I am beginning to think that philosophy is a cry for help trying to make sense of the world we have been thrown into. — Andrew4Handel

If you were tasked with putting words to such a cry for help, what words would you use?

IMO, religion is for mystifying answers (i.e. placebos, snakeoil) whereas philosophy is for clarifying questions (i.e. medicine, surgery). Believers seek certainty; thinkers seek lucidity.

IMO, religion is for mystifying answers (i.e. placebos, snakeoil) whereas philosophy is for clarifying questions (i.e. medicine, surgery). Believers seek certainty; thinkers seek lucidity. — 180 Proof

Précisément! If all this is a dream, let it be a lucid dream!

Are you rejecting soul in favor of other words you regard as more appropriate labels for perishable human identity such as: mortal, frail, fragile, delicate, finite, terminable etc? — ucarr

I don't use the word soul or any substitute for it. It's a non starter for me, a poetic or historical term. A soul is an imperishable essence, so it has no role I can think of in fragility or frailty. I think the word human is a synonym for frailty - but also for resilience.

Is there any context, set of circumstances or the like in which soul could work as a practical label you could accept? — ucarr

I don't think so. Although I could use it ironically or archaically as in, 'Music soothes the soul'. I use Latin words too but that doesn't mean I am a Roman senator.

If a friend active within an intersubjective community to which you also belong should happen to say "Intersubjective agreement is the soul of worthy codes of conduct." would you find such usage acceptable? — ucarr

I would say, what do you mean? Perhaps what is intended in that sentence is: 'Intersubjective agreement is the substance of all codes of conduct.' An intersubjective community is simply a group that agrees about values and worldviews - whether physicists or the Mormons.

It seems to me:

Do human mind and physical world create together a Venn Diagram of an overlap, which is to say, a portion of each identity blended into a shared identity? — ucarr

More or less. Something that has taken 3.7 billion years since life first evolved on Earth, in that life must be the product of its environment. If the environment had been different, life would most likely have turned out differently. As regards the Venn Diagram, the mind doesn't overlap with the world, the mind is part of the world.

Is it your belief that rainfall in the rainforest that grows the plants results from random forces such as air currents, barometric pressure, temperature and the seasons? — ucarr

More or less, in that these forces are mindless, although not random. I don't believe in spontaneous self-causation, I believe that every effect has a cause and the world is deterministic. Randomness is a human concept for events that are too complex for us to analyse what is happening, a system may be chaotic but it is still deterministic, whereby effects are preceded by causes.

Is it your belief the world caused you? — ucarr

Yes. The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years and it is believed that 4.3 billion years ago the Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. The oldest known fossils are about 3.7 billion years old, and homo sapiens, the first modern humans, evolved between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.

The process whereby humans have evolved has been underway for at least 3.7 billion years, a process physically determined by the world in which such evolution has taken place.

Your rational mind, however, operates independently of mindless external world, creating knowledge of sense impressions a priori. — ucarr

Not really. Innatism is the doctrine that the mind is born with ideas, knowledge and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, Empiricism, is that the mind is a blank slate at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses.

There are costs and benefits from both innate and learned knowledge. In a changing environment, an animal must constantly be gaining new information in order to survive. However, in a stable environment this same individual need only to gather the information it needs once and rely on it for the duration of its life.

Descartes makes the analogy that innate knowledge may be compared to an innate disease, in that an innate disease signifies that a person may be at risk from contracting such a disease later in life. Similarly, innate knowledge does not mean that the person has been born with such knowledge, just that such knowledge wasn't expressed. Innate knowledge requires experiences to be triggered or it may never be expressed. For example, a person is not born with the knowledge of the colour red, but are born with the innate ability to perceive the colour red when experiencing it for the first time

A human's innate knowledge, in other words a priori knowledge, is the end product of over 3.7 billion years of evolution, ie, Enactivism

The rational mind has grown out of the world, and is therefore not something separate to it.

You've been giving me some clear and meaningful answers. I appreciate your candor. Your thinking on these issues is helping me with my thinking about same.

I don't use the word soul or any substitute for it. It's a non starter for me, a poetic or historical term — Tom Storm

Okay. For you soul has no practical use or, at least, no practical use within scientific or philosophical contexts.

A soul is an imperishable essence, so it has no role I can think of in fragility or frailty. — Tom Storm

I think the word human is a synonym for frailty - but also for resilience. — Tom Storm

Given your above understandings, is it reasonable to conclude they suggest you might regard the pairing: human soul as being a contradiction, an oxymoron?

If a friend active within an intersubjective community to which you also belong should happen to say "Intersubjective agreement is the soul of worthy codes of conduct." would you find such usage acceptable? — ucarr

I would say, what do you mean? Perhaps what is intended in that sentence is: 'Intersubjective agreement is the substance of all codes of conduct.' — Tom Storm

Okay. If another person uses soul to mean {something ≠ human soul}, but instead something like substance, would find such usage tolerable?

A soul is an imperishable essence... — Tom Storm

Regarding essence, I understand the word as having two main attributes: a) unavoidable; b) invariant. What do you say?

If you were tasked with putting words to such a cry for help, what words would you use? — ucarr

What is the meaning of existence? How did I get here? How should I act?

I think questions arise at least partly through discontent. Would we have any progress scientific artistic or otherwise if people were content?

I think the idea that science adequately explains things is probably an illusion or complacency in the same way some religious people believe there religion is the only guide needed for Life. (I know these Christians and the bible is their first and last resource.

Various scientists throughout history have predicted the end of scientific enquiry and been proved wrong.

"In 1897, the physicist William Thomson, Lord Kelvin : "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." This was prior to the discoveries of quantum physics

I can cite various other scientists over confident at the explanatory reach of their current knowledge base.

Camus said: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide"

I agree with this to some extent. We could easily come to the conclusion life is not worth living like hundreds of thousands of people do each year. Science cannot convince us life is meaningful and seems to be trying to do the reverse recently.

Life only appears to have any value subjectively through the individual aspiration.

I think questions arise at least partly through discontent. Would we have any progress scientific artistic or otherwise if people were content? — Andrew4Handel

I think part of the irony of success is how it breeds discontent.

After success, the terrifying question looms: "Now what?" The terror in living is how it is an unspooling skein of "Now whats?"

I think the idea that science adequately explains things is probably an illusion or complacency in the same way some religious people believe there religion is the only guide needed for Life. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. We need each other. However, counterbalance, equilibrium and detente are difficult. They require skill of negotiation and compromise.

Camus said: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide" — Andrew4Handel

Philosophy at its core, one might argue, concerns wisdom about living the good life. If suicide per Camus is the philosophical problem, then his character bore the stamp of deepest skepticism.

As regards the Venn Diagram, the mind doesn't overlap with the world, the mind is part of the world. — RussellA

Are you telling me mind is a discrete unit within a system we call world?

...forces are mindless, although not random. — RussellA

This is a good and important clarification.

I don't believe in spontaneous self-causation, — RussellA

Is this a way of saying, in part, every existing thing has an antecedent?

I believe that every effect has a cause and the world is deterministic. — RussellA

Is this a way of saying every state of a system, say nature for example, is inevitable? Moreover, does this allow us to say that if we had unlimited powers re: analysis of the true causes of events, no matter how complex, we'd eliminate the future in the sense that we'd always know every possible state of a system?

Randomness is a human concept for events that are too complex for us to analyze what is happening, a system may be chaotic but it is still deterministic, whereby effects are preceded by causes. — RussellA

Is apparent randomness the loose cannon in the perennial debate {free will vs. pre-determination}? Per your above statement, can you answer the following question: if appearance of randomness can be conquered, will the debate be resolved in favor of pre-determination?

Is it your belief the world caused you? — ucarr

Yes. The age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years and it is believed that 4.3 billion years ago the Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. — RussellA

Some will say a concomitant of your above quote is an embrace of the notion life can arise from non-life. Do you embrace this notion?

Your rational mind, however, operates independently of mindless external world, creating knowledge of sense impressions a priori. — ucarr

Not really. Innatism is the doctrine that the mind is born with ideas, knowledge and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, Empiricism, is that the mind is a blank slate at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses. — RussellA

...innate knowledge does not mean that the person has been born with such knowledge, just that such knowledge wasn't expressed. Innate knowledge requires experiences to be triggered or it may never be expressed. For example, a person is not born with the knowledge of the colour red, but are born with the innate ability to perceive the colour red when experiencing it for the first time — RussellA

A human's innate knowledge, in other words a priori knowledge, is the end product of over 3.7 billion years of evolution, ie, Enactivism

The rational mind has grown out of the world, and is therefore not something separate to it. — RussellA

In the above statements I perceive you to be telling me innate knowledge is a kind of genetic predisposition for knowing certain things. It is a kind of seed of consciousness genetically embedded within the brain. Certain specific empirical experiences, acting like water and sunshine, cause the seed of consciousness to sprout into practicable knowledge.

Do you find my assessment acceptable?

For example, a person is not born with the knowledge of the colour red, but are born with the innate ability to perceive the colour red when experiencing it for the first time — RussellA

Optional Question -- Since the below question concerns a complex subject that needs its own separate treatment, you may not want to answer it.

Once the person has the empirical experience of seeing the colour red and she remembers it, and, on top of this remembrance, develops additional impressions and, on top of these, develops additional evaluative and judgmental thoughts, her mind is now operating independent of external world?

This personal POV of an enduring self, WRT the logical determinism of science, as you probably know, now carries the label: The Hard Problem (of neuro-science).

Do you have anything to say about this?

Another puzzle, perhaps overriding all of these, is why it is believed that humans will ever be capable of solving these puzzles. — RussellA

Another puzzle, perhaps overriding the above, is that humans forget that they create these puzzles themselves and then try to solve them as if they exist in their own, independently of them.

Okay. For you soul has no practical use or, at least, no practical use within scientific or philosophical contexts.

A soul is an imperishable essence, so it has no role I can think of in fragility or frailty.
— Tom Storm

I think the word human is a synonym for frailty - but also for resilience.
— Tom Storm

Given your above understandings, is it reasonable to conclude they suggest you might regard the pairing: human soul as being a contradiction, an oxymoron? — ucarr

Really I just provided 'human' as part of our ongoing conversation. This is not a formulation I generally carry around with me in my thinking. As an outcome of our conversation it seemed to me that humans are pretty vulnerable - being fragile and silly animals and all that.

Being neither a scientist or a philosopher I can't comment on how useful the word soul is but it doesn't appear useful to me. If one were an ontological idealist or a practitioner of non-dual thinking, it's likely soul would also be of no use. It's a Greek/Judeo-Christian construct and limited.

Okay. If another person uses soul to mean {something ≠ human soul}, but instead something like substance, would find such usage tolerable? — ucarr

When someone uses the word soul one interprets their meaning. Generally it will be used by a Christian, so the meaning will be fairly clear. If a literary type uses the word then one will understand it as metaphor.

Philosophy (and religion) has spent a lot of time on the notion of reality as it is in itself - 'soul' is an outcome of such speculative thinking - the religious idea that the human being is in itself a soul. A soul for saving. I am not convinced that humans ever get to capital 'T' truth or access reality as it is in itself. Or if there even is an 'in itself' to find. For me all knowledge is made by humans and has limitations. 'Soul' strikes me as a poetic or aesthetic approach to the idea of being - it posits that the ground of all people is an essence of some kind which is part of the divine reality and immutable. I don't have good reasons to accept that particular narrative.

Regarding essence, I understand the word as having two main attributes: a) unavoidable; b) invariant. What do you say? — ucarr

I don't have reason to believe in this idea of essence or even understand what it means - this was just a definition some people might use. I rarely use words like 'invariant'.

Philosophy at its core, one might argue, concerns wisdom about living the good life. If suicide per Camus is the philosophical problem, then his character bore the stamp of deepest skepticism. — ucarr

Camus in Myth of Sisyphus says that few people will die for the sake a scientific truth but people will die because they judge life to not be worth living. And people will sacrifice their life for an ideology.

I don't have reason to believe in this idea of essence or even understand what it means... — Tom Storm

Okay. Essence is not one of your favorite words. Other people talk about it, but such conversations have never drawn you in.

What about essential? Do you sometimes find practical uses for this form of the word? Consider this example: The Jack London Reader: Essential Reading for Action-Adventure Enthusiasts. Is this usage something you can respect, perhaps even make occasional use of?

humans are pretty vulnerable - being fragile and silly animals and all that. — Tom Storm

For me all knowledge is made by humans and has limitations. — Tom Storm

If a sarcastic and witty friend said to you, "Foolishness, fragility and spouting off are essential parts of human nature." how would you reply?

...people will sacrifice their life for an ideology. — Andrew4Handel

Do you think this is a good thing?

Essence is not one of your favorite words. Other people talk about it, but such conversations have never drawn you in. — ucarr

It's not a matter of favorite or not. I don't recall a particular conversation about essence. As a would be existentialist in the 1980's, it came up a bit in relation to Sartre - the famous 'existence precedes essence'. It's a word people use in different ways. If someone is using it for soul it doesn't resonate particularly.

What about essential? Do you sometimes find practical uses for this form of the word? — ucarr

Not sure why we exploring words. It's essential one wears a seatbelt when driving a car. It's a word which can be used in a myriad of ways.

If a sarcastic and witty friend said to you, "Foolishness, fragility and spouting off are essential parts of human nature." how would you reply? — ucarr

If the comment interested me, I might ask why my friend felt that and listen to their reasoning. But of itself that is not a particularly interesting observation. I have no particular commitments to views on human nature and I am fairly certain I am not an essentialist.

Are you telling me mind is a discrete unit within a system we call world? — ucarr

Not really, more that the mind is an intimate part of the world, along the lines of the article Panpsychism, Panprotopsychism, and Neutral Monism by Donovan Wishon. I'm somewhere between panprotopsychism and neutral monism.

if appearance of randomness can be conquered, will the debate be resolved in favor of pre-determination? — ucarr

Yes, in principle, the future could be calculated, though the computer needed to analyse the world would probably need to be as big as the world, taking chaotic systems into account.

Some will say a concomitant of your above quote is an embrace of the notion life can arise from non-life. — ucarr

Yes. This goes back to neutral monism, which is the doctrine that both minds and physical entities are constructed from more basic elements of reality that are in themselves neither mental nor physical.

In the above statements I perceive you to be telling me innate knowledge is a kind of genetic predisposition for knowing certain things. — ucarr

Yes, exactly.

Once the person has the empirical experience of seeing the colour red and she remembers it, and, on top of this remembrance, develops additional impressions and, on top of these, develops additional evaluative and judgmental thoughts, her mind is now operating independent of external world? — ucarr

A car when driving on a road is external to the road but is still dependent upon the road.

The Hard Problem (of neuro-science). — ucarr

As regards the hard problem of consciousness, as an animal such as a cat, dog or donkey could never understand the European Commission, no matter how much it was explained to them, I don't think humans could ever understand what consciousness is. Even if a super-intelligent and super-knowledgeable alien visited Earth, and tried to explain the nature of consciousness to us, we would still be incapable of understanding. We may be able to learn more about the role of neurons in the brain, but what consciousness is would still elude us.

...people will sacrifice their life for an ideology.
— Andrew4Handel

Do you think this is a good thing? — ucarr

Why does my opinion matter? I am citing Camus on the power of ideology to motivate versus science.


I think evil is something that makes life hard to live and fighting against evil or harm may be worth sacrificing ones life. It is painful to live with injustice and flagrant greed.

Are you telling me mind is a discrete unit within a system we call world? — ucarr

Not really, more that the mind is an intimate part of the world, along the lines of the article Panpsychism, Panprotopsychism, and Neutral Monism by Donovan Wishon. I'm somewhere between panprotopsychism and neutral monism. — RussellA

Is this type of thinking non-binary WRT the physical/mental binary?

if appearance of randomness can be conquered, will the debate be resolved in favor of pre-determination? — ucarr

Yes, in principle, the future could be calculated, though the computer needed to analyse the world would probably need to be as big as the world, taking chaotic systems into account. — RussellA

Is this a way of saying an analysis of the world, as it becomes viable, merges into the world. If so, is one of the implications that analysis of world is finally just self-referential world? From this does it follow that the self-referential part of world is exampled by humans?

Some will say a concomitant of your above quote is an embrace of the notion life can arise from non-life. — ucarr

Yes. This goes back to neutral monism, which is the doctrine that both minds and physical entities are constructed from more basic elements of reality that are in themselves neither mental nor physical. — RussellA

Is it correct to say these neutral basic elements are in reality to some degree alive and that, therefore, it's meaningful to talk about degrees of aliveness? If these two things are real, then the life/non-life binary is displaced?

In the above statements I perceive you to be telling me innate knowledge is a kind of genetic predisposition for knowing certain things. — ucarr

Yes, exactly. — RussellA

Consciousness therefore has some degree of grounding in chromosomes and genes?

A car when driving on a road is external to the road but is still dependent upon the road. — RussellA

The mind_world interface is something like the intricate tessellations of an M C Escher drawing? A tile -- in this case reality -- covers a surface -- earth -- with no overlaps or gaps?

As regards the hard problem of consciousness, as an animal such as a cat, dog or donkey could never understand the European Commission, no matter how much it was explained to them, I don't think humans could ever understand what consciousness is. Even if a super-intelligent and super-knowledgeable alien visited Earth, and tried to explain the nature of consciousness to us, we would still be incapable of understanding. We may be able to learn more about the role of neurons in the brain, but what consciousness is would still elude us. — RussellA

I see your take on the problem of consciousness is that for humans the correct position is necessarily agnostic in the strict sense of knowledge-not.

Why does my opinion matter? — Andrew4Handel

I'm seeking your thoughts on self-sacrifice for sake of ideology.

I am citing Camus on the power of ideology to motivate versus science. — Andrew4Handel

Do you accept conventional wisdom that says ideology typically contains a moral component?

Furthermore, do you believe moral logic trumps scientific logic as motivator of the fight against evil?

Furthermore, do you believe moral logic trumps scientific logic as motivator of the fight against evil? — ucarr

I don't know what moral logic is. And I don't know if all ideology has a moral component.

Camus seems to just be highlighting that what motivates people is meaning rather than facts. If your meaning leads to self sacrifice it might be undesirable. However life seems to be built on sacrifices.

I am somewhat nihilistic, personally, without an ideology.

I think that death is inevitable and how you approach it may differ. A hedonist might want to make life as enjoyable as possible until its last moment regardless of morality. A transhumanist wants to extend life as long as possible
. Someone who believes in an afterlife may want to live a good life to ensure an afterlife reward or may be willing to suffer under the the belief the afterlife will be better.

Science could be used to enhance life but it has also been seen as robbing life of meaning and turning us into automatons to be manipulated. Or uncovering a lack of freewill.

In the end this is all going to be filtered through personal consciousness which I think leaves us with an existential dilemma concerning meaning making.

I don't know what moral logic is. — Andrew4Handel

No intention to convey anything fancy. I simply meant wanting to correct something believed to be immoral.

I don't know if all ideology has a moral component. — Andrew4Handel

If you'll accept a take on ideology in the sense of ideal, which is to say a principle to be aimed at, then you can see how ideology, in this sense, contains a moral component.

Camus seems to just be highlighting that what motivates people is meaning rather than facts. — Andrew4Handel

In response to your above quote I'm wondering if you're distinguishing meaning from fact by connecting the former with intentions and goal-oriented behavior.

Science could be used to enhance life but it has also been seen as robbing life of meaning and turning us into automatons to be manipulated. — Andrew4Handel

In this above quote I see a swirling complexity of thoughts including: much of the value of human life rests upon the foundation of meaning_purpose; scientific facts either erase or defeat meaning_purpose; science is sometimes weaponized against humanity in the form of dehumanizing manipulation; freewill is essential to the type of human power that leads to meaning_purpose and fulfillment.

In the end this is all going to be filtered through personal consciousness which I think leaves us with an existential dilemma concerning meaning making. — Andrew4Handel

Here I see meaning making as essential to human quality of life. If this is partly true, can you elaborate on the role and importance of meaning making and also upon its existential dilemma?

I have no particular commitments to views on human nature and I am fairly certain I am not an essentialist. — Tom Storm

If you have some sympathy for non-essentialism, can you assess nihilism and the range of possible identities it affords humans? Being ridiculous for a moment, let me assert humans cannot become cats.

If you have some sympathy for non-essentialism, can you assess nihilism and the range of possible identities it affords humans? — ucarr

I suspect nihilism is impossible. People always believe in something. But as an academic exercise - or a position we might claim to hold - nihilism can take many forms; it can be cheerful and buoyant, or despairing and suicidal.

Being ridiculous for a moment, let me assert humans cannot become cats. — ucarr

Sure. And cats can't become humans. I have no problem with definitions and classifications. The issue is how far can you push these to arrive at intrinsic qualities. It's these I am skeptical about. But I am not a philosopher or scientist, so I can't say I'm an anti-essentialist, I'm just an interested onlooker with a skeptical eye.

Are you an essentialist? A theist? And why?

I have no problem with definitions and classifications. The issue is how far can you push these to arrive at intrinsic qualities. It's these I am skeptical about. — Tom Storm

Thanks for this. It's a clarification useful to my understanding.

Are you an essentialist? A theist? And why? — Tom Storm

I'm not an essentialist. I just learned of its existence through my dialog with you, so I haven't committed to it. However, I do find it interesting and I can see, in a tentative way, how it is useful as an educational tool. If one assumes humans are alike essentially, an efficient curriculum can be established. As you say, however, it's not wise to go too far in making all humans the same.

I was brought up in the traditional Christian Church. Also, I've been best aided with some of my biggest problems in life by Christians. I'm in no hurry to kick them and their beliefs to the curb.

Having said that, I must now confess that as I gain understanding of atheism -- and a lot of other isms -- I'm delving deeper into the need to think over Christianity closely. Thinking over Christianity closely seems to be my main motivation for coming to this website.

I could never solve puzzles, even the simplest ones stump me.

Thank you. It's been an interesting discussion. I try to keep my atheism as polite and respectful as I can. I think of it more as a case of my not having a sensus divinitatis (to borrow from Calvin). Reasons and inferences come later. I have good Christian friends (who are not dogmatic and very self-critical). Much of my criticism of Christianity comes from Christians like Bishop John Shelby Spong - rather than the Dawkins route. I have a theory that in many (but not all) instances, the more you delve into anything, the more it can seem reasonable - whether it be Islam or existentialism. Once you get to know the conceptual framework and the nomenclature, it is easy to be seduced by worldviews, especially if a few key ideas already align with some of your encultured views and preferences.

I have a theory that in many (but not all) instances, the more you delve into anything, the more it can seem reasonable - whether it be Islam or existentialism. Once you get to know the conceptual framework and the nomenclature, it is easy to be seduced by worldviews, especially if a few key ideas already align with some of your encultured views and preferences. — Tom Storm

I agree with this.

Is this type of thinking non-binary WRT the physical/mental binary? — ucarr

In the world are elementary particles, such as electrons, and elementary forces, such as the gravitational force. My consciousness doesn't exist independently of these elementary particles and forces that make up my body, but has emerged from them, in that if my body moves from the kitchen to the living room, my consciousness doesn't stay in the kitchen.

So, my consciousness is inextricably linked with the elementary particles and forces that make up my body. Either consciousness is external to these elementary particles and forces and is somehow attached to them, as a label is attached to a bunch of fruit, or consciousness is part inherent within these elementary particles and forces, as an apple is part of the tree from which it grows.

If consciousness is an inherent part of these elementary particles and forces, then this suggests neutral monism, in that that both minds and physical entities are constructed from more basic elements of reality that are in themselves neither mental nor physical. If consciousness is external to these elementary particles and forces, either consciousness has existed at least as long as these elementary particles and forces or consciousness came into existence at a later date.

If consciousness has existed at least as long as these elementary particles and forces, yet is external but still attached, this again suggests neutral monism.

If consciousness came into existence at a later date, we have the problem of explaining how something can come from nothing. As I personally don't believe in spontaneous self-causation, I don't accept this as a possibility.

That leaves, for me, neutral monism as the best explanation.

Is this a way of saying an analysis of the world, as it becomes viable, merges into the world. If so, is one of the implications that analysis of world is finally just self-referential world? From this does it follow that the self-referential part of world is exampled by humans? — ucarr

Even though the world may be deterministic, the Butterfly effect shows that the world is too complex to be able to predict in the long term, even by Laplace's Demon, in that a minute localized change in a complex system can have large effects elsewhere.

Perhaps because of the chaotic complexity of the world, only a computer the size of the world could undertake any such calculation. As Douglas Adams wrote in The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "In their travels, Arthur comes to learn that the Earth was actually a giant supercomputer, created by another supercomputer, Deep Thought. Deep Thought had been built by its creators to give the answer to the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", which, after aeons of calculations, was given simply as "42". Deep Thought was then instructed to design the Earth supercomputer to determine what the Question actually is".

I don't know what you mean by self-referential.

Is it correct to say these neutral basic elements are in reality to some degree alive and that, therefore, it's meaningful to talk about degrees of aliveness? — ucarr

That seems to be the position of panpsychism, whereby the mind is a fundamental and pervasive feature of the universe.

However, panprotopsychism seems more sensible, whereby fundamental physical entities, while not themselves minded, have special features that give rise to conscious minds when they are arranged into a sufficiently complex physical system. The mind emerges from these fundamental physical entities under certain, and mysterious, circumstances. It would be strange to think that the food we eat, that eventually makes up the physical structure of our our bodies had to be alive in order for us to be alive.

Consciousness therefore has some degree of grounding in chromosomes and genes? — ucarr

Yes, in that as consciousness is grounded in chromosomes and genes , these are in turn grounded in elementary particles and forces.

The mind_world interface is something like the intricate tessellations of an M C Escher drawing? A tile -- in this case reality -- covers a surface -- earth -- with no overlaps or gaps? — ucarr

Perhaps the mind is like a wave on an ocean, where the ocean is the world.

I see your take on the problem of consciousness is that for humans the correct position is necessarily agnostic in the strict sense of knowledge-not. — ucarr

More a "theist" as regards a belief in consciousness, in that I know that consciousness exists, but I don't know what it is.

Talking about the secular approach to life, I found Sean Carroll's The Big Picture: From the Big Bang to the Meaning of Life informative.

On the one hand, as astrobiologist Michael Russell says, the purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide in order to increase the entropy in the universe. But on the other hand, Sean Carroll introduces the concept of Poetic Naturalism, whereby we can accept both the microscopic world of elementary particles, forces and space-time and the macroscopic world of apples, causation, purpose and the arrow of time as long as we change our frame of reference. By changing our frame of reference we can accept both a deterministic world and a world of purpose, reason and what is ethically right or wrong.