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.

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? — chiknsld

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.

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. — T Clark

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?

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. — T Clark

:lol:

Aristotle was truly ahead of his time. — chiknsld

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.

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? — Agent Smith

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.

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 — T Clark

:up:

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

'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: ​[elɑ̃ 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.

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

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

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? — chiknsld

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.

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

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.

...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. — Wayfarer

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.

Vitalism is associated with a late-nineteenth-early-20th-c philosopher called Henri Bergson. 'Élan vital (French pronunciation: ​[elɑ̃ 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" — Wayfarer

Much appreciated :)

...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.' — Wayfarer

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.

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. — Wayfarer

Much appreciated :)

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

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

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. — Wayfarer

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

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

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.

living organisms are fundamentally different to inanimate matter — Wayfarer

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

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

@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.

the The Third Way. — Wayfarer

Interesting website. Thanks.

Could there ever be a unification between evolution and vitalism? — chiknsld

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.

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. — Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Quanta Magazine

the inheritance of acquired characteristics has had a wild roller coaster ride over the past two centuries. — Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Quanta Magazine

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.

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. — T Clark

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.

You know this is a politically explosive issue right? — Athena

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

living organisms are fundamentally different to inanimate matter — Wayfarer

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

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

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.

Life is completely consistent with chemical and physical laws. — T Clark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. — Wayfarer

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. — T Clark

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.

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

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.

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

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.

which is what you said. — Wayfarer

It is not what I said.

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. — Wayfarer

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.

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? — Wayfarer

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.

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

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

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

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.

The differences we are talking about here are not metaphysical. — T Clark

I think they are.

:up: