thread for my question, but I need to ask, how are living organisms fundamentally different from inanimate matter?

They exhibit self-organisation, homeostasis, the ability to reproduce, evolve and mutate, and heal from injury.

Quoting Wayfarer

You're preaching reductionism, whereas I'm saying there's a (warning: philosophical terminology) ontological distinction in play.

And here we have the essential question that seems to be at the heart of every second thread. :wink:

Quoting Wayfarer

But it's not. Or rather, they are included, but there are other levels of organisation which are not apparent on the level of physics and chemistry. You're preaching reductionism, whereas I'm saying there's a (warning: philosophical terminology) ontological distinction in play.

As I said, I think your language is ambiguous. You say there is an "ontological distinction." I'm not sure what that means. Is there an ontological distinction between water and ice? Between individual cells and the liver or brain? Between country music and rock and roll? Between potatoes and amoeba. Living things are different from non-living things, but we're all in the same family.

I'm strongly anti-reductionist and I think I've shown that in what I've written on the forum over the years.

Quoting Wayfarer

And you're looking at the entire discussion through the spectacles of an engineer.

First, I admit that was gratuitous rhetoric. There's truth in what I wrote, but I used it mostly because I thought it was clever.

And no, I'm looking at this discussion, and all other discussions, through the spectacles of T Clark. It's because I look at things this way that I am an engineer, not the other way around.

Quoting Wayfarer

They exhibit self-organisation, homeostasis, the ability to reproduce, evolve and mutate, and heal from injury.

In my understanding, as limited as that is in this case, non-living matter self-organizing is what lead to the beginning of life.

Sure, matter leads to life, in certain configurations. But why this happens, is a mystery.

It's a case of radical emergence. Vitalism may now be obsolete, but our understanding of how non-living matter leads to living matter leading to experience is still extremely limited.

Quoting T Clark

You say there is an "ontological distinction." I'm not sure what that means.

It's philosophical terminology for 'being of a fundamentally different kind'. Ontology was one of the traditional subjects of philosophy although its meaning has been changed, nowadays it is used to describe (for example) the fundamental kinds of entity in an information system.

So when I say an 'ontological distinction', then it means there's a fundamental distinction in kind between living and non-living. Whereas, for example, a Daniel Dennett would deny this because in his philosophy there is only one fundamental kind of substance, which is matter (or matter-energy). That's what makes him physicalist - there is only one kind of substance, and it's physical.

To give you an idea of a modernised version of traditional Aristotelian ontology, this is by E F Schumacher (who wrote a famous book called 'Small is Beautiful') in another book A Guide for the Perplexed:

For Schumacher one of science's major mistakes has been rejecting the traditional philosophical and religious view that the universe is a hierarchy of being. Schumacher makes a restatement of the traditional chain of being.

He agrees with the (Aristotelian) view that there are four kingdoms: Mineral, Plant, Animal, Human. He argues that there are important differences of kind (i.e. 'ontological distinctions') between each level of being. Between mineral and plant is the phenomenon of life. Schumacher also argues that there is nothing in physics or chemistry to explain the phenomenon of life.

For Schumacher, a similar jump in level of being (i.e. an ontological difference) takes place between plant and animal, which is differentiated by the phenomenon of consciousness. We can recognize consciousness, not least because we can knock an animal unconscious, but also because animals exhibit at minimum primitive thought and intelligence.

The next level, according to Schumacher, is between Animal and Human, which are differentiated by the phenomenon of self-consciousness or self awareness (and reason, abstract thought and language). Self-consciousness is the reflective awareness of one's consciousness and thoughts.

Schumacher suggests that the differences can be diagramatically expressed thus:

"Mineral" = m
"Plant" = m + x
"Animal" = m + x + y
"Human" = m + x + y + z

I understand that his way of looking at it will be rejected by a lot of people, but I think at least it makes clear what is being rejected. The question may be asked, what is it that constitutes the difference that Schumacher says exists; what are x and y and z? Is it like some kind of mysterious substance, this 'elan vital'?

I think that it refers to the attributes and characteristics of living organisms generally, which are invariably goal-directed and in that sense intentional. That is an attribute which is not found in inorganic matter. That quality of intentionality is what differentiates living from non-living beings, but it's is not an ingredient, in the way that say enzymes or hormones are - which is what makes it hard to objectively define.

Quoting T Clark

Living things are different from non-living things, but we're all in the same family.

I'm strongly anti-reductionist and I think I've shown that in what I've written on the forum over the years.

But that is reductionist, in that it reduces the attributes and qualities of living things to the same kind as matter. That is what 'reductionism' means: 'The view that only the material world (matter) is truly real, and that all processes and realities observed in the universe, including living organisms, can be explained in terms their basic constituents, e.g., atoms and molecules' - which is what you said.

Quoting T Clark

non-living matter self-organizing is what lead to the beginning of life.

So it is said, but that, in turn, depended on a causal chain that goes back first to the way that stars produce heavy elements, and before that to the way that the Universe produces stars. But I'm dubious of the idea life just spontaneously generates and evolves really constitutes any kind of theory.

I'm aware of some books on the physical possibility of life spontaneously self-generating, but the question I always have is, why is it felt that this constitutes an explanation? Or rather, what kind of explanation does it provide?

Anyway, that Third Way site has a lot of really interesting books, authors, and scientists, none of whom, I hasten to add, are affiliated with 'intelligent design' theories. I particularly like Steve Talbott who also has a bunch of excellent essays at the New Atlantis.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's philosophical terminology for 'being of a fundamentally different kind'.

I know what the word means, but I don't see how it applies here. The differences we are talking about here are not metaphysical. They are downhome, everyday, and physical. Also scientific. Every living thing is made up of chemical elements. The same chemical elements that make up non-living materials. Every interaction between those elements in living organisms take place in accordance with the same chemical and physical laws as they do for non-living materials.

Of course living organisms are different from non-living matter, but that difference is organizational, not material.

Quoting Wayfarer

which is what you said.

It is not what I said.

Quoting Wayfarer

So it is said, but that, in turn, depended on a causal chain that goes back first to the way that stars produce heavy elements, and before that to the way that the Universe produces stars. But I'm dubious of the idea life just spontaneously generates and evolves really constitutes any kind of theory.

Now there's a clear difference between what you believe and what I do. If I understand you correctly, you are dubious that life is created by the self-organization of non-living matter. I think it probably was, but I'm not ready to have a more detailed discussion about that. I need to do a lot of homework first.

Quoting Wayfarer

I'm aware of some books on the physical possibility of life spontaneously self-generating, but the question I always have is, why is it felt that this constitutes an explanation? Or rather, what kind of explanation does it provide?

It isn't an explanation by itself. Specific self-organizational processes will have to be determined before the explanation is adequate. No one said the process is well understood.

Social Darwinism is a thing, though.

"Fittest" is a really loaded word. It's like a justification unto itself that those who survive were the most capable of surviving.

But he forgot to mention that nothing about being capable of surviving is necessarily conducive to long term ascension of a species to grander heights. But that's the notion social Darwinist alphas feed themselves.

And it builds their egos and they survive. But the species is actually getting dumber, partly due to the layman's understanding of science.

Survival of the fittest is really a misnomer. And is of great service to those who survive.. But I don't know how else you'd put it. Survival of the fortunate, maybe...Survival of the lucky.

Quoting T Clark

As I wrote in one of those posts, you are palling around with Thomas Merton and his hippie noosphere cohort.

That prompted me to check out Merton. It is interesting where he notes that Teilhard’s noosphere is such a bold assertion of structuralism - the constraints based view of cosmic order - that scientists (or at least systems scientists and the Darwin dissidents in theoretical biology) really dig it.

And it is quite true that science has a bad habit of viewing humanity as merely some insignificant material accident - a meaningless blip in a vast cosmos - when humanity would be at the same time, from another equally scientific vantage point, be regarded as the most developed state of a Platonically-necessary "world structure".

No lump of matter in the known universe is more complexly structured that the nervous system of the average human. Even a Trump is some kind of Copernican apogee of cosmic evolution.

The Universe spans 90 magnitudes of time in its great arc from the Big Bang to the Heat Death. Humanity arises in roughly the middle of that (showing up at about the 56 mag mark). Likewise the Universe spans 60 magnitudes of space in terms of the distance from the Planck length scale to the diameter of the visible universe, and we sit about halfway, or around the 33 mag mark.

So in terms of representing the height of evolutionary creation, we do indeed sit pretty much at the cosmic centre.

The hippie nonsense would be that the Singularity comes next, as we are on a rocketing technology ride that will mutate biological consciousness into a vast cybermind that will colonise all of the Cosmos with its rationalising structure. We don't need to go that far.

But science can see both how humans are completely insignificant and also completely special - and why these two things are not incompatible but just two slants on the one, four causes and Aristotelean, story.

Anyway, here is Merton on Teilhard's structuralism and how it mitigates the more usual materialist view of evolution and the issue of whether the cosmos also contains some kind of Platonic arc of progress.

The whole structure of Teilhard’s “religious thought,” ... is based on this contention that evolution has made man once again the center of the universe, not spatially, not metaphysically, but in Teilhard’s word, “structurally.”

“Man is the hub of the universe,” “the structural key to the universe.”

Hence for Teilhard it is not only religion but science itself which declares that “man is the key and not an anomaly” in the world of evolution. For “man is the greatest telluric and biological event on our planet,” and “the supreme achievement of the organizing power of the cosmos.”

Consequently man is “the key to the whole science of nature” and the “solution of everything that we can know.”

This is the principal challenge of Teilhard to the thought of his time, and it is a challenge which, implemented by a cosmic and incarnational mystique, is directed against scientific positivism more than against the traditional theology of the Church.

Indeed, one would have expected the scientists to dismiss Teilhard’s thesis as reactionary even more emphatically than the theologians who fought it as revolutionary. But scientists were on the whole more friendly to Teilhard than theologians.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/teilhard%E2%80%99s-gamble

Quoting Wayfarer

They exhibit self-organisation, homeostasis, the ability to reproduce, evolve and mutate, and heal from injury.

Thank you. With that information, I could find more and this link supports your argument.

https://lco.global/spacebook/astrobiology/what-life/#:~:text=Crystals%20can%20self%20replicate%20in,the%20species%20to%20be%20alive.

Quoting T Clark

The differences we are talking about here are not metaphysical.

I think they are.

Reply to Athena :up:

Quoting apokrisis

And it is quite true that science has a bad habit of viewing humanity as merely some insignificant material accident - a meaningless blip in a vast cosmos

I am human and I am a humanist, by which I mean we created human value and meaning. That's a good thing. I love humanity. I feel a connection with my fellow humans. But meaning doesn't mean anything outside of a human context. As I see it, the only way there could be meaning beyond a human scale would be if there is a God. I am not a theist.

Quoting apokrisis

No lump of matter in the known universe is more complexly structured that the nervous system of the average human.

There is a lot of the universe we don't know. If there is life elsewhere, and I would put my money on "yes," I can't see any reason it might not also rise to that level.

Quoting apokrisis

But science can see both how humans are completely insignificant and also completely special - and why these two things are not incompatible but just two slants on the one, four causes and Aristotelean, story.

I think only human value has anything to say about how humans are insignificant or special.

evolution has made man once again the center of the universe, not spatially, not metaphysically, but in Teilhard’s word, “structurally.”

“Man is the hub of the universe,” “the structural key to the universe.

This is from your Merton quote. It seems so self-important I have a hard time knowing what to say. We are not important to anything but ourselves, and that's enough. That's the way it should be.

Although Wayfarer accuses me of it, I am not a reductionist. I don't think your and my vision life is all that different. But still...

Quoting T Clark

But meaning doesn't mean anything outside of a human context. As I see it, the only way there could be meaning beyond a human scale would be if there is a God.

Rubbish. One can find meaning in Nature as a whole. Like folk always used to before Christian monotheism came along, and still do in other world religions.

Quoting T Clark

There is a lot of the universe we don't know. If there is life elsewhere, and I would put my money on "yes," I can't see any reason it might not also rise to that level.

Of course. I spent a night with an astronomer in charge of the experiment to find new earth-like planets. We found a couple of candidates as we chatted.

It is remarkable how much of the Universe we are currently surveying. The record for the most distant star was reported last week - "Earendel", some 12.9 billion light-years from Earth.

But also, around any star, we know the key constraints on the formation of intelligent life. There are reasons why it can only be carbon, not silicon, as the best atomic building block, and why oxygen must end up the redox agent, as that is the reactant with the greatest capacity to turn sunlight into useful energy.

So we have astrobiological theories that tell us much about the limits on life and mind. The theories could turn out to be short-sighted. But any discussion of the alien lifeform issue no longer starts with some empty canvas where anything seems to go.

Even water has special properties no other fluid replicates. So life can only achieve its highest level in a world where there is liquid water, carbon is the basic structural unit with four stable bonds to allow the greatest complexity, and the solar flux is being tapped by a redox reaction as the biggest possible bang for buck chemistry.

Quoting T Clark

This is from your Merton quote. It seems so self-important I have a hard time knowing what to say.

I agree. Of course - as a theistic statement - it goes too far.

But then - as a systems scientist - one has a grudging kinship with Teilhard’s willingness to at least go in that direction at all. And that was my point.

Quoting T Clark

This is from your Merton quote. It seems so self-important I have a hard time knowing what to say. We are not important to anything but ourselves, and that's enough. That's the way it should be.

I like the Sumerian story that we are special to the earth because we were created by a goddess to help the river stay in its banks, so it does not flood and kill plants. I believe others also saw it as our purpose to take good care of the earth. We have the ability to create Eden but I don't think Eden looks like New York city.

Or there is Chardin's notion that God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. We have a pool of consciousness that has grown a lot since the beginning of man. That consciousness is not physical yet it strongly affects our lives.

Quoting Athena

I like the Sumerian story that we are special to the earth because we were created by a goddess to help the river stay in its banks, so it does not flood and kill plants. I believe others also saw it as our purpose to take good care of the earth. We have the ability to create Eden but I don't think Eden looks like New York city.

Or there is Chardin's notion that God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. We have a pool of consciousness that has grown a lot since the beginning of man. That consciousness is not physical yet it strongly affects our lives.

I like those kinds of stories too. I don't see them as in conflict with the ideas I expressed. Well, maybe they are or seem to be, but the sign of a philosopher the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at one time.

Darwin's theory of evolution, though a nice attempt to figure out the origin of species, does little to help us understand even the most basic of human behaviors, such as our instincts for example.

...there is an unsettling gulf between widely accepted assumptions surrounding instinct and the actual science available to explain it.

There is no evolutionary explanation for the emergence of consciousness. We actually have no way of determining when homo sapiens became conscious and we often look to cave writings as our only clue.

In order to understand the emergence of consciousness we will need a much more robust theory than that of evolution. There is no point in dragging your feet another generation, wishfully thinking the answers can be discovered in a lab.

Our scientists should be concerned with the elimination of disease and the prolonging of life. This at the very least would give us more time to figure out the true mysteries of the human condition.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182125/

Reply to chiknsld
First of all the title of the thread is scientifically wrong in relation to the opening statement.

Darwin's framework describes the origins of the diversity of life....not the origins of life and it's differences from inanimate matter.

Secondly the soul is a theological artifact... not a philosophical one. Science has never verified such a substance or find any room for the need is such a "construction", since the current biological model is on its own Necessary and Sufficient to explain agency. So not only this concept is a begging the question fallacy, but the only arguments one can make about it are either from ignorance or personal incredulity. There aren't any
real facts that can push this conversation beyond the initial question. The idea of the soul might be the most debunked and useless theological idea out of the a long list of extraordinary claims. It is a text book example of pseudo philosophical speculation based on a unfounded presupposition.

In addition to the above, soul is just one out of many discredited magical substances invented by people in their effort to explain simple phenomena. (Phlogiston/combustion, miasma/diseases, orgone energy/life etc etc etc).
This is medieval "philosophy".

The issue is that Darwin could never have predicted that the soul was at the center of our true intellectuality. He seemed to be a worldly, adventurous man. He was more of a thrill-seeker than an intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would be willing to bet that he would rather romanticize the idea of the soul than to apply a scientific analysis and approach.

I feel like Aristotle was more of an academic at heart in this regard. He would be willing to apply the scientific method to discover the source of élan vital.

Darwin had something to prove whereas Aristotle did not.

What do you think?

Quoting T Clark

I like those kinds of stories too. I don't see them as in conflict with the ideas I expressed. Well, maybe they are or seem to be, but the sign of a philosopher is to be able to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at one time.

I like your reply. A sign of wisdom is knowing how much we do not know. That is why this is one of my favorite forums. We can talk about the unknown and agree or disagree and be okay with all the different ideas. If we want to be more sure of something we can look for facts to support our notions, and we know our ideas and opinions and not absolute, undeniable, unquestionable truth.

Back to Darwin. Science is claiming some learned information can be passed on in genes and for me, that opens the door to new possibilities. Like what if our understanding of individuality is wrong? What if we are each are points of consciousness of the same universe?

Quoting chiknsld

The issue is that Darwin could never have predicted that the soul was at the center of our true intellectuality. He seemed to be a worldly, adventurous man. He was more of a thrill-seeker than an intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would be willing to bet that he would rather romanticize the idea of the soul than to apply a scientific analysis and approach.

I feel like Aristotle was more of an academic at heart in this regard. He would be willing to apply the scientific method to discover the source of élan vital.

Darwin had something to prove whereas Aristotle did not.

What do you think?

I think that is an enjoyable explanation and that it is insightful to distinguish the difference between a thrill-seeker and an intellectual. I like what you said about Aristotle not having something to prove in the beginning stages of our intellectual development. I am sure they all argued but perhaps with more of an intention to explore ideas rather than prove them as we do in this technological age. I have a very old logic book that stresses the notion that there is so much more that we do not know, so we should never be too sure of what we think we know.

Whereas, Quoting Nickolasgaspar

Nickolasgaspar

Is more concerned with technological correctness.

Quoting Athena

Whereas,

Nickolasgaspar — Nickolasgaspar

Is more concerned with technological correctness.

-weird strawman. Since when correcting the misrepresentation of a theory qualifies as "technological correctness"??

Quoting Wayfarer

genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!

I don't know who it was, probably Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian), that said that our DNA contains a record of the past experiences of our ancestors going all the way back to the first life forms 4.5 gya. If only we could decode this rather interesting double-helix tome written in the language of life (DNA/RNA).

Quoting Athena

Like what if our understanding of individuality is wrong? What if we are each are points of consciousness of the same universe?

As I'm sure you know, that idea has a long history.

Quoting chiknsld

He was more of a thrill-seeker than an intellectual.

God. Such baloney. He wrote a book "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits," based on 40 years of study in his back yard.

Quoting Athena

I think that is an enjoyable explanation and that it is insightful to distinguish the difference between a thrill-seeker and an intellectual. I like what you said about Aristotle not having something to prove in the beginning stages of our intellectual development. I am sure they all argued but perhaps with more of an intention to explore ideas rather than prove them as we do in this technological age. I have a very old logic book that stresses the notion that there is so much more that we do not know, so we should never be too sure of what we think we know.

Thank you! I totally agree, I could never feel so arrogant about what I know when it's clear to me that my education and the people that have come into my life are truly responsible for showing me how to think properly. :)

Quoting T Clark

I am human and I am a humanist, by which I mean we created human value and meaning. That's a good thing. I love humanity. I feel a connection with my fellow humans. But meaning doesn't mean anything outside of a human context. As I see it, the only way there could be meaning beyond a human scale would be if there is a God. I am not a theist.

:up:

Quoting Agent Smith

I don't know who it was, probably Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian), that said that our DNA contains a record of the past experiences of our ancestors going all the way back to the first life forms 4.5 gya. If only we could decode this rather interesting double-helix tome written in the language of life (DNA/RNA).

Maybe one day we will be able to. Surely it would be worth the endeavor to be able to intricately analyze the biological history of our own DNA.

I would say that computer science is growing faster than any other discipline, but right behind it surely is our understanding of DNA. We actually finished mapping the entire genome last year I believe!

Reply to Nickolasgaspar Quoting Nickolasgaspar

-weird strawman. Since when correcting the misrepresentation of a theory qualifies as "technological correctness"??

Since people became concerned with technological correctness.

Reply to Athena maybe you are replying to the wrong member...

Quoting chiknsld

Thank you! I totally agree, I could never feel so arrogant about what I know when it's clear to me that my education and the people that have come into my life are truly responsible for showing me how to think properly. :)

I do not know exactly what you mean, but I feel strongly about proper thinking being humble and open to other possibilities because how we feel when we engage each other is as important as being correct. I am thinking culturally. "I am right and you are wrong" thinking has manifested in so much hostility and even violence. We have reactionary politics that seems explosive and a loss of community. That worries me because I think things go better when we like each other.

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

First of all the title of the thread is scientifically wrong in relation to the opening statement.

"First of all" I followed the replies and got back to the above post. You do not think that statement is a concern with technological correctness? And that is very close to "political correctness" and I have some concerns about how all this correctness is manifested. Perhaps I should not make an issue out of this but it seems a little dangerous.

Quoting Athena

...I feel strongly about proper thinking being humble and open to other possibilities...

Splendid! :)

Quoting T Clark

Like what if our understanding of individuality is wrong? What if we are each are points of consciousness of the same universe?
— Athena

As I'm sure you know, that idea has a long history.

No, I do not know that. I know a tiny bit about East Indian thinking but not enough to claim understanding. I know there is a question about what consciousness is but not enough to know that line of thinking. I am really asking a question about our connection with the pool of knowledge that is open to us. I know we do not perceive the world as the first human beings did and I am fascinated with how our consciousness has changed. Like I don't think many of us live in fear of Satan and demons today but know in the past Satan and demons seemed very real. Before that, I don't think humans imagined things they could not see and I think they were more aware of what can be seen than modern people are. This seems potentially important.

Quoting Athena

"First of all" I followed the replies and got back to the above post. You do not think that statement is a concern with technological correctness?

-Well to answer that you will need to define what you mean by that term.
Now the author Reply to 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 .


-"Quoting Athena

And that is very close to "political correctness" and I have some concerns about how all this correctness is manifested. Perhaps I should not make an issue out of this but it seems a little dangerous.

-You keep making no sense in relation to my point...

Quoting Athena

No, I do not know that.

This is something Wayfarer wrote in a thread about a year ago:

Quoting Wayfarer

This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. Which actually dovetails nicely with some elements of Platonism, i.e. the 'unforgetting' (anamnesis) of the state of omniscience that obtained prior to 'falling' in to carnal existence. Note well however the mention of 'taboo' in the title.

Sorry, Wayfarer, I keep referring to this post. It's just that you explained it much better than I tried to.

This is a summary from Wikipedia of Carl Jung's ideas about the collective unconscious:

Quoting Wikipedia

Collective unconscious (German: kollektives Unbewusstes) refers to the unconscious mind and shared mental concepts. It is generally associated with idealism and was coined by Carl Jung. According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts, as well as by archetypes: ancient primal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, and the Tree of Life.[1] Jung considered the collective unconscious to underpin and surround the unconscious mind, distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He believed that the concept of the collective unconscious helps to explain why similar themes occur in mythologies around the world. He argued that the collective unconscious had a profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences. The psychotherapeutic practice of analytical psychology revolves around examining the patient's relationship to the collective unconscious.

Quoting T Clark

Sorry, Wayfarer, I keep referring to this post.

No problems at all, T.

Quoting Agent Smith

I don't know who it was, probably Yuval Noah Harari (Israeli historian), that said that our DNA contains a record of the past experiences of our ancestors going all the way back to the first life forms 4.5 gya. If only we could decode this rather interesting double-helix tome written in the language of life (DNA/RNA).

What would there to be gained by decoding it? Aren't we already embodiments of it? Doesn't 'what we are' exemplify 'what it means'?

Quoting Wayfarer

What would there to be gained by decoding it? Aren't we already embodiments of it? Doesn't 'what we are' exemplify 'what it means'?

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:

Quoting Wayfarer

What would there to be gained by decoding it? Aren't we already embodiments of it? Doesn't 'what we are' exemplify 'what it means'?

They have determined from looking at DNA that homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans. They can also trace human migrations across the world from Africa starting about 100,000 years ago. Looking at DNA similarities and differences can show who is related to whom and how long ago the populations split off. The same can be done for species, human and non-human, with much greater time spans since their most recent common ancestor. There is a huge amount of information available and they've only been working on it for about the past 20 years.

I love the way they can correlate archeological, linguistic, and genetic information about humans to give our pre-historic history, if you will. On a broader scale, they can use geology, paleontology, comparative biology, and genetics to do the same for non-human species. Linnaeus organized and classified biological organisms based on common structural features. Then paleontology came along and allowed that classification to be extended to extinct organisms. Then Darwin came along and provided a rationale for what Linnaeus had found. Then genetics and microbiology came along and added another layer of detail and connection.

Quoting Agent Smith

It probably wouldn't be ethical

Certainly wouldn't. How do you think the lucky guy would feel 'hey we've brought you back to life, but all your relatives died a million years ago. Let us know if you need anything.'

Quoting Wayfarer

Certainly wouldn't. How do you think the lucky guy would feel 'hey we've brought you back to life, but all your relatives died a million years ago'.

Yeah, unethical it is!

Quoting Wayfarer

Certainly wouldn't. How do you think the lucky guy would feel 'hey we've brought you back to life, but all your relatives died a million years ago. Let us know if you need anything.'

For human or near-human animals it would be unethical, but not necessarily for others. Maybe we can use the technology to bring back the animals and plants we are driving to extinction right now.

Reply to Nickolasgaspar But the ancients did have notions of evolution.

Quoting Wikipedia

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]

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?

Quoting Britannica

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.

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.

Britannica: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.

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?

Quoting Nickolasgaspar

-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 .

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.

Quoting Agent Smith

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:

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

Quoting NICK LONGRICH,

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.

Quoting Ewen Callaway

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

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?

Reply to Athena:up:

Reply to Athena ok....

Reply to chiknsld Reply to Nickolasgaspar Reply to 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.

Quoting Wayfarer

?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.

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

Reply to chiknsld 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..,,

Quoting Wayfarer

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

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.

Quoting Wayfarer

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

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.

Quoting T Clark

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

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

Quoting Wayfarer

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.

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.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

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.

Very interesting. :)

Quoting Wayfarer

What analogy from the physical sciences might provide a model?

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.

Quoting T Clark

devices using transistors

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.

Quoting chiknsld

Very interesting.

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.

Quoting Wayfarer

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.

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.

Quoting Wayfarer

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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.

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.

Quoting Wayfarer

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.

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.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

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

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.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

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

Yes. :)

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

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

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. :)

Quoting chiknsld

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?

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

Quoting chiknsld

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.

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.

Quoting chiknsld

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. :)

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.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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.

Reply to Josh Alfred

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

Reply to Haglund

- "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?

Reply to Josh Alfred

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.

Reply to Haglund - "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?

Reply to Josh Alfred

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.