I believe there were two people, just forget it, it is not important at all.
As you see, appearances can be deceiving, especially if you jump to conclusions.
Tarvo wrote: But I insist that in science we must try to show that there are no other possibilities, you must think more about your theory.
It is wonderful to read these words; your dedication to real science is clear. I hope you will apply it to your observations about social interactions here on the forum.
There are though people who present theories that neural networks implement consciousness or that consciousness is awareness (very few though who exactly say so if you read carefully), you may create theories of that level and may be appreciated by others, but not by me. But I would like that you stay on this forum, everyone must solve problems what he started to solve, and it would be interesting to talk then.
Gee, Tarvo; you did not ask me to stay on the forum. How about it? Do you want me to stay? Have a heart; lighten up?
"I don't know what you exactly want to achieve, but by impression I had of your theory it may be useful for you to study the game theory of John Nash http://www.popular-science.net/nobel/nash.html who suffered from schizophrenia and wanted to prove the existence of God, but found a way to estimate a behaviour of people instead, and got Noble price for it."
What's your favorite site about Nash's game theory? Have you read the book, A Beautiful Mind? The process of awarding Nobel Prizes is almost as interesting as the story of Dr. Nash.