>What device is used to measure them?

I'll tackle human delusion and hubris.

They are measured mostly by listening to the subject who exists physically and communicates using things in this universe. They can also be measured using various methods such as MRI.

>What is the unit of measure?

There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?

>Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

in the brain.

>The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>Primarily, the portions that contribute to causality (primarily: the mind)

So you are claiming nobody should seek medical treatment for anything related to the mind? That medicine itself should have no role in the treatment of any kind of mental illness?

>I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

it doesn't surprise me that you suspect things.

>For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

What do you mean by the cause of causality?

>For causality: treatments are a subset of causality, and are intimately entangled

Again I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>For "Human delusion and hubris": the placebo effect is well known and sometimes still used (I believe) in medicine.

OK. But I fail to see the relevance in this discussion.

>I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material.

But you claim all diseases of the mind are supernatural and therefore should not be treated by medicine (i.e science should stay in it's lane) right?

>recall how controversial ideas like washing hands or having checklists was when they were first suggested).

Again I don't fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that because some ideas were controversial at some stage and are accepted today that means any or all controversial claims are actually true?

>Great, then let's proceed.

We are trying. It's been difficult so far though.

>Causality.

>Human delusion and hubris.

Sorry but both of these are material and physical and in this universe.

>People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources)

Causes of what?

>I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.

What part of medicine are you claiming is supernatural?

>This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. You are convinced there exists some thing that is not physical and material. I want to know what that is. Furthermore I want to know how you got convinced such a thing exists. Also now that we are on medicine what kinds of treatments this supernatural thing is good for and what diseases or ailments we should take away from doctors and hospitals because they can only treat the physical and the material.

You made a series of claims. I just want to examine them in this philosphy subreddit.

>I know that there are other dimensions beyond our own and that matter exists in them. I know this because dark matter and other elements "exist".

Dark matter is in our universe and definitely belongs to the material physical world.

Since you have based your belief in the other dimensions on this piece of evidence I presume you no longer believe those things right?

> Every single time science declares it has all of the answers though, another rabbit hole appears. Almost like a carrot

Science is a process of discovery. The universe is vast and complex. As we learn more we find there is more to learn.

Perhaps that's not by design at all. Perhaps you are just another religious person who sticks god into every gap because you are afraid of going to hell and your parents instilled that fear into you while you were young.

We do have robots with sensory components. Robotic arms that can sense pressure and texture for example. Presumably if you built a robot with more sensory inputs and greater AI some sort of feelings could emerge.

If you want to change a country become rich and powerful. Nothing else will change a country.

I don't think anybody really cares about the ethics of war no matter how much lip service they give to it. Look at the Israelis for example. They are absolutely convinced that everything they do is just and justified and ethical and necessary. The apartheid has overwhelming support within the country. It never occurs to them that Palestinians might be human beings subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Same for the United States which conducts all kinds of atrocities and war crimes all around the world while crowing about how moral and ethical and exceptional they are.

Normally the excuse is something like "well we could have killed and maimed more of them but look at how great we are because we stopped at this point!"