That’s not quite what I’m getting at here. I’m not claiming that something specific exists without evidence, or making any claims about some particular phenomena that I believe exists and must do <x>.

Rather I’m pointing out that the existence of this phenomena is a form of evidence that opens the door to interrelated phenomena. And based on our understanding of the laws of nature, we can be certain that there is at minimum, some interrelation. Whether that interrelation is interesting or worth labeling as some unique phenomena to humans is what cannot be determined without further discovery/evidence.

I’d agree with your comment if the described phenomena itself was just speculation, but that’s not the case here.