Creation - Evolution

[Atla]

I was just pointing out what you do and believe is absolutely true

Thank you

[Age]

Hey I was just giving suggestions for your next threads.

Actually your questions/suggestions are relevant to the thread. Since the OP is an explanation of all phenomena, then discussing any phenomenon is on topic. And it would actually be useful to discuss complicated phenomena, such as the processes you mention here:

(Not everyone agrees that being truly open to our hallucinations or the voices of our split personalities, and reciting what they say, calling it "knowing", is how to prove something with absolute certainty. But then again, people were very dumb and closed back when this was written.)

Hallucinations and, yes, also insights are high level cognitive activities, but which will fall under the OP's schema, if it is correct.
Hallucinations and also philosophical insights that are correct fall under creation/creative activities. And distinguishing between them - is interpretation/assertion A based on insight, correct deduction or induction, or is it hallucinated - is also a complicated activity.

But it is not a complicated activity at all.

Some only think or believe it is because of their APE-thinking.

At least when compared with particle T impacts particle C and X happens.

So, see how the OP plays out on specific examples of complicated human activities would be very useful. Does it cover everything? How do we know the schema is true? Etc.

Well to find out if it does not cover everything one only has to think, and if anything is thought to not cover anything, then just express and share that thought, then 'we' can 'look at', find out, and 'see' if it is, or not. Again, very simple, really.

Further since his explanation of these phenomena will also end up being justification - which is missing -

But, absolutely no one has said what is not yet 'justified'. So, there is obviously nothing, to me anyway, that needs 'justifying' here.

So, 'justification' is not missing. And, if anyone thinks or believes it is, then all they have to do is just say what 'justification' is missing, and explain why. Again, very simple, really.

for the assertions in the OP, it serves a double purpose: 1) showing how the assertions hold for complicated phenomena and 2) justifying the position in the OP.

But there is no complicated phenomena anyway here.

Excellent suggestions, Atla.