> If I"ve understood you correctly so far, your overall approach to the problem seems to be that if we can't define it in a reasonably rigorous way, then we don

> If I"ve understood you correctly so far, your overall approach to the problem seems to be that if we can't define it in a reasonably rigorous way, then we don't really know what we're referring to, and so it's not real. I don't think that's exactly what I'm saying. Maybe I am saying that if you can't define it in a reasonably rigorous way, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to claim that it absolutely must exist. There is a difference. Of course this is real to you. But I am saying it is not real from the perspective of science. For instance, it isn't something that can have value that natural selection could have selected for. It is, by nature, subjective. And that basically means "from a particular perspective." If you view it from a different perspective -- for instance, the external objective view that is appropriate in a scientific context -- it disappears.