Okay, just be aware, I have a job and this is getting more replies than I can respond to very quickly. I would challenge the very idea of "There is no thinker, only the thought." Of course, there's a thinker, because what is a thought? It's like saying there is wetness but no liquid. How would wetness be called wetness without there being the liquid? The thing, then the function.

Keep in mind, there's a process to this, and I don't have some slam dunk of an argument to heap onto everyone. I have to see where you are, so to speak.