1. I was specifically replying to the flagged poster (flagged for good reason as they are being derisive without warrant), who let on that they did not actually

1. I was specifically replying to the flagged poster (flagged for good reason as they are being derisive without warrant), who let on that they did not actually mean to reply to my post. 2. Not wiggling, fuck i am not saying anything at all apart from that it does not make the claims they were suggesting—which it does not. I just said I liked the article. I like that it navigates a coherent path through a concept which is often quite.. far fetched. Gives framework around how to see consciousness differently without making any claims about consciousness than that which is observed. But seriously, the idea that you must take on the entirety of a cannon if you make reference to it (even when expressly arguing against it) is, how shall I put this nicely.. just fucking ridiculous. 3. You seem to suggest we should rest on our current conceptual understanding of various types of consciousness rather than trying to figure out how break them down into their constituent parts. Very scientific. >to sound more clever Really, why the snark? seems you don't understand how philosophy (or language for that matter works). The terms are used to maintain a meaning explained and argued previously, and to avoid common language meanings unrelated to the concept. What you said would be like chiding a mathematician for using esoteric terms like 'imaginary numbers'. edit: In the best humor, despite my better judgement, edited structure for clarity.