There would be no thoughts without observation, 'cause they rely on its contents, to deduce and infer–also–to guess, judge, abstract via imagination, etc. There would be no mechanic to avoid, ignore, distract, block out, intimidate, skew, extort, coerce, maim, torture, kill, etc., if there weren't–too–something that hurt a sense of identity, will to live, protect, and take. My difference in viewing, is that thinking cannot be pure illusion–yes–most definitely approximation and errors, but usually some hint of truth, even with those who don't know how to describe what they're pointing at with their words. From the word 'god', many come up with their own definitions–so it's not too useful for discussion–and generally, maybe you could flatten out all the references, to point towards some common thread of meaning, but it can make conversation more tedious and difficult. That's why I prefer stuff that is tangible, wherever feasible, based on similar language structures. The closest thing to 'chaos' for me is randomness. You can say all has relationships through their connections, and that manifests their functions. It's in distinction of components, that the color red is not the same as the color blue–even here–the energies are different, so it's not just a perception based on subjective learning, free to whim. A camera takes consistent pictures, because the innards are built for it, just like our brains see reality similarly, in presence–but we're not necessarily–operating on the same frequency band, nerves and neurons are positioned a bit differently, and sometimes even hallucinations form. The only way we can tell, is through dissection of organs to see how they're arranged, which could indicate–interpretations can be fabricated involuntarily–or another postulation, consciousness is a spontaneously generated moment, that only seems to have causes, which are 'made up' in memory. It could. I wouldn't be able to prove absolutely otherwise, yet, but it's minimally not as reliable a theory for predicting when the train is going to arrive, and such. You can say, it's 'all one', but there's no reason to assume that, just as much as there is no reason to assume beyond it. You're convinced of a feeling, rather than a thought–a sense 'of knowing'–rather than beliefs, through mind processes. What makes one inherently superior in effectiveness at finding some ultimate truth? It's all context, which at best, is explained indirectly–according to–juxtapositions and contrasts between different sensory inputs and outputs. You cannot write the word "I", without knowing the reality of geometry