# Do Philosophers ever take Evolution into account?
**URL:** https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [May 7, 2021, 12:08pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913 "2021-05-07T12:08:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@martin-peter-clarke](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/martin-peter-clarke)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2022, 6:33pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/61 "2022-01-31T18:33:19Z")
I’m more than happy to go naked before you, but you can’t disrobe. You take no responsibility whatsoever for failing to understand the passive aggression of your OP. You need to be humble. Like me.
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)
#### Post date: [January 31, 2022, 11:45pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/62 "2022-01-31T23:45:30Z")
_Quatsch!_
How about taking responsibility for yourself first.
> Do Philosophers ever take Evolution into account?
---
### Author:  [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2022, 4:18pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/63 "2022-02-01T16:18:38Z")
> [@write4u](#):
>
> By his own admission, he was merely an amused observer .
I’m going to try a deeper dive on Carlin here. I listened to a long unedited interview on YouTube a few years back. He talked about his later stand-up routines, where he would start with current event topics, things that weren’t as funny, but things he wanted to get across to his audience. Then he would transition into his more classic style and just start railing on culture, and leave 'em laughing.
@citizenschallengev4 , I’m going to get to that Tyson video as soon as my internet is restored
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2022, 9:54pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/64 "2022-02-01T21:54:48Z")
> [@martin-peter-clarke](#):
>
> You take no responsibility whatsoever for failing to understand the passive aggression of your OP.
Who’s passive aggressive, I’m pissed off. Too many meat heads, oops, excuse me, geniuses, lost within their self-indulgent mindscapes, yapping endlessly about consciousness out there somewhere - while never taking even the most fundamental implications of evolution to heart.
66 years of connecting the dots, and learning to recognize the difference between substance and hot air, I’ve learned to see through your type - so let’s keep opinions out of this and stick to the matter at hand.
==========================
> [@martin-peter-clarke](#):
>
> What has evolution got to do with philosophy?
>
> > Apart from being a subset of the given of materialism and the basis of pre-wired psychology.
**“subset of the given of materialism”**
Very impressive sounding, but can you describe this subset.
Evolution is a subset of what ‘set’?
Heck while we’re on the topic of fundamental definitions “The given materialism”?
What’s your philosophical definition of materialism.
**“pre-wired psychology”**
Please define this pre-wired psychology, it sound mighty close to quasi-psychology, and feels more mystical than biological.
(Or can you define the transition points between pre-nervous systems and post neural networks?)
Is that really all Evolution means to you an irrelevant subset to some grander set philosophers are focused on?
Then you toss in a diversion that would make the editors at Breitbart proud.
> [@martin-peter-clarke](#):
>
> Do evolutionists ever take social justice in to account?
>
> > … when they dream up the questions and resolutions?
> So, get this,
> **Martin is telling us,
> he does not recognize the difference between serious Earth sciences and philosophy.**
> 🤔
**[Do some home work](https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/who-says-understanding-earths-evolution.html)** , then let’s see if you can contribute a substantive response, or challenge.
---
### Author:  [@eli1](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/eli1)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 12:31am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/65 "2022-04-16T00:31:26Z")
> [@elainegerente](#):
>
> Citi, do you know Herbert Spencer?
>
> He developed an evolutionary theory that tries to expose the universe’s metaphysical progress with an optimistic future. He believed that we cannot know the ultimate reality of the universe, as it is a mystery, and both religion and science are trying to unravel that mystery. As religions, through their dogmas, formulate theories a priori to make the mysteries of the universe intelligible, and science, however much progresses and formulates broader and more enlightening laws and generalities, increasingly deepens the inexplicability of what is inexplicable . In this respect, religion and science come together and seek similar goals, but with different processes.
> The scientist finds himself surrounded by perpetual changes that he will never be able to discover the beginning and the end, and thus realize that nothing can be known in its ultimate essence. There will always be an explanation to explain and the ultimate reality cannot be known.
Exactly.
Both parties are different sides to the same coin trying to answer existential questions.
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 1:26am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/66 "2022-04-16T01:26:25Z")
> [@eli1](#):
>
> Both parties are different sides to the same coin trying to answer existential questions.
I don’t think that’s accurate.
**Religion** deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls,
while **Science** does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that, doing its best to factor ego out of the deliberations.
> \*\*The “scientific process” is basically a set of rules for gathering and assessing our observations in **an honest, open and disciplined manner that all who understand science can participate in and trust because it is a community of skeptical experts who are always looking over each others should. It’s also predicated on the notion fidelity to honesty and that truth matters.**
> **\>**
> Too many have become so infatuated with the wonderful ideas their mind creates, that they lose sight of the actually physical reality they are trying to render.
>
> **Science** seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.
>
> **Religion** is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.
>
> **What’s the point?**
>
> Religions, Science, political beliefs, heaven, hell, art, even God they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.
>
> That’s not to say they are the same thing, they are not! Though I think they’re both equally valid human endeavors. Still, fundamentally qualitatively different.
---
### Author:  [@eli1](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/eli1)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 1:43am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/67 "2022-04-16T01:43:54Z")
I mean I do agree with the bottom part of your post where if you believe that is true, then all our efforts are made to find answers to existential questions.
But I do disagree with your mention of Ego, which I’ve noticed you mentioned in a few other posts.
There’s nothing more ego driven than anyone having a career. Scientist especially are very ego driven.
The people who have the least ego in my opinion are monks.
They have devoted themselves to an ideal without interfering in anyones business or outdoing themselves while living at poverty level, so they can appreciate whatever they believe in.
Monks have the least ego.
Careers have high ego.
Politics have extremely high ego.
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 4:41am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/68 "2022-04-16T04:41:50Z")
> [@eli1](#):
>
> Monks have the least ego.
> Careers have high ego.
> Politics have extremely high ego.
Sounds like an _Egotism Curve_ or something.
Don’t forget Ego is also the awareness of our self.
As in, “ego = I”
> **[What Is the Ego, and Why Is It So Involved in My Life?](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/toward-less-egoic-world/201905/what-is-the-ego-and-why-is-it-so-involved-in-my-life)**
>
> The concept of "ego" is among the most confusing in psychology.
> **[Ego, drives, and the dynamics of internal objects](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00666/full)**
>
> This paper addresses the relationship between the ego, id, and internal objects. While ego psychology views the ego as autonomous of the drives, a less well-known alternative position views the ego as constituted by the drives. Based on Freud’s...
> **[Id, Ego, & Superego | Freud & Examples](https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html)**
>
> According to Freud's psychoanalytic theory, the id is the primitive and instinctual part of the mind that contains sexual and aggressive drives and hidden memories, the super-ego operates as a moral conscience, and the ego is the realistic part that...
---
### Author:  [@eli1](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/eli1)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 2:36pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/69 "2022-04-16T14:36:44Z")
Okay so if we take the definition of that site :
“
Rather, ego was a translation of what Freud, writing in German, called “das Ich”—literally “the I." In essence, Freud was referring to that conscious, [decision-making](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/decision-making) part of you that you regard as “I,” as when you say “I dislike my mother” or “I decided to change jobs” or “I dreamt that my house was on fire last night.” That is your I, your ego. “
Than it means that everyone has ego. Everyone.
I’m good with that too.
---
### Author:  [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 3:20pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/70 "2022-04-16T15:20:43Z")
> [@eli1](#):
>
> Than it means that everyone has ego. Everyone.
> I’m good with that too.
If you have a brain you have an ego. The You is completely encased in a dark silent bony skull and removed from the exterior environment except for the sensory data that enters it via the beural network.
From comparing that data with stored memories, the brain (You) can only make a “best guess” of what the data represents .
You may really enjoy this little lecture by Anil Seth, a prominent neuroscientist.
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo)
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 3:29pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/71 "2022-04-16T15:29:54Z")
> [@eli1](#):
>
> Than it means that everyone has ego. Everyone.
Sure, and not just human. Mammals, birds, others.
But, if you want to focus on humans, here’s a great tip, get to know the work of Mark Solms, which is made easy by all the talks he gives that are recorded - and surprising unrepetitive and varied in what you can learn from each. I spent a bunch of time getting to know this guy’s work a year ago and fell in love (_plutonic, of course_ 🙂 ), one of the most amazing living humans I know of. Definitely number one on that proverbial, imaginary, list of dinner guests, I’d conjure up for myself, if I could.
> **[Dr. Mark Solms understanding ego and self - YouTube video list](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+solms+understanding+ego+and+self)**
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 3:41pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/72 "2022-04-16T15:41:13Z")
Eli, you’ll notice a stark contrast between write4u and my offerings.
Write, looks for his answers in the tiniest at the limits of physical reality and seems to be searching for answers there.
This requires a lot of time within the mindscape.
I find that, too often, that approach results in a disconnect from the physical reality we exist within, here on Earth. I’ve summarize the concept:
> **Appreciating the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide**
Oh and there is difference between a deep appreciation, as opposed than a flippant, yeah, yeah, I know all about evolution, then barreling on as before. The difference between enjoying a post card and inhabiting the actual scene.
While I’m an inhabitant of the middle ground of physical reality we human exists within on this Earth that created us - and I look for my answers within a holistic framework of what all those tiny orchestral components have produced over the eons of Earth’s amazing Evolution.
The Orchestra of Life can’t ignore the hardware valves and strings of individual instruments, nor individual notes in the score - but still, the magnificence arises when it all comes together to perform the same piece of music.
---
### Author:  [@eli1](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/eli1)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 3:43pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/73 "2022-04-16T15:43:05Z")
> [@write4u](#):
>
> If you have a brain you have an ego. The You is completely encased in a dark silent bony skull and removed from the exterior environment except for the sensory data that enters it via the beural network.
> From comparing that data with stored memories, the brain (You) can only make a “best guess” of what the data represents .
> You may really enjoy this little lecture by Anil Seth, a prominent neuroscientist.
Thanks for the clip.
Yes I’ve seen many similar talking points.
But since you brought this specific video here are some highlights :
1. He makes a claim of sleep being different from anesthesia, where anesthesia is like non-existence.
Then how does he explain people having NDEs under anesthesia?
Crickets.
2. His whole talking point is basically matrix theory proposed by Nick Bostrom.
Matrix theory is another way of describing a omnipotent being.
3. It’s also good to know his political leanings in the video 🙂 because that’s very important that we know.
---
### Author:  [@eli1](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/eli1)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 3:48pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/74 "2022-04-16T15:48:08Z")
@citizenschallengev4 i like all the views here first of all.
Also most members here don’t seem immature in their responses and they don’t react in knee-jerk reaction when their belief system is questioned.
This shows maturity and also an open mind.
In regards to your post. From what I’ve seen from you so far, you seem to exhibit spirituality toward Mother Earth and I appreciate that.
---
### Author:  [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 4:46pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/75 "2022-04-16T16:46:48Z")
> [@eli1](#):
>
> Crickets
There are extensive responses to NDEs. It’s getting hard to have these conversations if you ignore all the information out there.
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 6:32pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/76 "2022-04-16T18:32:20Z")
> [@write4u](#):
>
> The You is completely encased in a dark silent bony skull and removed from the exterior environment except for the sensory data that enters it via the neural network.
That is physically not true. Your bony skull is no absolute barrier to outside stimulus anymore than a gestating fetus is oblivious to the world unfolding outside its womb and mom.
Here is where an appreciation for the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide comes into focus.
Write often follows a logic that if it hasn’t been demonstrated and proven by science, we can dismiss it. (Which ignores how much individual human scientists can miss, and why real science is dependent on a community of experts spanning the globe and all generations - this is the key to science’s success - that is, a culture that demands honesty and an expectation that everyone looks over each other’s shoulders.)
Scientists have not isolated every aspect of our brain, still many will say, when we sleep we are totally unconscious - non existent. Yet our real lives don’t reflect that sort of on off.
Sleep is about degrees, most adults have a regular pattern honed by our modern routines and schedules, and studies are built around that sort of repeatable situation. Whereas real life, especially before the modern era, is a spectrum which might have moments of deep sleep where our consciousness is indeed “totally gone” but those needed to be minimized. Even while that is going on, other systems, I dare say some we aren’t even fully aware of, are still keeping tabs on the outside world, ready to intervene if they receive the correct inputs.
* * *
Write4u, I spent a lot of midnight hours thinking about our argument over sleep in previous months, while near Charlotte, NC. You see last month I spent 19 days with my son-in-law’s little clan to help with the kids while mom had a couple business trips to deal with.
Li’l G at half year old and way more active at nights than his brother was. Since I’m willing and the little guy likes me, and mom/dad love the break, and I know my window of opportunity is very limited, I wound up with his monitor 15 of those nights.
There’d be some night where I had to deal with a half dozen wakings that required me to go up to his room. Also a few with a nice 6 hour of sleep between midnightish and morningish, and the rest in between.
On a few nights, I spent hours with him, trying to get him back to sleep, easy part, **back onto his mattress, _the hard part_**. Obviously I was successful more times that not, but three or four of those nights, he won, we’d head on down, a couple times he was so awake that we started playing 4 am-ish, though usually we went down to my bed, where I’d make it clear, we’re staying in bed I needed to sleep, you need to sleep, now show me some mercy and dang if’n he he didn’t.
It was beautiful, he got the message, occasionally falling asleep next me, or he’d fidget around, simply hunging out, eventually slipping back into sleep until the rest of the household stirred. Of course, at this point I’m only partially aware of him, passing out in short spurts, but with a hand or arm encircling him, I became aware when he moved out of his safety zone and I was back on duty.
My whole point in painting out that image, is that I had the opportunity to intently watch this little guy’s varying levels of sleep, especially during that magical period over his crib, lulling him to sleep, watching, listening, waiting before till time seems right to slowly lower him down onto his crib. Then his varied reactions to realizing (consciously or just his body) his was back on his firm cool mattress.
Everything from no reaction whatsoever, to a slight shutter of his body grasping what happened, but nothing more than slow deep breathing, to a little murmur of disruption that rapidly, sometimes slowly, drifted back into sleep, with a little reassurance, to the SCREECH: what are you thinking! fuk! no! get me outta here!, NOW!!!
Yes sir.
Although even more fascinating was watching myself, and the different levels of fatigue, the different levels of my sleep, and the rapidity with which I reacted to the signals the monitor was feeding me, even when off in the deepest sleep. The ability to go from soundly sleeping to springing out of bed and hoofing it up to his room, in about a second. (since I appreciate that the sooner I can get up there, the less time he and his body has to really wake up.)
Or my different reactions to distant crying, depending on if I had the monitor, or if it was my night off.
Even from an evolutionary perspective, humans could never afford to have the sort of simple on / off sleep patterns, of the type scientists are limited to mapping out and explicating.
Now while I’m in no position to doubt scientific discoveries, I do have enough appreciation for the subtleties, (not to mention the history of science itself), to be convinced that there are layers of interconnection and monitoring going on inside of our brain, that we simply haven’t been able to focus onto yet.
After all, it’s not like our bodies doesn’t have a few more surprises in store.
Consider the past decade.
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DhAkd5qrzY)
---
### Author:  [@eli1](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/eli1)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 8:04pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/77 "2022-04-16T20:04:09Z")
> [@lausten](#):
>
> There are extensive responses to NDEs. It’s getting hard to have these conversations if you ignore all the information out there.
Please don’t misunderstand this good sir.
We have a gentlemen on stage (on that video) who said a contradiction - that’s the point.
I know that the subject of NDEs is quite vast and I’ve heard a lot of talking points from all sides.
But that man on stage, just said a contradiction.
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2022, 11:28pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/78 "2022-04-16T23:28:59Z")
> [@eli1](#):
>
> We have a gentlemen on stage (on that video) who said a contradiction - that’s the point.
It’s been a long time since I’ve watched that video. Can you be specific and share the time signature.
Here’s some science on the topic
> **[New Clues Found in Understanding Near-Death Experiences](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-clues-found-in-understanding-near-death-experiences/)**
>
> Research finds parallels to certain psychoactive drugs
> **[Response to: Near-death experiences and the importance of transparency in...](https://academic.oup.com/braincomms/article/4/1/fcab305/6527563)**
>
> We thank Dr Stripp for his interest in our paper1 and for sharing his thoughts about it in a sophisticated and polite manner. We have received a great number of
---
### Author:  [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2022, 3:14am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/79 "2022-04-17T03:14:37Z")
> [@citizenschallengev4](#):
>
> That is physically not true. Your bony skull is no absolute barrier to outside stimulus anymore than a gestating fetus is oblivious to the world unfolding outside its womb and mom.
The brain itself has no sensory neurons. It doesn’t even feel physical pain. Headaches are generated by brain processes not by sticking a pin in your brain.
The brain is a computer. It needs data for it to remain focused. This is why in a deprivation chamber the person goes mad in a very short time. The brain needs stimulus or it creates its own “hallucinations”
# Isolated brain
In philosophy
> In philosophy, the brain in a vat is any of a variety of thought experiments intended to draw out certain features of our ideas about knowledge, reality, truth, mind, and meaning. A contemporary version of the argument originally given by Descartes in Meditations on First Philosophy (i.e., that he could not trust his perceptions on the grounds that an evil demon might, conceivably, be controlling his every experience), the brain in a vat is the idea that a brain can be fooled into anything when fed appropriate stimuli.
> The inherently philosophical idea has also become a staple of many science fiction stories, with many such stories involving a mad scientist who might remove a person’s brain from the body, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives. According to such science fiction stories, the computer would then be simulating a virtual reality (including appropriate responses to the brain’s own output) and the person with the “disembodied” brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences without these being related to objects or events in the real world.
> \*_No such procedure in humans has ever been reported by a research paper in a scholarly journal, or other reliable source. Also, the ability to send external electric signals to the brain of a sort that the brain can interpret, and the ability to communicate thoughts or perceptions to any external entity by wire, is, except for very basic commands, well beyond current technology._
> **[Isolated brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_brain)**
>
> An isolated brain is a brain kept alive in vitro, either by perfusion or by a blood substitute, often an oxygenated solution of various salts, or by submerging the brain in oxygenated artificial cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). It is the biological counterpart of brain in a vat. A related concept, attaching the brain or head to the circulatory system of another organism, is called a brain transplant or a head transplant. An isolated brain, however, is more typically attached to an artificial perfusi Th...
This seems to disagree with your perspective that the brain has its own sensory receptors.
---
### Author:  [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2022, 4:20am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913/80 "2022-04-17T04:20:17Z")
This may be of interest in context of what part of reality our brain experiences.
Our brain actually only makes a best guess of what the data it receives means.
Evolution has shaped this perception not for realism but for survival and sometimes realism as our senses receive it, is not sufficient in finding survival solutions.
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY)
[Previous page](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/do-philosophers-ever-take-evolution-into-account/7913.md?page=5)