Of course our narrative, whether it be in oral tradition or written, is always going to be fraught with bias and errors (I agree with you there) but writing it down at least allows people to create definitions and clear ideas that can then be tested, attacked, deconstructed and built up better. Thus far we have no other way of creating knowledge that is scientifically verifiable. Do you have another idea? Merely saying our current way of knowing may be error ridden is not reason to merely throw it on the junk heap and accept any new idea that comes along. Just because it's a new idea doesn't mean it's more likely to be true, in fact it's more likely to not be true. Yeah we are all familiar with Thomas Kuhn's paradigm shifts but it doesn't support readily accepting new untested ideas so easily.
When I said "prime mover of sorts" I wasn't suggesting you were a believer of God but rather pointing to the notion that you seemed to imply that humans are merely a step along a path to a greater next step and that it's already laid out and accounted for. That humans are 'made' for another purpose. It implies something is involved that has foresight. Are you not suggesting anything remotely close to this?
Sounds like you are supporting dualism despite you saying "it is no assertion of the contrary". The mind, although more than the sum of the parts, is solely created from the material of the brain. To suggest otherwise is to be a dualist. Maybe I've missed something in what you're suggesting. As the claimant you must be the one to provide evidence not me. You're going to need some serious evidence to support the notion that there is a mind indepedent of the brain and it's material parts. There is evidence to support the mind coming from the brain but none to support your claim. You may be playing an intentional distractive 'game' where you suggest something as a distractor and then say you aren't claiming such. If you merely want to say that our current 'assumption' is limited and there must be more to it then simply say so. Again, I'm saying this as a strictly scientific criticism. While people currently on the leading edge of the study of consciousness and the brain don't have absolute proof of exactly how consciousness and 'mind' are created, there is enough evidence to support the strong case for the mind coming strictly from the brain and not extending beyond it other than in a metaphorical sense. Are you going to speculate or suggest an alternative to the current accepted scientific consensus or just say it's wrong and that we a likely missing something? I'd truly like to hear what you are offering as an alternative. A definitely agree with you that we don't know the full story here and I'm sure you'd agree that the human brain is probably the most complex thing we are aware of.
You said "but I do know that inside my field of vision (which could be in error) is a range of possibilities that I can entertain as possible without asserting as fact, which could then be measured by evidence as valid or not." Do you care to share what your range of possibilities is? Keep in mind that scientists know there are many things our brain constructs quite incorrectly. In other words we have many inherent faults within our brain that create a reality that in fact does not exist. It's all great and good to speculate broadly but you should at least state some of the speculations you are suggesting rather than just say there is likely more and we are thinking too narrowly.
Scientists are well aware of the numerous abilities humans have that we sensed we had but didn't have the scientific support for but now do. The simplest of these is the physiological fact that humans don't see a direct representation of external reality. We also have some ability to 'see' behind us. As we come to know more such things we are merely stretching what is known rather than becoming aware of some ability that extends beyond ourselves and our own physical corporeal space.
Consciousness in some ways is thought to be an illusion of sorts. In short we are constantly changing and who we were yesterday is not necessarily who we are today, despite our perception to suggest otherwise.
You say:" in service of a final state of development that is more suited to a future environment that will occur outside the current womb". In service of what or whom? Again the way you are saying it suggests you may be speculating of some unstoppable thing that is happening and happening for an intentional reason. Certainly things occuring now will affect the future. That's no new discovery but to imply that it may be intentional or deterministic is a stretch. Well that is unless you are a hard determinist. I've made such an argument in philosphy class but I like to think there are many possible futures for our Earth. Again having free will - whether as an individula or a planet may be wishful thinking but scientists act as if the future is not determined. I'll stick with them on this one. You said "anticipatory and intentional"..."means". That's now speculating beyond what we can call science is it not? Wow you apply foresight at a planetary scale. That's taking Gaia to a whole other level.
I'm not going to fall down the rabbit whole and argue if foresight is only possible of conscious beings especially because the whole notion or concept of consciousness is so fraught with ambiguities, speculation and uncertainty. Greater thinkers than I have spent a lifetime studying this question and we still seem far from a consensus on the matter.
Our limited self awareness may lead to our own extinction. Sure I can absolutely agree with you on that one. Deer over reproduce and this leads to not enough food and a drop in the deer population. Without the foresight, deers lead to their own demise. Nature to the rescue and culls the deer population. The rise and fall of predator and prey populations are a simple example of the lack of foresight animals have. Humans are animals and we could be leading ourselves to the population bomb as Ehrlich put it. Technology however has allowed us a limited foresight. Whether or not we can control ourselves as a species, given our inherent evolution influence of the selfish genes is anyone's guess. There is though, in my mind, no need to suggest that any of this is predetermined or led by some larger super organism such as Gaia.
I agree with you about anticipatory systems being created by symbiotic relationships evolved over time but again it does not mean there is some larger than life organism with foresight guiding the whole process. While you may not state it that way it's in many ways implied and sometimes you even speculate that it may be true - who's to know.
You often use our ignorance of things to make wild speculations without any support other than that it might be true. This is allowed of course and even encouraged to stretch our minds and open up the possibiities but I think you're using much of it in a way to discount current knowledge and understanding of science. If it's mere speculation and fun then keep at it as I sure enjoy reading your speculative journeys and probably agree with more of what you say than disagree :) To disagree and to argue is to clarify thought and challenge the edge of knowing. I love a good debate so long as it's focused on the information and not the sharer of such things.