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 — apokrisis

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.

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

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.

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. — apokrisis

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...

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. — T Clark

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.

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. — T Clark

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.

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

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.

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. — T Clark

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 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. — Athena

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/

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?

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. — T Clark

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?

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? — chiknsld

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,

Nickolasgaspar — Nickolasgaspar

Is more concerned with technological correctness.

Whereas,

Nickolasgaspar — Nickolasgaspar

Is more concerned with technological correctness. — Athena

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

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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. — Athena

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 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. — T Clark

:up:

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). — Agent Smith

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!

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

Since people became concerned with technological correctness.

maybe you are replying to the wrong member...

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. :) — chiknsld

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.

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

"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.

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

Splendid! :)

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. — T Clark

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.

"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? — Athena

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


-"

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. — Athena

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

No, I do not know that. — Athena

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

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. — Wayfarer

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:

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. — Wikipedia

Sorry, Wayfarer, I keep referring to this post. — T Clark

No problems at all, T.

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). — Agent Smith

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'?

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'? — Wayfarer

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:

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'? — Wayfarer

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.

It probably wouldn't be ethical — Agent Smith

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.'

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'. — Wayfarer

Yeah, unethical it is!

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.' — Wayfarer

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.