Yes, haha, everyone thinks they have minds, which is true. How you use it is another affair.

The word "mind", I would argue, is used in such an inflationary way that it loses its depth. Bit like "I love you" is something commonplace or what is perceived as such loses its potential to shock (surprise, irritate, annoy, delight).

Whenever something is in frequent use, it seems to lose its fascination and a term that is used like an everyday object does not make me stumble in thought.

But if I throw a stone between your legs and your run is stopped or vehemently interrupted by it (the stream of thought), it moves you to pause. You are surprised, irritated, even annoyed (or delighted). It is this pause that helps your thinking. But where I habitually read or hear something and I don't get a bludgeon in my thinking habit, I have only moderate interest at best.

Psychologists or therapists who know this also work with conscious irritation, for example, and accept the annoyance that such irritation causes their clients.
Without this stylistic device of deliberate exaggeration, people hardly listen, are constantly preoccupied with their thoughts, which swing from one tree to the next like monkeys. The advertisers know this very well, too. That's why they use "DISRUPTORS", which is a technical term for the advertising industry here.

Neural nexus, I know that from Startrek - LOL - the Borg Queen's ship :) Yes, that's one of those words that still seems new, although I see popping it up everywhere; "neural" or "neuronal", I only have associations with the brain.

Is what you're talking about related to Sheldrake and his morphogenesis?

Whoever knows the secret of the unity of opposites - the unity of the inner and the outer world - can try to tell it further. In most cases, one fails. The funny sages who prefer to keep such knowledge (power) to themselves do not then say that they have anything to teach. Stubbornly, however, people want to learn from them.

Pseudo-disciples get everything the wrong way round and turn genuinely powerful knowledge into pseudo-knowledge, which, I agree, thereby wants to unfold its own power. That's why masters who realise this also prefer not to teach. I would still say that their kind of knowledge has great power.

The powerless (who are afraid of illness, old age and death) remain without this power. I count myself among them.