[dr_lew]

But even though that is a popular thought these days, it's always seemd to me to be a logical '"category error." In other words, that which perceives is ontologically different than that which is itelf perceived. In fact, of the perceiver, nothing can really be said except that "we" experience it in the receiving of perception.

Well, you know, "ontological schmontological". You can't bootstrap your way into immortality. There's nothing inconsistent in the idea that we are bound to and dependent on our physical existence. In fact, one naively and ordinarily draws this conclusion. You know, that's mystery enough! What the heck is going on? I suppose that opens the oors.

[Talisker]

Well, you know, "ontological schmontological".