So, IMHO it doesn’t really matter whether some brain scan shows a less-than-intuitive timing relationship between hand movement and the realization of a conscious decision by the mover. It doesn’t really matter how some overtired lab assistant interprets the look on a parrot’s face as it ponders itself in a mirror. None of that matters because no scientist will ever be able to truly convince me that I am not an individual with my own unique world view and at least a limited ability to make my own choices in life.

I would go on about the somewhat presumptious assertion that science can ever help us to find “truth” anyway, but this post is too long-winded already.

Del–See, it’s that determinism that bugs me. I suspect that there’s “more”, but it’s a result of chaos theory–enough neurons and chemicals stewing around inside us, and you can no more predict individual responses than you can predict, say, what’s going to happen to a WinDoze computer when you install a new program! Have you read CJ Cherryh’s “Cyteen”? It’s, in part, an examination of the terrible difficulty that cloners would encounter in trying to recreate not just the body, but the personality, of a specific individual.

Miss C.–The “degree” rather than “kind” is where we’re headed. They’ve done experiments with certain animals (bonobos? parrots?) that indicate they, too, have a rudimentary sense of “self” (the experiments have to do with mirrors and the realization that you’re looking at *you* rather than another person/animal that just happens to be mirroring your actions). I personally think, as I said above to Del, that there’s a point beyond which the complexity of the interactions leads to consciousness and individuality.