Looks like we might have the same views on some stuff. Btw, here is something I once wrote (to get it out of my head):

Imagine a 2d world that you touch with your 5 fingers, in the 2d world these 5 dots will look like 5 different beings, but in reality they’re all just one being; your hand.

In this 2d world their lives and personalities might be very different since they’re all raised under different circumstances (you are “programmed” by your surroundings). But inside they’re all the same, the same being which wants nothing but peace and love. So when you interact with other persons look at them like copies of you, it’s just you under some other life-conditions, love yourself.

“Why differentiate when in a different context the exact same thoughts are research?”
One set of physical facts fulfills the definition of research, another set does not.

“There are plenty of such scenarios that are being used for study of brain activity quite literally and so it’s still research.”
“Thinking about an apple” under an fMRI machine is research.
“Thinking about an apple” with no such machine isn’t research. Unless you introduce that element later on, in which case it will become research.

“Since you lack the logical tools to differentiate the two and I don’t, I can make such a disqualification, even if you are unable to. See, I don’t base the validity of my claims on arrogance. Rather, the other way around.”

No, I do see how contexts matter, but as I said before, why ignore thoughts that are exactly the same but in a different context that áre research? There are plenty examples too. Lets say I look at an apple and think ‘ow, nice apple.’ Not much research you say? Well there’s two things happening, 1.) I observe the apple an 2.) react to it by concluding that it’s ‘nice’. If that alone isn’t enough for those thoughts to be research, there are plenty of such scenarios that are being used for study of brain activity quite literally and so it’s still research.

My whole point is, that it’s not just mapping physical locations, it’s understanding what you are mapping and all that matters in that context.

“The premise was over thoughts becoming research, not “mattering”.”

I said ‘thoughts are always research’ and it implies that thoughts can or will matter at least to some extent in certain contexts. There are a lot of different kinds of ‘research’, especially when it comes to psychology, but I guess you’re simply ignorant about that.

“Were it the robot’s whim, they would erase the memories, in which we create the illusion of time”
A case easily dismissed by performing an experiment that requires less time than the processing time of the supposed Matrix’s computations. Basically experiments near the Planck time scale would disallow any interference from a Matrix.

“On a opposite note, theoretical and actual results will be impossible to hold the same results because of variables invisible to the naked eye.”
Learn some physics. Then return. You are not prepared.

We are a physical entity hence easily manipulated by reality.
(I do believe in a 1:1 correlation with physical reality but I find your lack of imagination disturbing. It is of course why we are better then robots, Again i refer to the matrix)

Were it the robot’s whim, they would erase the memories, in which we create the illusion of time, and manipulate them in order to create the simulation called The Matrix. This in turns becomes Consensus reality. Now the question becomes, what is real?

So go ahead and deny our universe’s cosmological constants, my ignorant friend.
Gladly, were it my it intention to become Neo.

On a opposite note, erotica and Actual results will be impossible to hold the same results because of variables invisible to the naked eye.

so how can test to see if we’re theory and actual results arn’t always the same. What if they vary and the matrix makes us believe its the same.

my point: ¿how old are you?