i agree, Sageous, that the conversation was immediately derailed, and the point of the OP is lost. There is only one point that I would still like to make and that regards opinions. Anyone, you or a psychologist or anyone else, who makes a statement about non-physical reality, i.e. the mind, consciousness can only have opinions, theories. For something to be a fact, it must incorporate objectivity. And there are no objective facts about consciousness. There are only theories, opinions. It doesn't matter how many decades psychologists have studied the subject, they have no facts because we don't have the technology to record factual information about consciousness, thus anything they say is there opinion based on their research. You can lay a person on a table and record data while they are in sleep states, for instance, but you are only gather information on the physical body, not the mind. The mind/consciousness is non-corporeal. Any interpretation of mental activity that is not physically generated, such as the experience itself, can not be recorded and can not be called a fact. Your preferred terminology is just another example of an opinion. You can't call it fact, because someone just made up the word and the definition as a means to describe something they theorize about. Which is why not everyone agrees with the particular terms nor the theory behind them. Nothing describing consciousness can be called fact until we gain a far greater skill set that will allow us to record hard data. Thanks for your perspective.