Gregg, so hope you don't mind, but I enlisted Bill Miller to help me understand why you and I have a difference of opinion regarding the meaning for metaphysics. His opinion is that psychologists assume that everything we think of is due to the subjectivity of mind, so of course by definition I am talking about a metaphysical opinion, not facts. I find that difficult to countenance because my career has been vested in providing the basic scientific data for the practice of evidence-based medicine (in contradistinction to the 'art' of medicine, which is metaphysics). My approach to evolution has been based on developmental physiology, founded on hypothesis-tested experiments from numerous laboratories around the world, a consensus having been formed for these data based on statistical metrics, i.e. that the data are statistically significantly different. So this, IMHO, is not metaphysics, it's physics, as I have intimated in my papers, showing the homologies between Quantum Mechanics and the cell. So unless you think that physics is also opinion, I don't get your way of thinking about my perspective as metaphysics. I had hoped that my science and theory would be adjunctive to your ToK, but not if what I am providing is metaphysics......So for example, I am reading Andy Clark's book "Supersizing the Mind" in which he explains disembodied consciousness. I think that what he is describing is a superficial understanding of what I am saying about consciousness as the aggregate of our physiology, as a reflection of the Singularity. So what Clark is expressing is analogous with explaining physics and chemistry without knowing Atomic Theory, in all humility.....your thoughts?