Hence my point that our reality is the issue, rather than the argument. If we are using language which is inept, ie. unable to capture the reality, then how is

Hence my point that our reality is the issue, rather than the argument. If we are using language which is inept, ie. unable to capture the reality, then how is cementing the meaning of that language supposed to help? Are we supposed to limit our understanding of reality by limiting the questions we ask of the language with which we articulate it? Or another way, how can we ask what consciousness is for a person or an animal or a computer, of we cannot answer it of a rock? It is not at all to suggest that words have no purpose or are meaningless. Words are currently our best definition of consciousness.