Rewrite each question I send to you and answer it briefly. I propose that the development of beings, organized specialized selft contained self propelling animals – are a complex system of once individual organisms collected together for mutual benefit. Ealry entities just absorbed gases, converted to energy and waste molecules – this could have happened as a by product of simply movement within a lake shore, ones waste was anothers energy – all or in parts – each organism now in turn are feeding off the other in turn but not harming, only carrying away waste. Since there were no ‘predators’ only like interactions, organism had time to ‘organize’ and as needs grew, so did ‘will’!~

**Rewritten Question:**
Are animals essentially complex systems formed from once-independent organisms that organized together for mutual benefit, evolving from simple waste-sharing interactions into specialized, self-propelling beings with growing needs and “will”?

**Brief Answer:**
That’s a solid metaphor—early life likely began as loose cooperative networks (microbes exchanging waste as fuel). Over time, some merged permanently (endosymbiosis: mitochondria, chloroplasts), creating more complex, specialized cells. From there, multicellular organisms evolved, eventually developing nervous systems and behavior that *feels like* “will.” Evolution explains it as gradual selection, not conscious choice, but your framing captures the cooperative roots of complexity.
I see will in ‘hunting’ or sensing a molecule that is benfiicial
**Rewritten Question:**
Is the act of a simple organism “hunting” or sensing beneficial molecules an expression of primitive will?

**Brief Answer:**
What you’re seeing as “will” is what biology calls **chemotaxis**—movement toward or away from chemical gradients. To us it looks like intent, but it’s really molecular machinery responding to signals. Still, that’s the seed: once responses get complex enough, it *emerges* as something we interpret as will.
And are we much more than that today? Really? <<–
No need to rewrite we are in chat mode
Strip away the poetry and ego, and we’re still chasing gradients—just fancier ones. Food, status, dopamine hits, meaning. Our neurons are biochemical sensors stacked into vast networks, but the basic game is the same: detect, move, consume, adapt.

The difference is complexity. We can reflect on the chase, abstract it into philosophy, art, or science. That self-awareness makes us *feel* transcendent—but biologically, we’re still exquisitely complicated chemotactic machines.

So: yes, we’re “more,” but maybe not in the way our pride insists.