Yes, I understand. And that's also a very common thought pattern: To construe of biological or neurological findings in terms of primacy. The interesting thing about this is that the interpretations we wield - the _models_ - are not without history. It's therefore relevant to look at how we go about representing the things we find through our living activites. That's a case in point: We're living first and foremost, and through this we employ abstractions, noteably through language (use). The idea of a "bottom" is not "innocent", and should be investigated more thoroughly in conversations where it needs to be relevant. Where I'm coming from, it's relevant in terms of understanding ourselves not as "surface" or "user experience", but indeed as living things with contained capabilities (which sometimes don't work as expected - us being stutterers and all). We may not know how everything works (and we probably never will, because we may always be able to zoom in closer), but this doesn't mean that what we experience is necessarily a derived feature of something else (something "real", as it were). As I said, these metaphysical points are discussed extensively in philosophy. I'm not expressing them as novel in any way.