Ok, Amos, fine...that is_not_ what you were doing. And *if* we had a 3 hour genteel exchange of opinions on perceptual frameworks, *I* probably would still not see how you FIND anything beyond "meatspace" and "wetware", and *YOU* probably would not see the points I would make about circular reasoning, affirming the consequent and quantum leaps based on linguistic constucts.

   You know very well how to dispute exaggerated claims in traditional theological doctrine and why organized religion has some problems...but you posit concepts just as hard to grasp. I can't imagine what accepting your ...position? orientation? assertions? might mean practically, except within a framework, much like certain abstract math.

I guess my fall-back position is the old one... "The burden of proof is on the assertor"

*shrug*...The only real claim I make is that many OTHER claims I hear about are not well stated and/or not testable under any parameters that we can agree on.

(I know...I didn't need to bite this time, but you tempted me! *grin*. And you know how hard it is to resist temptation when certain ideas are flying!)