The soul and human evolution

[GrosMinet]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

So does it make any sense to say that at some point of our evolution a soul appeared in some apeman and turned him or her into a full-fledged human being? When would it have happened anyway? Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

 

[dblack]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

So does it make any sense to say that at some point of our evolution a soul appeared in some apeman and turned him or her into a full-fledged human being? When would it have happened anyway? Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

I'd agree that evolution theory undercuts the idea that the soul is an 'on-off' proposition and would suggest that one can make a distinction between 'small' souls - e.g. in semi-conscious mammals like a dogs, perhaps - and 'large' souls like those supported by a fully developed human brain.

A naturalistic account for human consciousness is one of the most fascinating areas of research, in my view.

 

[BreezeWood]

all that lives has a Spirit.

 

[theword]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

So does it make any sense to say that at some point of our evolution a soul appeared in some apeman and turned him or her into a full-fledged human being? When would it have happened anyway? Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

The mind of God contains His thoughts that thought about ( planned ) His creation and ALL life experiences for His creation. From these thoughts, He put His thoughts into a way that His created "beings" could experience life so He spoke them into vibrations ( energy ). From these vibrations, He had to process them into waves of information that we "beings" can understand Think of a wave of information as a picture. A processor gives us pictures of information and when there is a change of information ( wavelengths of energy ) we get different pictures to experience.

So wavelengths of energy is God's hidden language that needs to be processed in order for us "beings" to have a defined flesh and things in a world to experience life with. If we didn't have a flesh, we wouldn't know we exist. This is why we need a flesh in every experience, no matter what body form it comes in. We will have bodies in various visions and dreams in the next age that appear to fly. This has already happened to me and many of my friends in this age but during this age, those kinds of dreams confuse us because we think they are not real. But no life experience is real because our flesh and the things we see are only illusions formed by processed thoughts of God, which are real.

 

[GrosMinet]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

So does it make any sense to say that at some point of our evolution a soul appeared in some apeman and turned him or her into a full-fledged human being? When would it have happened anyway? Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

I'd agree that evolution theory undercuts the idea that the soul is an 'on-off' proposition and would suggest that one can make a distinction between 'small' souls - e.g. in semi-conscious mammals like a dogs, perhaps - and 'large' souls like those supported by a fully developed human brain.

A naturalistic account for human consciousness is one of the most fascinating areas of research, in my view.

But is the "soul" ultimately a product of the brain or does it have another origin? If the latter, when did it come down to us in the course of our evolution?

 

[dblack]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

So does it make any sense to say that at some point of our evolution a soul appeared in some apeman and turned him or her into a full-fledged human being? When would it have happened anyway? Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

I'd agree that evolution theory undercuts the idea that the soul is an 'on-off' proposition and would suggest that one can make a distinction between 'small' souls - e.g. in semi-conscious mammals like a dogs, perhaps - and 'large' souls like those supported by a fully developed human brain.

A naturalistic account for human consciousness is one of the most fascinating areas of research, in my view.

But is the "soul" ultimately a product of the brain or does it have another origin? If the latter, when did it come down to us in the course of our evolution?

My own take is that it's a product of the brain, but not limited to it. 'Mind' or 'soul' is a very specific pattern of information. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

God breathed life into us and gave us our soul. I will repeat on evolution, there is no compelling evidence that ANY mammal creature ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. All we have is evidence of evolution within a species.

 

[Politico]

all that lives has a Spirit.

Proof? Don't worry. We won't hold our breath.

 

[PainefulTruth]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

Actually, there had to be a first human being. It would be the first human who developed full self-awareness. Yes, some animals have primitive self-awareness, but apparently none have become aware of our inevitable mortality. That's a mind expanding realization that even human children don't have for 3 years or more.

Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

Yes. ?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

Yes, but we still don't know what lies through the Planck Epoch gaps, or what preceded the universe. The universe, btw, is apparently a giant quantum computer which uses (as has been demonstrated), instead of digital on/off bits, quantum on and/or off qbits. It's a literal quantum leap. And as such, it's reasonable to suppose that all quantum transactions are recorded since the Big Bang--including every firing of every synapse in our brains. Taking that one step further, each of us is a separately recorded program.

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

Odd, yes, but such is evolution. Every bit of progress leaves the less progressive behind. But it should help to realize that those parents weren't completely self-aware, so..... It was probably hard mainly for the child. I do wonder if he could have "awakened" them. The brain would have to be advanced enough to support or spark it. Koko the gorilla never got past thinking of herself in the third person, or (I think I'm right here) made the connection of inevitable death to herself and others.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

So does it make any sense to say that at some point of our evolution a soul appeared in some apeman and turned him or her into a full-fledged human being? When would it have happened anyway? Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

Being a scientist first, and a Jew second (sad but true) I thought this was a really good article about the soul. From a Jewish perspective but incorporates a lot of science and metaphysics. Bit of a read but that's theology for ya.

The Soul #2 - What Do Souls Look Like?
"What Do Souls Look Like?"

Don't let the title fool you.


I think a lot of the time when we have difficulties believing religious concepts it's because we haven't yet figured out a way of thinking about something in such a way that it's easier to believe. Articles like this can help. Not a proof of anything of course, but it might help some find another way of thinking about things like the soul and other intangible things.

 

[GrosMinet]

Actually, there had to be a first human being. It would be the first human who developed full self-awareness. Yes, some animals have primitive self-awareness, but apparently none have become aware of our inevitable mortality. That's a mind expanding realization that even human children don't have for 3 years or more.

But isn't self-awareness a matter of degree as well, and isn't full self-awareness tied up to the unheard-of complexity of the human brain? What is the part of the soul? What does the soul do that the brain cannot?

Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

Yes. ?

Again, what use is the soul if the brain can account for our behavior?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Actually, there had to be a first human being. It would be the first human who developed full self-awareness. Yes, some animals have primitive self-awareness, but apparently none have become aware of our inevitable mortality. That's a mind expanding realization that even human children don't have for 3 years or more."

That's not entirely true. Orcas have sentience and self-awareness. Figuring out if they understand their own mortality's trickier, but orcas recognize their own reflections which is one of the methods used to test for being self-aware. Think other primates do as well. Not my favorite source for science, but

Animal consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...summarizes things well enough.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

So does it make any sense to say that at some point of our evolution a soul appeared in some apeman and turned him or her into a full-fledged human being? When would it have happened anyway? Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

People with souls don't put much credence in the bizarre notion of "Evolution"

 

[Vox]

"Actually, there had to be a first human being. It would be the first human who developed full self-awareness. Yes, some animals have primitive self-awareness, but apparently none have become aware of our inevitable mortality. That's a mind expanding realization that even human children don't have for 3 years or more."

That's not entirely true. Orcas have sentience and self-awareness. Figuring out if they understand their own mortality's trickier, but orcas recognize their own reflections which is one of the methods used to test for being self-aware. Think other primates do as well. Not my favorite source for science, but

Animal consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...summarizes things well enough.

don't know about orcas but anybody who had a pet knows perfectly well they know about their own mortality pretty well. So do cows who are going to be slaughtered.

some pets know about mortality of their own masters and even predict it...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Actually, there had to be a first human being. It would be the first human who developed full self-awareness. Yes, some animals have primitive self-awareness, but apparently none have become aware of our inevitable mortality. That's a mind expanding realization that even human children don't have for 3 years or more."

That's not entirely true. Orcas have sentience and self-awareness. Figuring out if they understand their own mortality's trickier, but orcas recognize their own reflections which is one of the methods used to test for being self-aware. Think other primates do as well. Not my favorite source for science, but

Animal consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...summarizes things well enough.

don't know about orcas but anybody who had a pet knows perfectly well they know about their own mortality pretty well. So do cows who are going to be slaughtered.

some pets know about mortality of their own masters and even predict it...

Cattle at a slaughterhouse is a good example. Elephants are another. Was a doc recently about some Matriarchal elephant that died, and a member of her 'herd' lingering around her bones for quite some time. Made it pretty clear they understand death.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have a problem with belief in souls.

I do hope that the soul exists, so that people can survive their own death and go to some heavenly place. Call it wishful thinking if you want.

However, it seems to me that it is inconsistent with human evolution. Well, not exactly inconsistent but hard to reconcile with it.

I mean, let's assume that the apes have no souls (though some thinkers would dispute that) and that the apelike ancestor of humankind likewise did not have a soul.

But then, that apelike ancestor evolved gradually, without any big leap, into our species. Actually, there is no first human being, just as there is no first French-speaker, because the boundaries between nonhuman animals and humans, just as the boundaries between latin and old French, are actually blurred.

So does it make any sense to say that at some point of our evolution a soul appeared in some apeman and turned him or her into a full-fledged human being? When would it have happened anyway? Doesn't the evolution of the brain account for the increasing behavioral complexity of humans?

By the way, is the soul the same thing as the mind, as many philosophers have thought? Isn't it the mainstream view in neuroscience that the mind is dépendent upon the brain?

But anyway, my main issue is with that idea of gradual and continuous evolution of the human lineage versus the sudden appearance of the soul (out of the blue) at some point of that evolution. And it's odd to think that the parents of the first human being did not have a soul.

How about the humanoid cousins, like Cro-Magnon?

Are they heaven bound, or soulless animals? They had religion, if you believe the archeologists...

 

[BreezeWood]

God breathed life into us and gave us our soul. I will repeat on evolution, there is no compelling evidence that ANY mammal creature ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. All we have is evidence of evolution within a species.

.

that Bible is such a mistake ... God breathed life and the Garden was born - the spoken religion is so much better.

.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"Actually, there had to be a first human being. It would be the first human who developed full self-awareness. Yes, some animals have primitive self-awareness, but apparently none have become aware of our inevitable mortality. That's a mind expanding realization that even human children don't have for 3 years or more."

That's not entirely true. Orcas have sentience and self-awareness. Figuring out if they understand their own mortality's trickier, but orcas recognize their own reflections which is one of the methods used to test for being self-aware. Think other primates do as well. Not my favorite source for science, but

Animal consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...summarizes things well enough.

There's an argument to be made that there are humans living today who aren't as self-aware and aware of their own mortality as some of our primitive cousins were, according to religious practices...

Just sayin'...

 

[GrosMinet]

How about the humanoid cousins, like Cro-Magnon?

Are they heaven bound, or soulless animals? They had religion, if you believe the archeologists...

The Cro-Magnons ARE human beings. If a Cro-Magnon were born today, he could become a perfectly normal persoon with proper upbringing.

A better question is : what would we do with Neanderthals or Homo erectus if they were still around? For they are not quite human but nor are they beasts.

An evolutionary picture of man doesn't square well with the dualistic thinking at work in many religions...