How do you know a dog is only ever "in the moment"? Dogs are quite complex and inteligent animals. What makes you think they're not aware?

The whole thing's a misframing-problem:

IF mind-ness ISN'T a property of universe, as Time & Space are,

THEN matter creates mind-ness from nothing, in a universe which doesn't innately contain mind.

That is Scientism's view.

The fact that entanglement is MEASURED to not have any information-transfer speed-limit proves that entanglement isn't moving through space!

It's in a dimension perpendicular to space.

Entanglement & knowing both are immaterial, & both alter the behavior of matter: they are the same substance, just at different scales.

Identically, quantum-probability-wave & will both are immaterial properties, & both alter the behavior of matter: ditto.

The force which makes child-violinists, like Einstein, have a knob grown-into their right-motor-control-strips, in their brains, isn't electromagnetic, gravitational, or nuclear, it is mind, it is the systematic alteration of the atomic-probability-waves that build that portion of those brains. Unconscious-mind is mind, just as conscious mind is.

( & all who adamantly insist that there is no proof that entanglement works at any scale greater than the atomic: entanglement's proven to distances of over 100-km, & has been for years. Ignoring/disallowing that fact for sake of belief is ideology/scientism, not evidence-based science )

Matter only amplifies universally-latent mind.

Mind, Time, & Space ( I don't mean mind-as-in-cognition-or-awareness, I mean the fundamental that is underlying awareness, that also is underlying unconscious-ignorance )

IF mind-ness IS a property of universe, as Time & Space are,

THEN matter's arrangement only amplifies it, or amplifies some subset-of-its-spectrum [ or equivalent ], not creating-it-from-nothing-in-a-universe-not-containing-mind.

Then evolution's having begun makes sense.

If mind never existed until after it evolved its basis, to sufficient complexity, then you've got a permanent & absolute catch-22:

evolution couldn't happen until after it had evolved.

Ideological idiocy.

What is the cause of the molecular-process/behavior difference between a disintegrating-corpse vs a growing-organism?

It certainly isn't "a corpse of a human doesn't have the same neutrons, or protons, or electrons", is it?

It isn't "they have different atoms in them", either.

It isn't "the atoms are arranged differently, & it is the arrangement which decides whether something is alive, or not", either. ( what force-in-physics would "arrangement" produce?? )

What is the cause of the difference in atomic behavior??

Mind.

Unconscious mind still is mind.

The idiocy/prejudice of insisting, as Scientism does, that proving that unconscious-mind has will somehow "proves that free [ conscious ] will doesn't exist"..

Proving that white swans exist doesn't prove that Australian black swans don't exist.

Proving that unconscious-mind's will exists doesn't prove that conscious-mind's will doesn't exist.

The existence of aerospace engineering proves that will has to exist!

( unconscious-mind tends to be the lower-forebrain's imprint->reaction system, whereas considered-reasoning, including much programming, is upper-forebrain.

The existence & operation of 1 circuit doesn't somehow "prove" that no other circuit exists.

But ideologies are ideologies, of course, & should be expected to behave as ideologies do, right? )

I find the quote you provided of the article to be .. sufficiently mushy-minded that I don't want to read any more of that article.

Thank you for providing it.

_ /\ _

PS: for all who axiomatically know that mind isn't a property of universe, as time & space are, that instead it is created from nothing by specific evolved arrangements of matter, feel free to denigrate, block, etc, all I say, everywhere:

I've learned that axiom-based "science" which identifies as "evidence-based", is a major prejudice among this world ( I grew up in it, & was proud of embodying it, for membership in that exclusive culture, when I was young ).

Hofstadter's "Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" demonstrated that formal-systems, ideologies, prejudices, & religions, all axiom-based, are incapable of knowing any meaning that universe is asserting if it contradicts the axioms of the knower:

the only "valid" evidence is authorized by the already-believed-in axioms.

Which makes-obvious a rule that differentiates actual Science from Scientism:

IF one's worldview outranks evidence, THEN no matter what one "identifies" as, one isn't doing Science, but ideology.

IF one's worldview keeps getting rewritten as universe falsifies one's axioms, THEN one's adapting is itself showing that one is doing, being-loyal-to, actual Science.

That mind is real, in spite of what physicalism/materialism/existentialism believes-in, is testable:

both cities & aerospace-engineering wouldn't exist if mind weren't significantly altering the behavior of matter.

That mind is an instrument which can be refined, polished, made clear-of-obscurations, etc, is something the Hindus & Buddhists both have been insisting for millenia.

To force the mind into tranquility, so that its deformities/ignorances/assumptions/addictions are forced to dissipate from it, allowing it to become deeper, clearer, stiller..

But, of course, all who hold it to be axiomatically valid that mind can't possibly be improved by any such thing, know what they know..

& they've zero need to ever honestly do any experiment, to test what they know, of course..

Want an experiment?

https://www.drawright.com/before-after

SEE the difference-in-mind-substance that 5 DAYS of her training can do to someone's mind.

Invest in her book "Draing on the Right Side of the Brain: the 4th Definitive edition", & some charcoals-assortment, toothy paper, kneaded eraser, etc, & do the experiment, yourself, & discover if there's a kind-of-mind, kind-of-knowing, that Scientism prohibits from being real, or valid..

A wordless kind of mind, that is total, at-once, & makes one's health measurably improve, if one intentionally makes it a significant part of one's life..

Once one does that experiment ( I'm a braindamaged autistic: it took me 3 years, not 5 days, to get far-enough to understand the experience she's aiming people into ), there is no going back: one's worldview is forced into changing, by evidence.

The whole "BEing" vs "mechanism/cognition" contrast gets amplified up to 11, at least, by the experience..

Anyways, for anybody who lives to earn more understandings, of greater & greater diversity, that experiment is the greatest gift your life is likely to know, in whatever year you earn her book's meanings.

Salut, Namaste, & Kaizen.

_ /\ _