OK. Except for the 'solid ground' bit with which I disagree. I can see that this is the current view. For me it begs the question of why an entity would give a damn about its own survival, but that's another matter. Science claims by a fairly unanimous vote that neither consciousness nor mind are causal. Thus purpose and teleology are banished from evolutionary theory. This is an aspect of the doctrine of causal completeness. Brain is assumed to cause mind, mind being supervenient on brain. However if mind is precisely supervenient on brain it is in principle impossible to tell which is causing which. Thus my question as to why science always assumes the worst (other than to protect its paradigm). I don't agree but that doesn't matter. It matters more that what you say here is inconsistent with your belief that consciousnes is causal. If brain is definitely responsible for consciousness then consciousness is not causal. Also I feel that saying that consciousness is causal is not a mystical position. I agree. However this is the scientific view. It is based on the objection that if consciousness was causal it would break the laws of thermodynamics, (mainly No. 2) and that if consciousness is non-physical then it cannot interact with matter, and some other related objections. Agreed. Although I would argue that neither did the previous world view. I could not disagree more. If consciousness in any way affects our behaviour then it is central to our evolution. Please note that I am not suggesting our evolution is designed in any way. We are not sensible enough to have started to do that.