I've read OofS front to back twice, and DofM once. I've read Darwin's Autobiography, his account of the Voyage of the Beagle and his monographs on human expression and his work on worms.
Everything he suggests point to evolution being the NATURAL consequence of necessity. In fact the whole point of his work is to remove it from the out-of-date notion that there is an underlying cause.
Get your arse out of your religious preconceptions.
Wiki is abusing language. It's common enough.
You might like to consider Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini who explains this error in simple language.

making a claim without even the slightest effort to back it up — JustSomeGuy

Then I suggest you stop doing it.

No because I already had
THE LAST WORDS

"You can do as you will but you cannot will as you will", Schopenhauer

You cannot experience what you experience. This is getting silly.

Faith is the death of reason the cessation of investigation.
Faith is the failure of knowledge
Faith is the cry of the weak and the hopes of the dispossessed.
Faith is the failure of responsibility.
Faith is giving up.

I think you have a false premise.
There is no dichotomy between experience and experiencing experience.
We experience; that is enough.
If by experience experience, you really meanreflecting on memories then you have something. So an experience remembered, "re-lived" though with the partiality of narrative limits, then that's your question. I think.

But why something and not everything starts to become an answerable one. We have a ton of science that now speaks to that. — apokrisis

Not really. In fact not at all. Science only describes. If you want reasons, talk to a priest, they have all the solutions with no effort whatever.
Science can tell us how it all happened, but there is no answer to why something not nothing.

"This is the LAST WORD"

Show me how evolution is the cause of anything.

This is the writing on the Wall.

We're talking past one another at this point, so I'll leave it for another time. — Noble Dust

You just figured out I'm right.

I think better than you since you have taken what I have said and missed the point, despite me making it as simple as possible.

Now tell us what you think "better" is and I'll show you another example.

As I told, evolution is an activity, therefore it consists of both causes and effects. Variation in species is the effect of evolution. — Metaphysician Undercover

You simply do not have a clue about causality. It's a pity science teaching is so poor.

That which becomes 'selected' by nature is what is evolution.
Variation is not evolution and neither is survival.
Evolution occurs when species characteristics change; extinctions occur; in the face of changing environments, after selection.

Said... "Language is only for getting laid?"

If that is what you think, go with it.
Otherwise you could follow the discussion in more detail.

Why can't it be answered? — apokrisis

The big questions of metaphysics were always predicated on the assumption that the universe was designed;...
Thought that was self explanatory.

Natural selection is a cause of evolution
Artificial selection is a cause of evolution
Domestic selection is a cause of evolution.
Changing environments are part of this causality.
Use your brain, I can tell you have one.

Evolution is not a cause, its an effect.

I think you now agree that confusing evolution as a cause of change is not going to work, and you have started to back away from that idea.

So instead of blaming time for the fact you are late, you agree with me that would be silly

The big questions of metaphysics were always predicated on the assumption that the universe was designed; that god, and or gods were behind that design and the it was possible to unpack the underlying logic of the design.
This inevitably led to a series of culturally specific answers which were partial and carried with them the endemic assumptions of the progenitor culture.

Now we know better. Metaphysics is now a language game as all the "first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space" are culturally constructed.
All attempts to employ objective and therefor cross cultural answers to these questions is all about science, and it would do scientists the world of good to get themselves a few pointers in metaphysics. All that seems to lie behind the material world has been placed there by the study of science, which, historically has been 90% false, and in development all the time.

This would either help them learn some humility and build more speculative and critical ideas about the universe or, like many philosophy students have found; teach them just enough to screw them up for the rest of their lives.

Why ask a question that can have no answer?

ALL the evidence suggests that mind is inextricably linked to neural matter. If you screw around with that you screw around with everything that makes us persons with identity and memories.
And the more we learn about the brain, the more we can attribute certain parts of the brain certain functions.
There is no distinction of any value on this topic between mind and brain. Such dualism is the result of old mythical and lexical differences between out of date ideas psyche and soma.
Nothing departs upon death. Every thing just rots.
The evidence is overwhelming that this is true; from accidental damage; use and abuse of drugs; mental illnesses; mental states of all kinds.
In Alzheimers you can be witness to the gradual disappearance of a person before your eyes.
Innumerable cases of brain injury that have left people with completely changed personalities, lost memories and the loss of key abilities.
Death is the complete loss of the brain; all memories, all personality traits, all learning, identity.
You are just kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Therefore theories of evolution refer to both causes and effects, as is necessary for understanding activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

You almost making my argument, but are stuck in an important fallacy.

A cause has to be driven you are saying that there is an ineffable force in the universe which is evolution. That's utterly absurd.
Shit happens, things change, and the result is evolution. For some species this is the end, for others it means little, for others still it means more fitness to a changing environment, but the result of all this change is evolution.
You can ask what was the change that led to evolution, but its just dumb to suggest we change BECAUSE of evolution.
Darwin gave us one of the three major Copernican turns in intellectual history, don't be a dinosaur medievalist!

I've not made any such cliam.

Misquote? or xmas drunkenness?

Of the four, 3 are closely related. Only incongruity stands alone.
Play, superiority and relief are all linked if you think about it.

FFS.
Life INHERENTLY good, is absurd.

My point exactly
An otherwise completely useless adaptation wholly given over to sex and reproduction.

. SX's claim is that this activity innovates, which means to make changes, and create new things, and this appears to be exactly what evolution does. — Metaphysician Undercover

SO much for the school boy understanding of evolution.
Evolution is an EFFECT, not a cause.

So, personality, memory, learning, and identity are psychological attributes which can only be logically ascribed to a psychophysical organism. Ascribing them to a brain is mereological confusion. — Galuchat

Your silly comment is demonstrably false.

In other words, body and mind have mutual effects. — Galuchat

This is hopeless idle speculation. You are imposing a false duality that is inherently false.

I can change your personality. I can make it so you forget your childhood. I can eve use a spoon to make you incapable of recognising your own mother, children and Adolf Hitler.

Oh look Bitcoin just dropped 30%

If there is an afterlife, presumably there is a God. I think God could probably figure out how to take the mind and soul without the brain. — T Clark

If god can make a personality and an identity without a brain, then what the fuck is the brain for?
If you want to know god by consulting the book of nature you have to take account of natural things.

But value discussions need to recognise that values require a valuer.
Please go further back and try to understand what we were ACTUALLY talking about.
If you but in half way you are bound to get confused.

Indeed.

Even if there was a 'spirit' whatever that is, it would not have a personality, since you demonstrably need a brain for that; it would have no memory; no learning; no identity.

Come on down and take the challenge!!!
No?? Why not?
You are nothing more than your physicality.

It is incontestably the case that evolution innovates — StreetlightX

This is an abuse of language.

Well Eastern ''crackpots'' seem to have explored the inner universe and Western crackpots have directed their attention externally. Don't you agree? — TheMadFool

Not at all.

If you don't know what you are talking about then I suggest you look back and reacquaint yourself with the substance of the discussion.

Evolution does not innovate. You need consciousness for that.
There is a real, hard and incorrigible distinction between somatic/ genetic evolution and what is now called memetic evolution but we were happy enough to call social evolution.
And that distinction is that the later involves the artificial selection of traits, and NOT natural selection of traits.

I think not. You seem to be at the mercy of eastern crackpots