Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Define conscious scientifically. Then I can answer you. An analogy for you: are the preacher's shoes sacred? I don't know, define 'sacred' and I'll tell. Sacredness is unfortunately not well-described by science.

Unless you're asking if the camera has the ability to observe and react. I would then say yes, the camera has "attention", but much less attention than an animal brain. It's not attention as a cognitive function, but attention as a programmed behavior.

Finally, don't accuse me of insulting people. Coming from you, it's very cynical.

Defining consciousness is what you are claiming to be able to do. You have already said that it is not any of the things that have been said here by me and others. I have been trying to get you to define consciousness; you said it was attention so I asked you if a camera is conscious by your definition. Just answer the question already. Is a camera conscious, yes or no? It is an extremely simple question to answer.

You differentiate between cognitive functions and programmed behavior. If the camera's functions had evolved to be that way (like this) would that make the difference? If this is the case, then is it only evolved attention that qualifies as consciousness?

Why shouldn't I accuse you of insulting people, that is practically all you have done in this thread? Perhaps you are implying that I insulted you. Do you take "first year college student" as an insult? Was it something else that I said that was insulting?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

To bring quantum mechanics to a more intuitive level, imagine a living human body. Basically, scientists are opening the human body with a knife, and complaining that the human body dies. It's not dying because of the observation, it's dying because of the method you're using -- just like you kill cells to observe in a microscope.

This is false. To use the classic example; in the double slit experiment, the wave pattern is not present when a measurement is made at the point of the slits. If the measuring device is in place and operating but is not connected to an output then the wave pattern re-emerges. In your microscope example, this would be the same as preparing the slide but not actually putting it on the stage resulting in the cells not actually dying.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Hmm.. Yes it is arbitrary, but only in a deterministic scenario. If something is there without a cause, then it has a very clear start, and thus, happens. If you're saying determinism isn't always correct because of these phenomena, then determinism doesn't apply to them, and they actually happen.

Ok, so then does existence, in and of itself, happen?

That said, "happening" being arbitrary doesn't change the point. You name and define it however you want. It exists and is there. Why doesn't it exist on all other instances of time? Because surely something causes it.

It does change the point. It means causes and effects are illusions. If you haven't identified the origin of the universe, what use are the rest?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Defining consciousness is what you are claiming to be able to do.

Not, much to the contrary. I have been claiming science doesn't define "consciousness".

You have already said that it is not any of the things that have been said here by me and others. I have been trying to get you to define consciousness; you said it was attention so I asked you if a camera is conscious by your definition. Just answer the question already. Is a camera conscious, yes or no? It is an extremely simple question to answer.

Science doesn't define consciousness. Science defines attention, decision-making, understanding and prediction of models, abstraction, logical deduction... but not consciousness. Must I repeat?

You differentiate between cognitive functions and programmed behavior. If the camera's functions had evolved to be that way (like this) would that make the difference? If this is the case, then is it only evolved attention that qualifies as consciousness?

I'm not arguing about the philosophy of machines, artificial intelligence, nor anything. I'm just saying the human brain has, as one of its specific functions, the cognitive function of attention. I mean 'attention' as per the biological definition, which doesn't include machines by definition.

Why shouldn't I accuse you of insulting people, that is practically all you have done in this thread? Perhaps you are implying that I insulted you. Do you take "first year college student" as an insult? Was something else that I said that was insulting?

Yes. There's this thing called tone, and.. ah well, nevermind, I saw this shit coming from you ever since you became one.

Originally Posted by really

Ok, so then does existence, in and of itself, happen?

It's all a matter of definition. Aka semantics. Call it whatever you like. For the sake of communication, I'd say "yes", but if you want to continue to prolong this...

It does change the point. It means causes and effects are illusions. If you haven't identified the origin of the universe, what use are the rest?

Maybe it doesn't have an origin. Maybe time is infinite in both directions. Seriously. Just because you don't know how the universe started, if it ever started, doesn't mean causality is wrong.

And don't you dare say causality is useless. It'd me like a scientific blasphemy.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's all a matter of definition. Aka semantics. Call it whatever you like. For the sake of communication, I'd say "yes", but if you want to continue to prolong this...

You know what I mean. Use the same definition as with your causality stance so you're consistent.

Maybe it doesn't have an origin. Maybe time is infinite in both directions. Seriously. Just because you don't know how the universe started, if it ever started, doesn't mean causality is wrong.

It may just mean that, you know. How do you think it "started" then? I say the universe may have began, but existence itself is timeless. No causes there.

Originally Posted by really

You know what I mean. Use the same definition as with your causality stance so you're consistent.



It may just mean that you know. How do you think it "started" then? I say the universe may have began, but existence itself is timeless. No causes there.

Hmm. Let's go back in time. Imagine that, before some point in time, the universe was perfectly still and unchanging, always the same, no exchange of energy, nothing. Endlessly and endlessly the same. Would it be considered to have a beginning?

Or... Let's stretch this a bit. What if, before some point in time, the universe followed only a repetitive cycle.. Never changing.. Would it be considered to have a beginning?

Now let's stretch it even more. What if the whole existence of the universe is a cycle? Would it be considered to have a beginning?

Now let's stretch it EVEN MORE. Imagine if nothing I previously said happens, and the universe is always changing, to situations completely different, be it forwards or backwards in time... Would it be considered to have a beginning?


You're mistaking "beginning of the universe" with "how the universe got to be this way". It's a very subtle difference and you're not guilty for not realizing this. In fact, you only made this mistake because you interpret "cause" as "that which makes things be the way they are" -- which is correct. What I'm trying to say is that, perhaps the universe was never caused, perhaps it has been here infinitely for whatever other reason we don't yet comprehend.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Hmm. Let's go back in time. Imagine that, before some point in time, the universe was perfectly still and unchanging, always the same, no exchange of energy, nothing. Endlessly and endlessly the same. Would it be considered to have a beginning?

Or... Let's stretch this a bit. What if, before some point in time, the universe followed only a repetitive cycle.. Never changing.. Would it be considered to have a beginning?

Now let's stretch it even more. What if the whole existence of the universe is a cycle? Would it be considered to have a beginning?

Now let's stretch it EVEN MORE. Imagine if nothing I previously said happens, and the universe is always changing, to situations completely different, be it forwards or backwards in time... Would it be considered to have a beginning?


You're mistaking "beginning of the universe" with "how the universe got to be this way". It's a very subtle difference and you're not guilty for not realizing this at all.

In each case, by saying "some point in time" - are you not begging/answering your own question that there was a beginning? Hence it is arbitrary. Until you can rule out time altogether, you're always going to find an excuse for a beginning.

Also no I am not talking about the "hows" of the universe, because that would be related to my disbelief in occurrences, events, or happenings. I'm asking you whether existence, as a totality, can be termed to be one of these.

Originally Posted by really

In each case, by saying "some point in time" - are you not begging/answering your own question that there was a beginning? Hence it is arbitrary. Until you can rule out time altogether, you're always going to find an excuse for a beginning.

Nah. My point, in each of the examples, was to show that there is no beginning... because saying that there is one is arbitrary.

Also no I am not talking about the "hows" of the universe, because that would be related to my disbelief in occurrences, events, or happenings. I'm asking you whether existence, as a totality, can be termed to be one of these.

It's all a matter of definition (aka it's arbitrary). If you think it's an occurrence or not doesn't change what it is. Define "occurrence" and I'll tell you if the universe is an occurrence. You with me? Don't try to fit the universe into the words that already exist. Fit the words into the universe that already exists.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah. My point, in each of the examples, was to show that there is no beginning... because saying that there is one is arbitrary.

Ok so you agree with me.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's all a matter of definition (aka it's arbitrary). If you think it's an occurrence or not doesn't change what it is. Define "occurrence" and I'll tell you if the universe is an occurrence. You with me? Don't try to fit the universe into the words that already exist. Fit the words into the universe that already exists.

lol, I'm asking you! Does existence, in and of itself, happen?

The answer so far is no. Happening is a definition and is arbitrary, like begginings and endings. Where does causality fit into this? It too, is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by really

Does existence, in and of itself, happen?

The answer so far is no. Happening is a definition and is arbitrary, like begginings and endings. Where does causality fit into this? It too, is arbitrary.

Nah, you're losing me here. Define "happen", define "existence", and I'll tell you the answer. You're doing exactly what I told you not to -- fitting existing real things into pre-made words. If you wish, let's create a name for what happens to the universe: roove. The universe rooves. Does this clear your doubt?

Basically, your doubt is in how to categorize the universe. Stop trying to, there is only one universe, no need to categorize it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah, you're losing me here. Define "happen", define "existence", and I'll tell you the answer. You're doing exactly what I told you not to -- fitting existing real things into pre-made words. If you wish, let's create a name for what happens to the universe: roove. The universe rooves. Does this clear your doubt?

Ok so you're dodging what I said. But it isn't that hard to understand.

You seem to apply "pre-made" words to real things very well in the past, why can't you apply it here? Why say something is caused? Why say the universe is caused, then? Are all things, as a totality, caused?

Originally Posted by really

You're ignoring what I said. You sent me to page 1 and I am reflecting your problem therein (and throughout) of understanding the paradigm in which these question do not seem to consider. That's what I'm talking about.

Say what? I don't know how that relates, but I asked you why humans are on Earth and you first said there is no reason and then said there is a reason.

Originally Posted by really

It doesn't entirely answer the question, but if it does to you, then merely "evolution" also answers your other questions about the origination of life on the planet. I am saying it is unfulfillable because it leads to the question of the "origination" of the universe by paradigm, not by gathered data.

Okay, evolution answers the question. We are here because of evolution. In the early stages of evolution, what observers were (or "are" if you like) involved?

Originally Posted by really

Ok so you're dodging what I said. But it isn't that hard to understand.

You seem to apply real things to "pre-made" words very well in the past, why can't you apply it here? Why say something is caused? Why say the universe is caused, then? Are all things, as a totality, caused?

I only did that for the sake of speech and simplification. It's not correct to do. Nothing assures us the word is correct and accurate to describe the thing. You should look at the things themselves, not at words that represent them. The verb "to happen" was made much before religions arose. I think you get the problem with using it to describe complex, post-Einstein stuff.

All things that are under a deterministic system have causes. However, you can't say that about the universe, because the universe is the system. The concept doesn't extend to the system. If you do say the universe has a cause, then the universe isn't the system, but part of something bigger that is the system.

Stop trying to fit existing real things into pre-made words, because they will never fit seamlessly. The best to do is to create a new word, which you can then be sure to fit seamlessly with the thing. The universe rooves.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Say what? I don't know how that relates, but I asked you why humans are on Earth and you first said there is no reason and then said there is a reason.

Thanks for being incredibly vague. I don't know if you've been following or not, but I was saying that evolution is a determined factor of life that is concluded in the complexity of observation. It exists, but outside observation there is more to it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Okay, evolution answers the question. We are here because of evolution. In the early stages of evolution, what observers were (or "are" if you like) involved?

What do you think - animals? Your answer must be as good as mine, is it not?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I only did that for the sake of speech and simplification. It's not correct to do. Nothing assures us the word is correct and accurate to describe the thing. You should look at the things themselves, not at words that represent them. The verb "to happen" was made much before religions arose. I think you get the problem with using it to describe complex, post-Einstein stuff.

All things that are under a deterministic system have causes. However, you can't say that about the universe, because the universe is the system. The concept doesn't extend to the system. If you do say the universe has a cause, then the universe isn't the system, but part of something bigger that is the system.

Stop trying to fit existing real things into pre-made words, because they will never fit seamlessly. The best to do is to create a new word, which you can then be sure to fit seamlessly with the thing. The universe rooves.

I agree and know what you're saying, because it's what I'm also saying. But I don't see how it fits with your views on there being a deterministic system. I am asking you about whether the universe or existence is caused because you seem to think causality has a valid reality. Since existence has no cause and is timeless I think we can say that all the latter argument about individual causes, effects, events, happenings are all arbitrary and have no actual existence. They only exist inside perception or observation. If this is not how you see it you need to explain. Inventing another word obviously doesn't help.

Originally Posted by really

I agree and know what you're saying, because it's what I'm also saying. But I don't see how it fits with your views on there being a deterministic system. I am asking you about whether the universe or existence is caused because you seem to think causality has a valid reality. Since the existence has no cause and is timeless I think we can say that all the latter argument about individual causes, effects, events, happenings are all arbitrary and have no actual existence. They only exist inside perception or observation. If this is not how you see it you need to explain. Inventing another word obviously doesn't help.

You're making bold and speedy conclusions, just because you have a personal problem with determinism.

The universe is the system. It doesn't matter if the universe has no cause, for it is not included in the concept of determinism that the system must have a cause. However, all things inside the system have a cause, which classifies the universe as being deterministic.

Causality is not guilt, or action, or reason. Causality is a natural and compulsory progression of a given system based on the state of the system in a given moment, said that such progression involves no randomness nor influence of things outside of the system. Causality is true for the universe -- aka the universe is deterministic.

If it is eventually found that there is something greater than the universe that influences it (which I will name megaverse), then the universe will not longer be the system, but a subsystem, and the megaverse will be the system. This is all only a hypothesis though, to show that determinism is true for the universe, whether the universe has a cause or not.

Also, inventing words helps more than you'd imagine.

Originally Posted by really

Thanks for being incredibly vague. I don't know if you've been following or not, but I was saying that evolution is a determined factor of life that is concluded in the complexity of observation. It exists, but outside observation there is more to it.

Historical analysis happens later (or in a different area if you like). We are not here because of historical analysis. That would mean we are here because we are here.

Originally Posted by really

What do you think - animals? Your answer must be as good as mine, is it not?

I am talking about the early stages... preceding animals. What were (or "are") the observers?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The universe is the system. It doesn't matter if the universe has no cause, for it is not included in the concept of determinism that the system must have a cause. However, all things inside the system have a cause, which classifies the universe as being deterministic.

Causality is not guilt, or action, or reason. Causality is a natural and compulsory progression of a given system based on the state of the system in a given moment, said that such progression involves no randomness nor influence of things outside of the system. Causality is true for the universe -- aka the universe is deterministic.

If it is eventually found that there is something greater than the universe that influences it (which I will name megaverse), then the universe will not longer be the system, but a subsystem, and the megaverse will be the system. This is all only a hypothesis though, to show that determinism is true for the universe, whether the universe has a cause or not.

Thanks, but this doesn't change anything when I am talking about existence itself as a whole. If existence has no cause and nothing that is beyond it, then everything else is also part of that until you observe it. The chair you may be sitting on has existed for all eternity in essence and never may perish from its source. Its form as a chair is transitory in that it can only transform from one form to another. Nothing causes you to sit on it or for you to use it as a step ladder. It's all a unified process of potentiality manifesting as actuality. This is what quantum physics seems to indicate.

I'm not so much convinced about causality as I used to be. There's no reason for me to believe that a toy plane crashing on your roof caused you to climb up there and get it and cause the birds to ignore it, and that a single accident can cause years and years of grief to one person and cause relief to another. The whole notion of causes seems to be quite limited compared to a quantum reality that acknowledges the existence of universal consciousness on a much broader level.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Also, inventing words helps more than you'd imagine.

Define "rooves."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Historical analysis happens later (or in a different area if you like). We are not here because of historical analysis. That would mean we are here because we are here.

That is no less true than "we are here because of evolution." The whole "why" of the matter implies a cause, which I'm saying is invalid. You can't say "because" to anything because there is no "because" to existence. The use of cause is only has meaning in most cases to do with worldly purposes. That won't help you understand much more than what is contained and purported for the world itself, unless you include quantum theory and string theory...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am talking about the early stages... preceding animals. What were (or "are") the observers?

I imagine that there weren't any. I've also already addressed the problem of this question. You keep asking it for some reason. :/

Originally Posted by really

That is no less true than "we are here because of evolution." The whole "why" of the matter implies a cause, which I'm saying is invalid. You can't say "because" to anything because there is no "because" to existence. The use of cause is only has meaning in most cases to do with worldly purposes. That won't help you understand much more than what is contained and purported for the world itself, unless you include quantum theory and string theory...

We are light years apart on this, but I was talking about something worldly. Also, although existence itself may be the absolute and something of which cause itself is a manifestation, there is cause withing the manifestations of existence itself.

Did my post cause you to want to give your response? Did anything?

Originally Posted by really

I imagine that there weren't any. I've also already addressed the problem of this question. You keep asking it for some reason. :/

You keep changing your answers.

KROMOH for the third time will you please stop ignoring my question.

And stop babbling on about everybody but you being ignorant of neuroscience. If you'd actually talked to a professional theoretical neuroscientist for five minutes about this or read any of the basic literature (I've done both) you'd know that actually the whole of science is completely ignorant of the basic ways in which the system of neurons in the brain processes information.

lol what Xei said.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are light years apart on this, but I was talking about something worldly. Also, although existence itself may be the absolute and something of which cause itself is a manifestation, there is cause withing the manifestations of existence itself.

Did my post cause you to want to give your response? Did anything?

From that premise causes actually aren't as real as you may think. By being absolute it also seems illogical, you might say. That is what you should've gathered. I don't know how you can't see that.

Causes don't manifest for crying out loud, they're limited in observation. Conditions manifest, but they're in constant flux (even they're limited, but not as much as causality). Please address what I'm saying, or rather what I've repeated.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You keep changing your answers.

Maybe ask something more specific from the beginning? Surely I've also repeated myself several times besides, with different words.

Originally Posted by really

From that premise causes actually aren't as real as you may think. By being absolute it also seems illogical, you might say. That is what you should've gathered. I don't know how you can't see that.

Causes don't manifest for crying out loud, they're limited in observation. Conditions manifest, but they're in constant flux (even they're limited, but not as much as causality). Please address what I'm saying, or rather what I've repeated.

Causes are manifestations of existence itself, just like trees, cars, and asteroids. Existence itself doesn't have a cause because cause is a form of existence. The situation is not illogical because there is no possible alternative to existence. It's not like there could possibly be anything else. Cause is necessary for A to happen instead of B, or for A to happen instead of not A. Nonexistence, by definition, does not exist. If existence is A, there is no potential at all for not A. Even if nothing existed, that would be the state of existence, which is a contradiction and impossible. Existence is the one thing that is automatic because there is no potential alternative to it. However, B happening instead of C for no reason would be pure magic.

Originally Posted by really

Maybe ask something more specific from the beginning? Surely I've also repeated myself several times besides, with different words.

Yeah, you are sticking to both claims and repeating them although they contradict each other.


Here's a recap of the discussion with Kromoh.

Us: Kromoh, how does the brain create awareness, sensations, and emotions?

Kromoh: Fuck you. I'm better than you. You don't know shit about neuroscience.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Not, much to the contrary. I have been claiming science doesn't define "consciousness".

Actually what you've been claiming is that consciousness doesn't exist, and that what we mistake for consciousness (attention) is explained by neuroscience which is completely different from the seemingly exact same process that is displayed by man made machines.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LMAO.
Get serious Xaqaria. Come on. Try backing your arguments with facts. Call me when you're done, if that day ever comes.

You don't even know basic biochemistry and physiology to know how a brain works. Don't try to use quantum physics to explain consciousness -- it's like trying to use culinary to explain WW2.

If science has no definitive answer for what consciousness is, how can you be so sure quantum mechanics can't explain it?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So why don't you enlighten us proles with your in-depth knowledge of the source of consciousness? While you're at it, you should point us in the direction of your Nobel winning dissertation on the subject, as since no one else on the planet has been able to explain the the reason for the existence of the phenomenon, you must have managed to publish your amazing insights. Come on Genius, show us what you've got.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscio...fic_approaches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention

When you're done reading that, I'll direct you to neuroscience books.

Why would you show me neuroscience books to teach me about consciousness if there is no definition of what consciousness is?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The truth is there isn't consciousness in the way you idealize. There is only attention. It's a cognitive function that was naturally selected throughout evolution. You'd have figured so if you had read the free and readily available wikipedia articles.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean nobody in the world does.

How can you claim consciousness doesn't exist if you can't even define what it is?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Science doesn't define consciousness. Science defines attention, decision-making, understanding and prediction of models, abstraction, logical deduction... but not consciousness. Must I repeat?

No, you mustn't. Asserting that these things are analogous to consciousness while admitting that there is no definition for consciousness is utterly useless. Just as useless is claiming that consciousness does not exist, since you are not going to convince the population of the entire earth that they are in fact not really experiencing anything at all.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I'm not arguing about the philosophy of machines, artificial intelligence, nor anything. I'm just saying the human brain has, as one of its specific functions, the cognitive function of attention. I mean 'attention' as per the biological definition, which doesn't include machines by definition.

We aren't talking about intelligence, artificial or otherwise. If you are going to define a phenomenon by certain behavior then that definition will apply whenever that behavior is present, regardless of where it manifests itself. This would be similar to saying that there is no biological life anywhere else in the universe because it is defined as cellular organisms that evolved on the planet earth.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes. There's this thing called tone, and.. ah well, nevermind, I saw this shit coming from you ever since you became one.

Ever since I became one what?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And don't you dare say causality is useless. It'd me like a scientific blasphemy.

Try not to follow science so emotionally, dogmatically and religiously.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Causes are manifestations of existence itself, just like trees, cars, and asteroids. Existence itself doesn't have a cause because cause is a form of existence.

Existence doesn't have a cause because existence is an all-encompassing, blanket term can symbolize the Absolute. Existence is the whole universe and beyond. Funnily enough, there's not much you can do to prove a "cause", so I don't know what makes you say it is a form of existence, objectively speaking.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The situation is not illogical because there is no possible alternative to existence. It's not like there could possibly be anything else. Cause is necessary for A to happen instead of B, or for A to happen instead of not A. Nonexistence, by definition, does not exist. If existence is A, there is no potential at all for not A. Even if nothing existed, that would be the state of existence, which is a contradiction and impossible. Existence is the one thing that is automatic because there is no potential alternative to it. However, B happening instead of C for no reason would be pure magic.

You don't need to explain existence vs non-existence to me. I'm sure I've actually explained it to you at some point around this place. "If nothing existed" as you say is a contradiction, but it can arguable represent a state of emptiness. Anyway, at least you agree existence is absolute in its encompassing term. I think its just a matter of recognizing that causes are perceptual projections.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, you are sticking to both claims and repeating them although they contradict each other.

Whatever. Either way it's not clear you understand what I'm saying anyway. I don't know how many angles I can approach it from myself, so maybe you should re-read our argument and then summarize/conclude something thus far.

This is what you are saying...

Originally Posted by really

I believe in evolution, the formation of the earth, and to an extent the Big Bang.

Originally Posted by really

I think you've misconceptualized that nothing happens without an observer to imply that there has always been sentient or conscious life otherwise nothing could have "happened" in the universe?

In pure quantum potentiality however, there is no "how" to anything

Originally Posted by really

Yes; in this case there is a paradigm shift where the paradox is resolved. Hence where I said "...in such a case they dissolve into a greater context of both "happened" and "did not happen".

Yes. In certain cases these imaginings are true. In others they are not. Same deal with scientific paradigms and observed processes.

Originally Posted by really

2. The past event is a hypothetical perception in that it is formed by the mind and it's paradigm of reasoning, but it is projected outside itself and its current "time-frame."

3. Because it is hypothetical, it has no actual existence externally outside observation, but only in the mind.

When I imply that evolution didn't happen in the past, I stress both the limitation of time and the limitation of human observation within the context of quantum reality.

Originally Posted by really

The past is a projection of perception.

Originally Posted by really

The universe is not caused, so neither is anything within it (in the big picture).

"evolution" also answers your other questions about the origination of life on the planet.

EDIT: I was looking up other stuff and stumbled upon this relevant article.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...26tbs%3Disch:1

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

EDIT: I was looking up other stuff and stumbled upon this relevant article.

Ok, there is a lot covered there. Are you posting it for me? Because I don't know what your point is. I don't believe thoughts create reality, for one thing.