I do not think that you have considered sufficiently your stance.
I think that you have not considered your stance sufficiently also, but I don't deem it necessary of making a point about it. I consider it rude and adds nothing to the cause of understanding.
A coral, a tree, etc., are all unable to move of their own volition, yet, live to reproduce and for no other reason.
Coral also lives to provide a home for other organisms which in turn nourish and protect it. Coral may also live to express it's unique form and structure, which adds to a possible subjective dimension of beauty and acts as a memetic template for other phenomena. For all we know, Coral might live to produce some kind of collective symphony of subjective experience that it enjoys as much as we enjoy music. Just because speciation is dictated by genetic selection doesn't mean that reproduction is the only reason to live.
They, like blue-green algae, manipulate their environment to increase the chance of reproduction.
Blue-green algae doesn't manipulate anything, subjectively it's completely passive.
A tree does it by casting shade and may be dripping sap to kill off competition; blue green algae do it by producing toxins. You may argue that neither does it wilfully, yet both have adapted thus, over millions of years, as it helps survival and thus, reproduction.
Right. I don't think anyone can argue that it a tree casts shade willfully. Physical evolution is a teleonomy, but subjective evolution is also teleological. We do things willfully - we have will.
Just as a biological purpose relates to the processes of a living organism - metabolism, reproduction, a psychological purpose relates to the processes of a conscious mind or Self - feeling, thinking, communicating.Now why would the mind do that, were it not to enhance the chances of survival and thus breeding?
Because the mind and the self extend beyond the monkey body. Ideas breed and survive independent of individual carriers. The body serves the mind as much as the mind serves the body.
The “inside” and the “outside" are different? (I admit that there seems to me to be no distinction) What is that difference? Are you suggesting 2 distinct creatures within us each with competing goals?
The difference is that on the outside, brain activity looks like biochemistry, but on the inside it looks like our lives and ourselves. It's one creature with two distinct, yet overlapping agendas.
These are very much fuzzy ideas, poetic rather than scientific, few can agree on their boundaries
Why wouldn't they be? Subjectivity is made of fuzzy ideas and poetry as well as science. This is literally the nature of consciousness and freewill. Why would you expect something which produces Shakespeare and Einstein to work only like a machine?
Which one on them does not contribute towards survival and reproduction?
They contribute to survival and reproduction no more than survival and reproduction contribute to them. You can't have an iron clad axiom that survival and reproduction are the only purpose of life and then be surprised that you can prove to yourself that everything can be related directly to it. Racists think that life is all about race. Religious people think that life is all about God. Our worldviews bias our view of the world. My worldview is biased too, but it tries to take that into account.
“Inner phenomena”? You make it sound like thoughts are not part of us. Do you mean that?
To me, 'inner' means 'inside' of us. How is that not a part of us? It's the essence, the heart, the core of what 'we' are. Not the trillion cell monkey body. That's our host - our patron. The entity writing this sentence is not a body. It doesn't care about survival and reproduction, it cares about words and meanings at the moment.
Plenty of room on the spectrum for people to specialize in whatever part of it makes sense to them.This is a delusion. “Making sense to you" does not imply at all that your idea is correct. Goodness me, there are people who think gods make sense.
Delusions and Gods do make sense. They just aren't objectively real. They are interior archetypal complexes. Square circles don't make sense. Colors you've never seen don't make sense. Those things are unimaginable. Imaginary things are fuzzy, ephemeral phenomena of interiority which are as real as the charm of a quark or the refractive index of a diamond.
I have handed you the evidence by a reliable expert in the field and yet you do not admit you are wrong? You say Wiki is correct?
You haven't handed me anything except a demand that I seek out your authority, which I presume will reinforce your worldview. If there's something important from your source which you think will enlighten me on this matter, by all means cite it here.When I Google the subject of religious universality, I'm not seeing anything which contradicts the Wiki observation. I have no way of knowing whether it's true, and neither do you, but it's not even important. It's a quibble.
Every society I can think of has an ancestral religion. That answers my question sufficiently in itself. No society has an ancestral imaginary color, so obviously there's something significant about the idea of spirit which makes it very very popular, wouldn't you say? Doesn't mean the idea is true, but it probably does mean that the existence of the idea reveals some kind of important truth. If you can deny that, then congratulations on disproving yourself. Enjoy your mechanical survival and reproduction.
It is not debatable. If anyone claims that all societies have some religion, they are wrong. Remember “All swans are white”?
"Most swans are white" is good enough to make my point.
Read the book, you are wrong and so is Wiki.
Please give me an Executive Summary of the book. Thanks.
Really? “all kinds of meaning”? Can you explain why there has to be a meaning? (as opposed to a purpose?)
That's the thing, there doesn't have to be meaning, but yet there is. That's the other half of the cosmos. Some of it acts like an involuntary machine, and some of it recognizes meaning.
Absolutely nothing. And even if there were, we could do nothing about it. What made you think there was?
You were saying that we're 'just animals', so I say why the 'just'.
You seem to ignore all other creatures and life forms that do this. You are holding a position that says that, in some mysterious way the life of Mankind is “special.” I suggest that this is untenable.
No, I specifically include all other creatures and life forms. That's why I suggest that interiority if not subjectivity may be universal. My position says that the life of Mankind has much in common with the life of a cell, maybe even the 'life' of an atom. It's you who are saying that man's meaning and sense of self is some unique delusional aberration - an irrelevant byproduct of arbitrary biological meaninglessness. I'm suggesting that mind and matter are essentially the same thing, but existentially distinct - as in, they appear very different in how they manifest phenomenologically on the outside from how they seem on the inside.