David has drawn our attention to Matt Ridley's review of the philosopher psychologist Nick Humphrey's book "Soul Dust" in the WSJ, and he asks: "Interesting thought or garbage?"-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214771893335998.html?KEYWORDS...-Here is an extract from the review: 
"What is the point of being conscious? Mr. Humphrey made his name many years ago with a famous essay on the evolutionary function of intelligence, arguing that it emerged through natural selection not to solve physical puzzles, as many assume, but to solve social ones—to read minds. Here he attempts a similar explanation for why the impartial spectator of consciousness is watching a magical mystery show. His answer sounds startlingly unscientific, even spiritual: to impress the soul."-Virtually all of this has me shaking my head in bewilderment. Perhaps we can gloss over the statement that intelligence "emerged through natural selection". (People seem to think they only need mention "natural selection" and that explains the existence of everything, whereas it explains nothing but the survival of things.) The idea that it emerged not to solve physical but social problems suggests that intelligence was given some kind of single purpose. A theist might assume some such purpose, but the rest of us can only talk of the functions that intelligence performs, and you don't have to be a philosopher psychologist to realize that it solves physical AND social problems, both of which are crucial to survival. So why are they presented as mutually exclusive alternatives? (But I do like Adam Smith's association of sympathy/empathy with social rules). Nor do you need to be a philosopher psychologist to know that consciousness enables us to appreciate all the wonders of life and the universe.-It would have been interesting to know how Mr Humphrey distinguishes between consciousness and the soul. What exactly "impresses" what? He talks of the mind staging "a theatrical show in order to influence the judgment of another part of your brain", and he says you lay on a magical mystery show for yourself, yourself being the rest of your brain. So now we have intelligence, consciousness, the mind, the brain and the soul, and your identity is the part of your brain that is NOT the mind which stages the show. I find this as unenlightening as the very idea that consciousness has a "point" which can be pinned down to a mystical function ... i.e. "being enchanted by the magic of experience provides a reason to live". -It's difficult to know how much of the confusion is due to Mr Humphrey, to his friend the reviewer, and to my own obtuseness, so it would be grossly unfair to dismiss the thought as "garbage". However, although one can hardly disagree with the basic idea that consciousness enables us to enjoy life, I can't say the review makes my dusty soul yearn to read the book.