But that is not the question I’m asking. Instead, I would like to know about wat lies at the bottom of all of these various motivations, for even if we consider something as basic as the need to survive as a primary motivator to affect our actions, it is not clear what that encompasses beyond saying that the need or will to survive and thrive is a basic feature of all living organisms.

When the organic rose from the inorganic, it was more than an advanced arrangement of organic molecules that came about when life made its presence, as eventually, when we came about via the subsequent phylogenetic tree, that jump from the inanimate to the animate introduced and enabled the prime motivator for all our actions.

Now we cannot infer a cause from an effect, but it would be logical to assume that the seed of this process – and the entire evolutionary history of living matter – must have been present prior to the emergence of life. As well – and unless you believe that there are such things as magical metaphysical beings waving a magic wand on occasion – whatever gets and keeps us going is an expression of what must have been determined when the world came into being and forms an intrinsic aspect of the very reason it and all of us are here.

Another way of putting this would be to say that we are an instantiation of the very reason the world is here: we cannot  be separated from that reason, no more than we can be separated from the world that brought us about.

And so the following question should loom large for all of us: where are we going with this process – if that is the right word for it?  What – in fact – are we surviving for after all that effort to bring us about?  When I ask a question like this, I am once again reminded of Shakespeare’s “ Life’s but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The thing is, this “nothing” might not seem that much of an issue if everyone was having a good time with it – something along the lines of Goethe’s “For what end is served by all the expenditure of suns and planets and moons, of stars and Milky Ways … if at last a happy man does not involuntarily rejoice in his existence?”

However, it is abundantly clear that – since the beginning of time  – not much rejoicing has been  going on for too many people unable to escape varying degrees of pain and suffering, and frequently  during an  entire lifetime and through no fault of their own, to the point that a philosopher such as David Benatar believes that the world would be a better place if sentient life disappeared altogether, i.e., no remaining life-form capable of undergoing pain or suffering. (But then there is a Nietzsche who believes there is value in suffering: “To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering”, but I guess opinions will vary greatly on that matter.)

So where am I going with this? Nowhere in particular other than to say that we have to keep believing that – while it does appear that humanity appears to be an exercise in futility and despite our apparent efforts to bring about our own extinction – we have it within us to make it a meaningful enterprise if only we started acting on that assumption by valuing the sanctity of life – the cosmos’ greatest accomplishment – and do everything in our power to nourish and protect it.

In return, the world, this planet, will allow us and our future generations to flourish into a future we cannot even begin to imagine what that might look like.  I’m thinking about the absolute and worldwide absence of poverty, starvation, exploitation, slavery, discrimination and war and, instead, communities centred on such higher human values as compassion, empathy and mutual respect. All reasons – I might add – to celebrate life as opposed to having to endure it, as is the case for so many of us across this earth today.

And so it is my belief – as naive as that might be – that the answer to the question as what to what drives us ultimately from within is to get to that state, when the very fact of finding oneself  alive on this planet is a reason to celebrate.  It would mean that individually as well as collectively, as a species, we have overcome all the negative and self-induced aspects of  our existence that stood in the way of getting to that point, i.e, all the deception, delusion, dishonesty, ego, envy, greed, hatred, immorality, lying, selfishness, unreliability, violence and whatever other self-destructive tendencies that prevented us from living in harmony with ourselves, our fellow human beings and the earth.  It means that we will have found the true value of life, at the summit of creation and at the core of the cosmos,  and  – I suggest – the very reason the world is here today.

Never in a million years you might say? And didn’t I write a post not all that long ago that suggested that we were a defective species and that the planet would likely get rid of us if we didn’t  already manage that ourselves?  True enough, the situation seems absolutely hopeless as we continue to witness the tragedy and ongoing plight of millions of refugees fleeing their homelands across the various continents because of poverty and starvation, ethnic , religious or political conflict, including such recent and outright criminal acts as the  bombing of civilian targets in Ukraine by a member of the United Nations Security council.

But then you witness something positive, such as a simple act of compassion, kindness and generosity,  or when others rush in to help save lives in the case of natural disasters, even when they might be putting their own lives at risk. Then,  the mere fact of a child’s smile , or people genuinely enjoying themselves being out in nature experiencing  its spectacular beauty, all  suggesting that, yes, many of us are getting the message, and that in spite of all the largely self-induced misery, murder and mayhem around us the human race deserves saving, But then there is the  realization that we can only save ourselves.

For this to happen we must first overcome our current confused and scattered selves by redefining ourselves as the creature that we are from ourselves: Others cannot tell you who or what you are, or what your existence should mean to you. Only you can determine what you can be for yourself, as opposed to what others want you to be. And to repeat something from the very first post I made on this blog:

For this you must look at yourself not through the eyes of others, but from yourself, from the inside out – from within the acute reality of your own cognitive and spiritual existence. But this is no easy task – it means assuming responsibility for all your actions as you attempt to recreate yourself from the subjective contents of your stream of consciousness. It will require courage – the courage to re-invent oneself without being plugged into a god, a scientific assumption or the beliefs of society at large for confirmation that you are doing the right thing.

Grunts and gestures became gradually more nuanced and specific, and refined to the point that they were reliably and consistently linked  to the content of  shared experiences and so form the basis for a unique form of communication that we now refer to as language.

Most importantly,  the introduction of language enabled our species to create an abstract version of the world, and what Schopenhauer has referred to as “The World as Idea”.  As a result, the  natural world as encountered by our sensory experiences of it would now no longer just be “there” –  as  would be the case for any other living creature that is immersed in it – but also as a conceptual model for discussion and analysis by means of  linguistic symbols that stand for some aspect of it,  and which together constitute the world as it exists in our thoughts and understanding.

But as much as language allows us to analyze that conceptual world in whatever shared framework of understanding we  bring to the discussion, e.g., cultural, scientific, metaphysical,  philosophical, l at the same time we are very much limited by the fact that the natural world is clearly so much more than what we have been able to capture of it by having a vocabulary to describe it in as much detail as we are able to bring to the fore.

And for any description we have of the world – as complete we would like it to be – it would be a matter of trying to read between the lines what it is, exactly,  that lies behind the idea of it, i.e., what is the intent of the natural world, as well as what role we are supposed to play in this cosmic event and why.

Science tells us that Homo sapiens, the first modern humans, evolved from their early hominid predecessors between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago and began moving outside of Africa starting about 70,000-100,000 years ago.

And so I have this simple question: Preceded by Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, do we have any reason to believe that we, Homo sapiens, are the end of the line when it comes to the evolution of the humanoid  species?

To answer this in the affirmative is a little presumptuous, don’t you think? I can only speak for myself when I say that I don’t believe we are the finished product that evolution had intended us to be – and not by a long shot – and that it is entirely conceivable  that we will be superseded by a superior edition of Homo sapiens . And they might well look back at the current edition of the species as Homo ignoramus or perhaps Homo perniciosus – given the amount of planet-wide environmental destruction our iteration of the humanoid  species  is leaving in its wake.

“I wish that I could say I was optimistic about the human race. I love us all, but we are so stupid and shortsighted that I wonder if we can lift our eyes to the world about us long enough not to commit suicide. (Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992)”

Lets face it: we can’t help ourselves, collectively, as a species. When I say “defective” I mean to say exactly that, in that we appear to be unable to do what should come naturally, easily and fruitfully should we apply ourselves to our vast potential as an intelligent, innovative and creative species with the realization that it is absolutely essential that we live and work together as one, in harmony with each other to the benefit of everyone without exception.

Instead, we compete, we fight, we destroy – each other and the place that nurtures us – without regard for a future  that we must necessarily share together.  But no one should be that shortsighted, that thoughtless, that self-destructive,  or, simply put:  that stupid!

And have we not all been hewn from the same piece of rock – this planet, this earth, so why are we fighting each other? When we fight each other, we are fighting ourselves. What is the origin of the conflicts within us?

It seems such a simple choice to make, doesn’t it:  working out differences through negotiating solutions peacefully, with the understanding that these must always a matter of give and take. This as oppose to getting your way to the detriment of others, even going as far as the wholesale slaughter of those who are absolutely helpless to do anything about it. History shows that time and time again we haven’t been able to make the right choice in such matters.

And so here we are, seemingly helpless  to get our act together.   No, God won’t help us all; no figment of our imagination can be conjured up to protect us from ourselves. In the end, we are the only ones that can  help ourselves.  But the whole of our history tells it all, and sadly the conclusion has to be: we are a defective species, akin to a rudderless ship about to wreck itself on the shores of ignorance, arrogance and self-deception.

I can’t imagine that this is what the cosmos had in mind when it brought us about, and my guess is that it will likely do away with us – or, more likely, allow us to do away with ourselves – before giving it another try:  to evolve a creature worthy and able  to  make use of the incredible creative powers that have been instantiated by it to achieve its raison d’etre, whatever that might be.  All I know  is that we are definitely not that creature.

 Accepting the absurdity of everything around us is one step, a necessary experience: it should not become a dead end.

When I read this the first time  I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it, i.e.,  I was unable to identify with “the absurdity of everything all around us”. Most of the things going around me seemed to make reasonably good sense most of the time and if there was something going on  I didn’t quite understand I was quite confident that it made sense  to someone else.

However, over the years I have come to the realization that this is all a matter of one’s point of view, and that – yes – life, existence,  appears to make little sense  when you take a step back and consider the human effort as a whole, including its history, when seen from the  vastness and complexity of a seemingly infinite material universe.   And as it has been said, the universe remains absolutely silent on these matters: it fails to provide the very  reasons  for  its existence and everything that can be found in it, including our lives.

By way of a simple analogy, accepting this is a lot like waking up one day and discovering that you are travelling on a train with an unknown destination and having absolutely no prior knowledge from where it departed from or how you ended up being on board. With little choice other than accepting the fact of the matter your options are going to be limited in terms of what to make of it.

When I  write this I am once again reminded of Kafka’s short story The Passenger that I have written about elsewhere, about being confronted by an existential disconnect, the acute realization that the immediacy of the moment  is unable to account for whatever situation you find yourself caught up in, e.g., what am I doing here, or: why am I here at all?

It is in this context – or more likely in the absence of any kind of context that would be able to account for it – and what I have frequently  referred to as “the greater context”  that some have deemed life or existence an absurdity, and a seemingly meaningless exercise that appears to have no particular purpose beyond being there for its own sake.

However, it is once thing to conclude this about life, but  – as Camus suggested –  this should not be an end in itself. To contemplate one’s existence this way would be very much  like staring down into the void – the realm of infinite nothingness. And to  paraphrase something Nietzsche once said: if you stare into the void long enough, the void will look back at you, i.e., it will vacuum out your soul, and you might as well end it all right then and there.

Interestingly, to consider suicide as an option is according the Camus the one truly serious philosophical problem we face in life: Judging whether life is or is not worth living.  But while this might be an interesting question for philosophers, one doesn’t need to be  overly presumptuous for suggesting that the vast majority of people do not consider their existence a waste of time, and an absurdity which must be  endured one way or another. Instead, they experience life as meaningful given that meaning is always relative and a function of what one is experiencing within the context of the here and now. Even in the darkest of times it is within the human spirit to try to make sense or look for meaning in what one is experiencing at the moment.  “Hope springs eternal in the human breast” as Alexander Pope once said.

The bottom line is that we remain challenged to provide  the meaning of life   beyond the immediacy of finding ourselves immersed in it. As to the suggestion that there is no meaning beyond it was a consideration for Austrian psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl  who suggested that “Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked.” And that “In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.”

Finally, I believe that – as a species – we are initially prevented from looking beyond the immediate substance of our lives and seeing the apparent absurdity of it, as we remain preoccupied by the trivial and perhaps not so trivial. But that doesn’t mean that we are unable to encounter it and  be challenged by it as a means to gain a greater understanding of the predicament we find ourselves in, e.g., why is it that we are here and what is it, exactly, that is expected of us?

 I am standing on the platform of the tram and I am entirely uncertain as to my place in this world, in this town, in my family. Not even approximately could I state what claims I might justifiably advance in any direction. I am quite unable to defend the fact that I am standing on this platform, holding this strap, letting myself be carried along by this tram, and that people are getting out of the tram’s way or walking along quietly or pausing in front of the shop windows. Not that anyone asks me to, but that is immaterial.

Kafka is experiencing an existential disconnect,  the acute realization that you are partaking in an event of which you don’t why or where it originated or where it is going in terms of its purpose or destination as well as your own role in all of this. My take on this is that we might encounter such a disconnect when we take a step back from the immediacy of our daily lives and try to place them within the larger reality of the world we live in.

What is the distinction, and how do we run into it? I think the distinction is a function of contrasting the comings and goings of our daily lives as defined by  our  present and our past against the cosmic spectacle we appear to be immersed in – given that we are an intricate part of it – but unable to articulate the significance of this in any meaningful way.

More specifically, when you look at all of  human history and the types of activities that have preoccupied our species since the beginning of time – including the trail of war and other forms of mindless savagery that has been left behind as we have proved and continue to prove to be our own worst enemy – you have to wonder what this human saga is all about, as when you think about this for a minute the entire human effort as a whole makes absolutely no sense at all.

Now something started all this, and our sciences have told us as much:  the cosmos exploded, the earth cooled, the slimy bottom spawned, life evolved and here we are. But, to what avail?  I think that is a reasonable question, and it should be staring us in the face all the time, yet we seem to go on as if  none of this is of any consequence even if we did know the answer.

I think that way down deep this is an issue for all of us, and is subsumed in the human psyche, but that only some of us are  willing to confront, or – for that matter – are able to experience as an existential issue at some level or another and that, yes, continues to stare us directly in the face all the time.

“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless. … “So says   renowned physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg  in his 1977 book “The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe)”

In general, we humans like to think that things happen for a reason, either accidentally or on purpose – whatever the case may be. At least, that is the way we usually think about the world based on our very experience of it.  Seeing the world in this manner allows us to understand the interaction between things and events while enabling us to manage our lives around them with some degree of predictability.

So what about the universe? Would it not be reasonable to expect there was some reason for it to be here as well? I’m kind of two minds about that.

First of all, it is quite a conceptual leap to jump from considering the status of some event or another in the world to considering the status of world itself. Is the world  just another event in the sense that we should be able to look at it from either end, i.e., consider the likely cause of it and the effect that it has on other things in the world? Can the world be seen as an event beyond all the things that take place in it? (look up: Gilbert Ryle’s category mistake)

Since the world is both logically and physically necessary for anything to take place, I don’t believe you can put it in the same category of events that take place in the world. As such it occupies a class or category all its own. (I think I’m running into a version of Russell’s set paradox here, but let’s not go there … )

For anything to happen, the world must have happened – that much seems clear. But – as far as we know – the world appears to have happened on its own account, i.e., it is simply here – full stop. It is the container that contains everything else, but itself it is not contained other than by itself.  Such is the mystery of the world.

Now one  could argue that we just don’t know that the world isn’t part or the result of another event that brought it about, i.e., the world is a transitory event that came into being as a result of “the big bang”  – which is the prevailing view at the moment, and so on, and end up in an infinite regress of events preceding events, and then only because we cannot accept that events can appear out of thin air or materialize from within a material empty vacuum for that matter,

Our language is the limiting factor here because it is the language of the living and breathing  mortals that we are.  We cannot get beyond the logic derived from our species’ experiential involvement  with the world and make sense of events that seem to go beyond that.

But what if the point of the universe being here is simply just that: to be here for what it is, i.e., to exist for its own sake?  That we may be able to make sense of this might depend on  what sense or meaning we are able to attach to  our lives, as by extension we would  then be valuing the point of universe being here as well.

If we think about our place in the world this way, well-known  20th century existentialists such as Sartre and Camus would be wrong  classifying life as essentially meaningless and  – among other things –  attributing the absurdity of our predicament to a cold and indifferent universe that remains silent on such things, given that only human beings are able to attach meaning or value to something.  The conclusion has to be that meaning comes from within life, from experiencing life as meaningful, and not from having it  derived from a source external to it.

It would follow that no feature of the universe will likely make sense unless it is viewed in the context of providing the ground for some aspect of meaningful human activity that could otherwise not have taken place.  The logic may sound counter-intuitive but I believe that this is the only way out of the absurdity paradox that Albert Camus entertained when considering the fact that human beings inevitably seek to understand life’s purpose:

“Camus takes the skeptical position that the natural world, the universe, and the human enterprise remain silent about any such purpose. Since existence itself has no meaning, we must learn to bear an irresolvable emptiness. This paradoxical situation, then, between our impulse to ask ultimate questions and the impossibility of achieving any adequate answer, is what Camus calls the absurd. Camus’ philosophy of the absurd explores the consequences arising from this basic paradox. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”

The question remains then how the seemingly puny human could conceivably value the existence of the mighty universe simply by finding meaning in their everyday lives.  I think it boils down to the distinction between  quantity and quality, and between form and function in the context of an evolving universe.

As such it wouldn’t matter how old or how large and complex  the world is, given that the significance of that could only be expressed by how well we would be able to experience the quality and depth of  being at the receiving end of this  spectacularly creative effort,  and then solely with the sensibility and reasoning  that has been given to us as a result of merely being a part of it. Everything beyond it is more or less irrelevant, in the sense that -as spectacular as that may be – it is at most a set decoration, the backdrop against which we play out the destiny of our species and of which we have for the moment absolutely no clue.

Galaxies in the Milky Way

Given what we think we know about the age of the universe,  planet earth and the myriad of creatures that have and are continuing  to inhabit it since  life first appeared,  we have arrived only recently  as a species uniquely capable of reflective thought and reasoning. With it – I suggest – came the potential to make something of ourselves beyond being just another species for which  the need to survive  and ensure the continuation of its genus appear to be its main objectives..

On that premise we find  ourselves at the receiving end of the implicit obligation to go beyond  these basic needs, and  not only because we can envisage ourselves of being capable of accomplishing much more than that, but also, surely,  because we would not want to see ourselves being limited by them.

But given the state of the world today, for many the potential to distinguish ourselves beyond being just another creature on this planet appears to have been reduced to some self-aggrandizing exercise in unlimited exploitation, boundless consumption and mindless procreation, and that at great cost to ourselves and our future.  As a matter of fact, we seem to have taken the first steps towards our own extinction by continuing to undermine the very environment that spawned and nurtured us and allowed us to thrive as a species.

Alternatively – and yes, there is always an alternative, in particular to just being unimaginably shortsighted! – we  could use our collective brain-trust to decide what kinds of uniquely human qualities we ought to prioritize in order to truly benefit us all  and start acting accordingly.

I can think of a few: Imagine a world-wide society built on mutual trust and respect, featuring such things as a sustainable waste-free economy, free education, healthcare, equal opportunity regardless of race , age or gender, the pursuit of arts and sciences, and being free from famine, disease and crime. In other words, not much we are familiar with today, but something worth pursuing, don’t you think?

Easier said than done, without question;  in fact some will say that such an utopian state of affairs will be impossible to achieve given what history has shown us to date  about human nature.  True, is difficult to see any such potential reflected in the daily course of our lives. Not only  does  it seems near impossible to quantify them beyond being either mundane  – and  at any rate less than  profound – or positively evil, and that would include much of human kind’s murderous, bloodstained past and all of our  self-destructive activities such as our relentless attacks on the earth’s critical life-sustaining biosphere.

The problem of course is that we seem to be lost and absolutely hapless when it comes to understanding our place in the world. In the mid  1600’s the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza wrote that people find themselves with needs and desires without understanding the reasons why they want and act as they do.  Lacking this knowledge about themselves and their place in the world creates the illusion that they can do as they please, and which is a source of much grief when they act against their own interest because they  don’t seem know any better.

Nevertheless, it is the implicit promise of our cosmic DNA, our origins,  that will continue to urge us along this uncertain path towards a future we might one day be able to imagine what that would look like if we develop the ambition, courage and intellectual wherewithal to  conceive the realization of it.  And why shouldn’t  we be able to: are we not the descendants of a  magnificent  cosmic event and all the spectacular creative energy that lies within and  is necessarily  represented within every particle of our being?

I say “necessarily” because how could it not be? We aren’t some accidental and aberrant event over and above the phenomenon of the universe: we ARE the universe, nothing more and nothing less. Now, if we only knew what that meant, but that is what life is all about, isn’t it? And clearly, this is the larger context we should be taking our cues from when we plan our future – as little as we are able to grasp of it at the moment.

For this we need to be able to turn ourselves inside out, by  prioritizing  the spiritual over the physical and embracing those values that are clearly larger than the largely material ones we appear to be pursuing today. Instead we ought to be pursuing empathy, compassion, trust and a respect for life in recognition of the incredible accomplishment that life represents as a cosmic effort to redefine itself for whatever purpose it has in mind – as much as we cannot even begin to think what that purpose may be although I suspect it might have something to do with establishing order over entropy and light over darkness  in pursuit of total harmony.

However – and as much as I hate to admit this – my greatest fear is that this kind of enlightened future is in fact not available to us as, when  we may not have moved  far enough up the evolutionary ladder to be able to visualize it – or event want it ! – and  to start changing our ways collectively to make it a reality.

As such, life is likely to continue to be the absolute tragedy it is, for our life-giving planet and for so many of our species today.

Determination and acceptance of what is real is derived from our interaction with the world and in the first instance a product of our minds in consideration of the information delivered to it by our sensory experiences. This makes our understanding of what is real very much a function of what we have brought to the fore in terms of our sensory organs and the intellectual ability to interpret the information they have gathered for us via our sensory experiences.

It goes without saying that if we had been different creatures we would have likely experienced a different world and have interacted with it differently, although I would hold that the difference in interaction would be a matter of degree and not of kind.  As a result our conclusions about the nature of the reality might very well be the same in the sense that we can interact and share a common environment despite qualitatively substantially different experiences.

It follows that  all knowledge  is subjective, and a product of our experiential perception of it, i.e., the only reality we know is entirely of our own making  and that would include any theories we have developed around its nature or origin.

It also follows that reality isn’t limited to what we know about it; instead,  it is limited by what we don’t know about it on the assumption that there is likely so much more to it but just not available to  us us because of what we are in terms of being able to perceive and understand it …

For example, we have developed notions of space and time which work perfectly well in helping us navigate and manage our immediate environment, but these concepts begin to break down – and no longer make any sense – when we apply them to the larger whole and  their logical consequences. They become nonsensical, as we will have to assume such things as the beginning and end of time  and the possibilities of the infinitely large and infinitely small.

As a result the reality of the world we know becomes less and less intelligible the further we move away from the centre – which lies necessarily within ourselves – where the very concept of it came into being when we first opened our eyes and found ourselves immersed in it.

Somehow, our consciousness is the reason the universe is here. (Sir Roger Penrose)

So, what is consciousness?  Consciousness is a way of being in the world that appears to go beyond any known physical properties in the material universe, in the sense that it manifests itself as an enduring phenomenon that cannot be reduced or accounted for by  any physical law or properties other than through association.

While we might use the term  frequently and on a casual basis –  suggesting an implicit understanding of what consciousness is all  about – when we are pushed to elaborate exactly what it is that we are referring to,  we will likely run out of vocabulary when it comes to describing  its defining features.

Nevertheless, we keep trying to come up with some kind of explanatory account for it that goes beyond association  and accommodates it solidly within the  known laws of physics.

The philosopher David Chalmers has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental property of nature existing outside the known laws of physics, and one might be led to agree with that as to date science has not be able to account for it in any way as a function of a material law of the universe.

But while philosophers and scientists continue to  struggle to make sense of consciousness  and eminent physicists such as Sir Roger Penrose and Archibald Wheeler have begun linking it to the intricacies of Quantum Mechanics, and a concept I have been trying to get my head around in another post that can be found here.

What we can say about consciousness is that, in the first instance, it provides us with the realm or opportunity that we might refer to as sentience and awareness where we are able to  acknowledge the reality our own existence in the here and now, in the sense  that without it we would simply not be here – or anywhere else for that matter.  That is no more than saying ” I think, therefore I am”,  as the philosopher René Descartes once proclaimed  in his 1637 Discourse on Method.

As well, and a presumption no doubt implicit in the previous paragraph, one must be in the realm of the living as a necessary condition for consciousness to be present, as to date consciousness as a phenomenon has only been observed in association with life and the living, be it in man or beast or other forms of life that appear to be capable of exhibiting this phenomenon.

At least, this is how we understand consciousness to be present when making a determination whether someone  or something is conscious  and basing this  on the  ability to respond to  a stimulus of sorts. We should allow for the possibility that some creature, be it man or beast that is presumed to be conscious might be  entirely unable to respond to whatever stimulus because of some form of paralysis or other condition that prevents it from doing so.

What we do not know however is  that being a life form of sorts is also a sufficient condition for consciousness to occur or be present, as minimally as that might be the case.  For instance, trees and plants are alive, but we would typically not attribute  consciousness to them, if only because we have no way of detecting the presence of it. As well,  we do not know what exactly we would be  looking for when we try to detect the presence of it at the level of trees and plants.

Clearly, the absence or presence of consciousness cannot be a function of our ability to detect it, and for that reason it would be more reasonable to give it the benefit of the doubt and  assume that  consciousness is an intrinsic property of life regardless of the kind of life-form we might want to consider for this. I believe it is simpler to hold this view than to postulate  further conditions  that must be met by a  living entity before it can be said to have  consciousness, or to have at least  the capacity for it, e.g., that it must at least have a central nervous system to  be capable of it.

But  my task here is  less concerned about determining at what point living things such as  plants or more advanced organisms might be capable of  consciousness – or when we  might be able to detect it – and more about being able to determine what the nature of consciousness is beyond merely tagging it as an intrinsic function or attribute of life.

In this context  – and given a basic definition of life such as  “the condition that allows a given arrangement of organic matter to utilize its environment to sustain itself, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change until death” –  it would be reasonable to assume that, for any living organism,  none of these capacities would be particularly useful unless there was also an innate capacity to monitor, coordinate and maximize these functions successfully and in the interest of its sense of self-preservation as a living organism.

This leads me to say that  the nature or essence of consciousness is in fact life’s interest in self-preservation, and what I want to refer to as “the will to live”. It is an emergent property of organic matter  that  eventually manifest itself as what we have come to refer to as “consciousness” as it goes up the evolutionary ladder towards  ever more sophisticated ways of being in the world.

The  property’s main function might be to acquire  a growing awareness of itself and its environment, to the point of being able to interact and manipulate the latter directly in relation to itself and presumably in the interest of self-preservation but not necessarily limited to that. Here I like to think that life – as an emergent property of the material universe and by way of its evolutionary nature – has  further goals and objectives in mind (so to speak) that go beyond the need for mere survival and address what I see as the larger question about life: survival for what purpose, i.e., what are we here for, or – for that matter -why should there be any life at all?

As to the question how consciousness resides in life-forms is as much a mystery as to how life resides in matter, but in either case they appear to be emergent properties and – as I suggested earlier –  a function of the degree of organizational complexity of its material  constituents,  when they allow for the emergence of these  properties to the extent that they are able to exhibit them.

All this being said,  it would  perhaps be simpler to hold the view that – rather than seeing consciousness as an emergent property of matter – it is in fact the true nature of reality, i.e., there are no other realities,  and that what we refer to as the physical attributes of the world are merely a manifestation of its complexity and a means to evolve beyond its current status towards a future state the purpose of which we are clearly not able to apprehend.