Thanks Sender, I appreciate your thoughts, even when I disagree with them (as I do now). You say it is in illusion that my thoughts are not exactly the same as the computer. I quoted Polkinghorne on the issue and he rejects as reductionst equally idealism (all is mind) and materialism (all is matter). Your comment suggests a strong idealism. I suggest there is in Polkinghorne's word a "facticity" to our experience of the physical world.

I did read the post you sent. I refer to this quote: "The aforementioned fundamental behaviors (of universe!) were (and continue to be!) so efficient as to be able to coalesce universe into bodies. Mostly celestial ones, but once a certain threshold of complexity was reached, eventually another level of formation emerged. It was the one we usually call life. "

The post starts with an explanation how the four forces formed everything, and this quote includes the argument that these same four forces produced life. I strongly disagree and request you provide the evidence for that.

What is interesting to me is that in your comment to me you seem to present a thoroughly idealist perspective and then in this post you seem to present a thoroughly materialist or physicalist perspective. Maybe you can enlighten me.

I'm also a bit uncertain of your argument for why I have ontological primitive wrong. You are probably right, but I wish I could make more sense out of your comment. As I understand it in the context of Kastrup, from whom I borrowed the term, it is the basic, most fundamental underlying reality, which, of course, he says is mind.