I hear you about the confusion there. It's really just shoddy writing. One of my weaknesses as a writer, one that I just recently became explicitly aware of, is

I hear you about the confusion there. It's really just shoddy writing. One of my weaknesses as a writer, one that I just recently became explicitly aware of, is that when I write, I do it after stacking lots of "schemas": I understand A because of B, and understand B because of C, but many of my audience might only understand C, and I talk about A without first meeting them at C, graduating to B, and then stacking A. (In case you're interested, I'm planning on writing a cohesive post about this phenomenon soon). Many of my claims are scientifically backed but I simply do not care enough to go through and cite them; I would like to but it's not a good use of my time at this point. If you are curious about a specific claim I am always happy to point you in the right direction of the research. Other claims are admittedly speculation and I almost always denote them as such. There is a storied history of philosophers engaging in thought experiments so dismissing my actions as part of some NEW pseudoscience born through the web is erroneous. Likely many of the things I discussed (such as the precise nature of memory encoding, storage, and recall) will not be unraveled in our time. But you may be pleased to know though that I have discussed several of these articles with academics and would've hesitated to publish if I'd got strong dissent. P.S. The lesson is "Actions to achieve our goals are explicit, and prepackaged so we can directly execute on them." The text copy I was referring to was steps for the user to take. Thanks for the feedback.