My thanks to David, who has provided us with some marvellous articles. I'd like to make a few comments on passages that are relevant to our current discussions. Above all, the superb piece on the irreducibly complex body. The author asks the crucial question how all this complexity could have come about, and the whole article is full of terms that anthropomorphize the cell. There is probably no other way of describing how each cell and collection of cells fulfils its function and cooperates with other cells. David, you will say this only gives the impression of thought but in reality the cells are automatons, because your focus is on the established system. I will say that in order for the system to come into existence, the cells themselves must have worked out what to do. (Whether a conscious God gave them the ABILITY to do this, or their own consciousness evolved, is open to discussion.) Once they've worked out the formula, they stick to it. One of the author's metaphors is that of soldiers, which fits in nicely: when the strategy has been decided (in my hypothesis, by the cells themselves), soldiers must obey the relevant orders.-Your post to BBella about the "theoretical origin of life" actually fits in quite well with the idea that energy transformed itself into matter and then gradually acquired an awareness of itself through its own changing circumstances ... from the universe through to life on Earth.-As for the "smart animal" article, no-one is claiming that other animals are as smart as we are. These two quotes seem to me to provide an excellent summary of the general messiness of the comparisons: -1) In the end, experiments that test animals' cognition by determining when they succeed and when they fail may reveal more about human minds than other species'. Whether humankind truly wants to find all it looks for isn't so clear. Homo sapiens is hardly modest about its brainpower, perhaps wanting to discover a bit of mental kinship while remaining mental kings.-2) Blurring the boundaries-New studies suggest that a variety of animals may have some version of the fancy mental powers once ascribed only to humans. It's not easy to discern what's going through another species' mind, so these bold claims will need big proof. At the same time, a growing body of research suggests that humans share a number of largely unconscious, so-called irrational processes with other animals.
 
Of course we share these unconscious processes. We share everything that keeps the species going: we breathe, eat, digest, communicate, have sex, love and educate our young etc. As for "fancy mental powers", no, we can't get into another species' mind, and since the only tests of any kind are those geared to our human minds, we're in no position to assume that ours are the only "fancy" powers. We descend from our fellow animals, and although we may not realize it half the time, much of our consciousness is directed towards the same problems that they have to deal with. Only we have managed to make them infinitely more complicated, while also finding a lot more problems (largely of our own making), and all this requires a far higher level of consciousness than theirs. However, I think it will require "big proof" either way before we draw conclusions about the consciousness level of other species.-Finally, the Max Planck quote: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck-"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."-I like the metaphor of the solar system, because it seems to me that every aspect of the universe can be seen as an image of other aspects: basically, everything boils down to cooperation between individual units that merge into larger and larger entities. If the mind is "intelligent energy", it is not only the matrix of all matter, but it is also the driving force behind all matter. The question is whether it drives matter from outside or from inside.
Here is another quote which took my eye:-"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."-I agree that consciousness is fundamental. Whether matter derives from consciousness or consciousness derives from matter is one of the great divides between theists and atheists. Has first-cause energy always been conscious, or did consciousness evolve through the matter it unconsciously created? The latter is the essence of the panpsychic hypothesis I've been tinkering with, which is not inconsistent with Planck's last sentence, even if he didn't mean it that way. It's also atheistic, but not materialistic, because it allows for intelligent energy to act independently of the materials in which it is embedded. The source of consciousness is the key.