Evolution of Consciousness (mystic, Buddhism, incarnation, experience, Buddhism)

[jeffrey]

I believe everything has an essence a soul so to speak, even plant life. I think, therefore I am? Man might be smarter, but a cockroach would survive a nuke war. An oak tree is stronger. And a redwood can live longer. Smarter is not always better.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

Survival does not correlate with intelligence.

Except, of course, when it does.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by jeffrey

I believe everything has an essence a soul so to speak, ...

So what?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Maxist

Oh yes, so you are saying that no other organisms have souls? That in itself is a travesty, let alone your oriinal question.

Quite; excellent comment.

Originally Posted by Seyorni

We humans are very smart. We've only been here a short time and are currently in danger of wiping ourselves off the planet, and taking the whole current ecology with us.

Crocodiles are not very smart, yet they've been thriving since before the first dinosaur was conceived.

I think your premise is flawed. Survival does not correlate with intelligence.

Again, spot on.

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Natural selection does not account for the presence of those attributes which persist but, rather, for the elimination of those which do not. Evolution is not a ladder but a sieve.

I can see that natural selection does not account for the presence of the attributes......
But aren't the attributes of strength, durability etc an aid towards survival, and therefore evolution (by survival and development)?

[jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

So what?

Why ask what?

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by michel

I can see that natural selection does not account for the presence of the attributes......
But aren't the attributes of strength, durability etc an aid towards survival, and therefore evolution (by survival and development)?

Strength and durability may be adaptive, neutral or even maladaptive. If a strong organism finds itself in an environment where strength, is not needed, its descendants will tend to loose that trait.
There are many examples in Nature of organisms that become smaller, weaker or loose what seem to be very useful features.It is a matter of metabolic cost. Organisms do not waste energy on useless features. They re-channel it into more useful features.

Eg: A Formula 1 car is very powerful and sturdy, but on city streets the features that are are so useful on the racetrack are disadvantagous. Its fuel mileage (kilometerage?) is terrible and the engine's a bear at the low RPMs the city speed limits necessitate.
Conversly, a small, efficient manoeuverable car would be hopeless on the track.

[mr.guy]

Why ask (so) what?

Because it's among the most important questions one can ask.

Also a good song recommendation, i suppose.