Romansh: That is why I put it as I did. Thought may result from neural energy, but the thought itself is without any energy component in it. That is why consciousness is so tough to explain. > You keep saying this David ... i have no way of verifying this statement.-So you think there is possibility that an idea or thought contains energy, if spoken, voiced, or written? The energy is in the production, not the resultant thought itself.- > Romansh: All I am saying you do split ... but yours is a much coarser split than that of a traditional reductionist.-I don't think of myself as a reductionist at all. I underwstand the parts, but in no way do they control me.