I think the best way for me to respond to this is to be as open and honest as possible. I realize why you said you avoid using the word 'conquer', because it does imply that one has ownership over something that in the end we cannot own. However I didn't mean it that way in the slightest. In the end what we call a 'mountain' is just a bunch of minerals. Formed through the steady progression of geological processes. This in turn governed by chemistry and physics. Do you see how we reduce scale constantly? Mountains are not conscious, aware, or anything else. They are exactly the sum of their physical properties, nothing more. A mountain is just our word to describe nature. Anything on top is just our human brain imparting our own meaning onto it.
To tell me that I cannot conquer a mountain, is to tell someone that they cannot simply drive down a perilous road, the road has to let you drive it. It's as meaningless and nonsensical as saying that person X's pain is far worse than person Y, when you know nothing about that person.
You're right about these things being internal. So do not presume to know my internal state.
Just thinking about this.... If you want take a reductionist approach, you're really not conquering anything, regardless of your internal state (not that I want to get into metaphysics, a subject I know little about). Using your logic, everyone is just a jumble of minerals, elements, etc, and through biological processes under the laws of physics and chemistry, you ended up on that pile of minerals (Wedge Mountain). So...did you really conquer anything?
If you did conquer something, then you believe that you somehow have more consciousness than a pile of minerals, but you know nothing of it's internal state.
Not sure what it means if you didn't conquer anything. But guntis makes a solid point. Walking up a mountain sounds far less epic than saying you conquered it.
Don't take this too seriously, it's the interwebs, and I'm rambling. I hope you had a good time up there.