Question: Why do you think there is an unsolved ‘problem of life’ over and above what science tell us about life?
Answer: A complete theory of life must include an explanation for phenomenal consciousness. Science has come up with partial solutions and these are indeed useful. But a logically coherent and experientially meaningful solution is still lacking.
Q: Where do you begin? What are the foundational facts to begin exploring the problem of life?
A: Evolution, Consciousness and Comprehensibility are foundational. We will attempt to explore the problem of life from different angles accepting evolution of life, reality of phenomenal consciousness and comprehensibility of the universe to human mind as undeniable.
Q: Hm… you are declaring phenomenal consciousness as real. That looks like an arbitrary statement. What evidence do you have to support this claim?
A: Science has so far failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for subjectivity. Perhaps we should take a different approach and ask ‘is there a reason why science has failed to explain phenomenal consciousness?’.
Q: I agree we don’t have the right theory of consciousness yet. But shouldn’t that be a ‘problem of consciousness’ rather than ‘problem of life’?
A: Consciousness appears as a mystery because we start with wrong assumptions about the nature of life. A theory of consciousness must begin with its evolutionary nature and we don’t understand evolution yet.
Q: We have a scientific theory that explains evolution of life from molecules to man. Not all of life’s complex processes are well understood, but we do understand the nature of life much better compared to what people believed in the past. It is a work in progress where we continuously add to our collective knowledge.
A: Well, this is what most people believe. While there is some truth in this view of history, I think it is fundamentally flawed. Our understanding of life hasn’t progressed much in the past 2000 years.
Q: That is a ridiculous claim!
A: Problem of life has two parts. Explaining the mechanism of life’s processes and addressing questions of meaning and purpose. Science is doing its job pretty well explaining the mechanism of life. That is decades of hard work from many brilliant scientists. But the equally important questions of meaning and purpose are completely ignored.
Q: Isn’t it is unfair to expect life scientists to answer questions about meaning and purpose?
A: How do we approach such questions if not through science? Religion and Philosophy dealt with life’s meaning and purpose in the past but the scientific view of life has made religion and moral philosophy largely irrelevant.
Q: Are you suggesting science of life should ultimately answer questions of meaning and purpose?
A: I am suggesting philosophy of science must explain why questions of meaning and purpose are outside science’s purview. It is not the same as ignoring or explaining away such questions. A logical explanation why science cannot answer these questions will be a pointer to its solution.
Q: Science can only be silent on such questions. But I get your point. These are important questions for the society to function effectively. What will be your approach?
A: Let us explore. First of all, do you agree the problem of life has two parts?
Q: That is one way to see it. Complex problems need to be broken down into parts. Life, as an extremely complex problem, includes several sub problems. The fact that human beings look for meaning in life cannot be ignored.
A: I have grouped the sub-problems into two categories. Those related to the mechanism of life and those related to meaning and purpose.
Q: It could be argued that a complete understanding of the mechanism will eventually answer all other questions, including those you call ‘meaning and purpose questions’.
A: This is where I would disagree. A mechanistic theory of life would only lead to explaining away all other questions.
Q: I don’t wish to speculate. But why do you assume a complete understanding of the processes that make up life would be still incomplete?
A: We should go into the history of science and the nature of objective knowledge to answer that question. Following sections will address these topics.
Q: Ok, I am prepared to wait. But why not trust in scientific method and wait for life scientists to do their job? After all, it is not reasonable to expect every part of a complex problem to be solved at the same time.
A: That is correct. Patience would be a perfectly natural response if we all live for a million years. Unfortunately average human life span is only about 70 years.
Q: Why is that relevant to this discussion?
A: Because I will be experiencing this reality and asking these questions for such an insignificant duration. The universe will continue for billions of years, but I am not going to come back ever again. This 70 odd years is my only chance to make sense of what I experience.
Q: Well, why do you think your existence as an individual is so important?
A: It is not about me as an individual. It is true for every person, you, me or the woman walking down the street. Each of us will be gone after our brief appearance, never to return. My conscious existence is a unique event in the whole history of the universe!
Q: It sounds terrible when you put it that way, but I suspect you are taking yourself too seriously!
A: Universe will continue after I am gone. What exactly does it mean? It is easy to trivialize my concern by assuming an objective point of view. But how does it make sense to me as a conscious being? I am not getting another chance to fathom these mysteries ever again. This brief life is my only chance! There is no evidence for re-birth or eternal life. I will be returning to dust after my time. How do I make sense of my fleeting conscious existence in an indifferent universe? This is the ‘problem of life’ I attempt to explore in these dialogues.
Q: It is important for every individual to ask these questions. But why don’t we keep faith in science? It may take several centuries perhaps, but science will eventually find all the answers. Surely we have made a good start and moving in the right direction?
A: It is not that simple. I don’t think we are on the right track. We might realize our error sometime in the future, but that might be too late.
Q: Why do you think science of life is not on the right track?
A: Science’s failure to account for phenomenal consciousness could mean three things: (1) Phenomenal consciousness is an illusion (2) Science need more time to crack this mystery, or (3) Scientific method is inadequate to explain consciousness.
‘Phenomenal consciousness is an illusion’ is ruled out because it would lead to invalidating science itself as we see later. Argument for more time is not acceptable because this failure can be shown to be due to method rather than time or resources. That would leave us with the third option: scientific method is inadequate to deal with consciousness.
Q: Your conclusion appears arbitrary. I do not understand why you blame scientific method.
A: I am not blaming scientific method. Real problem is the belief that science can answer every question about natural phenomena. This is incorrect and we should go back to the beginning of modern science to understand why. The key is to study the process of generating objective knowledge. This is what we will be attempting in the next section.
Mind, Evolution and Meaning 
Have you read Kevin J. Mitchell’s book Free Agents: How Evolution Gave us Free Will? Mitchell is a neuroscientist who takes meaning and purpose seriously. He argues that natural selection teaches us to create meaning as an advanced way to make sense of the world, predict events, and develop frameworks for responding to events. He has a lot to say about how natural selection, operating within the framework of physical existence, leads to the development of free agency and consciousness. You might find it interesting if you haven’t read him already.
Thank you. I haven’t read Free Agents, will be adding this to my reading list.
I tend to think ‘experience’ rather than ‘physical persistence’ is foundational to understand meaning and purpose questions. Living things struggle to survive. But is there any value in survival without the ability to experience? What if the ‘struggle for survival’ seen by biologists is in fact the ‘struggle to continue experiencing’? It appears to be the case at least for human beings.
Very interesting. Yes, the ‘struggle to experience’ is something I have considered in the context of cosmological evolution. Is there a reason why the universe is engineered in such a way that the microscopic world of quantum fields produces and reproduces the macroscopic world in a continual process of quantum evolution? And is there a reason why that process incorporates a fundamental element of probability and randomness? My own speculation is that the universe may be engineered to construct the future in a process of probabilistic becoming, which could be similar to what you describe as a ‘struggle to experience’.