Atheist, agnostics, theists & all: The physical self, its borders, its needs:

[Grandliseur]

The physical self, its borders, its needs:

From the very small to the very large organisms, what would happen if each organism, complex or simple, began to eat itself because it didn't have an awareness of it being not that other?

What implications, if any, do you make from this?
How aware must an organism be to be able to avoid this problem?
How does evolution explain this? (Just curious)

Imagine a small worm. It starts eating itself from its own tail because it doesn't know that this is itself. What would happen to this species?
Imagine a rat beginning to eat itself, legs, tail, body - as far as its own mouth can reach if it doesn't know that this is 'me'.

I am not taking part in this discussion. I am only a spectator here. No matter your belief system, you are welcome to answer this question from your perspective.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Well first I'd suggest we go forward more by examining what we know about animal consciousness in greater detail. There's no reason to suppose animals are emotionless automatons, but at the same time many of them are probably not free enough from instinct to conceive a separate self.

Everything evolution suggests would indicate I think that the instinct to survive as a species is not rooted in an individual self concept. In that case we'd be talking about something probably deeper than human ability to explain as to why life persists.

I've said the following in past threads, and since you are asking my view- I'm a Buddhist first and a pantheist second. I believe Buddha-nature is an encompassing reality.

Buddha manifestations are described in Mahayana literature as spontaneous. The universal Buddha manifests with no ego or aim. Not as we think those terms. Acts like a universal reality would act may be better, but we're stepping into a subject Mahayana considers pure paradox. Humans cannot possibly understand how the Buddha works or ultimately why.

So in short- life's persistence may be spontaneous. For no seeming reason does it ultimately persist. It simply does, just like the Buddha Amida simply is. We know from evolution that life by it's essential nature exists and survives.

My thoughts. Take them or leave them.

 

[Aldrnari]

I would assume it wouldn't last long as a species. Pain responses are one way to deter things like that from happening, but ultimately, I think it just wouldn't be practical as a means of survival. A creature wouldn't be likely to multiply if they were a half eaten mess (and survived).

That said, I guess in some ways we do "eat ourselves" when we consume fat stores, but this is quite a bit different from physically taking a bite out of ourselves.

I don't think it requires consciousness, as even plants or other non conscious creatures don't seem to do this. Then again, what do I know? Maybe somewhere in the world there are creatures that do this that I'm not aware of.

Every plant and animal seems to have it's own survival strategy.

 

[taykair]

From the very small to the very large organisms, what would happen if each organism, complex or simple, began to eat itself because it didn't have an awareness of it being not that other?

Small species would, in all probability, die out. If we consider the entire multiverse as a living thing, then perhaps entropy is the multiverse consuming itself.


What implications, if any, do you make from this?

For small species: Self-awareness and self-preservation are both necessary for continued existence. For the Multiverse Being: All things, no matter how great, eventually come to an end.


How aware must an organism be to be able to avoid this problem?

I'm no expert, but it would seem that there would have to be at least some kind of reaction to a nerve impulse (pain avoidance, for example) to avoid consuming oneself.


How does evolution explain this? (Just curious)

It probably does, but I'm not enough of an expert to explain how.

 

[shunyadragon]

Imagine . . . things not real does not reflect a coherent argument. You need to back up and get your argument grounded in the real world and come back with a coherent argument.

 

[Grandliseur]

Imagine . . . things not real does not reflect a coherent argument. You need to back up and get your argument grounded in the real world and come back with a coherent argument.

As usual, the evolutionists avoids problems staring them in the face. We have animal, organisms, existing because they avoid this problem. How did this perhaps spiritual awareness become part of material world permitting them to survive.

Avoiding answering question about real problems because they ruin your paradigm is just the blatant dishonesty of evolution demonstrated once again.

 

[shunyadragon]

As usual, the evolutionists avoids problems staring them in the face. We have animal, organisms, existing because they avoid this problem. How did this perhaps spiritual awareness become part of material world permitting them to survive.

Avoiding answering question about real problems because they ruin your paradigm is just the blatant dishonesty of evolution demonstrated once again.

So far you have presented a problem, Simply imagine . . . is not a problem.