Steelmanning the Argument From Consciousness

[POI]

The "argument from consciousness" is a philosophical argument that uses the existence of consciousness to argue for the existence of God.

Proponents claim that consciousness, with its subjective experiences and qualities, cannot be fully explained by physical matter alone, suggesting a non-physical source like a divine mind. This argument posits that consciousness must either be a product of a higher conscious being, or be an unexplained exception to the material universe.

Core tenets of the argument:

Fact: The argument begins with the premise that human consciousness, including subjective experiences (qualia) and self-awareness, is a real and fundamental aspect of human life. Consciousness exists. And I guess we'd like to know where it comes from?

Theists argue that a purely physicalist explanation of consciousness is insufficient. The argument is that it is difficult to explain how physical matter (like the brain) can give rise to subjective experience, consciousness, and intentionality without an outside mind to induce such a phenomenon. Meaning, invoking the necessity of a non-physical source. Because consciousness cannot (yet or ever) be fully explained by physical processes, the argument concludes that there must be a non-physical or supernatural element involved. But because we do not currently know something, then means 'god did it'? Inference to a divine mind by theists run rampant. Many versions of the argument then propose that a "Divine Mind" is the most plausible source for consciousness. If God, a being of pure consciousness, exists, then the existence of finite consciousness is less surprising and can be understood as a creation.

Common variations and counterarguments are given, in favor of a "mind". Below are a couple of examples:

-- J.P. Morland argues that the emergence of consciousness from a purely physical universe is not plausible, and therefore, a fundamental consciousness must have existed from the beginning, which he identifies as God.

-- Richard Swinburne argues that consciousness, with its purpose and intentionality, is exactly what one would expect to find in a universe created by a God interested in creating beings capable of mental interaction.

Some of the counterarguments, or pushback, are as follows:

-- "Physicalism" argues that while we may not yet fully understand consciousness, science is continually making progress, and the "explanatory gap" will eventually be closed by explaining consciousness in physical terms. This is where the deist/theist will then state naturalists are just as guilty of 'faith' as they are.

-- (Correlation vs. causation) The assertion that consciousness came from a god can be debunked by clarifying the difference between correlation and causation and identifying the argument as an argument from ignorance. Correlation vs. Causation means that two variables or events happen at the same time or seem to be related in some way, but it does not mean one caused the other. Causation means that a change in one variable directly causes a change in another variable, establishing a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

-- Some naturalists point out that consciousness, as we know it, is always directly tied to a physical body and brain, making an inference to a brainless God contradictory. Meaning, consciousness is linked to the body, period.

***********************

For reference, I fully acknowledge that this topic is not solved and is speculative.

For debate: It is unjustified or justified to now invoke supernatural causation for the existence of consciousness? Is the theist's position fallacious, demonstrating the (argument from ignorance) and maybe others? Or, are naturalists just in denial of the 'obvious'?

[POI]

Are they material in nature or immaterial in nature?

It has not been demonstrated to be either, (yet or never). Hence, we are ill-equipped to make an assertion right now. However, as stated prior, material stuff is demonstrated all over the place, while immaterial stuff has not been demonstrated anywhere.

From our prior exchanges, it would seem you suggest that the origin of 'consciousness' does not originate from the material brain? If this is not your position, please ignore the question below and redirect what you actually believe?

If so, I have a question... Is it your hypothesis that the origin of 'consciousness' utilizes parts of the material human brain to successfully convey its 'consciousness'? Meaning, in order for 'consciousness' to interact with us humans, 'consciousness' uses part(s) of our brain to communicate with us? Further, if that part of our brain stops functioning, then this 'consciousness' cannot successfully communicate its thoughts with us humans any longer?

if consciousness is known to exist, it must be made of a material composite, even if we have not yet discovered that material composite and named it something.

Sure. This is my position, for now.... Why? --- (Very generic answer) --- Material stuff has been demonstrated to exist. Immaterial stuff has not.

I am not "attempting to infer" anything. I am simply trying to understand what you mean by consciousness and whether you think it consists of material or not.

Do you think the un-identified "brain state" substance is material or immaterial?

As explained above, "immaterial" also necessitates 'supernatural', by the given definition.

are you implying by "material world or are beyond its known laws" that we know all the laws of the universe?

No. I'm asking if it is presumptuous to infer the 'immaterial and/or supernatural' when we do not yet, or may never definitively know, where 'brain states' original from and also what these 'brain states' are made out of?

Why even say "the material world" since that also implies an immaterial one? Do you think that consciousness is immaterial or material in make-up?

Because you may imply something beyond the material alone. Meaning, I may not be merely talking to a "materialist." Further, since 'immaterialism' is asserted, I'm granting the benefit of the doubt, even though it has not ever been demonstrated in reality.

Yet consciousness isn't entirely explained as it is unknown if it is made of material or not...

Right. But is it hasty to jump to the conclusion of an 'immaterial" cause?

Also can I assume you are fine with my take on "Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self" as uncontested and I can move to the next item on my list?

I don't know if it matters?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #11]

From our prior exchanges, it would seem you suggest that the origin of 'consciousness' does not originate from the material brain? If this is not your position, please ignore the question below and redirect what you actually believe?

It is unknown if 'consciousness' does or does not originate from the material brain, hence threads of this nature.

Is it your hypothesis that the origin of 'consciousness' utilizes parts of the material human brain to successfully convey its 'consciousness'?

It is my understanding we could exist within a created thing. Thus it could be a simulated reality experience.

Meaning, in order for 'consciousness' to interact with us humans, 'consciousness' uses part(s) of our brain to communicate with us?

Rather "to communicate with itself". "Consciousness" and "us" are the same thing in that regard. "Us" is not the body or the brain but the consciousness having the experiences of being "human". There is no "us" without consciousness...

Further, if that part of our brain stops functioning, then this 'consciousness' cannot successfully communicate its thoughts with us humans any longer?

What "part of our brain stops functioning" that consciousness isn't seen to be active anymore?

As far as I can tell, Consciousness (us) cannot express human concepts et al, if whatever part of the brain has a dysfunction which prevents that from happening.

Much like consciousness cannot choose to walk somewhere if legs don't work.

Material stuff has been demonstrated to exist. Immaterial stuff has not.

AI Overview
"Immaterial stuff" refers to things that are not physical, lack substance, or are not important to the matter at hand. It includes abstract concepts like love, friendship, and rules, as well as non-physical entities like spiritual or mental phenomena.

Given that overview, immaterial stuff can be demonstrated to exist through the activity of consciousness. In this light can Consciousness be thought to exist, even that it is perhaps not made of anything - because it is demonstrated through the activity of the body?

Do you think the un-identified "brain state" substance is material or immaterial?

I think it might well be material, because I am at a loss to explain how an immaterial thing can affect a material world.

As explained above, "immaterial" also necessitates 'supernatural', by the given definition.

If that is the case, then we would be able to claim that things like Love and friendship and rules are "supernatural"/attributed of the supernatural.

I'm asking if it is presumptuous to infer the 'immaterial and/or supernatural' when we do not yet, or may never definitively know, where 'brain states' original from and also what these 'brain states' are made out of?

I think it is presumptuous to assume Consciousness is immaterial in nature and less so to think of Consciousness as physical in nature, even that we do not yet know how to show that is the case. It may be the case that we have yet to discover the finest particle that exists and if we do, is it the same "stuff" that consciousness consists of....

Why even say "the material world" since that also implies an immaterial one? Do you think that consciousness is immaterial or material in make-up?

Because you may imply something beyond the material alone. Meaning, I may not be merely talking to a "materialist." Further, since 'immaterialism' is asserted, I'm granting the benefit of the doubt, even though it has not ever been demonstrated in reality.

My argument is that rather than presume an immaterial world, I focus on the existence of the evidence of the immaterial in a material world to be a thing perhaps yet to be discovered as having material composition. Meantime I do not see a practical reason for assuming supernaturalism is the fill-in mean-time...

Yet consciousness isn't entirely explained as it is unknown if it is made of material or not...

Right. But is it hasty to jump to the conclusion of an 'immaterial" cause?

It is hasty to jump to any conclusion...

While the brain obviously engages with consciousness and visa versa, it is hasty to also jump to the conclusion that the brain creates consciousness.

For example, as you should be aware, I think that the earth itself acts as a type of brain for a type of (call it planetary) Consciousness. If so, then it would be pertinent to think that human consciousness has a material cause through the material planet...however, even if that was the case, we still don't know if consciousness (planetary or human) is material or not.

Also can I assume you are fine with my take on "Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self" as uncontested and I can move to the next item on my list?

I don't know if it matters?

That would be a personal thing then? Some do explore Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self (as the link I gave, shows evidence of) but you personally - at this point, "don't know if it matters"?

Why it matters to me is that this allows for Consciousness an opportunity to explain itself, which is a type of evidence which adds to the overall evidence re the conviction I have that we exist within a created thing.

Another type of evidence is language and how one can mathematically sort language structures into meaningful mathematical correlations. This points as evidence that language is perhaps not invented so much as it is, discovered.

[POI]

My argument is that rather than presume an immaterial world, I focus on the existence of the evidence of the immaterial in a material world to be a thing perhaps yet to be discovered as having material composition. Meantime I do not see a practical reason for assuming supernaturalism is the fill-in mean-time...

Then the rest of this exchange is really just side-bar conversation, whether you want to engage it, is entirely up to you.

It is unknown if 'consciousness' does or does not originate from the material brain,

Okay. You hypothesis one position, whereas I may hypothesis another... Yours may or may not kind of also involve "immaterialism," which has been demonstrated nowhere -- (unless you want to loosely count 'love'). Mine instead rests solely upon "materialism" alone, which has been demonstrated everywhere. Please note what was stated on the OP: " "Physicalism" argues that while we may not yet fully understand consciousness, science is continually making progress, and the "explanatory gap" will eventually be closed by explaining consciousness in physical terms. This is where the deist/theist, (YOU), then may state -- "naturalists are just as guilty of 'faith' as they are."

It is my understanding we could exist within a created thing. Thus it could be a simulated reality experience.

Based upon your understanding, the originating source for "consciousness" does not START at the human's physical brain, but instead is given to the human brain, right?

What "part of our brain stops functioning" that consciousness isn't seen to be active anymore?

This response here is more-so for anyone else who may wish to chime in... Cough cough... AquinaForGod?

1) The frontal lobe is responsible for complex tasks like self-reflection, planning, and impulse control. It plays a key role in executive functions that are essential for self-awareness.

2) The parietal lobe processes sensory information and plays a role in interpreting feelings.

3) The insular cortex processes self-related information and monitoring internal bodily states, contributing to the subjective experience of self.

4) The cingulate cortex is involved in self-reflection and can combine with the medial prefrontal cortex to form the ability to self-reflect.

If 1) was severely damaged or removed, could 'William' still apply the same self-reflection, planning, and impulse control?

As far as I can tell, Consciousness (us) cannot express human concepts et al, if whatever part of the brain has a dysfunction which prevents that from happening. Much like consciousness cannot choose to walk somewhere if legs don't work.

Does that 'consciousness' still fundamentally exist though, absent of a material brain to convey it?

"Immaterial stuff" refers to things that are not physical, lack substance, or are not important to the matter at hand. It includes abstract concepts like love, friendship, and rules, as well as non-physical entities like spiritual or mental phenomena. Given that overview, immaterial stuff can be demonstrated to exist through the activity of consciousness. In this light can Consciousness be thought to exist, even that it is perhaps not made of anything - because it is demonstrated through the activity of the body?

I already kind of touched on this in a prior post...

Immaterialism has not been demonstrated to exist in a way that is universally accepted; instead, it is a philosophical theory that argues physical objects are not real, but are instead ideas or perceptions in a mind. Its sometimes argued that the existence of objects depends on them being perceived, but to avoid the issue of things ceasing to exist when no human is perceiving them, some invoke the idea of God's continuous perception to sustain their existence.

Can "love' exist without a material brain invoking it? If not, then my hypothesis seems unchallenged, in that "brain states" requires both a) a material brain and also that b) the material brain is the origin of such "brain states." Is so, demonstrate 'love' being independent of a material brain and we can then explore accordingly.

I think it might well be material, because I am at a loss to explain how an immaterial thing can affect a material world.

If brain states are comprised pf material, then brain states cannot be "supernatural", right?

If that is the case, then we would be able to claim that things like Love and friendship and rules are "supernatural"/attributed of the supernatural.

'Love' being deemed 'supernatural' seems to invoke a very wide and loose interpretation of the term. One that is almost meaningless. When I say 'supernatural', for all intense and purposes of this arena, it would also invoke being many attributes. If its "love/other" alone, then weeeee! So what?

I think it is presumptuous to assume Consciousness is immaterial in nature and less so to think of Consciousness as physical in nature, even that we do not yet know how to show that is the case. It may be the case that we have yet to discover the finest particle that exists and if we do, is it the same "stuff" that consciousness consists of....

I think, at least in this particular specific case, we are on the same page.

While the brain obviously engages with consciousness and visa versa, it is hasty to also jump to the conclusion that the brain creates consciousness.

Seems we already agree it's (less hasty) to lean on the side of materialism alone.

I'm going to stop here....

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #13]

Seems we already agree it's (less hasty) to lean on the side of materialism alone.

Considering this is really about the problem of consciousness, while we can agree loosely on being "materialists" about that, I would say that your idea of what "materialism" is and mine, branch off, as for example, the first item on my list where I think it is worthwhile digging deeper and you "don't know if it matters" as well as other items I have brought up which I think matter, and you appear not to.

That would be a fundamental difference in our view on materialism. I investigate and you see no reason to investigate such things.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #13]

Okay. You hypothesis one position, whereas I may hypothesis another... Yours may or may not kind of also involve "immaterialism," which has been demonstrated nowhere -- (unless you want to loosely count 'love'). Mine instead rests solely upon "materialism" alone, which has been demonstrated everywhere. Please note what was stated on the OP: " "Physicalism" argues that while we may not yet fully understand consciousness, science is continually making progress, and the "explanatory gap" will eventually be closed by explaining consciousness in physical terms. This is where the deist/theist, (YOU), then may state -- "naturalists are just as guilty of 'faith' as they are."

What is "The Soul"?

AI Overview: The soul is often described as the immaterial essence of a person, comprising their thoughts, emotions, personality, and consciousness. While not a physical entity, it is widely believed in various religions, philosophies, and cultures to be the principle of life or the spiritual part of a being that can survive the death of the body. Definitions vary, but key concepts include the soul as the source of identity, a moral and emotional component, and the animating force behind a living being

Clearly then, there is extensive external verification that the soul exists...

Based upon your understanding, the originating source for "consciousness" does not START at the human's physical brain, but instead is given to the human brain, right?

No. Rather the human experience - which includes the brain - is given to consciousness. THe simulation is created by and used for the purpose of - in our case - the human experience.

What "part of our brain stops functioning" that consciousness isn't seen to be active anymore?

1) The frontal lobe is responsible for complex tasks like self-reflection, planning, and impulse control. It plays a key role in executive functions that are essential for self-awareness.

2) The parietal lobe processes sensory information and plays a role in interpreting feelings.

3) The insular cortex processes self-related information and monitoring internal bodily states, contributing to the subjective experience of self.

4) The cingulate cortex is involved in self-reflection and can combine with the medial prefrontal cortex to form the ability to self-reflect.

How does this show us that consciousness is a product of the brain, if we exist within a created thing?

If 1) was severely damaged or removed, could 'William' still apply the same self-reflection, planning, and impulse control?

"William" being the name of the avatar/soul (consciousness) the damaged brain would seriously reduce my experience of being William.

As far as I can tell, Consciousness (us) cannot express human concepts et al, if whatever part of the brain has a dysfunction which prevents that from happening. Much like consciousness cannot choose to walk somewhere if legs don't work.

Does that 'consciousness' still fundamentally exist though, absent of a material brain to convey it?

That is one of the questions which arise re the hard problem of consciousness. We know it exists as we observe it of our own experience. Some (like myself) have come to understand that consciousness (soul) is what I am, and WHO I am regardless of what simulation experience I am having or will have...yet just because we know it exists does not mean that we acknowledge it exists - specifically where human science has difficulty measuring it but is certainly is measurable in what it does through The Humanities...

If consciousness is fundamental, then the question can be answered that yes - consciousness fundamentally exists re the human experience - so any damage to the brain hampers the ability to measure consciousness in such a state. Can we presume from that, this means consciousness no longer exists re the individual whose bodily functions are damaged to the point where they cannot be observed and measured by any science we know about?

Or are we still left with an unanswered question?

Conservely, is there any other resource not directly from science which can still be prodded at and examined through some types of scientific researching which might shed light on the mystery? If so, are we duty bound (morally speaking) to investigate?

Can "love' exist without a material brain invoking it? If not, then my hypothesis seems unchallenged, in that "brain states" requires both a) a material brain and also that b) the material brain is the origin of such "brain states." Is so, demonstrate 'love' being independent of a material brain and we can then explore accordingly.

I don't think it matters because we have plenty of brain-form examples in which to draw information from.

What we can tell from that information - specifically of the type that allows for individual self awareness - is that brains are integral to that type of state. This in itself does not show us that consciousness derives solely from brains or that we can correctly answer the question as to why brains "invoke" "love". We also know that a love invoked by a brain expresses similar things, regardless of said brain. Can we deduce from that data that the brain is a shallow thing? A deep thing? Somewhere in between? None of those things?

Can we even say that a brain is interested in those things?

What we also don't know is how a mindless thing such as a brain could "invoke" anything but we do know for sure that consciousness indeed invokes lots of things...so this could hint that it is consciousness using a brain rather than a brain using consciousness...because in order to use something consciously, one has to be conscious.

So the underlying question remains "How did the brain invoke consciousness without first being conscious?"

It is argued that consciousness emerged from the brain, (general atheistic materialism) but this is a theory. Another theory is that consciousness emerges through the brain (general Theistic Materialism).

My question is HOW - if consciousness is "immaterial" - does it manage to stay in the human form and remain there until it no longer can? This question itself is based on the idea that we exist within a simulation (creation/created thing) and thus non-human consciousness created that thing for the purpose of experiencing that thing (being human).

Yet the question can also be asked of the brain. How does the brain keep the consciousness it "invoked", in the brain?

There are answers either way which are acceptable arguments. Where is becomes less certain is in why people have OOBEs and NDEs - why would a brain "bother" to simulate these experiences and why would individual brains simulate the same types of experiences?

If we resort to it being a chemical thing, then we are left having to explain why it is not chemicals that invoke both the brain and consciousness, and the hard problem remains unsolved.
Then we could say that it is particles which invoked chemicals so are particles the fundamental thing which invoked consciousness?

Then we are left to explain how it is that particles invoke anything, without being conscious themselves.

Simulation theory implies that particles are a mind-field - iow - they physically represent conscious activity and thus are inseparable from consciousness. This field itself can be thought of as fundamental, meaning all things which derive from it, are simulations thought up by itself, for the purpose of experiencing whatever is thought up.

If consciousness is fundamental, then so too is the mystery...especially given the nature of the simulation The Humanities are experiencing, which - through observation - I refer to as "Blank Slate Technology" which enables consciousness having human experiences to have no prior memory of even existing or of having a part in the creation of that technology which allowed for such an experience to be had. It gives us the Hard Problem of Consciousness, which we then have to attempt to work out - if indeed we even become interested in doing so - which appears to be the case...human consciousness is interested in solving that problem...

I think it might well be material, because I am at a loss to explain how an immaterial thing can affect a material world.

If brain states are comprised pf material, then brain states cannot be "supernatural", right?

We don't want to jump to conclusions, right?

We cannot assume consciousness a "brain state" without also assuming consciousness is "invoked" by brains, right?

Therefore, the question remains open. Is Consciousness (and thus all that is connected with consciousness) a brain state or is love et al, consciousness states?

That Key question is "Do particles "invoke" or does consciousness "invoke" and the logical answer is that it is consciousness which does the invoking and particles which do the complying.

I think it is presumptuous to assume Consciousness is immaterial in nature and less so to think of Consciousness as physical in nature, even that we do not yet know how to show that is the case. It may be the case that we have yet to discover the finest particle that exists and if we do, is it the same "stuff" that consciousness consists of....

I think, at least in this particular specific case, we are on the same page.

Even so, how does that help? When I write "physical in nature" I am not meaning "the physical brain invoked consciousness"...

[POI]

What is "The Soul"?

In several ancient languages, words for "soul" or "spirit" are the same as or etymologically connected to words for "air," "wind," and "breath". For example, the Greek word pneuma can mean "air in motion," "breath," "wind," or "soul," and the Hebrew word ruach has a similar range of meanings. This connection reflects an ancient understanding of breath as the animating, life-giving force, linking the physical (breath) with the spiritual (life force).

Clearly then, there is extensive external verification that the soul exists...

I disagree. See above.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #16]

AI Overview: The soul is often described as the immaterial essence of a person, comprising their thoughts, emotions, personality, and consciousness. While not a physical entity, it is widely believed in various religions, philosophies, and cultures to be the principle of life or the spiritual part of a being that can survive the death of the body. Definitions vary, but key concepts include the soul as the source of identity, a moral and emotional component, and the animating force behind a living being

In several ancient languages, words for "soul" or "spirit" are the same as or etymologically connected to words for "air," "wind," and "breath". For example, the Greek word pneuma can mean "air in motion," "breath," "wind," or "soul," and the Hebrew word ruach has a similar range of meanings. This connection reflects an ancient understanding of breath as the animating, life-giving force, linking the physical (breath) with the spiritual (life force).

Not sure, but from your subsequent comment...

I disagree.

...it appears you are disagreeing with both AI overview of available data on what Theism say's of the soul and my own remarks about that...

Clearly then, there is extensive external verification that the soul exists...

What I think you are missing is the deeper layer of Theistic Insight even in the examples you gave re "wind" "breath" et al - the very things which we cannot see except for the results of what these do to affect physical nature. Apt analogy of consciousness, is the wind of breath...

From my perspective, I ask myself "do I accept the word of an atheist materialist on matters of theological concepts and definitions, which AI draws collectively from, or do I point out the deficiency in your argument."

In all cases like this, I choose to point out the deficiencies and therein also the common theistic beliefs that it is indeed the human consciousness as defined which best fits the definition of "The Soul".
Not to discount the notion that the Hebrew God-idea breathed its own substance into an otherwise dead thing - "dead" because it wasn't alive until the breath entered into it and it became living...and consciousness fits the description better than any other thing known to exist.

I think too, that your grasp of theistic beliefs being deficient allows for you to disregard or otherwise ignore the points I made to do with critiquing your "brain invoking consciousness" argument.

Just to remind you and the interested reader;

We cannot assume consciousness a "brain state" without also assuming consciousness is "invoked" by brains, right?

Therefore, the question remains open. Is Consciousness (and thus all that is connected with consciousness) a brain state or is love et al, consciousness states?

That Key question is "Do particles "invoke" or does consciousness "invoke" and the logical answer is that it is consciousness which does the invoking and particles which do the complying.

Any questions?

[POI]

Any questions?

Nah, I'm good. 'The Soul" was code for, "we ancients had no actual idea of what "breath", "wind". and "air" really were." Turns out, 'The Soul" really amounted to be nothing more than a bunch of (hot air).

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #18]

Nah, I'm good.

Well that settles it then...

Steelmanning the Argument From Consciousness
Premise:
We cannot claim consciousness is a brain state without assuming that brains possess an unexplained consciousness-producing power.

Therefore:
The question remains open whether consciousness is produced by matter or whether states such as love, awareness, and meaning are fundamental consciousness states.

Best Explanation:
Given the options, the strongest argument is that consciousness invokes and particles comply, not as separate substances but as complementary aspects of a single unified process.

If two explanations are possible, choose the one with fewer unexplained assumptions.

Here’s how it plays out:

If we say particles invoke consciousness, we must assume:

non-experiential particles suddenly acquire the ability to produce experience,

and that “brain matter” contains a special magic-like property unavailable elsewhere.

This is a heavy metaphysical cost.

But if we say consciousness invokes particle behavior, we:

remove the need for unexplained “consciousness-production” powers,

treat consciousness as fundamental (as experience already appears to us),

and avoid splitting the world into “supernatural vs. material.”

We cannot argue that chemicals produce consciousness because chemicals are not fundamental. They only exist after particles and fields organize. So the real question is at the particle level: do particles invoke consciousness, or does consciousness invoke the organization of particles? The second option requires fewer assumptions and carries no unexplained powers, so it is the stronger explanation.

[POI]

do particles invoke consciousness, or does consciousness invoke the organization of particles? The second option requires fewer assumptions and carries no unexplained powers, so it is the stronger explanation.

It's all assumption(s) until 'science' likely figures it out. Which loops us right back to what I already stated prior.