On the Origin of Souls

Note: The title references Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species." Your soul is the part of you that benefits from being separate. It's that part of you that appreciates seeing another man kiss the woman that he loves, not the part that gets jealous. It's the part of you that responds with kindness upon seeing another man struggling in a way that is familiar, not the part that responds with repulsion. The question arises, what was the origin of souls? I'd say that before the universe there was only, for our purposes, some kind of confined energy. After the universe began, this confined energy was spread out but some of also existed in the previous non-universe state. Whenever a perspective existed in the universe that could "use" an observer, some soul was put in. I will skip what soul-energy is as compared with universe-energy. I truly cannot imagine what the first souls would be, but perhaps we can figure them out by working backwards from human souls. Souls seem to provide comfort for existential crisis. Whether one believes in souls or not, one should agree. If souls are only "invented" for avoiding the existential crisis of death, they still serve this purpose. The next important question is about consciousness. It seems that wherever consciousness exists, there will be potential for existential crisis. Where the potential for existential crisis exists, a soul could be useful. Now let's start with imagining that everything is conscious. A large mass of particles is conscious, and it's crisis is "What am I doing?" or "What can I do with my time?" I'd like to posit that larger consciousnesses might have time move quicker or some such thing. They would also seem to have more internal things to focus on. So, if there was a conscious moon, for example, it could be aware of all the creaks and movements of a massive body, and that might cure the boredom. Also, time might move quicker so that it would feel the gravity of the earth changing swiftly as it orbited and spun, almost like a constant massage. In this way, I do not see how a soul would be necessary for a moon, but it still could be possible. There is nothing that might benefit from a perspective of separateness. A plant, (or anything with a life-cycle) on the other hand, seems to have a need for a soul, if conscious. A conscious plant couldn't help but notice how it's growth was going, how much sun and nutrients it was getting, etc. The plant might also be able to sense other plants nearby through chemical communication, and sense relativesly and offspring. When thing started going badly for the plant, it seems that an existential crisis would natural ensue. A conscious plant, whether able to choose its actions or not, could have the kind of suffering that a soul, something that benefits from being separate, could help with. Whether the plant work for you or not, you can see how the graduation system might occur. A plant-soul that not only deals with stress but thrives with it, could maybe float around after death and be a good match for a frog. In this way, the environment is important, like in species, but perseverance/adaptation is really the most important factor. I believe that thinking about life in this way can relieve a lot of guilt from our minds. If one kills a bird, one doesn't know if that bird had a graceful soul or a troubled one, but knows that it is not the end. And the only thing that was killed, or ended, was the silly consciousness that bounced between comfort and crisis continuously (in all likelihood). If the soul was powerful and good in that bird, then perhaps the consciousness had been well-trained. If so, that good soul was moving on to greener pastures. And so on....