You sound like a Cartesian dualist. Consider the following: 1. Why should "human consciousness" have a teleological character, while everything else in the uni

You sound like a Cartesian dualist. Consider the following: 1. Why should "human consciousness" have a teleological character, while everything else in the universe should be devoid of it? This means that "human consciousness" is different from the rest of the universe in some intrinsic, substantial way. Hence, dualism, and in the Cartesian scheme, this division is expressed in the distinction between res cogitans and res extensa. But then if human consciousness (or res cogitans) is distinct, then we can at least entertain the possibility of the immortality of personal human consciousness as it is not subject to the flux of the remainder of the universe in which things pass into and out of existence. 2. What is a law of physics? Where can I find one? Does it haunt the universe like a ghost, enforcing obedience to its will on otherwise inert "stuff"? That sounds like either another consciousness, or a third category of thing. Or it is perhaps just a convenient way of summarizing observed regularities, regularities that must be accounted for by, say, appealing to the the nature of a kind of thing? The difference matters, because now we must begin to talk telos. 3. How do you explain efficient causality without final causality? How can you account for regularity? If I strike a match against a matchbox, I can predictably cause fire. Fire is predictably the result, not the manifestation of an elephant or a cheeseburger or Beethoven's 9th symphony. The match is causally ordered in a way that, when the right cause comes along, the effect of fire is achieved. That is all that telos is, the ordering of things toward effect or end. The nature of a thing is realized--actualized--in the effecting of what it is ordered toward. (People confuse telos with conscious, deliberative purpose, but that is but a species.) 4. What is meaning? Do you deny that things are what they are, that they are intelligible for what they are? If you do, then what business do you have telling us what the universe and human consciousness is like? Are you a nominalist[0]? If so, what business do you have making general statements about the universe and human consciousness? [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm