And if you have no replicable evidence, you have no EVIDENCE. Look it up.

Look what up, Mrrz?

I submit for reflection here that your statement doesn't answer my point about the difference between the nature of the systems under consideration.

Consider, for extrapolation, the difference between living systems and non-living chemical or particle systems. If you abrade a moouse's flesh, it starts regenerating, normally. If you shave a millimeter off an aluminum crystal, it does not, usually.

Clearly there is a fundamental difference between the system behaviors. Two mice, dropped into exactly the same pot of acid, will not behave in exactly the same way, although you could say they both squirm and call that a replication of behaviour if you wanted to. Arguments of complexity aside for the moment.

IF you take two minds and show them exactly the same image of colors, they will come up with wildly different responses ranging from highly aesthetic and pleasurable down to glumly apathetic indifference. And if you repeat the process, there may two more comp0letely unique responses.

Thought is not matter. That's the bottom line. Trying to measure thought with the tools of matter is like trying to measure the volume of the ocean's water with a schoolboy's ruler.

So where are you going to get a standard of replicability out of this? The social scietists settle for probabilities and per centage of opinions one way or another, for example, and there's some use to that system in measuring mass-agreement zones of thought, but it won't get you far in measuring the outer bounds of individual potential to see and know and create.

BTW, Barney, a belief in the not-ness of something certainly does exist, event hough it seems to be a two-step process of creating the belief in somethign and then painting it black! :D

A