Evolution=Samsara?

betaboy

Evolution through natural selection is beautiful - complex forms coming out of simpler ones, infinite variety. But evolution is also a painful process, a struggle where we compete for limited resources and space - basically dukkha.

So is nibbana all about getting out of this evolutionary trap, which the ancients might have called samsara?

newtech

Hi:

Buddhism doesn`t deny that species evolve, or that within that process it can be pleasant or painful experiences. But samsara doesnt neccesarily is synonymous of evolution.

Take care.


http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19015/evolution-samsara#

zenmyste

betaboy said:

Evolution through natural selection is beautiful - complex forms coming out of simpler ones, infinite variety. But evolution is also a painful process, a struggle where we compete for limited resources and space - basically dukkha.

So is nibbana all about getting out of this evolutionary trap, which the ancients might have called samsara?

I believe Living is to live in hell...
Pain, suffering, rape, murder, torture, disease, hatred, anger, lust etc etc...

DEATH = nirvana or heaven or PEACE

Whatever you want to call it!

Death is the ultimate peace of mind because you will have.... No mind!!!

No mind - no desire - no suffering - no pain, no this , no that ....

Life - hell
Death - heaven

riverflow

@zenmyste - Nihilism is one of the extreme ends of the Middle Way (eternalism being at the other end of the spectrum), something the Buddha did not propose. Life is neither a good or evil, but what we make of it.

That "making of it" is mind. "No mind" is the absence of any "making of it"-- in other words, non-attachment to the concept that life a "good" or "evil" (to which we either cling to or seek to run away from). That clinging or resisting is dukkha itself.

Dukkha then is not to be confused with life itself. If you confuse it with life itself, that's just more dukkha.

The second Noble Truth states that the problem lies not in life but with clinging to things within life. This is a very important distinction.

Non-attachment it is not a flight from life, but rather something to be cultivated in the midst of life.

Sheng Yen has a book on "no mind" that is very clear which I recommend: Song of Mind

riverflow

[sorry for the derail!]

riverflow

Well, maybe it isn't really a derail, thinking about it. To address the OP, dukkha is a symptom of a disease of the mind (clinging). Dukkha isn't something inherent in existence, but again, what we make of it-- it is how we relate to ourselves and the world around us:

Preceded by mind
are phenomena,
led by mind,
formed by mind.
If with mind polluted
one speaks or acts,
the pain follows,
as a wheel follows
the draft ox's foot.

Preceded by mind
are phenomena,
led by mind,
formed by mind.
If with mind pure
one speaks or acts,
then ease follows,
as an ever-present shadow.

~ Dhammapada, chapter 1

how

Another way to put this into perspective. Evolution just equals change.

Although the Ego hates this idea, you are just karma's taxi cab. When you can no longer drive, the passenger moves on and you cease to exist.
This is true regardless of whatever name we paint on the cab door.
That passenger may take some of the inertia of the ride along when they leave but that still isn't really you.

Suffering exists just as it's opposite does.
This, both cab & passenger can share.

fivebells

The key thing to realize is that a form of evolution occurs in your own stream of experience. The selection pressures are different from biological evolution — they are pleasure, pain, continuation of views and states of mind; as opposed to biological proliferation — but the result is the same: states of mind grasping to maintain themselves. Nirvana is freedom from that. The earlier stages of enlightenment are realizing that that process is running things, and learning to shape it in skillful ways (in terms of the evolution analogy, this is moving from stochastic evolution to controlled breeding.)

vinlyn

This is a scientifically inappropriate mixing of a scientific concept and a religious concept.

Jeffrey

There are three types of suffering as traditionally taught.

Suffering of suffering. This is like arthritus and it also means that just because you have flu doesn't mean something else bad won't happen like a conflict with a friend.

Suffering of change. Holding onto that which is dear.

Suffering of composite things. The most subtle of all but we have bodies that are composed of parts. I'm not too clear on this one.

I think scarcity of resources could be one or more of these.

fivebells

@vinlyn: It's a good thing we're not doing science!

aMatt

betaboy said:

So is nibbana all about getting out of this evolutionary trap, which the ancients might have called samsara?

This reminds me of a response from one of my teachers. If we can accept that pain is both teaching us and impermanent (though seemingly endless) then there is no trap to evolution. We breathe, we evolve. The only trap is considering it a trap. Otherwise there is only cause and effect. We dig a hole, we end up in a hole. We build a mound, we end up on a mound. There is pain, then there is not pain.

Turning the wheel of dharma is part of the evolution. As we connect and share we learn to skillfully work the causes we can affect, and accept those which are an inherent part of being in bodies. Everybody poops, but regretting it is optional.

It might be fruitful to examine the causes which push/force a mind to see a terrible world. If the Buddha could sit in a joyful connection to the world full of suffering, how could suffering be inherently ugly, a trap, or a hell? It is more likely there is a fetter arising which clouds the simplistic beauty of rain falling, sun shining, flowers opening.

With warmth,
Matt

Jeffrey

welcome back, Matt

riverflow

aMatt said:

It might be fruitful to examine the causes which push/force a mind to see a terrible world. If the Buddha could sit in a joyful connection to the world full of suffering, how could suffering be inherently ugly, a trap, or a hell? It is more likely there is a fetter arising which clouds the simplistic beauty of rain falling, sun shining, flowers opening.

Thank you for this, @aMatt

pegembara

Mata Sutta: Mother
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.014.than.html

Timsa Sutta: Thirty

Then the thought occurred to the Blessed One, "These thirty monks from Pava... are all still with fetters. What if I were to teach them the Dhamma in such a way that in this very sitting their minds, through lack of clinging, would be released from fermentations?"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.013.than.html

Assu Sutta: Tears
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html

misecmisc1

As all things are buddha-dharma, there is delusion and realization, practice, and birth and death, and there are buddhas and sentient beings. As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death. To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening. - Dogen

Florian

The link

fivebells said:

@vinlyn: It's a good thing we're not doing science!

I'd say that we're not only doing science, since we are not actually avoiding it. And nobody seems to be questioning the theory of evolution.

But biologists have a problem explaining why organisms become more complex. There is a price to pay. Greater fragility, for example. So the big question is, what drives this increase in complexity? The reason has to be very deep. Buddhism would say the reason is desire. So in this case Buddhism offers an answer (right or wrong) to a valid scientific question.

Citta

Please sir, where does desire come from ?

betaboy

Citta said:

Please sir, where does desire come from ?

Ignorance. And ignorance is without beginning.

footiam

betaboy said:

Evolution through natural selection is beautiful - complex forms coming out of simpler ones, infinite variety. But evolution is also a painful process, a struggle where we compete for limited resources and space - basically dukkha.

So is nibbana all about getting out of this evolutionary trap, which the ancients might have called samsara?

I would like to believe that nibbana is all about being able to live amidst samsara.

Florian

Citta said:

Please sir, where does desire come from ?

Well, ignorance would be the condition for it, as @betaboy notes. But this is not quite an answer. You will know where the answer lies, and it will not be found by peering into a telescope. The point is that it is at least an 'in principle' answer, which is an improvement on no answer at all.

Btw I found the quote I was thinking of, from a guru of complexity.

"There’s a price to pay in becoming more complex; the system is more likely to break, for instance. We need a reason why biological systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep."

Stuart Kauffman
(in Complexity, Roger Lewin)

Chrysalid

Florian said:

But biologists have a problem explaining why organisms become more complex. There is a price to pay. Greater fragility, for example. So the big question is, what drives this increase in complexity? The reason has to be very deep. Buddhism would say the reason is desire. So in this case Buddhism offers an answer (right or wrong) to a valid scientific question.

I'm a biologist, if you have any specific questions I'd be happy to answer them.

betaboy said:

Evolution through natural selection is beautiful - complex forms coming out of simpler ones, infinite variety. But evolution is also a painful process, a struggle where we compete for limited resources and space - basically dukkha.

So is nibbana all about getting out of this evolutionary trap, which the ancients might have called samsara?

That's one way of looking at it I suppose, but you don't need Buddhism to end this sort of samsara, just don't have kids.

Florian

Hi @Chrysalid - No questions, except perhaps to ask whether what I said about complexity is correct. I learn by being contradicted, and I'm certainly not a biologist.

Chrysalid

Florian said:

Hi @Chrysalid - No questions, except perhaps to ask whether what I said about complexity is correct. I learn by being contradicted, and I'm certainly not a biologist.

Going from what you said I'd have to say that complex multi-cellular life isn't usually more fragile. Simple life, like amoebas, are at risk of dying from events as commonplace as a change in osmotic concentration (the level of dissolved substances, like salt). If too much freshwater is added rapidly to the pond they're living in, they just explode. Complex multicelluar life also has the advantage because the outermost cells are the ones that suffer environmental damage, while protecting the ones lying underneath, which can then divide to replace those lost on the surface.

What drives life to become more complex, that's more complicated. It's not a progression, the most successful life forms on Earth are still the most simple, single celled organisms. In the distant past some cells must have found it advantageous to clump together (like modern sponges), if it had been disadvantageous to become multi-cellular then those cells would have died out, so there must have been some kind of selective advantage to it.

When you live in a colony of more than one cell, then you can start to specialise, some cells can specialise in protecting the colony, maybe by producing a hard protein or a layer of slime on the surface. Others can specialise in sieving food particles from the water etc etc. There is no thought process going on though that determines which cells do what, it all happens gradually through mutation of their genes and then natural selection. There are a lot of evolutionary dead ends along the way though, mutations that are either immediately fatal to the colony, or cause a disadvantage at some future point.

That was a bit long-winded, but basically life wouldn't become more complex if it wasn't in the best interest of the organism, the population it lives within and future generations. I hope that makes sense, there's a good reason I'm not a writer.

Jeffrey

@Chrysalid, how do the unique abilities happen that would seemingly have a long 'gestation' time before realizing the fruit of the mutations?

I can see how eyes would evolve from simple light sensitive cells to tell where to go in the water.

But like how did cows suddenly develop four stomachs? It couldn't happen all in one mutation. Why would there be so many mutations all going in the same direction? I couldn't think of a better example. How did humming birds get so specialized? I can't think of my examples I thought of on occasion, but sometimes some ability requires such specialized body that it's hard to see how it went from one ancestral form to another. It would seem that the intermediary steps (not one mutation) would not be able to permit natural selection because the first mutations wouldn't arrive at a benefit. Oh here is one. How did squids evolve to produce ink? If you had a half baked ink ability it wouldn't provide any advantage and only in further developments does it become a complete specialized organ and behaviour.

Chrysalid

@Jeffrey Organisms don't evolve in isolation, so the hummingbird only appears oddly specialised because it co-evolved with its feeding plants. There also isn't anything sudden about evolution, even rapid evolution occurs on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years.
It is difficult to imagine the intermediary steps, I agree. But that's partly because there were no real "intermediary" steps, the forms of animals and plants we see now aren't the perfected end product, there was no goal to produce a cow with four stomachs or a squid with an ink sac with gradual steps along the way - each species in the ancestral line of these animals would have had organs that helped it survive in the environment of it's time. Perhaps the ancestors of cattle got along fine with two stomachs until the nature of their food became tougher, the evolution of extra stomachs would only only have occurred due to pressure from their surroundings. And the ancestors of squid must have found their pre-ink organs very handy for escaping predators, otherwise they would not have survived to pass them on to their offspring.

Also, most animals have some "half-baked" organs, humans for example can get long fine without a gall bladder, spleen, appendix or with only one kidney. If something were to happen to our environment and diet we might see evolutionary changes to those organs, the gall bladder to expand to cope with extra fat for example, or the appendix may evolve to become a second stomach - these processes would occur over a very long time scale and involve the deaths of millions who lacked the beneficial genes for larger gall bladders or bigger appendixes, but at the end of the process our descendants would look back and ask themselves "why did they have those half-baked gall bladders and only one true stomach, what use were they?"

Florian

@Chrysalid - I think it is generally accepted that complex life is more fragile. but I suppose it is not true in all respects. Even defining complexity is difficult. The interesting question is still open though, which is what drives the process.

I'm a fan of Schrodingers 'faux-Lamarkism' as an explanation of much that happens. He is also very interesting on the mechanics of genetic mutations. He calculates that mutations occur on such small scales that the laws of physics, which are statistical, do not apply. His 'What is Life?;' is a wonderful essay. So is his 'What is Mind?' .

Chrysalid

I've never come across a biologist say that complex life is more fragile, that's a weird concept for me.

With respect, Schrodinger was a physicist, and while a great physicist he didn't have a complete understanding of evolutionary biology. For example, when he talks of mutation he's discussing point mutations which are rare, usually have no consequences and are more often then not repaired. The most significant biological mutations involve portions of genes, whole genes and even whole chromosomes of genetic information, no-one in their right mind would argue that those are statistically insignificant.
Also his concept of "use it or lose it" is fundamentally flawed, it is not the individual who determines whether or not his genes are multiplied within the population, it is external influences, it is the reactions of predators or prey to his mutation, it is the reaction of potential mates as well. An organism will use all of its abilities to survive, for some those abilities will be an advantage, for others a detriment, animals don't decide to make best use of a beneficial mutation, they just use it.

Florian

Okay @Chrysalid. I can accept that his ideas about mutations are limited to certain kinds. I have wondered for a while, but have never spoken to a biologist who could tell me.

But I can only agree with his 'use it or lose it' proposition. It seems inevitably or even trivially true to me. No mutation can be useful to us unless we use it, this is what we mean by 'useful', and if we do not use then it can never become a special trait. We have legs only because our ancestors wanted to walk. No?

aMatt

Florian said:

No mutation can be useful to us unless we use it, this is what we mean by 'useful', and if we do not use then it can never become a special trait. We have legs only because our ancestors wanted to walk. No?

Not really, no. There was more food available to walkers, making their breeding and rearing of young more stable. Over millions of generations of random mutations, those mutations which ensure more of the organisms children survive become more disbursed to the general population. This is what I remember from what I was taught (ie grain of salt )

Beej

Why isnt extinction as beautiful as evolution? This is the problem with evolutionary science. The Dodo is often mocked, the Dinosaur lamented, the Beta video cassette is sneered at, etc. Its Historical positivism that states a similar self-interest, claiming whatever exists today does so because its the best amalgamation of past efforts. This is what it looks like when the ego's reference point is itself. And its just faulty, because even the evolutionary "failngs" are PART of the equation. Science is constantly referencing, therefore Science is unenlightened. That doesnt mean it cant teach us, its just not really ready to answer the BIG question.

Florian

aMatt said:

Florian said:

No mutation can be useful to us unless we use it, this is what we mean by 'useful', and if we do not use then it can never become a special trait. We have legs only because our ancestors wanted to walk. No?

Not really, no. There was more food available to walkers, making their breeding and rearing of young more stable. Over millions of generations of random mutations, those mutations which ensure more of the organisms children survive become more disbursed to the general population. This is what I remember from what I was taught (ie grain of salt )

Yes, but to get to the food we had to walk. The extra food is a result of walking, not its cause. The desire for extra food leads to the desire to walk. We wanted to walk so we walked, and then we then found it useful, and then the selection process began. No desire - no walking. So, no consciousness - no walking.

aMatt

So from the Florian approach, primal creatures yearned to walk and grew legs from the desire? They concentrated hard and pop?

Chrysalid

Florian said:

Yes, but to get to the food we had to walk. The extra food is a result of walking, not its cause. The desire for extra food leads to the desire to walk. We wanted to walk so we walked, and then we then found it useful, and then the selection process began. No desire - no walking. So, no consciousness - no walking.

No, but I can understand why you would think this.

In simple terms, our ancestors were fish. Fish can't move about too well on land (check out mudskippers for an example), but some fish would have had more rigid fins than others, this would have given them an advantage over their floppy finned cousins and so they would have reached food more quickly and easily. More food means a better chance of survival and propagation of their genes.

Natural selection tends to exaggerate traits, so eventually our rigid finned fish ancestors, after many hundreds of thousands of generations would have fins suited to walking on land and swimming, much like the modern newt, from amphibians we get reptiles and from reptiles we get mammals. Not one of these creatures ever thought that growing legs would be a good idea, it's something that gradually developed in response to the greater survival of those creatures who could access food more easily, those more suited to the environment they found themselves in, which is the definition of survival of the fittest.

vinlyn

Florian said:

Not really, no. There was more food available to walkers, making their breeding and rearing of young more stable. Over millions of generations of random mutations, those mutations which ensure more of the organisms children survive become more disbursed to the general population. This is what I remember from what I was taught (ie grain of salt )

Yes, but to get to the food we had to walk. The extra food is a result of walking, not its cause. The desire for extra food leads to the desire to walk. We wanted to walk so we walked, and then we then found it useful, and then the selection process began. No desire - no walking. So, no consciousness - no walking.

No, no, no, no, no.

You sound like Marlin Perkins, the old guy who hosted Mutual Of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. He'd launch into an insurance commercial by saying something like, "The eagle wants to fly to that highest tree, so he begins to train his wings from a very young age. Just as you should begin thinking about your insurance needs just as you get out of college." No, the eagle doesn't think, "Oh I want to fly to that highest tree top". He starts flying by instinct. I didn't think, oh I want to live, so I will make my heart pump blood to the rest of my organs.

pegembara

Survival of the fittest sounds like a game of which species takes the longest to die. Since no specie survives forever, there is no prize for winning. But then there is the precious human birth.

Daozen

Nice chart Pegembara

I also note it's not even to scale ... If it was, our human appearance would be even less significant on the scale of time ... and more alarming considering the impact we are having on the planet.

I wonder what our species next evolution will be?

Chrysalid

Daozen said:

I wonder what our species next evolution will be?

You might not be too pleased with it. At the rate we're going survival of the fittest now favours the inferior (for a want of a better word). Stupid people have more kids, it's not a nice thing to say but it's true. If you want to see what's in store for the future of the human race, check out a comedy film called Idiocracy.

Florian

vinlyn said:

You sound like Marlin Perkins, the old guy who hosted Mutual Of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. He'd launch into an insurance commercial by saying something like, "The eagle wants to fly to that highest tree, so he begins to train his wings from a very young age. Just as you should begin thinking about your insurance needs just as you get out of college." No, the eagle doesn't think, "Oh I want to fly to that highest tree top". He starts flying by instinct. I didn't think, oh I want to live, so I will make my heart pump blood to the rest of my organs.

Lol. It's okay. I'm not that naive.

Florian

Chrysalid said:

Florian said:

Yes, but to get to the food we had to walk. The extra food is a result of walking, not its cause. The desire for extra food leads to the desire to walk. We wanted to walk so we walked, and then we then found it useful, and then the selection process began. No desire - no walking. So, no consciousness - no walking.

No, but I can understand why you would think this.

In simple terms, our ancestors were fish. Fish can't move about too well on land (check out mudskippers for an example), but some fish would have had more rigid fins than others, this would have given them an advantage over their floppy finned cousins and so they would have reached food more quickly and easily. More food means a better chance of survival and propagation of their genes.

Natural selection tends to exaggerate traits, so eventually our rigid finned fish ancestors, after many hundreds of thousands of generations would have fins suited to walking on land and swimming, much like the modern newt, from amphibians we get reptiles and from reptiles we get mammals. Not one of these creatures ever thought that growing legs would be a good idea, it's something that gradually developed in response to the greater survival of those creatures who could access food more easily, those more suited to the environment they found themselves in, which is the definition of survival of the fittest.

I think you miss my point. Of course nobody ever thought that growing legs would be a good idea. They just used whatever features they has available. But nobody walks without wanting to walk, and if our ancestors had not wanted to walk we wouldn't have legs.

Chrysalid

Florian said:

I think you miss my point. Of course nobody ever thought that growing legs would be a good idea. They just used whatever features they has available. But nobody walks without wanting to walk, and if our ancestors had not wanted to walk we wouldn't have legs.

I still disagree, I don't think the creatures we're talking about were really capable of wants, as we'd understand them, they'd have operated entirely on instinct. Those first fish to crawl up on land would have found a world with abundant food and fewer predators, if they survived on land better than their relatives who remained in the shallows then their genes got passed on - I don't see any more to it than that.

betaboy

It may help to view evolution as an automatic process rather than a conscious one. Passive rather than active sense...

vinlyn

betaboy said:

It may help to view evolution as an automatic process rather than a conscious one. Passive rather than active sense...

More accidental than automatic.

Florian

Chrysalid said:

Florian said:

I think you miss my point. Of course nobody ever thought that growing legs would be a good idea. They just used whatever features they has available. But nobody walks without wanting to walk, and if our ancestors had not wanted to walk we wouldn't have legs.

I still disagree, I don't think the creatures we're talking about were really capable of wants, as we'd understand them, they'd have operated entirely on instinct. Those first fish to crawl up on land would have found a world with abundant food and fewer predators, if they survived on land better than their relatives who remained in the shallows then their genes got passed on - I don't see any more to it than that.

When a robot does something we not say it is acting on instinct. So it seems to me that If a being acts on instinct this would imply that it acts consciously, driven by instinctive desires and preferences.

Also, I really cannot believe that even quite simple creatures feel no desire to survive. At any rate, there's no proof that they do not. Why did those fish bother eating at all? Why does anyone? What about Chuang-Tsu's happy fish?

Darwin's finches evolved different beaks because they wanted to eat different food. Are you saying that they have no idea what they're eating, or even that they're eating?

Florian

betaboy said:

It may help to view evolution as an automatic process rather than a conscious one. Passive rather than active sense...

Help in what way? It would be a hypothetical situation, and nothing like the real one. In real life consciousness plays a part.

Jeffrey

@Florian I think what you mean by 'want' is that the ventral tegmental rewards part of their brain (or whatever equivalent in lower organism) was stimulated by the food and thus they wanted to eat. If they got food while walking their rewards system would make them feel inclined to walk. I'm not sure if a walking fish has enough of a brain for a rewards system, but I think so probably. It would be a huge advantage to have a trait that rewards during food consumption.

Florian

Okay @jeffrey - Yes. Something in the brain/mind was stimulated by the food (or lack of it) and they wanted to eat. This is what I'm proposing. And what they choose to eat will affect their physiological evolution as a species.

But maybe I made a mistake above. The finches were on different islands and so were forced to eat differently, rather than having a choice. The problem remains though. How do we explain why animals eat unless we assume that they want to eat? I don't think we can.

In the same way, how can we explain the usefulness of legs except by supposing that the ancestors of their owners wanted to walk and so found them useful. Perhaps for our distant ancestors the girls preferred males who did so upright. That would be enough to expain our walking abilities. So it makes sense to me that our behaviour decides which mutations become adaptions. If we choose not to make use of a mutatation then even if it proliferates in the species it would be what Dennett calls a 'spandrel'. A useless appendage or whatever.

This is why I object to the idea that consciousness is irrelevant to evolution, and prefer the idea that it is the fuel the drives the whole process and that decides it's course.

Chrysalid

Florian, when you were born do you think that you wanted to breathe and so decided to open your airway and inhale air into your lungs?

person

@Florian I wonder if we take the discussion away from biological forms into simple matter. Matter also becomes more complex over time, hydrogen stars forming heavier elements --> supernova --> formation of planets --> etc.

Here is an example of increasing complexity without consciousness. I don't know that I'm right, just some food for thought.

Florian

Yes, @person, I was thinking in that direction also. Panpsychism has a lot of supporters, perhaps even a growing number among philosophers, and they would say that consciousness is present wherever space and time is there, since space and time would be mental fabrications. Hinduism sees the unconditioned Brahman as responsible for all forms of attraction without exception, planets and stars included. I wouldn't like to guess, although it seems to me that Buddhism has a lot to say about this that we are ignoring.

So I would question your final sentence. You have no idea whether this is evolution is with or without consciousness, and nor do I.

@Chrysalid - I expect I did want to breathe when I was born, yes, but I don't know this. It may have been just an automatic physical function. I wouldn't deny that are such automatic functions. But babies are usually thought tio become conscious in the womb, and Freud even suggests that at some level we continue to remember this experience.

My proposition is only that consciousness, and thus wants and desires, plays an important role in detirmining the course of biological evolution. Darwin was clear about this, and speaks of the similar behaviour of widely separated groups of apes as being caused by their similar wants and desires. This behaviour will often detirmine which mutations will disappear and which will become traits. Were these apes not conscious there would be no way to explain their behaviour, similar or not.

It is not Darwin who insisted that we banish consciousness from evolutionary science, but the neo-Darwinists who followed him. With the death of Behaviourism their view would seem to have become untenable.

Chrysalid

Florian said:

My proposition is only that consciousness, and thus wants and desires, plays an important role in detirmining the course of biological evolution. Darwin was clear about this, and speaks of the similar behaviour of widely separated groups of apes as being caused by their similar wants and desires. This behaviour will often detirmine which mutations will disappear and which will become traits. Were these apes not conscious there would be no way to explain their behaviour, similar or not.

It is not Darwin who insisted that we banish consciousness from evolutionary science, but the neo-Darwinists who followed him. With the death of Behaviourism their view would seem to have become untenable.

Hi Florian, I'm not suggesting that behaviour has no effect on the genetic makeup of a population, it's the basis of sexual selection after all, I still contend though that our fish-like ancestors evolved legs gradually over time as those with legs found it easier to reach food and survived better as a result, not because they wanted to walk.
I can see though that you hold an opinion I don't share, that consciousness exists independently of the brain as an integral part of the universe, so I can understand why you might hold the beliefs that you do.