I find it peculiar and a little amusing that people focus so much on the why question without considering if it's important. They give this why question a lot of significances, yet they generally fail to explain why the importance of their why question. I'm not saying that there aren't important why questions, but some why questions are meaningless.
For example, some creationist will put a lot of emphasis on how far away the earth is from the sun. They first will argue that it this distance is necessary for us to live on this planet (and it is). They follow up by asking why this is the case. They fail to realize we can't asked the question if it wasn't the case. They fail to apply the antropic principle to life on earth. Worse, their desire to have an answer to this question leads to faulty conclusion.
So in the case on "why there is a mind," it is because it has to be so for us to be able ask the question. I know the antropic principle does not provide a "satisfing" answer, but the answer it gives is better than a faulty conclusion. Plus, if you can't answer how, asking why is a foolish endeavour.
For example, some creationist will put a lot of emphasis on how far away the earth is from the sun. They first will argue that it this distance is necessary for us to live on this planet (and it is). They follow up by asking why this is the case. They fail to realize we can't asked the question if it wasn't the case. They fail to apply the antropic principle to life on earth. Worse, their desire to have an answer to this question leads to faulty conclusion.
So in the case on "why there is a mind," it is because it has to be so for us to be able ask the question. I know the antropic principle does not provide a "satisfing" answer, but the answer it gives is better than a faulty conclusion. Plus, if you can't answer how, asking why is a foolish endeavour.
