I have tried to explore the problem of life from different angles through these dialogues. The result is a chain of interlinked ideas. Here are the major themes of my argument:
Life remains a mystery. Science has done a great job about the mechanism of life while purpose and meaning questions are considered outside its scope. I will argue this is a mistake. Where else do we turn for answers? All answers should ultimately come from science, or more exactly ‘natural philosophy’ as it was known before 16th century.
Any potential solution to the problem of life must consider evolution of life, reality of phenomenal consciousness and comprehensibility of the universe to human mind as foundational. Why is man, evolved through natural selection from a collection of organic molecules, able to comprehend the secrets of the universe? Why is phenomenal consciousness invisible to science? It is proposed to investigate this puzzle through an enquiry into the nature of objective knowledge.
We use ‘mind’ to acquire knowledge. But what exactly are minds? Careful investigation of the human brain reveals a complex network of neurons but no special stuff called ‘mind’. Science’s attempts to explain consciousness raises the difficulty to another level. Mind and consciousness are mysterious entities, impossible to measure for scientific investigation. I will argue we should find a way to enquire in to the nature of knowledge without referring to fuzzy concepts such as mind or consciousness.
‘Knowing’ could be seen as a function similar to vision. History of knowledge in evolution offers an objective means of studying the origin and development of objectivity itself. An evolutionary function, ‘knower’, is introduced as a pragmatic step to explain knowledge acquisition. Knower is a black box with well-defined input and output.
Black box approach is extended to explore the dynamics of subject-object interaction. Knower is a very recent entry in the history of evolution. Meta-cognition or self-awareness in human species was the trigger for knower evolution. This uniquely human function is argued to have deep roots going all the way back to a primitive subjectivity in nature.
Relationship between knower and its source is characterized by fear and distrust. The black box model helps to explain the reason for knower’s alienation from nature.
The self-concept ‘I’ is knower’s representation of itself. Knower has taken control of the conglomeration of entities usually referred to as ‘body’ & ‘mind’ and claims everything as its possession. Man cannot live in harmony with rest of nature because of the extremely skewed nature of knower’s dominance.
Evolutionary history of the knower is explored. A variety of ‘tools of comprehension’ emerged in the course of life’s evolution. The idea of ‘comprehension’ must be broadened to include the whole evolutionary history. ‘Knowledge’ should be considered as a spectrum, ranging from entirely private experiential knowledge to unambiguous objective knowledge as in science.
Science is the latest addition to the spectrum of knowledge. It is the knower’s interpretation of reality. Scientific knowledge is reliable but shallow in the sense it doesn’t encompass the whole spectrum of comprehension.
Re-imagining mind and matter as two distinct substances was necessary for scientific progress, but the assumptions that went into mind-matter separation were conveniently overlooked as science progressed, thereby destroying the self-consistency of materialist world view. A study of the evolutionary history of knower and its relationship with rest of nature holds the key to integrating objective and subjective interpretations of reality.
Biology is truly unique among the branches of modern science because the knower is attempting to study its own history. Boundary between observer and observed becomes a minefield of ambiguities. Facts of biology are important, but a meaningful and complete solution to the problem of life requires more than scientific objectivity.
Evolution powered by natural selection is not an adequate explanation for life because phenomenal consciousness is ignored by the rules of the game. Darwinian ‘struggle for survival’ could be seen as the ‘struggle to experience’. Physical survival is a means of prolonging experience, not an end in itself.
We do not know enough about ‘matter’ to formulate a theory of life including its subjective features. That doesn’t mean bringing back the supernatural as an explanatory mechanism. There can be an entirely natural explanation if we realize reality is more than the sum of its objective representations.
What is the stuff of the universe? How is matter and mind related? These questions are explored by accepting evolution of knower as fundamental. The world of ‘things’ is a human construct. Matter and mind are two aspects of the fundamental substance as seen by the knower. Neither of them cause, nor is caused by, the other. Reality is unknowable beyond what is perceived as matter and mind.
Creative Evolution and the Comprehensibility puzzle
The unknowable nature-in-itself is animated by its own creativity, a fragment of which manifests as our own mind. Comprehensibility turn out to be a trivial fact like all natural numbers being divisible by the unit number. Creative behaviour of the unknowable whole appears to us as patterns. Regularity of material interactions as well as meaning and purpose in human experience are attributable to this fundamental creative instinct.
Religious thinking: Origin of the supernatural
Religions are the knower’s interpretation of its own past, seen through the whole spectrum of comprehension. Distant memories of a billion year long journey, from primeval mud ponds to self-aware existence, bubbles up from its forgotten past. Religious thinking attempts to capture ‘creative evolution of nature-in-itself’ in colourful imageries.
Christian faith is used as an example to explore how religious thinking represents man’s evolutionary history. Christian faith is primarily about the evolution of rational self, its differentiation and possible re-integration with rest of nature. How can polar opposites rational self and the unknowable nature-in-itself co-exist? This puzzle has only one solution: rational-self need to serve its master, a deeper creative wisdom inherent in nature.
Human race is inflicting irreparable damage to nature. Evolution of man could be interpreted as a mistake, but I believe we have reason to be optimistic.
Nature has given birth to a new form of life with the arrival of meta-cognitive humans. Imagine a mother giving birth to her child. A micro-organism with five-minute lifespan, thriving in a damp corner of the maternity ward, might interpret childbirth as a story of bloodshed and endless suffering. It all depends on the perspective. History of man must be seen in the context of cosmic evolution to understand its significance. Human perspective is distorted by spatial and temporal limitations of our tiny existence in the vastness of space and time. We are locked into this eternal struggle with the ‘other’ by falsely identifying ourselves with a fragment of our true being.
The purpose of human life is to heal the divide by deciphering the reason behind this division and participate in the cosmic dance of creative becoming. Understanding the problem of life through natural philosophy itself becomes the solution.
Mind, Evolution and Meaning 
When you say that “Knower is a very recent entry in the history of evolution. Meta-cognition or self-awareness in human species was the trigger for knower evolution,” my thoughts turn to the animal world. We would usually say without hesitation that a fox knows where its den is. We would probably agree with the proposition that it knows what a rabbit is, or that a rabbit is hard to catch but good to eat. Can we consider a fox to be an example of a “knower”, or do you reserve the term “knower” for humans?
The word ‘knowledge’ has multiple meanings. ‘A fox knowing its den’ attaches a different meaning to ‘know’ compared to a ‘scientist knowing the structure of matter’. I used the term to mean objective knowledge, as in science, where the knowledge can be represented unambiguously. ‘Knower’ is the function responsible for generating such knowledge, therefore applicable only to humans.
That doesn’t mean other types of knowledge are ignored. The idea is to begin with more tractable type, hoping this will lead to understanding other kinds of knowledge better. ‘Knower’ must have had a history, and it leads to the idea of a ‘spectrum of knowledge’ in evolution, objective knowledge being the latest addition to this spectrum. A fox knowing its den is using some pre-human mode of knowing and I believe we can understand it better if we begin with the analysis of our own unambiguous ‘knower’ function.