WarmSlyph wrote:
Yes. I don't mean biological evolution
Gotcha.
WarmSlyph wrote:
Current science does not consider the evolution of mind in conjunction with the evolution of body and spirit.
This is true. But I would add to that it's not really fair to ask this of Science(not that you are), since it's beyond the scope of their inquiry. On the other hand, it's not fair of Science to label as invalid any investigation which does seek to explain evolution in the terms you've described, and for the same reason. Science "decided" at the time of Newton to rid itself of quality (too darn messy!), free itself of the time side of things. This limited it to that which it could measure, and, as you described in another post, gave it a sharper focus, but a narrower one. The upside of a purely quantitative approach is the power it gives in prediction, and controlling the environment, and so led directly to an industrial revolution.
[continueDigression]The time of the publication of Principia coincided with the science that Alchemy pursued being at it's peak. Many people think of Alchemy as a primitive precursor of Science, and that Newton's approach was so far superior, Alchemy was simply rendered road-kill. But Alchemy was nothing of the sort. It was a science of
quality, and was involved in a very different enterprise. Science didn't kill Alchemy, it just turned away from it. Of course, you can't really blame Scieince. I think it instinctively saw where a purely quantitative approach would lead, even if it was one-sided[/continueDigression].
WarmSlyph wrote:
Intelligence is not outside 'evolution' but is a necessary component of that 'machine'.
I'm still not clear. Maybe I should have phrased the question differently. Do you regard intelligence as rising from evolution. i.e, a product of evolution?
WarmSlyph wrote:
Animals which are not evolving towards individualized beings have only the direct and clear relationships between mind and body because they serve the collective mind of their species, in a sense.
Which animals are you referring to? Or do you mean "Animals[comma]...? In either case, you don't regard individualization as an inevitable step or stage in evolution?