Not only do they believe implicitly and absolutely in the reality of the non-I, of a determining reality over and above experience, but they use all their ingenuity to propose ways in which all experience is produced or excreted by the convolutions of this reality. Thus consciousness springs up when systems reach a certain threshold of feedback, or else it is what is registered when a certain kind of informational friction comes about, whether it be in the gap within experience between expectation and outcome, or the as the 'feel' associated with the reality of what we know as calculation in act. All of these proposals are patently absurd, but they express a peculiar type of homage that the objectivist or naturalistic ways of thought must pay to that consciousness the question of whose existence they shamelessly beg. Their self-confidence is such that they can convince themselves that if they make this gesture grandly its empty nature will go unnoticed. If consciousness results from some process who is it that witnesses this production? If it is only the process itself then consciousness is an illusion born of subtly deferrals, but then whose illusion is it? Who are they trying to fool?