I have no idea what you've been smoking but I routinely point out contextual meanings vs whatever this 'objective facade' fantasy you've dreamed up is.
Perhaps, and one might imagine that's why I asked.
But I don't notice you providing any illumination so perhaps you missed it too.
Yes, 'really'.
You'll notice that is not simply "non sequitur" but a complete sentence explaining the reasoning, not that I even claimed a 'non sequitur' anyway.
Sounds like you're describing your own post.
I gave the reasoning behind what I said and asked him to explain otherwise if he meant something else.
You, on the other hand, haven't even touched this particular topic, much less contributed to it.
The stated premise is that tool A won't work.
Now, if you want to argue with the premise then, fine, claim we have complete knowledge of brain chemical processes and how they relate to cognition and consciousness.
But the conclusion from the stated premise is not a 'non sequitur' nor has any reason been given why one might imagine it to be..