I read Prof. Galen Strawson's piece on consciousness in the New York Times. He

I read Prof. Galen Strawson's piece on consciousness in the New York Times. He

I read Prof. Galen Strawson's piece on consciousness in the New York Times. He claims that consciousness is "wholly a matter of physical goings-on" and then spends much time addressing the limits of what physics can tell us about matter. His essay, however, never mentions life. Isn't life what "breathes fire into the (physics) equations"? Wasn't the evolution of nervous systems in living organisms the difference between non-living complex physical phenomena and the unique powers of the human brain? Ignoring life's contribution, to me, seemed to remove the center from the argument and constituted a "Very Large Mistake". Am I correct in thinking that a theory of human consciousness must account for life?

Read another response by Allen Stairs
Read another response about Consciousness