> You're confused about the language, and building some emotions-based interpretation around it. That is what the article is about. I believe there are more w

> You're confused about the language, and building some emotions-based interpretation around it. That is what the article is about. I believe there are more ways to reason than just using logic or probability when it comes to determining how people think. That's just reality. The crux of my argument rests on thinking about thinking. Also, please don't tell me I'm confused. I'm not confused. You are cherry picking an argument and that has derailed me from my original point. Thinking about thinking influences the probabilities of what thoughts will occur as consequence in ways that are intrinsically entangled. You can extrapolate that reasoning to yield how and why people think about how other people think and for what purpose. Please reread what I said originally instead of latching on a single point by taking advantage of the fact that multiple people have responded to different points in unison to my perspective. You know I can assume you are responding to a specific point and you can continue directing the conversation using that point to begin with as a foundation for weakening my argument. You also know I can't assume you have read the whole lineage of comments resulting from my original argument, as can anyone else responding to this thread chain. I said mutually dependent - you can try to understand this if you choose to do so. But honestly all of this is ridiculous.