> 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.

measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.

> There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?

See above.

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

> in the brain.

See bolding.

>>> Causes of what?

>> 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.

Causality isn't really covered in Western curriculum/ideology.

> 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?

No, that's your interpretation.

>> 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.

Nicely played! ;)

>> 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?

If I steal your bike and you punch me, my stealing your bike is plausibly the cause of you punching me.

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

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

See Western curriculum above.

>> 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?

Please quote the specific text from which you have extracted this specific assertion.

> 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?

No, it demonstrates how relatively smart people can be dumb on an absolute scale. That this is not easy for you to discern may demonstrate how people have difficulty cognitively navigating between the two scales while considering a single idea.

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

It would be interesting to do a crowd-sourced causal analysis of the problem!!!