As promoter of UMSITW [pronounced 'um-see-two'] I would like to point out that there does not appear to be any good evidence coming from brain imaging studies that contradicts the fundamental thesis, that C. [rememberable awareness, shall we say] is what it is like to be the updating of the brain's model of self in the world. I understand that everybody has their own pet theories and understandings, but I wish to contend that there is no good philosophical reason for rejecting the idea either. Indeed, when I read the tail-chasing discussions going on in attempts to clarify what people think about qualia for example, I am amazed. The fact is our experience of the world is deeply paradoxical, if we stop to think about it, yet most of the time we don't have to think about it because naive realism is very effective for allowing us to accomplish most of what we need to do in our practical work-a-day worlds. I could almost make an analogy: that naive realism is nature's version of Newtonian physics. Sophisticated realism on the other hand can be quite mind blowing; and most of the time it takes effort to keep any awareness of it. AND, a second thing I would like to point out is that UMSITW does not sit well with the idea of 'effing the ineffable'. Reasons for this latter statement can be provided if required. xodarap :-) AKA Mark Peaty