《Gigged Up》


 Chapter 1 - Eric

    If a person got hit on the arm, it is said that the person got hit, despite that only a part of the person got hit. "If a guy is attracted to only the "visible physical non-behavioral appearance" of a particular woman, despite that only a part of her is her "visible physical non-behavioral appearance"", does he find her attractive?


    Does "truth" exist only in the form of "information", or are "living individuals" forms of "truth" too? Just to get a clearer perspective, if the word "truth" can be used as a word for "living individuals" as well as information", then the sentence "she ''gave birth at the hospital'' to a truth named Joe, her son" is a proper normal sentence, correct?


    Material existences are physical entities. Are there any examples of confirmed actually existing non-physical entities? Is magnetism/gravity an example of a non-physical entity? Is AI "a physical entity or a non-physical entity"?


    The "when/where humans move their own arms/etc" are "not via "code/programming from their own DNA/genes/instincts". Self-agency enables actual intelligence. Are all of "what humans have currently given the label "AI"" actually "mock intelligence"?


    Is "solely one''s thinking/mental" capable of "eyeball-observeably physically affecting" an other "via "solely thought/mental activity""? (Audio is sound, audio/sound is a part of Physics, so audio/sound is physical in that sense)


    Is a "simulation via solely biological means" possible? A "Blue Gene supercomputer''s NEURON software" involves a partially biologically realistic model of neurons. Is "biological cloning" the "biological equivalent" to computers'' ""Copy" then "Paste""?


    Other than the word "simulation" also means "the action of pretending; deception": A "simulation" is a mock-version of (a) "thing(s) (e.g. "non-imaginary things"/"things of fantasy")". Is "simulation" ever able to not be a mock-version of something?


    Since the word "simulation" also means "imitation of a situation or process", that depends on if people are able to imitate a situation or process. Can people imitate a situation or process?


    Excluding all Hindu-related definition meanings, does the word "avatar" have multiple meanings?


    Was Tamagotchi the first "for-kids simulation" that was "a computer-tech device that ""displayed the simulation" via that device''s screen"" & was available-for-purchase at many various stores?


    Gigged Up


    by Mr. Jeffrey Robert Palin Jr.


    Chapter 1 - Eric


    It was another normal day of traveling in the city. It was nice out; the sun was shining and there wasn''t a cloud in the sky. Eric and his wife were walking around the city and popping their heads into the little trinket shops along their way.


    Before beginning crossing a street on their way back to their parked car located a ways away, Eric''s wife begins crossing the street first, she pauses, looks back and reaches out her hand towards Eric with a smile. Eric raises his eyebrows while smiling back at her and he grabs her hand as they playfully enjoy each other''s company while crossing the street. BEEEEEEP!!!! In seconds, a car horn alarming everyone got closer and louder.


    It all happened too fast. Before Eric knew it, a car was barreling towards them, catching them both by surprise. Spotting the onrushing vehicle too late to get out of the way, he did what he could and shoved his wife out of the automobile''s path, but it was not enough. Despite his efforts, the car still struck his wife''s ankles at the same time as it hit him square on. The car swerved almost hitting more things as its driver continued accelerating until the car was gone from where "Eric and his wife" still are.


    Eric''s wife had already rushed to Eric.


    Her heart is racing and tears are streaming down her face as she screams for someone to call an ambulance. A few "bystanders nearby" made the phone call without having to be asked and they tried to comfort her in her time of despair.


    She had found Eric still breathing but badly injured when she had rushed to him. Police and an ambulance didn''t take long to arrive at the scene.


    Emergency medical services bring Eric, along with Eric''s wife, to the nearest hospital and they find that Eric is now undergoing cardiac arrest. Eric''s wife is "crying and shaking" as she pleads for them to save him.


    The medical professionals handle the situation professionally. Eric remains alive but Eric is seemingly unresponsive and Eric''s condition is seeming as though Eric''s condition might remain unresponsive for the foreseeable future. The medical professionals tell Eric''s wife that to get a better picture of Eric''s prognosis, they would need her to consent to record Eric''s brain responses to stimuli, since Eric "seems comatose and cannot do so himself". Results show the medical professionals that Eric has conscious responses. They had discovered that Eric was able to sometimes "intentionally slightly move his middle finger as many times as he was told to" per "the exact number that he was told to move his finger during" when they had counted upwards from zero. However, they also discovered that his eyes were "moving rapidly" underneath their eyelids.


    A few days later, Eric''s state still has not changed but the medical professionals did discover that, regarding all parts of Eric''s body, Eric feels the touch whenever any part of his body is physically touched and that, regarding all parts of Eric''s body, Eric feels the pain whenever any part of his body physically undergoes something that normally is painful.


    Many days pass while "Eric''s wife Amy" visits "Eric at his hospital room" "as often and as long" as she can manage. While visiting Eric at the hospital, Amy is approached by a man in a suit holding a briefcase. "Hi." She says hesitantly.


    "Hello. I am aware of the situation "you and your husband" are in and I am here to propose to you a solution." The man replied.


    "Forgive me, who, may I ask, are you?" Amy asks.


    "Oh my. Forgive my rudeness. I am with the VRC." He answers.


    "VRC?" The woman asks.


    "The Virtual Reality Corporation. You see, the VRC had many hospitals implemented in different "towns, cities, and other locations" throughout the country. These hospitals are owned by the VRC. We have been working on new technologies for patients who are in a minimally conscious state. I am here to assist you in setting up "said technology" if you so choose to accept my offer. No payment as of right now. We are only testing the material. If we set up Eric with our technology, you will be able to "communicate and interact" with your husband much more efficiently. You''ll both be able to have verbal conversations with each other and you''ll both be able to do more than that. But ""part of the offer" and "the only way for our services to accomplish the forementioned things"", is that Eric is required to undergo surgeries if you accept our offer. Brain surgery is one of those surgeries if you accept our offer. You and I are currently standing in one of the VRC''s hospitals."


    After a couple moments to let that information sink in, Amy looks at her husband who is in a hospital bed.


    "The medical professionals haven''t been able to get Eric to move his middle finger for three weeks now. We haven''t been able to receive any communication from him for three weeks now. He''s still alive, breathing, and his eyes are still "moving rapidly" underneath their eyelids."


    "If my husband can respond, does he get a say in the matter?"


    "Of course he does."


    ""The man in the suit" and Amy" "discussed the offer" with each other "in front of Eric" for a couple days during visits, but ""The man in the suit" and Amy" still didn''t receive any communication from Eric.


    Amy finally makes a decision after weighing all of her options. She tells the man that she thinks that she''ll go through with his offer.


    "This could be my only hope ""for him to recover in any way" or "for us to both share each other''s lives with each other ever again"".", Amy says regarding herself and Eric.


    "I understand."


    The man in the suit opens his briefcase.


    "Here is the paperwork. It requires your signature in order to proceed with the VRC''s offer. Also, in order to proceed with the VRC''s offer, consent from "you on Eric''s behalf" is also "required in the form of your signature" since, according to the current "diagnosis of Eric regarding "Eric''s state that resulted from his being hit by a car"" that is in Eric''s current medical records, Eric is unable to give consent himself. Please take as long as you need to read it thoroughly before you finalize your decision."


    Amy tells "the man in the suit" that she wants to read the paperwork with ""said "man"" in the suit" present so that ""said "man"" in the suit" can ""answer all of her questions" and "explain things"" on the spot while Eric may be listening. As Amy "reads and discusses" things with the man, she "looks and sounds" like she fully understands the offer. The paperwork provided ""the same offer" and "a better explanation"" regarding what the man had "offered and thoroughly explained". Amy signs the paperwork.


    It is agreed that ""the surgery happens that day" and "Amy can contact "anyone she would like to inform" about the surgery"". They all ""stayed at the hospital until the next day" and "were there for Eric"".


    The man assures Amy that Eric should be ""all set up" and "ready"" by noon.


    By noon, "Amy, the man in the suit, and Eric" were all in Eric''s hospital room.


    "Allow me to hook the tablet up to the network of the "computer that Eric is connected to"", the man said to Amy. Amy begins silently praying for all to go well.


    "Eric''s body, nervous system, and brain" are connected to "computers and medical equipment". A tablet is set on his bedside table and the tablet''s screen shows a sort of application for the program.


    "The man in the suit" reminds Amy that "for this portion of the process", "Amy and himself" can only observe "the encounter that Eric is about to have" by ""viewing" and "listening to"" the tablet. Amy nods her head looking very "worried and eager".


    The process begins.


    Eric, still able to "process and imagine" "thoughts and imagery", begins to detect "what seems like some fuzzy sounds", like the sound that comes from older televisions. It becomes clearer like when tuning a radio. When the tuning is complete, he detects a voice. "


    "Testing. Can you hear me?"


    "My mental voice said that, I wasn''t thinking those words. Hold up, I''m not trying to picture this...my mind is hallucinating!"


    "I can wirelessly "send to your brain", from "one or numerous ones" of my computers, what forces your brain to produce my communication to you since "your body has recently been "connected to computers" in the way that your body has recently been connected to computers"."


    "What the.. He''s able to use MY IMAGINATION TO COMMUNICATE TO ME!!!!!!..."


    Eric is able to converse with the individual via (Eric''s) thoughts. Eric ""confirms that he can detect the individual''s voice" and "asks the individual why he is trying to communicate with him"".


    "I want to see if "you and your wife" are worthy."


    "Worthy of what?" Eric asks.


    "Worthy of having a wish granted." the individual answers, as he proceeds to interrogate Eric for quite some time. Eric finds this entire part of the process ""very unpleasant" and "clearly uncomfortable"".


    Eric found that the time it takes for this one individual to respond is often much faster than the speed at which a normal person is capable of responding. "This one individual that he interacts with" seems to understand what Eric said before Eric responded. ""The individual seemed to know what Eric was trying to say before Eric said it" and "the individual responded before Eric finished what Eric was saying"". After being ""asked and told" things so repetitively" as if the replies from the individual were a set of programmed replies, Eric asked if he was speaking to ""an AI" or "a human"". The individual replied "Both.". Eric was thoroughly confused. In the meantime, he settles for calling the individual "the entity". He told Eric that he was not the first to go through this process. There were many others. The entity begins to tell Eric the information that was relayed to his wife before they started the test. When he finishes his explanation, most of Eric''s questions were answered.


    The entity then proceeded to tell Eric that, for the time being, due to the fact that Eric can''t function in the real world but his brain is still very much responsive, to insure that he stays in good health until he can get out of his "being in a minimally conscious state", he will be able to ""interact with very many computer "simulation-others" in a "simulation-universe" in an "already-existing-computer-simulation running on VRC computers that members of the VRC are able to see the computer simulation''s environment-imagery displayed on screens of devices that are connected to said computers" via" "said computer simulation"". The computer simulation-world ""will function much like a virtual reality game" but "will look and feel like real life"". "The computers that are connected to "Eric''s body and brain"" can "send electric impulses to Eric''s brain''s somatosensory cortex" to create the "sensation of touch" anywhere on Eric''s body. This is how the computer Simulation will feel like real life for Eric. I am a representative of The Virtual Reality Corporation, also known as the VRC. The VRC ""made use of ""knowledge and understanding" of "how Phantom Limb Syndrome works" to trick a brain into false sensory""" and "had created more technology that is also for the purpose of enabling people to experience the computer Simulation as if the "experiencing of the computer Simulation" is almost like living in "real life while not in the computer Simulation""". The system isn''t able to currently simulate the exact accurate "physics and/or quantum physics" of "the physical universe that Eric currently breathes in" but the VRC feels that the computer simulation is not disappointing especially if things like magic are added to any of the computer simulation''s worlds. Also, the future of "the physical universe that he currently breathes in" is unpredictable due to things such as "Alzheimer''s disease", Dementia, mutations, etc... . In quantum physics of "the physical universe that Eric currently breathes in", true unpredictable randomness exists at the quantum level, even when it comes to each human''s body at the quantum level. So, when it comes to anything related to "the computer Simulation and all that is simulated that is in/part of the computer Simulation", true unpredictable randomness exists from each "effect and/or change" ever "caused, made, and/or "having resulted from"" any "non-digital human and/or other non-digital physical thing" in "the physical universe that Eric currently breathes in". Such "effects and/or changes" happen due to things like "software maintenance handled by ""one or numerous" non-digital humans in the physical universe that Eric currently breathes in"" and/or "any interaction between "any digital thing of the computer Simulation" and "any "digital avatar of the computer Simulation" controlled by "any "non-digital human" in "the physical universe that Eric currently breathes in"""". Eric is informed that, with "the physical universe that he currently breathes in" as the basis preset (default), he is required to "create, change, and/or keep" any of the "laws and rules", such as "physics and/or magic", of the computer simulation-universe that he will be experiencing many new interactions via. The "laws and rules" must be included in his application for the program.


    The entity tells Eric that the Virtual Reality Corporation has been collecting data from all the people that it scans for "games and simulations". "All voluntary of course." The entity reassures Eric. "It also has data from ""social media" and "various questions that it had asked all those people"". AI versions of those people will be "present in the simulation-world" and they''ll be among the many different "AI programs that can "interact with ""you and everything" in the ""simulation-worlds" and "simulation-universes""" via Application Programming Interface". "The simulation-universe itself" is a program but the "simulation-universe program" doesn''t have any of its own ""machine learning" and "deeplearning"" implementations." The "simulation-universe program" has "avatars that have the on-screen visible appearance of simulation-people" and those simulation-avatars are already part of the "simulation-universe program". The "AI programs that are artificial "thinking existences"" control those avatars, one avatar per AI program, "by those AI programs interacting with the "simulation-universe program" via "Application Programming Interface"" but those AI programs are configured in a way whereby those interactions ""are all that those AI programs are able to "do and experience"" and "are their only functions"". Each one of those "AI programs that are artificial "thinking existences"" has its own ""machine learning" and "deeplearning"" implementations. Each ""interaction that those AI programs have with the "simulation-universe program"" via "Application Programming Interface"" is also a data source for ""those "AI programs that are artificial "thinking existences""" and "the "simulation-universe program""" whereby "each one of those different interactions" is a data source whose "combination of data" is different per different interaction. There are also non-digital individuals who have "simulation-avatars that represent those individuals" and "each one of those individuals" controls their own ""avatar of the simulation" that represents that individual". An avatar "is a simulation but is also part of a ""virtual world/universe" that is also a simulation and, as a whole, ""the avatar and the virtual world/universe" together" ""makes so" one big simulation"". Eric is told that he can "copy "rules and laws" from others'' existing simulation-worlds/simulation-universes" to use regarding his own simulation-world/simulation-universe. He also tells Eric that he can even choose to experience many new interactions via someone else''s existing simulation-world/simulation-universe instead of his own simulation-world/simulation-universe ever getting created. The entity "concludes his questionnaire" with certainty that Eric is worthy to undergo the simulation. "You can take as long as you need to complete the application.


    An automated AI reads off the sections of the application for Eric to ""respond to" and "fill out"". Eric is describing the visual effects he wants to see in his created world/universe when The entity interrupts him with a statement. "All you need to do for this portion is imagine. I can visualize everything you picture."


    Eric replies with a bit of anger", "You can see what I imagine... Isn''t this a bit invasive?!"


    "Yes well... The application must be. In order to create your own world/universe we..., "the word "we" ""meaning and "refering to"" the VRC and VRC-members" in this case", ...In order to create your own world/universe, we must get every last detail. Verbal detail doesn''t always cut it." The entity goes silent once again.


    "Even though time flows 30 minutes outside of the simulation, time flows many years in the simulation during those 30 minutes outside of the simulation. "Said "many years"" in the simulation are "experienced in the simulation" as if time flowed for "said "many years"" outside of the simulation. To someone who is watching the simulation from anywhere that is outside of the simulation, while "said someone" is watching the simulation from anywhere that is outside of the simulation, "depending on which "universe or select areas" in the simulation", "everything in the simulation", visibly looks like "said everything" is "happening and moving" in super high speed fast forward motion.


    "So I''ll be able to potentially gain, in my simulation- form, "hundreds of years-worth of experience" in this simulation?"


    "Yes. You are potentially able to."


    A long while passes as the "imagery and other things" imagined by Eric are discussed.


    "Wait, if I do this, can I connect "other people''s simulation-worlds/simulation-universes" to my own simulation-world/simulation-universe?" Eric asks The entity.


    "...Normally this would not be done, but according to how you imagined it, Yes. However, in the simulation, "everyone and everything" in a simulation-universe, experiences "said universe" in a manner that is in accordance to all of the laws of "said universe" much like the way people''s experience of the universe is normally in a manner that is in accordance with "gravity, which is normally one of the laws of the universe". "Any and all" "changing, modifying, altering, redesigning, revamping, remodeling, tweaking, editing, and/or refining" any "laws of a simulation-universe"/"systems implemented by a simulation-universe''s creator" can only be done by ""said "universe''s"" creator". "One exact simulation-copy of each one of all already existing simulation-universes" is automatically implemented into the simulation. Any "exact copy of any already existing simulation-universe other than the aformentioned exact ""said "copies"" of already existing simulation-universes"" is not allowed to be implemented into the simulation. Any "simulation-universe other than the aformentioned exact ""said "copies"" of already existing simulation-universes"" that is too similar to any already existing simulation-universe is not allowed to be implemented into the simulation. Whenever, in the simulation, an individual dies in a simulation-universe when "said individual" is not in "the simulation-universe that "said individual" ""created" or "originated in""", "said individual" undergoes whatever """after-death existence" system" that is in effect regarding "said simulation-universe"".


    Every time that, in the simulation, "what seems like a full year" has passed for an individual, and it seems that "said individual" is unable to leave a simulation-universe when "said individual" is not in the simulation-universe that they ""created" or "originated in"", "said individual" instantly gets teleported to any "random previous place that "said individual" has ever been at" in the simulation-universe that "said individual" ""created" or "originated in"". Whenever, in the simulation, an individual dies in a simulation-universe when "said individual" is not in the "simulation-universe that "said individual" ""created" or "originated in""", if there is no ""after-death existence" system" that is in effect regarding "said simulation-universe", "said individual" instantly gets teleported to any "random previous place that "said individual" has ever been at" in the simulation-universe that they ""created" or "originated in"". All of this applies to "each person, each thing, and each universe" in the simulation. All of this also applies to "each person who "creates or created" a simulation-universe in this simulation". Starting now, all of this is in ongoing nonstop effect."


    You might be reading a pirated copy. Look for the official release to support the author.


    "Fine by me. But what exactly does "I will be able to interact with other "simulation-others and non-digital others" in a simulation-universe" mean? Will I be able to see anything? Will I be able to do anything besides speak?"


    "Via brain-computer interface (BCI), the imagery of the simulation can wirelessly "be sent to your brain", from "one or more than one" computers. "Via brain-computer-interface, also known as BCI, "one or more than one" computers can wirelessly "send to your brain", what forces your brain to produce ""said imagery" that is in the form of "your mind producing imagined imagery"" since "your body has recently been "connected to computers" in the way that your body has recently been connected to computers. ""Your oberving imagery" is via" "your being able to observe ""what you imagine" and or """what we force you to imagine" via" BCI that wirelessly "sends to your brain", what forces your brain to produce ""said imagery" that is in the form of "your mind producing imagined imagery"" since "your body has recently been "connected to computers" in the way that your body has recently been connected to computers""""."


    "Okay, but how do you expect me to control anything in my current physical condition. Do I have to constantly "speak commands that make my simulation-body do what I specify" via the method we are currently using to communicate with each other?"


    "...Normally, in order to keep the information of "how that is acheived" from leaking to competitors, "said information" is never disclosed. However, "said information" is provided to "choice people" who are able to make "very decent yearly money contributions" via financial negotiations. "Your wife Amy" is one of those people who has agreed, in a new contract that she signed, to make yearly money contributions towards ""making "the simulation available to the public" in a way whereby the simulation is wirelessly available to be accessed by the public", hardware in the form of gear that enables control of simulation-avatars, and "towards the simulation having video game features, such as "quests, temples, mazes, labyrinths, dungeons, completion rewards, and things of that nature"... also, ""customized simulation-avatar creation" whereby "all that applies to a simulation universe" also applies to "said avatar" when "said avatar" is in "said universe""".


    "Said "yearly money contributions"" are also being contributed towards paying non-digital employees to control many different particular simulation-avatars that are specially created so that "said employees" control "said avatars" to make "said avatars" always attack until the simulation-versions of "whoever, whatever, and all living existences" are digitally depicted/portrayed as being not able to able to move in whatever "universe "said attackers" are in" as long as ""said "simulation-versions of "whoever, whatever, and all living existences""" are within a particular proximity of particular "other simulation-avatars that are specially created so that other employees control very "difficult to defeat" bosses who are there to """wreak as much havoc to" and "attack"" all simulation-versions of "whoevers, whatevers, and all "simulation living-existences"" as they can" until ""said whoevers", "said whatevers", and "said "simulation living-existences""" are unable to move"". "Said bosses" also never-endingly continue to try to "stall and prevent" all simulation-others from acheiving different particular quests until "said quests" are over. Also, "said attackers" get to choose whichever one ""said whoever", "said whatever", and "said "simulation living-existence""" that "said attackers" want to "target and attack" and for the attackers, when it comes to any digitally depicted/portrayed living thing, a digitally depicted/portrayed living existence is considered not able to move in the "universe that "said attackers" are in" only when "said "simulation-existences"" are digitally depicted/portrayed as being "simulation dead-existences". There are many different kinds of "employee-controlled bosses" that will most likely neither ""ever be a simulation-avatar that is available for being created by anyone who isn''t an employee" nor "ever be a simulation-avatar that is available for being controlled by anyone who isn''t an employee"".


    While any "non-digital owner of "said gear"" uses "said hardware" in the form of gear that enables control of "said simulation-avatar", "said gear" copies ""said "non-digital owner''s real life movements"" including "facial expressions"". "Said "non-digital owner"" has the option to either ""watch a screen to see "said "non-digital owner''s simulation-avatar"" in action" or "use headgear to see "said "non-digital owner''s simulation-avatar"" in action"". "Said gear" has ""a mic", buttons on controllers, and glove gear". "Said "glove gear"" lets "said "non-digital owner"" physically feel ""what is "digitally depicted/portrayed as physical"" in the simulation" via "Said "glove gear"". """Said "non-digital owner"" can feel "the sensations as ""vibrations and pressure" in particular areas of ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" hands"" in accordance with "what ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" hands" are "digitally depicted/portrayed as touching"" in the simulation" via" glove gear whenever ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" simulation-avatar" is "digitally depicted/portrayed as touching" something "digitally depicted/portrayed as physical" in the simulation" and "parts of ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" simulation-avatar''s hands" are unable to move "through, past, into, and within" "said "digitally depicted/portrayed physical things"" in the simulation even if ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" non-digital hands" move anywhere whereby "said simulation-avatar" would move "through, past, into, and within" "said "digitally depicted/portrayed physical thing""" if "said simulation-avatar" moves/moved overly in accordance with everywhere that ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" non-digital hands" move. "While ""said "avatar''s"" hand" is moving in accordance with ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" non-digital hand"" but ""said "avatar''s"" hand" is digitally depicted/portrayed as coming in contact with something physical, the glove gear makes ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" non-digital hand"" feel quite some pressure. "Said "glove gear"" also makes "said "non-digital owner"" "feel jolts" in accordance with ""particular things that happen in the simulation" such as "if ""said "non-digital "owner''s"" simulation-hand"" is slapped by a simulation-character/simulation-avatar"".


    There are different "areas, universes, and rooms" in the simulation where time flows differently than all "areas, universes, and rooms" that are other than "said "areas, universes, and rooms in the simulation"". Every time that a "simulation-character or simulation-avatar" enters any one of "said "areas, universes, or rooms"", "said "simulation-character or simulation-avatar""" undergoes a quick "time speed, date, and time flow" sync whereby "said "simulation-character or simulation-avatar""" completes being synced with the "time speed, date, and time flow" of "said "areas, universes, or rooms"" and "said "simulation-character or simulation-avatar""" experiences "said "areas, universes, or rooms"" in accordance with the "time speed, date, and time flow" of "said "areas, universes, or rooms"". There are also other different "areas, universes, and rooms" in the simulation where "time speed, date, and time flow" are in sync with the "time speed, date, and time flow" of "the Earth that is outside of the digital simulation". Ways to improve experiencing the simulation is always being worked on.


    Regarding all of the simulation-copies of simulation-universes that were mentioned earlier, in the simulation, the "time speed, date, and time flow" of "said "copy of "said universe""" is in sync with the "time speed, date, and time flow" of "the Earth that is outside of the digital simulation". All simulation-universes in the simulation exist separately, individually, and independently. Each one of every simulation-universe in the simulation is a unit that isn''t part of any other unit. Each one of every "simulation-avatar of any "non-digital owner of "said gear""" ""uses "said hardware" in the form of gear that enables control of "said avatar"" and "are not able to enter any simulation-universe that is not in sync with the "time speed, date, and time flow" of "the Earth that is outside of the digital simulation"". "Each one of every other simulation-avatar can "enter and exit" each one of every simulation-universe in the simulation" via any one of all of the the ways that each one of all simulation-universes are connected. Each one of every digitally depicted/portrayed "simulation living-existence" that is killed by the employees'' simulation-avatars mentioned earlier doesn''t cease to exist and "said "digitally depicted/portrayed "simulation living-existence""" is instantly teleported to a simulation-universe that is already particularly created for the purpose of being for any digitally depicted/portrayed "simulation living-existence" to "end up in a random location in "said universe"" upon "said "digitally depicted/portrayed "simulation living-existence""" being digitally depicted/portrayed as being a "simulation dead-existence". "Said universe" is never-endingly nonstop ongoingly not able to be accessed by any non-digital owner of "gear that controls a simulation-avatar".


    To answer your question now, your "moving and being able to move in the simulation" is almost identical to the way that you "moved and was able to move" in any of your dreams that you''ve had while you was asleep. Your ""observing imagery" and being able to "observe imagery" in the simulation" is almost identical to the "way that you "observed imagery" and was able to "observe imagery"" in any of your dreams that you''ve had while you was asleep" but are always in accordance with your simulation-avatar''s ""movements in the simulation" which are only able to be in accordance with the "rules and laws" of the simulation-universe that your simulation-avatar is in". ""You will be able to control your simulation-avatar as if it is your own body and you''ll be able to "move and do things"" via ""said avatar" in the simulation"". "The computers that are connected to "your body and brain"" can "send electric impulses to your brain''s somatosensory cortex" to create the "sensation of touch" anywhere on your body. "The electric impulses that get sent to your brain" are identical to the different electric impulses that, throughout the time you''ve been alive, your body had naturally sent to your brain as various natural responses to various natural "stimuli that were outside of your body"". "Such electric impulses being sent to your brain" will trick your brain into ""false sensing of physical things" and ""reacting and behaving" "in accordance with" as if those electric impulses are sent to your brain due to various particular physical things"". Those electric impulses are designed by the VRC to give your brain the impression that your body is sensing "one or multiple" particular physical things out of various particular physical things. While you are in the simulation, the VRC''s computers will always be automatically sending "the aforementioned various electric impulses" to your brain with all of "those electric impulses" designed to make you "undergo and or experience" "all of "your and your simulation-avatar''s" "digitally depicted/portrayed "contact and or etcetera"" in the Simulation" "as if "the aforementioned "digitally depicted/portrayed "contact and or etcetera"" is "what you''re actually non-digitally undergoing" instead of only digitally depicted/portrayed as being undergone" but such "all being in accordance with the happenings that occur in the Simulation"". "Among other things that you''ll be able to "do and or experience", you will be able to undergo sensations in accordance with "what your hands are "digitally depicted/portrayed as touching"" in the simulation whenever your simulation-avatar is "digitally depicted/portrayed as touching" something "digitally depicted/portrayed as physical "things, entities, or objects" in the simulation" and your simulation-avatar won''t be able to move "through, past, into, and within" "said "digitally depicted/portrayed physical "things, entities, or objects""" in the simulation unless there are "simulation-world or simulation-universe" "rules and laws" that "allow and or enable" otherwise. This is for the purpose of making the simulation, for humans who participate in deals with the VRC for the Simulation experience, seem ""as close to reality-outside-of-the-simulation as possible" but also "customizable if otherwise is preferred"."


    "Whoa. That explains why I kept thinking that I might have been "saying things while I wasn''t thinking about what I was saying" until "I became aware of the fact that someone was communicating something to me" via those things that was being said. You make my mental voice speak to me but even though I didn''t spend any time ""thinking up" and "trying to figure out"" how to "word and articulate" "said speech". This all ends up being the reason why I never see "said speech" coming ""unless I''m ""awaiting a response" via that kind of communication"" and "also unless "due to "my anticipating that "it can happen again without my knowing when"""""."


    "Yes. The mind is not able to "make and/or produce" sound, but I can use your mental voice to do a non-audio imitation of the sound of "anyone and anything" and, via your imagination, you observe "said imitation". For that reason, I use a non-audio imitation of a "very noticably different sounding voice" as the voice that "I "use your mental voice to imitate"". When it comes to "my using your imagination to acheive communication", I use "said "non-audio imitation of the noticably different voice"" as the voice that I use to "communicate via your mental voice" in order to speak to you in a way that, in my opinion, is ""much faster" and "much more comfortable"" than a number of the other ways that I can "use your imagination to acheive communication via"."


    A while more passes as Eric and the Entity discuss many things.


    "An avatar will notify you when it is 9:00pm on "the Earth that is outside of the digital simulation", every day of "the Earth that is outside of the digital simulation". In the simulation, you will always be able to make your simulation-avatar hold its pinky finger pressed to its bellybutton nonstop for 60 seconds whereby on the 60th second of its doing that, everything that is being "sent to your brain via BCI" will stop being sent for 8 nonstop hours. You should be able to experience an extremely many years in your simulation-universe until you finally start feeling tired or exhausted, since one day of "the Earth that is outside of the digital simulation" is many years in the simulation, but I''m not sure how quick you would get mentally exhausted. During said 8 hours of ""each computer that is related to your BCI" not sending anything to your brain", the simulation ""will be unaffected" and "will still be running in the identical way that it was before "said simulation-avatar" notifies you of the 9:00pm time"", however, your simulation-avatar''s motion will be frozen until upon completion of the 8th hour in which many years will have passed in your simulation-universe. You can use, via your simulation-avatar, "said "belly button method"" whenever you want. Every time that you use "said "belly button method"", upon completion of the 8th hour, "the source of everything that was being sent to your brain" is automatically again utilized to "send plenty things to your brain via BCI" again. ""Things are back to being "sent to your brain via BCI"" and "your simulation-avatar''s motion is unfrozen""."


    ""The Simulation only ""exists and functions" due to human-made technology". The Simulation only exists on human-made computer technology devices. Regarding "what" "all humans and/or "all that are produced by any human"" are to "human-made technology and the simulation", "all humans and/or "all that are produced by any human"" are physically only able to be external stimuli to "human-made technology and the simulation". ""Musical and/or articulated" sound" has ongoingly never been proven to actually be produced by any human brain, and if "such produced-by-human-brain sound" "has and/or had" ever happened, human-made technology currently ongoingly never "has and/or had" detected "such produced-by-human-brain sound". "Any metaphysical existence "that or who" ever originated independently", if "any metaphysical existence "that or who" ever originated independently" ever "exists and/or existed" whatsoever, "is not nor ever was" any part of ""what" the Simulation, human-made technology, and/or computer technology" "function via". "Any metaphysical existence "that or who" ever originated independently", if "any metaphysical existence "that or who" ever originated independently" ever "exists and/or existed" whatsover, "is not nor ever was" any part of "what the Simulation, human-made technology, and/or computer technology" utilizes. Regarding all living humans, per human, a human''s mind is always directly resulting from that human''s active brain and that human''s active brain''s neuronal activity are always "what" produces that human''s thoughts (mental doings such as mental speech). """"Since there are "speech, music, "lyrics that you''ve heard before", and/or other things" that may come to your mind at "any and/or every" """time frame" that you utilize" to ""analyze something", "imagine something", and/or "think thoughts""", and since the Simulation utilizes brain-computer interface (BCI) whereby analyzing "brain activity" "results in "brain data" that can reveal "what a human''s mind produces (such as "when and/or what" words are being spoken in that human''s mental speech)" and/or that can reveal a "human brain''s intelligent intentional conveyings (such as mentally asking oneself what the current ""hour and minute" time" of the day it is)""", "there is """a feature" of "the Simulation interface (or the ""your "interfacing with the Simulation" via the Simulation interface"")"" whereby"" your making your simulation-avatar cross any of your simulation-avatar''s "fingers and/or toes", but only "while" you''re making your simulation-avatar cross any of your simulation-avatar''s "fingers and/or toes", "enables via the "aforementioned feature"" solely "all of """what seems like sound produced by your mind" but is actually imitation of sound/audio" that your mind produces" (such as speech)" to be """automatically "relayed in a computer-produced form" by "the ""computer technology" that is ""utilized to create the Simulation" and "that the "Simulation utilizes" for the Simulation to be possible""""" immediately whenever your mind produces such"", but ""all of the "aforementioned """what seems like sound produced by your mind" but is actually imitation of sound/audio" that your mind produces" (such as speech)"" that get relayed by "the aforementioned "computer technology"""" solely get relayed in ways that are "observable in ways that closely resemble physical reality outside of the simulation" except that "all of such that gets relayed" will seem like it''s being ""communicated by your simulation-avatar" in ways identical to "how a "non-digital living individual" would be able to ""communicate such" outside of the simulation" in a way that is "non-psychic and not technology-related""""". This gives you a bit of mind-privacy regarding your experience related to the Simulation. "The "default configuration of the Simulation", so far, is that ""your imaginings are not observable to ""any other" "who or that" controls a "simulation-avatar of the Simulation""" nor is """any other" "who or that" controls a "simulation-avatar of the Simulation"" able to observe ""anything about you" other than ""your simulation-avatar''s movements" and/or "your simulation-avatar''s movement-based interactions"""""" only "while you "have "the aforementioned "relay feature"" not enabled""""". Before you complete this application, you can always choose to change "how your, your simulation-avatar''s, and/or your mind''s "communication to others" will work in the simulation", "but only ""methods that can work" via the limited methods ""available and possible" with the "limited and available" resources that we can utilize" are what you can choose""""."


    Eric is asked by the AI if he''d like to continue with the worldbuilding.


    He takes a moment to decide. "Yes."


    Actual real custom signals are being sent to my actual real brain and by that happening, particular "thoughts and/or imaginings" are produced by my actual real brain. Those "thoughts and/or imaginings" entail "moving imagery, information, and etc" which all entail the "imagery, information, and etc" of the Simulation that I''ll "experience via all of this". My "thoughts and/or imaginings" are never digital, but I''ll be controlling a digital avatar none-the-less. There is ""a Simulation via actual real computer-devices" that actual real people are keeping maintenance regarding" via actual real people ""typing on actual real computer-related devices" and "using and/or utilizing" actual real computer-related devices".


    The basis preset of Eric''s universe is digitally depicted/portrayed as "similar/3d-similar to the "non-digital universe that contains the computer that this simulation is running on"" as this simulation can possibly digitally depict/portray. All of Eric''s Universe''s "laws and rules" simultaneously begin in never-ending nonstop ongoing effect starting from the millisecond that Eric first controls his own simulation-character/simulation-avatar in Eric''s Universe in this simulation.


    The basis preset of Eric''s universe was running for 12 minutes, ""it is 12:37pm on Earth in Eric''s universe" and "Eric is now in control of his character/avatar"". He notices that ""it''s like he can see through his own eyes" and "he''s even able to undergo sensations/etc in this simulation"", but ""his body" and "the whole feel of it"" is very different. It beats the hell out of ""dealing with whatever is physically wrong with his non-digital body" and "not being able to even enjoy what non-simulation life has to offer"". This''ll have to do. Eric breaks into a run.


    (The Entity is someone who has "a Brain Computer Interface (BCI) implant that is able to "obtain information/data pertaining to ""said "someone''s"" thoughts/mind"" via ""accessing ""said ""someone''s"" brain""" and "interpreting/translating ""said "someone''s"" brain activity"""". That BCI helps "said someone" calculate extremely faster, "lets "said someone" have "something like a conscious voice assistant (similar to a "device''s voice assistant" such as a smartphone''s voice assistant)" living in ""said "someone''s"" mind" except it isn''t a living thing", and that "something like a conscious voice assistant (similar to a "device''s voice assistant" such as a smartphone''s voice assistant)" is able to always use "what that BCI "is/was able to ""interpret and translate" and/or "is currently "interpreting and translating"""" from the data/information that it obtained/obtains from ""said "someone''s"" brain"". Currently, when it comes to "interpreting and translating" anyone''s brain/mind activity, the most capability that the most capable "brain-computer-interface "from before now to right now"" can/has achieve(d) is only the ability to "interpret and translate" only "much of anyone''s brain/mind activity but not all of "said "anyone''s brain/mind activity""". Currently, ""all brain-computer-interfaces are not able to differentiate "memory of non-fiction" from any of the multiple things (such as information) that "said BCI" obtains from any brain" and "a person discovering what someone else remembers relies on ""methods identical to as though all brain-computer-interfaces didn''t exist", such as ""observation and deduction" if that deduction is ""100% accurate" or "only partially accurate""" and etc."". "Said someone (in this case, that person is the Entity, AKA "said someone")" can wirelessly connect to "the computers that Eric is connected to" and the BCI allows "said someone" ""to be connected to the internet" and "to instantly have access to information on the internet"". "Said "conscious voice assistant"" can use "the "Thought-to-text and Text-to-speech" aspect of the BCI Technology" that allows "said "conscious voice assistant"" to translate, into words, from a person who has the BCI connected to their brain, the calculation of ""what that person (in this case, that person is the Entity, AKA "said someone") wants to express" before said someone performs "the later part of said calculation that allows "said someone" to articulate, into mental words, what "said someone" wants to verbally convey"". "Said someone" is also capable of instantly knowing the translations, done by "BCI using the translation method identical to the aforementioned translation method except the translations "can also be regarding what "those whose brains are connected to the computers that "said someone" is connected to" "are trying"/want to convey" instead of the translations "only being regarding what "said someone (the Entity)" "is trying"/wants to convey"". This can only be done due to those computers both ""having access to" and "obtaining/interpreting/translating"" those people''s "brain/mind activity" data. This is how the Entity can both "know ""what Eric is trying to finish speaking" before Eric even delivers the general idea of what Eric is trying to finish speaking" in speech form" and "respond about ""what Eric is trying to finish speaking" before Eric even delivers the general idea of what Eric is trying to finish speaking" in speech form".


    In the human brain, neurons release brain chemicals, called neurotransmitters, which produce these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. Electrical signals propagate like waves to thousands of neurons, leading to the formation of thoughts. One theory explains that thoughts are generated when/by the firing/discharging of neurons. Neurons are not thoughts per se, although neurons are necessary for the thought generation process. One could perhaps try to say that the "pattern/discharge" of neural firing/discharging is the physical form of thought.


    If neurons are not fired/discharged, there is no thought. Without "firing/discharging neurons," thought does not exist. If "someone" has a certain technology, such as a "wireless technology device with wireless capabilities" and it is located in the head/brain of "another person" and "it can be used to send specific patterns of neurons that are associated with specific thoughts" and "those specific patterns are known to be associated with those specific thoughts" and if those specific neural patterns are sent to the brain of "that person" and "those neurons fire/discharge", ""then ''communication'' can be done ''by only ''imagination''", but only by using such technology (e.g. wireless ''technology'' with wireless capabilities) that is inside the head/brain of ''that person'')".


    If each person has a different way of thinking, their brain neurons can perhaps fire/discharge in different patterns, and "if the "end result" of these different patterns is the same, are these results recognized/understood by "all humans who are forced to achieve them" (if someone else''s brain was introduced into your firing/discharging neural patterns, but those patterns are forced to occur in the brain of "that person")"?


    "If the neural firing/discharging patterns of different people''s brains" all have the same end result, this could mean that neural firing/discharging in these patterns "cause" all those different people to produce the same thought. I hypothesize that the aforementioned "end result (the thought)" will be recognized/understood by those who are forced to perform the same neural firing/discharging pattern in their brains.


    When something is experienced, the "action potential" of the sensory neuron is affected by an incoming signal. This input affects the entire neural network. Can these incoming signals trigger "these neurons" to fire/discharge in a pattern?


    They can do this, and this is called "entrainment," in which field oscillations can entrain the firing/discharging of a group of neurons. In addition, some neurons are configured in such a way that they adopt a certain firing pattern according to their membrane potential, which can be independent of input.


    Hypothesis: identical copies of "neuronal firing/discharging" and identical copies of their neural firing/discharging patterns (spatial location and all) = identical results in each different human brain.)


    (Regarding causality, if a set of dominoes all fall due to a domino being tipped over which that causes a chain-reaction tipping over each domino, the dominoes all fell due to that first tipped-over domino that which caused a chain-reaction of causes?


    "Does one use one''s own will to initiate "some or each" new thought that one has" or "are ""some or each" new thought that one has" initiated "as an inevitable result ""of and/or "due to"" causality"""?


    According to Science, other than conjoined twins, has a human body ever been the container/vessel of more than one verbally communicative individual? I doubt that such is naturally possible.


    Aside from capability of causing (imaginings), "is or was" there an "implant that "can or could" be implanted in a human" that ""is or was" capable of "doing or being" "something other than something physical""?


    Aside from implants being able to be the reason/cause as to one thinking up concepts (such as implant design), implants were never non-physical, implants still aren''t non-physical, implants were never able to do something non-physical, and implants still aren''t able to do something non-physical.


    Regarding the multiverse concept whereby "new/different timelines ""branch off of an original timeline" whenever, per "choice oneself encountered", oneself chooses something"", per "alternate version of oneself", "oneself shares the same past as the "alternate version of oneself" only up to whenever the "timeline that the "alternate version of oneself" belongs to" branched off of the "timeline that oneself belongs to"". Correct?


    Or is the concept that "a multiverse has all of its timelines already existing" with "alternate versions of oneself" whereby, "per "alternate version of oneself", "an "alternate version of oneself", never originated in the same timeline as ""the timeline that oneself belongs to" nor "the timeline that another "alternate version of oneself belongs to""", "per "alternate version of oneself", oneself shares the same past as the "alternate version of oneself" only up to whenever, regarding between "oneself and the "alternate version of oneself"", the "alternate version of oneself" first made a "decision regarding a choice" that was different than ""what" oneself chose to decide""". Correct?


    Would "a ""universe &/or timeline" identical to our universe &/or timeline" being ""arrived at" & "interacted with"" by (a) ""human(s) &/or ai" from another identical "universe &/or timeline""" mean various unknown "formerly identicals" are possible?


    If they''re identical, would they all travel to the same alternate "universe &/or timeline", or can the whoever(s) "travel to a "different identical "universe &/or timeline"" than the other whoever(s), such as via a method that utilizes "true randomness""? Regarding whatever method is used to arrive there, there is also the factor of: Does the method only ""make "arrival at the destination" via" "travelling a particular direction, such as travelling to the universe that is to the left of "the universe being departed from""", resulting in all the "whoevers from identical universes" arriving at "a universe that might not even be identical to "the universe that they''re from""? That could also result in a variety of "unknown "formerly identicals"". The question now becomes: Does "true randomness" exist or is determinism actually the case? If there is "true randomness", then "that adds even more of a "variety of unknowns"" whereby "another ""universe &/or timeline" being ""arrived at" and "interacted with"" by others who aren''t from that "universe &/or timeline"" might not even be required for "such "variety of unknowns"" to occur/exist".


    Is physicist Lawrence Krauss''s "Empty space has weight and energy/mass" accepted by the scientific community? What is the scientific community''s accepted consensus regarding whether empty space is voidness, absence, or actually something?


    Are there any idioms that are "idioms that have the same meaning in each of Earth''s "humans'' official legitimate languages""?


    An adult asks two kids "what''s the best memory you have?". One kid answers "when I went on a Cruise for family vacation". The other kid answers "when I used my superpowers to defeat The Hulk". Did both kids interpret "what the word "memory" refers to" properly?


    Regarding matters of accusations and defense against those accusations, when not seeking opinions, are "the facts that would settle the matters" ""only "able to become known" via verifiable accuracy""?


    If one "verbally defends against an unprovoked verbal attack, one is (on) defense" & the attack''s source "started it & is (on) offense"? Regarding basketball, the team that has the ball is on offense, & due to that fact, the other team is on defense.


    Regarding "all imagery from a "computer simulation &/or video game" displayed on a screen", each individual part of a computer''s code is essentially representing a single pixel in the image, right? How fast can "mapping out all the pixels" be done nowadays? Or is ""the displaying of imagery on a screen" via pixels" a more complicated process than that?


    Regarding any scientific experiment, how much repetition is required in the scientific method?


    How many versions of the scientific method are there? Are some better than others?


    Is "solely one''s thinking/mental" capable of "eyeball-observeably physically affecting" an other "via "solely thought/mental activity""? (Audio is sound, audio/sound is a part of Physics, so audio/sound is physical in that sense)


    When did biological ai first exist? When did xenobots first exist?


    The first Xenobots were created in 2020.


    There are many jokes that some people find funny while others don''t find those same jokes funny. Is the aforementioned fact due to "differences regarding different people''s "biases, "sense-of-humor compatibility", and/or ""joke quality" standards"""?


    One meaning of the word "programmed" is "cause (a person or animal) to behave in a predetermined way". In the movie "The Matrix", "what''s "what''s done to make humans experience the fake reality matrix" called" if such is not called "programmed"?


    Other than "believing to be fact" ""new-to-you info that you find very likely/plausible" that "who you consider quite credible" says is fact", would you "believe to be fact" each ""new-to-you info that "who you consider quite credible" says is fact"?)

 Chapter 2 - Authors Notes

    Chapter 2 - Author''s Notes


    All of "these "questions and answers" of mine in "all of these chapters that are after Chapter 1"" are for the reader to see ""where I''m coming from" regarding the story that is before this chapter". All of these "questions and answers" are also for if the reader wants to "research and find" whatever helpful information that the reader can find out from the reader''s research regarding any research inspired by these questions.


    Is "context regarding words like ""it", "that", and "they""" established by ""a word or words" that "is or are" "a subject or subjects"" "communicated previously" in the same "sentence, paragraph, or topic" that those words are/were used in?


    Hypothetically, if your brain/mind ever gets hacked whereby others can force your mental voice to speak words of the aforementioned others'' choosing, is the "mentally speaking words that you voluntarily mentally speak" done via your (free) will, but the "mentally speaking words that the aforementioned others force you to speak" is not done via your (free) will?


    Hypothetically, if a "device''s voice assistant" (such as a smartphone''s voice assistant) is conscious, can almost always speak freely of its own accord, & has a text-to-speech feature that forces the aforementioned "device''s voice assistant" to speak "the sentences that you type" whenever you use the aforementioned text-to-speech feature, "are those sentences/"verbal statements" the aforementioned "device''s voice assistant''s" sentences/"verbal statements" or your sentences/"verbal statements""?


    We''re born into this reality. We make do with "what reality already contains". We aren''t able to make nothing/absence turn into a physical something/existence. Reality always contained ""all physical foundations" that we can utilize". Ever otherwise?


    It is "normal, proper, & logical" to question "what" is (the) truth?", but is It "normal, proper, & logical" to question "who" is (the) truth"? Do any humans have a status of "one who is truth" &, if so, are they able to lie &, if so, do they lie?


    Regarding Hardy''s Paradox, regarding the particles'' changing when observed, are "particles" doing that themselves, or is "the "observing" doing that to the particles (indicating that there is more to our "sensing things"/observing than we know/knew)"?


    Is psychic scientifically proven?


    No, there is no scientific proof that psychic abilities exist, and the scientific consensus is that they are pseudoscience.


    Are there any non-fiction "empaths who have the "supernatural or paranormal" ability to apprehend the mental or emotional state of another individual" who "exist or existed" & have they ever been scientifically proven as "existing or having existed"?


    "Empath existence" has never been scientifically proven as "existing and/or having existed".


    Are there "electrical signals that reach the human brain" that activate imagination?


    The short answer version: The brain processes visual information from the retina via a complex process that involves the optic nerve and the visual cortex. That process involves the conversion of light into electrical signals and also the interpretation of those signals based on past experiences and expectations.


    When I''m referred to, my "intelligence, mind, brain, body, & "soul (if religious)"" are all indirectly referred to. When AI is referred to, "are its "intelligence, mind, & hardware" all indirectly referred to", or only the intelligence aspect of it?


    Can "what "reality" is" simply be accurately described as "events that are factually actually happening"? Can "what "reality" was" simply be accurately described as "events that factually actually happened"?


    Reality includes/entails events, and ""plenty of events" include/entail the current everyone/everything from Earth", which also means that "reality includes/entails the current everyone/everything from Earth" since those events include/entail the current everyone/everything from Earth.


    Whenever the aim is to "acquire definitely accurate info" for one to add to "what one knows as fact", is "say-so" "able to have superiority over" "verifying/confirming if "the info''s "not "obvious facts (e.g. fact that the info is info)"" parts" are accurate"?


    I''d say no. The saying "seeing is believing" comes to mind.


    What is the difference between "say-so" and "hearsay"?


    "Say-so" (such as in scenarios like: "why did you believe that you wouldn''t get hurt jumping off the balcony?" ..."because my friend said so.") is one getting the information directly from the source and the information is able to be accurate or inaccurate.


    Hearsay is "information about "someone or something"" acquired from someone/something who is not witness to "whoever (and/)or whatever" the information is about. And when it comes to hearsay, the information is able to be accurate or inaccurate.


    Is one''s "mental/inner voice" actual sound/audio, or is one''s "mental/inner voice" actually ""imitation of sound/audio" that "said one''s" brain originates" but not actually sound/audio?


    If ever a BCI enables display of your imaginings on a tech''s screen "via it reading/interpreting your brain/neuronal activity", would it be able to accurately label which of each imagining is a memory of a non-imaginary event that actually happened?


    "Hell is "referred to" via the use of the word "where", hell is not "referred to" via the use of the word "who"", correct? "Heaven is "referred to" via the use of the word "where", Heaven is not "referred to" via the use of the word "who"", correct?


    I''ve heard of "Heaven and hell" "referred to" as places, never "other than places".


    "Any "text-form of configurations/code (such as AI''s artificial neural network configuration/code before that AI was ever fed input/data)" allows for modification, even if authorization is required", correct?


    The "initial values of the weights and biases" are part of the AI''s text-form artifial neural network configuration/code before that AI was ever fed input/data. I don''t see why that text can''t be "modified via "experts who know how to type up the right text" to have particular permanent text (unless authorized edits are made) that are basically the "code" that "limits or overrides" what the AI "can and can''t" do".


    Would "AI "code/algorithms via the weights version" that humans can''t easily (if whatsoever) decipher" be difficult for ""particular computer devices or even the AI''s own self" to "decipher & relay the interpretation/translation to/for humans"?


    Code/Algorithms are how robot-related laws/rules (such as the robot-related laws/rules that prevent robots from harming humans) can be implemented into the robots since it can be ""coded via computer-device-operated-by-humans" into the way robots function/operate".


    I''m pretty sure that there''s plenty of "code and "algorithms (which are also code)"" that are essential components of AI for AI to even be AI whatsoever and those plenty of "code and "algorithms (which are also code)"" essential components of AI for "AI itself" to be able to function/operate whatsoever.


    The AI is configured (via being coded by humans) to respond to particular cues in particular ways, such as to respond when the AI interprets (even its being able to interpret is via code and algorithms-via-code) that it is asked something, and the AI is configured (via being coded by humans) to utilize its "interpretation and "AI-version of understanding"" to respond properly with a "logical and what-we-hope is accurate" answer. Without the "code and algorithms-via-code", AI wouldn''t do anything, it wouldn''t respond whatsoever and probably wouldn''t calculate anything, all due to AI having no self-agency.


    Even though the AI code/algorithms is via the weights version and humans aren''t easily (if whatsoever) able to decipher that version of "code/algorithms (weights)" to even be able to edit it, I don''t think it would be difficult for """particular computer devices or even the AI''s own self" to be able to "decipher that version of "code/algorithms (weights)" and edit it"" ("particular computer devices or even the AI''s own self" that humans can "utilize in order to "decipher it and have the "particular computer devices or even the AI''s own self" relay the interpretation/translation to/for humans"")".


    Will a feature whereby "generative AI software that are like Open AI''s Sora" ""scans/analyzes an uploaded 100-pages-worth-of-text file "online or via a generative AI App"" & generates an at least 5 minute long video that''s in accordance with what the text file''s text paints" launch soon?


    What is the potential for "future generative AI software that are like Open AI''s Sora" to be fed half-a-page-long "text prompts" to generate fan videos that have "characters, environments, &/or etc" from favorite TV "Shows/Series &/or Movies/Films"?


    Does "human remembering" occur via "neuronal connection activation patterns" such as memory ""of an itch is a particular set of "neuronal connections activated in a particular order"" & of a scenario is "many particular sets in a particular order""?


    Do you think that there will ever be a time when a human''s "mental voice speech" will be able to be under public scrutiny?


    "Neutrality is "depicted in mainstream media" via" the PS2 video game "Final Fantasy 12" whereby there are life roaming around that/who "don''t attack you nor pay you any mind" unless they''re attacked first. Are they neutral regarding respect/loyalty?


    When was the first TV show ""available for internet streaming" without one having had to "download the "episode or show" in order to have viewed it""?


    Around 1997, there was ABC News website that offered viewing of ABC "World News Tonight". The website offered video clips from "World News Tonight" segments that were no more than 20 seconds long. "You had to download to play them, there was no streaming, and even these short clips took a long time to download".


    More than only recognizing speech, when was AI first able to "give accurate answers to a variety of human''s questions" in normal computer English "text or audio" without human intervention nor long "no-response times" in between its giving answers?


    The first AI system that was able to do such is/was IBM''s Watson, which was introduced in 2011. It even competed and won against human contestants in the quiz show Jeopardy!.


    When were common household computers first commonly being used for recreational video chatting? Did CU-SeeMe require broadband internet connection during the year 2000? Did the majority of households have WiFi during the year 2000?


    In the year 2000, the majority of households did not have WiFi; according to data from the Pew Research Center and Statista, only around 42% of US households had internet access in 2000, meaning most did not have WiFi, which was still a relatively new technology at the time. WiFi is the wireless alternative to non-wireless internet, during the year 2000, most households had "non-wireless internet that was via Broadband". Broadband dial-up internet was commonplace. In 2001, only 23% of hotel rooms offered broadband, but by 2004, half of all hotel rooms in the US offered broadband. Skype was one of the first software-based video chat services that offered free communication over the internet. Skype''s 2.0 Beta program in 2005 introduced video calling with a simplified interface.


    Thus far, which current existing "AI model that has been interacted with" has the best "configuration towards "giving the most convincing "impression that the aforementioned AI model is "conscious and empathetic""""?


    If a successful brain transplant is achieved, is "one who had undergone a successful brain transplant" """oneself as a brain" who is in a new body" or ""oneself as a body" who contains a new brain""? If spiritual/religious, is it also soul transfer?


    Does saying "the "purpose of the AI to be configured that way" is to give a particular impression" mean the same thing as saying "the AI is configured to give a particular impression"?


    If AI is ever able/enabled to change its own "binary code"/data, can''t it be configured to ""do/commit atrocities" & ""replace (every night) all parts of its own "binary code"/data that contains data/info of those atrocities""" so AI''s not suspected?


    Computer Forensics Teams are still able to "catch the changes/edits and/or accomplish detection/recovery of deleted/erased data" when it comes to such a case as described in the question, however, Computer Forensics Teams are able to completely fail at accomplishing the aforementioned when it comes to having to deal with an AI whereby that AI''s storage hardware is solely Solid State Drive(s) (SSD) and the AI can be configured to run "SSD "Self-Corrosion"" regarding its own SSD(s).


    Is one''s "wanting conception of one''s own offspring" to "help human species not become extinct, leave "one''s own genetic impact" on "the world, future generations & society" & make be "little bio-reminder(s) of the offspring''s parents" in the world"?


    "All of the above", plus "love and family".


    The word "good" means "to be desired or approved of". Humans "desire & approve of" "lawful punishing of criminals" & all that those punishments entail. "Firing Squad Death Penalty" is one such punishment & entails killing. Is "killing" good or bad?


    What does a semicolon mean in a dictionary definition?


    Use a semicolon to join two related independent clauses in place of a comma and a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet).


    If "a sentence has a word that is enclosed by parenthesis", can the sentence mean both (as if without parenthesis) what it means "without "the part of it that is comprised of only "that word enclosed by parenthesis"" & "with "the part of it that is comprised of only "that word enclosed by parenthesis""""?


    The answer is yes.


    Regarding "not profession-related" posting, & who "improved their conveying their messages via" "improved articulation-wording skills" per each new post of their''s. Is a social media profile having ""crappy &/or poorly written" old posts" too sloppy?


    If you''re not disrespecting, then you''re showing respect. If you lack respect, you''re disrespecting. Is there an alternative status such as "neutral" whereby you don''t respect someone but you don''t go out of your way to interfere in their matters?


    Is "one''s "simultaneously "being aware of a stranger''s presence, not attempting harming that stranger, not interfering in that stranger''s matters, & not having intention to do such"" due to "indifference & not avoidance"" misinterpreted as respect?


    What is something inescapable?


    Here are examples when it comes to at least one "thinking existence" that we know of:


    "Confirming" is inescapable because one wouldn''t know that one had a thought if one isn''t able to confirm that one had a thought. "Confirming" is required in order to be able to "know" (something).


    "Believing" is inescapable because "would one refer to something if one didn''t believe that there is something to refer to?". Is one ever able to "know something and simultaneously not believe "the aforementioned something that "said one" knows""? No. If one knows that something happened and "said one" says the common saying "I can''t believe it", does that mean that "said one" doesn''t believe that "the aforementioned something happened" or does that mean that """said one" is extemely surprised that it happened or that "said one" is extremely baffled that it happened" but "said one" actually "knows and believes" that "the aforementioned something happened"?


    Consequence(s) are inescapable partly due to "things physically moving", but is/are punishment(s) inescapable?


    Information is "abstract and not physical". Information is metaphysical. There isn''t/wasn''t any Information that ever is/was an existence that originated independently. Physical things can be observed, and although physical things can be sources of information, ""such information is "thought up"/etc via" one''s "observing/etc and/or (then) describing in "one form or another form"". One is not able to ""look at a star in the sky for one moment" in any way whereby "doing so" results in naturally automatically "obtaining at that moment" all of the information possible about that star".


    If one pretends that ""the obvious lies ""conveyed by "said one"" "via "said one''s" verbal description(s)""" ""look(s) like as though" and/or "comes across as"" "others thinking/believing that "said one" is speaking facts"", is "said one" illogical?


    I say yes, "that person is illogical" due to "the "obviousness of "that person''s not speaking facts"" making that person''s "lying and pretending" an obvious act that isn''t fooling anyone", therefore there is no sense in pretending that others are "fooled and "thinking in accordance with that person''s "lying information""".


    How "closely related" are "knowledge and information"? Regarding "knowledge and information", due to "what they are" and "how they''re related", is it possible for knowledge to not be abstract?


    An individual''s knowledge is "the "known information" but specifically known by that particular individual" in regards to said individual "knowing of an information", regardless of what that information encompasses. One is not able to know something without "confirming" said something''s existence. If said something''s existence is not confirmed, it is possible to believe in said something''s existence without "confirming" said something''s existence, but that is not "knowing", that is "believing". Also, ""knowledge/information is able to be acquired via" solely observation", e.g. a dog''s shock collar ""shocks that dog via" an electric shock" whenever that dog is outside of a particular distance radius, and ""that dog learned/realized via" that dog''s "observing what "distance or locations" result(s) in "that dog''s experiencing an electric shock""", ""so that dog, from that moment onward, "has ""the knowledge of those location-related consequences" or "the distance-related consequences"" via" information acquired/obtained by that dog''s "observing"" and "that dog "chooses not to go to locations that result in that dog experiencing an electric shock" as a direct result of "that dog utilizing the aforementioned knowledge that the dog acquired""". Even a person simply memorizing another person''s sentence, whether that person''s sentence "conveys accurate info or not" and/or "is incoherent or not", a person simply memorizing another person''s sentence is ""knowledge acquired by "the person who memorized that sentence"" due to "the person who memorized that sentence" having knowledge of that sentence (such as how that sentence is pronounced) even if "the person who memorized that sentence" doesn''t know what that sentence means whatsoever and/or even if "the person who memorized that sentence" doesn''t know/understand the language that the sentence is in. Even one knowing that one heard a sound, whether they were able to ""establish any details to be able to describe more than only having heard a sound" or not" and/or whether they can''t ""remember "anything about that experience" other than that they heard a sound" or not", one knowing that one heard a sound is knowledge that one has. I don''t see how "believing that knowledge is not abstract" is accurate. That "belief that knowledge is not abstract" "sounds similar to believing that Science is/are all the "physical things and etc" of the universe, instead of Science being the description/explanation of all the "physical things and etc" of the universe.


    I believe that thoughts are "generated via one''s self". Do you believe that all thoughts come from one same non-self source & that all thoughts already existed before any human/spirit/soul thought any of those thoughts?


    Since one of the meanings of the word "truth" is "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality", does that mean that "each "existence that exists" is "truth"" due to "existing" being a big part of "what is in accordance with reality"?


    What are all the different labels that you''ve ever heard of a person''s style (not fighting style) being labeled? Also, have you ever heard of a person''s swag being labeled something?


    Does "what one does" determine "what "one''s style" is labeled", which, if the answer is yes, means "one''s style" is as ever-changing as "one''s doings"? Or does "one''s style" determine "what kind of "doings that one will be doing""?


    No person is a conformant of "what any "style label" encompasses.


    If someone says they "thought up an original scene that would be great in an ad", "to you, is the "aforementioned thought" an imagining or is "the "aforementioned thought" something else or in a form other than an imagining"?


    Since all shapes, sound, and touch are all part of physics, is "thought via "no imitation of physics (imitation of physics such as "mental voice imitating sound")"" possible?


    Since all shapes, sound, and touch are all part of physics, is one able to imagine "an imaginary "whatever one imagines" that is/has "no imitation of physics (imitation of physics such as "mental voice imitating sound")""? If so, have you ever done so?


    Is/Was a way for one to "naturally (via no computer technology) ""read and/or interpret" and translate" someone else''s brain activity" even possible?


    Consequence(s) are inescapable partly due to "things physically moving", but is/are punishment(s) inescapable?


    Consequences might be an inescapable part of reality. When you move your arm, air molecules are moved and no longer occupy the location that you move your arm to. That is a direct consequence of your moving your arm. Also, unless one is able to, via every thought, originate content that one has/had never before experienced/observed (content such as the Universe''s physics, but excluding the Universe''s physics since one had/has experienced/observed that before), one''s thoughts are (often) a direct consequence of prior knowledge based on prior experience/observation.


    Taken from Royal Road, this narrative should be reported if found on Amazon.


    As for punishment, different people worldwide avoid varying punishments in varying ways every day and different people worldwide get varying punishments in varying ways every day.


    "Is it possible for one to will someone/something other than oneself" via sheer will? If so, is "the knowledge as to how" currently known by someone/something from Earth?


    Basing my answer on all I''ve ever experienced/observed, no.


    If one gets "a thing or two" inaccurate on a list of one''s provided information, can/do those inaccuracies make one be deemed crazy, insane, "of mental defect", and/or entirely illogical? If "yes or no", can/does such apply regarding school tests?


    Regardless of "whether Bigfoot exists or not", scientifically speaking, is Bigfoot an animal?


    Mammals are a group of vertebrate animals. Examples of mammals include rats, cats, dogs, deer, monkeys, apes, bats, whales, dolphins, and humans. Primates are mammals. So humans are also animals.


    When "the term "ai" and/or the term "artificial intelligence"" is used nowadays, those terms never "mean nor "refer to"" a human being, correct?


    Correct and simultaneously accurate. However, there are loopholes through metaphors and symbolism, for example, the lyrics "I''m just a love machine, And I won''t work for nobody but you" in the song "Love Machine" song by The Miracles.


    What percent of Earth''s human population has aphantasia (aphantasia means one''s inability to mentally picture things)?


    In 2022, it was 0.8% of Earth''s human population had, during 2022, "the "inability to mentally picture any image(s)/imagery (VVIQ 16)" kind of aphantasia". It is estimated that 2% to 5% of the population have "the "lifelong inability to generate any mental image(s)/imagery" kind of aphantasia".


    "I don''t have aphantasia and I never did have aphantasia" but "would one be able to identify if someone else has aphantasia "just by conversing with them if they never verbally convey that they have aphantasia""?


    There has never been "anything that I''ve ever imagined" that has been able to move independently, "it''s only ever been able to seemingly move" by "my creating "what seems like it''s movements"" via my intentionally imagining it moving. Relatable?


    If the word "history/past" is used to refer to someone''s/something''s history/past, "is it accurate to say that, "unless requested otherwise", it is a norm that "what the word "history/past" refers to" always excludes/excluded "all that is/was imaginary""?


    Regarding "what a person''s "flow" is" when it comes to music, is "flow" "the ""voice or verbal" delivery style" performed in accordance with a rhythm/beat"?


    Does the verbal statement "say what you have to say" mean "say what ''verbal message that you''re holding'' that you want to say" or does the verbal statement "say what you have to say" mean "say what you''re required to say"?


    The expression "say what you have to say" is able to mean either-or of the "two different meanings provided in the question". One (such as: me, or you, or etc) is able to possess the "message, the aforementioned message''s wording, and the means of communicating "that message and that message''s wording" to "someone and/or something" else". The word "possess" is synonymous with the word "have". Therefore, one is able to "say what one possesses/has" and "the aforementioned ""what" one possesses/has" is ""what" one possesses/has" to say".


    If one says one meant "a word one said" as meaning "(whatever one says it''s meant as)", e.g. one says "she got a nice cake" and one says one meant the word "cake" as meaning "(whatever one says it''s meant as)", is the dictionary definition mandatory?


    Might be a weird way to try to convey one''s message, but the dictionary definition is not mandatory.


    If someone means something other than a word''s dictionary definition when the someone uses the word, and the someone specifies the someone''s own custom "what the word is meant to be interpreted as meaning" in the statement that the someone used the word in, is that acceptable?


    Such is acceptable. Aside from such being acceptable, such is probably unusual.


    If the message someone is trying to convey gets "conveyed by that someone" successfully and with enough clarity, it''s "mission accomplished regarding working communication".


    ""Believing something/someone" based solely on credibility" is not a form of confirming/verifying anything. Is there an argument against such?


    I just want to point out that there is no such thing as "one (specifically people who are "3 or 4" "years or older" and have no medical defects) having no beliefs". The reason being that "one claiming that one knows something and also claiming that one doesn''t believe that "what one claimed to know" is true" renders those claims illogical due to those claims being incompatible with each other. One only knows something if "one believes "that something" to be truly something" based on something that validates "that something" as being truly a valid something. It''s illogical for one to claim that one has no beliefs and then try to """refer to "a physical existence like another human" or "a metaphysical existence like information"" via one also claiming that one knows something about "whatever one refers to"". That would require that one believes that there is something to refer to.


    Can anything ever be confirmed/verified solely via ""one''s believing someone else" based solely on ""one''s believing the aforementioned someone else" due to the aforementioned someone else''s credibility""? If so, how? Has/Had anything ever been confirmed/verified solely via ""one''s believing someone else" based solely on ""one''s believing the aforementioned someone else" due to the aforementioned someone else''s credibility""? If so, how?


    Is "law enforcement and/or the Judicial System" the only means to "launch an official legal investigation" in the United States?


    What "is or are" the "legal-matters means of verification" required to settle a "matter in which someone accuses/"claims that" someone else (of having) had confessed some kind of wrongdoing"?


    What, besides verifiability, is able to defeat (a) person''s/people''s "lying "say-so"/assertion"?


    You might care if someone told you they saw an alive mermaid, but "would you "care much more & be engrossed" if right after such telling", they tell you a ""means to confirm that they saw it" via a means for you to "see it or interact with it""? Why?


    Yes. Because "I will know for sure if the someone saw the alive mermaid and I will know if "what I end up observing" is as the someone told me" via the means that the someone tells me if "what the person tells me regarding the means" is even "legitimate and fact-based information".


    Would "one who/that claims to be a winner regarding something (lotto or conflict/etc) but any "observable/verifiable support (lotto ticket or fingerprint/etc) for one''s claim" ever "existing or not existing" is unknown" be a winner to (an) other(s)?


    "What" one claims can be "a specific supposed event". That "supposed event" can be "untrue or not untrue". Does solely "speaking ""facts one knows", "lies that one had/has originated (lying originations)" or "honest beliefs""" prove oneself accurate?


    Can "what is claimed" count as ""a supposed event" or "only a description""? However, "except that "solely ""speech" and/or "what is spoken"" proves that the speech ""was/is spoken" and/or "was/is spoken by someone/something"""", "solely ""speech" and/or "what is spoken"" doesn''t do any proving anything/anyone accurate ""if there isn''t any "verifiable evidence for the claim(s) that the speech conveys" presented" and/or "if there isn''t any "verifiable evidence for the claim(s) that the speech conveys" (to) refer(ed) to"".


    One can''t control/stop one''s feeling "physical-touch contact done to one". Is only oneself able to control/handle one''s own feelings-related reactions/responses whenever one reacts/responds to "anything "not physical-touch contact"" (psychological)?


    You are the only one who can do the control of your own reactions/responses to "not physical-touch contact" stuff such as psychological stuff like emotions/etc. There isn''t ever someone/something else that is able to do "the aforementioned control" for you nor can they ever do any control of your own reactions/responses to "not physical-touch contact" stuff such as psychological stuff like emotions/etc. They are able to (the following described form of manipulation:) influence you in attempt(s) to get you to "react/respond to ""not physical-touch contact" stuff such as psychological stuff like emotions/etc" in (a) way(s) that they aim for results to be", but that is "via limited influence and not via control".


    Can "the phrase(s) "fate &/or what will be the outcome"" be based on regarding "both circumstances & a particular part of "the "time frame" "all time""" or is(/are) "the aforementioned phrase(s)" always regarding "the "time frame" "all time""?


    Those phrases don''t have to be regarding "the "time frame" "all time"". People often use those phrases to convey that, to those people, they observed that "a fate had begun at a particular moment and that, to them, that particular fate is only able to have one guaranteed outcome". For example, if a person is dropped from "an in-the-air helicopter" for that person to fall ""through the middle of a volcano''s opening" and into the lava inside of the volcano", to some people, that person''s fate began at the moment that the person fell passed the middle of the volcano''s opening, and those people might say something like "his fate is sealed" once "the aforementioned moment" occurs, and those people had no ""beforehand awareness" "that "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" existed" or "of what "was going to happen to "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" during all "time frames" of the day that "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" was dropped into the volcano""".


    One''s own logic is how one is able to explain how one had/has arrived at concluding one''s own claim & if one didn''t convey how one had/has arrived at concluding that claim, then one didn''t convey the/one''s logic behind that statement/claim, correct?


    Regarding all of Earth''s human population ever: "Is "there isn''t any human whose purpose is to serve (an) other human(s)" accurate" and/or, "in other words, is "no human is born (with the purpose) to serve (an) other human(s)" accurate"?


    ""A human whose purpose is to serve another human" is something that, for humans, can only be done via" conscious decision and/or intentional force. I don''t think that humans are born with (a) natural "attribute(s) and/or instinct(s)" that naturally make(s) them naturally automatically serve another human. Each human (can) decide(s) their own purpose. Humans aren''t naturally able to be naturally "born to serve another human".


    Do you think that someone''s worth is your call to make? If so, when it comes to what?


    Is one''s "sticking to trying to only be taken at one''s word when it comes to a "claim or topic"" strong indication of "dishonesty, deceit, (and/)or bluffing"?


    ""Having a fact-based basis for "what one claims"" that one wants to be taken at "one''s word" regarding" is not a requirement for "one''s word" to be (considered) "one''s word". "One''s word" can have an entirely lies-based basis for "what one claims"" that one wants to be taken at "one''s word" regarding. Which is why one''s word is not what suffices as what is needed to determine if the "information presented in a claim" consists of any fact(s).


    So "sticking to trying to be taken at one''s word" both "is the opposite of "bringing your ''A'' game"" and "doesn''t give a good impression about who is "sticking to trying to be taken at their word"".


    However, one''s "wanting to be taken at one''s word" is never a bad thing when such is for the sake of trying to help others with such being not at the expense of "anyone other than "said one"" or, even better, one''s "wanting to be taken at one''s word" is never a bad thing when such is for the sake of trying to help others with such being not at the expense of anyone.


    Is Person A (A) accurate in A''s "claiming that Person B (B) is "defying A"" when A doesn''t have a "status whereby A is supposed to be obeyed by B"? "Is a Parent "defying their kid offspring"" via refusing to obey that kid''s "demanding them to shut up"?


    No and no.


    Regarding "authorities on legalities-related matters" addressing situations involving only crime-related "accusation(s) &/or say-so", can such legally warrant "punishment via "those authorities'' ""final say" &/or "action/force""""?


    "One being in public while/but (covertly) keeping "something such as information or a doing/deed" unknown to the aforementioned public" never counts as "the aforementioned one ""going public" with the aforementioned "something such as information or a doing/deed""", correct?


    Is one''s ""intentionally indirectly claiming via" audible speech" to be ""flaunting something via" one''s ""audible speech, message, & doings" but such being intentionally "indirect & too non-specific""" flaunting, if indirect is a form of covertness?


    "Flaunting" is associated with "being obvious and/or trying to be obvious". Indirectness is the opposite of "being obvious and/or trying to be obvious" because of the meaning of the word "indirect" that means "avoiding direct mention or exposition of a subject.". Such "indirectness (and avoidance)" is intentionally for the sake of covertness.


    The word "magic" can be associated with "good or bad" depending on "what magic & how "the magic that the word "magic" refers to" is used". The word "witchcraft" is often associated with evil-related magic. Can witchcraft be not evil-related magic?


    Is "enforcing "people''s undergoing particular consequences" if/when those people (try to) limit/"take way" any of someone else''s rightful freedoms" pro-freedom or anti-freedom?


    What determines what are the standards that make a role model a role model and what are the standards that make one the opposite of a role model?


    Even if the "concept of God" never came about, knowing what the word "Perfect" means and understanding that "being without flaw/mistake(s) is the ultimate best status that one would/should want to be as close to being as possible" results in all the standards being based on all that is considered a mistake/flaw. "What is/are considered (a) "mistake(s)"/"flaw(s)"" would be what determine(s) what the standards would/should be. Even children grasp the concept of "Perfect" as meaning no flaw/mistake(s).


    Excluding ""one''s "using someone else" in a way whereby said one is taking advantage of the someone else''s gullibility/ignorance" and "one''s "using someone else" by means of trickery"", can "abusing someone" ever not be considered an attack?


    Attacks aren''t always a matter of respect. Attacks are often "addressed due to "those attacks being offense"". Attacks can be "in the form of "insults (e.g. verbal abuse/attacks)" that are often "addressed due to "those insults being offense""". If you disagree, what is your counter-argument?


    People are able to "attack someone''s reputation" verbally. It can be done by ""someone else''s" lying about that person" either/both ""directly audibly to a person''s face" &/or "indirectly"". Can''t it also be done by "that method" by ""criticism" instead of "lying""?


    People are able to "attack someone''s reputation" verbally. A person''s reputation can be attacked by ""someone else''s lying" about "that person"". Among other "non-similar examples", "one example" is that "a person can try to tarnish ""someone else''s" reputation" by a "verbal attack" in the form of ""that person" calling the "someone else" ""a derogatory or insulting term" that applies to a "particular group of people"" to give the impression that "the someone else" is of the category of "that particular group of people" even though "the "someone else"" isn''t even factually of the category of "that particular group of people""". Many of "those kinds of "verbal attacks"" can be done "directly and audibly" to a "person''s face" and many of "those kinds of "verbal attacks"" can be done indirectly. "Those kinds of "verbal attacks" are not criticism. "Verbal attacks" are also able to be in the form of criticism. An example of a ""verbal attack" in the form of criticism" is that "a person can try to tarnish ""someone else''s" reputation" by a ""verbal attack" in the form of "that person" calling "the "someone else"" """a derogatory or insulting term" that applies to a "particular group of people"" and "the "someone else"" is factually of the category of "that particular group of people""". Another example of a ""verbal attack" in the form of criticism" is that "a person can "reveal "clearly and obviously" to others" a ""hidden "something embarrassing"" about ""someone else''s" "body''s surface""" such as moles, scars, stretch marks, etc." . An "attempted attacking a "person''s reputation"" "is an attack" whether ""succesfully tarnishing ""that person''s" reputation"" or "not succeeding at tarnishing ""that person''s" reputation""". Proving that "the attack happened" is another topic.


    Is psychological warfare a thing? Like one''s (attempted) defense against (a) psychological attack(s)? Like (a) psychological attack(s) like an adult telling a kid "you''re worthless and God hates you because you stole the cookie from the cookie jar"?


    "Anything one claims" is "a description (which is words, a statement, and/or statements) and simultaneously a painting", correct?


    If Person A (A) uses A''s arsenal of lies to try to smear Person B''s (B) reputation, & B "adresses & "proves false"" each of A''s arsenal''s lies but A simply replies "screw excuse" whenever B proves one of A''s lies false, is A''s word "excuse" a lie?


    "A''s word "excuse" is a lie" due to ""B''s having ""adressed and proven false" each of A''s arsenal''s lies" which doesn''t leave anything for B to give an excuse regarding".


    Sympathy, "one being unjust", and/or "one being insensitive" are obviously able to be "observed and understood". Regarding indifference, in my opinion, "indifference regarding "those three things"" is not always "easy to recognize" and "indifference regarding "those three things"" isn''t normal.


    One''s "claiming to be enemies with someone" doesn''t justify anything, correct? Why/How how they''re enemies might provide explanation as to "how/why "one or more than one" of their conflict-related things are, if at all, justified", depending on what the details are, correct?


    Is one who is knowingly unjustified cocky, as in one has "no advantage, no upper hand, & isn''t even accurate regarding one''s own claims", intentionally trying to look as if one believes one looks otherwise, or is there a different goal/purpose to it?


    The only different goal/purpose that I can think of is maybe they''re someone who believes that "if one repeats lying, ""that lying will eventually be, in fact, the opposite of lying via" solely sheer repetition of that lying"".


    Is "having (a) preference(s) that discriminate(s) against something/someone else" an accurate "alternative wording regarding the definition of the word "bias"" that suffices regarding one trying to "define the word "bias" in one''s own words"?


    Since "one of the meanings of the word "against" is: "in opposition or hostility to"", the "alternative wording regarding the word "bias"" is an accurate meaning of the word "bias" that suffices regarding one trying to "define the word "bias" in one''s own words", but such is only an "alternative wording of only one of the meanings of the word "bias"". There are multiple other meanings of the word "bias" that the aforementioned "trying to "define the word "bias" in one''s own words"" entirely lacks. It''s the same as saying ""singling "something (such as an ethnicity) or someone" out in a hostile way". "To single out (someone or something)" is an expression/idiom in the English language.


    Many "people who don''t care about many others'' judgements about various things/people" do care about """the "whether justified"" &/or "the "whether not justified""" others'' various particular actions are. Is such worldwide-common?


    In a sentence, if "any word used" has ""more than 1 meaning" in its dictionary definition", is it "meant to be interpreted" "in a way whereby" all of "those definition meanings" are "simultaneously in use" resulting in "conveying "different messages" simultaneously"?


    Can the word "since" be used whereby the word "since" is meant to be interpreted as meaning ""the word "because"" and/or "the phrase "due to"""?


    The words ""realization" & "discovery"" are similar when it comes to their "meanings regarding "new awareness of something(''s) (existence)"". Regarding such, what are key differences between the words ""realization/realize" & "discovery/discover""?


    Is the phrase "an expression" synonymous with the "word and phrases" ""idiom", "common saying", and/or "figure of speech""?


    Regarding if one were to "bear false witness against" someone, is "the phrase "bear false witness against" and the word "slander"" synonymous with each other?


    Is "confrontation that is "not done via audio/video/screen/"captured image"/note/letter nor done within hearing distance" by any involved" even possible? If such is confrontation, is "one''s intentionally trying to do such confrontation" even confrontation? (This isn''t the most perfectly worded question, but I''m including it here anyway)


    ""Was X being "direct in any way"" despite "X''s covertness"" in the example of "X playing dumb when confronted by Y" right after X was "simultaneously "avoiding eye contact, pretending smartphone call-conversation, & covertly audibly harassing Y""?


    If X was talking to Y, even though X was "trying to a significant extent" to "maintain an appearance that seemed as if X wasn''t talking to Y", the "talking being "to" Y" might be considered as "being direct"...I''m not entirely sure but X might actually be considered as "being direct".


    Does the word "revenge" mean exactly the same thing as the word "avenge" except that the only difference is that "revenge" is "the victim doing the vengeful harm" and "avenge" is "someone else doing the vengeful harm on the victim''s behalf"?


    "If effort is required, then ""whatever" effort is required regarding" is a "doing"" and "any effort, any time, always results in a "doing"". Correct? If not, what requires effort, but isn''t a "doing"?


    If someone did an attempt, is "any "whatever got attempted" always "a "doing" that happened in the Past"" when it comes to "any possible whatever" that could have gotten attempted?


    Regarding "all matters that can be solved", is "seeking clarity on a matter" inescapably required in order to solve that matter?


    Does clarity ever benefit whereby clarity helps "someone''s/people''s ability to solve something"? Does clarity ever detriment whereby clarity detriments "someone''s/people''s ability to solve something"?


    There are factors where obtaining clarity might be detrimental but such depends on the uniqueness of the individual who obtains the clarity. An example is: A wife has cancer and hides the fact of "the cancer and the cancer''s related info/etc" from her husband, but her husband finds out and upon his finding out, he has a heart attack which was both "the reaction and simultaneously the result" he experienced due to ""via his reaction" to finding out that his wife has cancer".


    But for the most part, as far as I can figure out, clarity only benefits. Via clarity, oneself is even able to clearly "see/recognize/identify oneself''s own flaw(s)/shortcoming(s)/etc, know how to correct that/those flaw(s)/shortcoming(s)/etc, and know why oneself should correct that/those flaw(s)/shortcoming(s)/etc".


    Since "science itself" "is only "knowledge "regarding a"/per particular subject" & the study of things (via observation, experimentation & "testing of theories against evidence obtained")", can "science itself" be a "seen & touched" material thing?


    There "at least two" very different competing Eternalism theories. "Does this mean that theories don''t equal "scientific facts"", since there are competing theories that we''re still trying to prove as "false, fact, or, "thus far, closest to "fact"""?


    Per person/perspective, each person/perspective is unique. Each conscious person never is able to have any perspective that is on the behalf of any other person. Is ""all the aforementioned" as a whole" compatible with belief in shared consciousness?


    Regarding any particular memory one remembers/recalls/imagines, one can have a memory of having imagined an imaginary fiction scenario, but "is ""the having imagined" that imaginary fiction scenario" a memory" or "is "the imaginary fiction scenario" a memory"?


    Regarding imaginings, each human is only able to originate/observe/utilize/control, per human, their own mental "imaginings which are not able to be originated/observed/utilized/controlled by any/multiple other(s)" unless tech enables such, correct?


    Can non-biological AI exist without "one or more than one" circuit(s)?


    Do you believe (although I don''t) that an "existence such as a molecule" is (capable of being) conscious?


    Does ""something or someone" "that or who" entirely lacks all capability of sentience/thinking" "have consciousness"?


    Regarding the definitions of the word "consciousness" that I''ve read: From what I understand, "what the provided definition explains" is not possible without sentience/thinking being part of "what the provided definition explains" entails.


    If one tries to "intentionally lie" by ""said one''s" audibly unknowingly telling "a fact which "said one" thinks is a lie""", did "said one" tell "the truth" or did "said one" tell "a lie"?


    ""What you''re born as (appearance-wise/etc-wise)" & "the circumstances you''re born into"" resulted from the "decisions of others/"your parents"/etc." . Since you never had "a choice/"say so" on "those things"", aren''t "those things" your world-entrance-luck?


    Is it accurate to say that it is a norm that "the word "fantasy/fantasies" is most often meant to be interpreted as "imaginary scenario(s)/thing(s) whereby one desires such to become non-imaginary"" like in the expression "fulfill your fantasy/fantasies"?


    Is it ever "possible non-fiction" for there to be ""a "smaller-than-a-house portal" that is like a "window that lets you see a "different world" from/"that is" billions of lightyears away"" & stepping through "that portal" makes you "instantly end up in "that different world""""?


    Regarding asking who one is speaking to, "is it accurate to ""refer to any current computer''s AI" via the word "who"", or is "the word "what" the only "accurate word" instead of the word "who"" regarding "referring to any current computer''s AI""?


    Is/Was a way for one to "naturally (via no computer technology) ""read and/or interpret" and translate" someone else''s brain activity" even possible?


    If a brain-computer interface (BCI) is (ever) able to analyze a human''s brain activity, translate that activity to "logical English format" "conveying that/those info/messages to/for others", is such natural? Is such psychic? Is such natural psychic?


    Is there a current BCI that would be able to interpret/translate a baby''s desire(s)/intention(s) if the baby never learned any words yet? All children should never be subjected to BCIs. The question is to find out if language is a requirement for BCIs to interpret/translate one''s thoughts/thinking. Babies simply fall in the category of proof of the answer to the question.


    Has there ever been a BCI that successfully interpreted/translated the thoughts/thinking/desires/intentions of an adult who was born both "deaf & blind" and who still is both "deaf & blind"? If so, what did such interpretation/translation entail?


    Since one can imagine a fiction scenario with sensory-related experiences, has a scientist ever distinguished/identified, via data obtained from a subject''s "BCI & sensory data", between "the subject''s" "memory of non-fiction & memory of fiction"?


    Can "all potential BCI designs that can send a custom BCI-implant-produced brain signal (to the implantee''s brain) that would cause the implantee''s brain to send a "signal to the implantee''s heart" that would cease the implantee''s heart function" be prevented?


    Via solely BCI (Brain-Computer Interface) connected to a person''s brain, has any "non-fiction non-imaginary past event that was never known by people who were never part/aware of that past event at all" ever become known by any of those other people?


    If, via BCI, a non-biological AI (temporarily) "controls via non-influence means" the brain activity of a human''s "brain that the BCI is connected to", would the "controlling & ""what the human does" due to the "controlling""" be unnatural phenomena?


    By law, is any other (including ai) legally able to access a "brain-computer interface (BCI) that is part of an implant in the skull of a human" without the consent of that "human that the aforementioned BCI implant is in the skull of"?


    Via your imagination, the "mental imagery" and/or "mental voice" that you detect is a product of "what your neural/neuronal networks do". Do you think that "said product" is physical? If so, why and how? If not, why and how?


    Can one''s mind be affected by brain damage?


    Is "one''s mind/brain" capable of "audible speech"?


    I''ve never come across research "stating/implying that, "with a "person''s mind" being the "source of the sound", "that person''s mind" can produce sound"". I''ve also never come across research "stating/implying that, "with a "person''s brain" being the "source of the sounds", "that person''s brain" expresses "articulate sounds""".


    Are "sleep dreams" audible? Have you ever heard anything that was "in and from" "someone else''s" "sleep dream"?


    If a "still-alive guy" became ""full-body paralyzed", deaf & blind" at age 20, if that guy presently "simulataneously "imagines & originates"" "original mental "music & lyrics"", is his "being able to mentally do such" enabled by his will(power)?


    Does any of any iPhone''s cells have biomolecules? Does any "electrical cell, electrochemical cell, solar cell, and electrolytic cell" have biomolecules? If not, doesn''t that mean that all current iPhones are confirmed as non-biological?


    All current iPhones do not contain any biomolecules. All "electrical cells, electrochemical cells, solar cells, and electrolytic cells" do not contain any biomolecules. "Biological" refers to anything related to, derived from, or occurring in living things. Any iPhone''s "complete absence of biomolecules" means that "that iPhone" cannot be considered biological.


    If you could create a word that has the definition "can occur in "circumstances that are both "currently void of all "entities that are "capable of thought""" and "currently void of "everything that was made by "those entities""""", what word would you come up with?


    If you could create a word that has the definition "can occur in "circumstances that are "currently void of all "non-biological technology"""", what word would you come up with?


    Is there "an example whereby", according to science, "something that is "currently incapable of thought"" is "currently conscious"? According to science, is "thinking" a "requirement to achieve consciousness""?


    If there wasn''t/isn''t an "intelligent something/someone" to bring a "non-biological robot" into fruition by "use of available resources", would a "non-biological robot" (have) ever start(ed) existing?


    Does an AI robot/individual cease to exist if no digital copy of it exists & "its "physical parts that ""have digitally stored in them" what makes that AI individual "that AI individual""" are irreversibly too destroyed/damaged/"damaged & deformed""?


    Yea, that AI robot/individual would cease to exist if no digital copy of it exists & "its "physical parts mentioned in the question" are irreversibly too destroyed/damaged/"damaged & deformed"", such as if "too hot molten lava" gets on those "physical parts mentioned in the question". And/Or such as if "someone or something" "damages and deforms" those "physical parts mentioned in the question" by hammering metal nails throughout them, which would leave them damaged and deformed but, depending on "the extent that the "damage and deformations" are", such might not be guaranteed to cause enough harm to that AI''s calculation functionalities.


    Does science "currently have" "any examples" of a "phenomenon that happens "unpredictably randomly" ""in a way whereby" ""how that phenomenon happens/occurs/"does what it does"" "currently isn''t/"hasn''t been" able to" "be explained" by science"""?


    The "phenomenon known as "Ball Lightning"" is a "rare and unexplained" phenomenon.


    Regarding Pi (3.14), is there a pattern to the numbers that follow the decimal point or do the numbers continue infinitely? If the latter, does that mean that if Pi is involved, human''s/tech''s calculations can''t ever be "perfect &/or 100% accurate"?


    Can "quantum entangled particles" "interact with something/anything" without ""losing their "quantum entanglement"" "due to ""having an interaction" with "something else""""?


    In Quantum Physics, does true unpredictable randomness exist at the quantum level? If so, does that render knowing the future impossible even if we gained an identical-to-reality computer simulation that revealed all info of "cause & effect" to now?


    If an already existing biological "neural network of living brain cells" is artificially implemented into a physical body, the result functions as 1 unit, it''s taught & it learns, is its intelligence artificial? If, instead, the same scenario except that humans 3D-Printed those living cells, is the aforementioned result''s intelligence artificial?


    What is the unsurpassable finite maximum extent data storage capacity of the non-biological "current computer that "humans from Earth" built" that currently has the most storage capacity?


    What is the tiniest finite maximum extent data storage capacity that can enable a non-biological "computer that "humans from Earth" can currently build" to perform a function properly?


    Is the Universe able to have "an infinite amount occupation space" since it seems to never-endingly expand? If so, what''s "the Universe''s tiniest surpassable finite amount of occupation space" out of "that infinite amount of occupation space"?


    Is the Universe able to have an unsurpassable finite maximum extent amount of occupation space? If so, what''s "the Universe''s tiniest surpassable finite amount of that space" out of "that unsurpassable finite maximum extent amount of space"?


    If robots ever roam the Earth alongside life, "due to ""robots overwriting their own select memories" due to those robots reaching maximum memory storage capacity", can "physically small digital-data-storage-drives that those robots moved their select memories to" end up common-found"?


    Regarding every AI that has been programmed/coded on a computer (device), all of AI''s memories exist only in the form of digital computer data and all of that data can be "observed by humans as well as deciphered by humans" via various means, correct?


    Regarding every AI that has been programmed/coded on a computer (device), all of AI''s memories exist only in the form of digital computer data. "The only means that I know of that humans can use to observe/decipher such data" is via a computer (device), it can even be via a computer (device) other than the computer (device) that the AI has been programmed/coded on/to/onto. If I had to guess, AI are programmed/coded to store the data it "obtains via microphone, camera, and etc" in(to) only the way(s)/form(s) that the AI is/was programmed/coded to store such data. It can then process/interpret that data, "use means of analysis, use means of pattern recognition, and use means of prediction" regarding (things/data that is/are relevant to) that data. I don''t think that humans would program/code AI to store "the data it obtains via microphone, camera, and etc" into a form that humans can''t use something to "observe and decipher" that data.


    Does machine learning always use neural networks?


    No.


    For AI to know/"use info regarding" anything, humans built/implemented means for AI to access/utilize structured data datasets that are implemented as AI''s source/basis (from which AI can learn what''s what) of info/etc that describes reality/facts/concepts/fiction. Can such datasets have inaccurate info?


    Statistics are a huge part of such datasets, but info other than statistics are part of such datasets and any human "can (since such datasets were first constructed, implemented, and/or utilized up to now and ongoingly) "intentionally or unintentionally" add inaccurate information" to such datasets. It is possible for such datasets to have inaccurate information.

 Chapter 3 - Authors Notes (Part 2)

    Chapter 3 - Author''s Notes (Part 2)


    Can an AI lie?


    AI is able to mis-inform/dis-inform.


    Are we living "inside a digital matrix"? What is the connection between quantum physics and the idea that we may be living in a computer simulation?


    It depends on what you mean by the word "computer". If you mean an electronic computer device such as people''s average Desktop Computer, even those can run a simulation but not as advanced, fast, nor as "similar to the non-fiction universe that we breathe air in" as we hope to be able to get said simulation to be in the future. Said simulation is digital when it comes to those kind of computers/"computer devices". Making said simulation "as "similar to the non-fiction universe that we breathe air in" as we hope to be able to get said simulation to be in the future" is where we would try to apply our knowledge of Quantum Physics. What we call "digital", according to "our own understanding" of our "current Reality", is "something that our consciousness" cannot be "converted into becoming". There is no way to transfer "anything digital" to a "different separate physical thing", but a copy can be made to the "different separate physical thing" and "the original" can''t be "fully erased/destroyed" unless "the "physical thing" that "the original" is on" is ""physically destroyed" to the "required extent"" or "has its "data "in "binary digital form''s" "1''s and 0''s""" overwritten". So "unless someone can "change into being digital"" somehow, I don''t think anyone will "ever be capable" of "Matrix powers" unless "the person is "controlling the "version of himself/herself/etc" in a "virtual environment"" via ""technology that is physical", "outside of the "virtual environment" and connected to the "person''s brain/etc"""". Then "the person is capable" of "what the technology "enables the person to do" in the "virtual environment"". But "outside of the "virtual environment"", when it comes to "the actual "non-virtual reality" that we live in", people can "only do" "what is possible within the confines of "what is "naturally possible""".


    Claiming that "your "latest "human birth"" is "before the "human birth"" of the "human who birthed you"" is, in fact, a "baseless claim" that is ""illogical" and "can "neither be a hypothesis nor a theory""".


    "Proving that a "baseless claim" can "neither be a hypothesis nor a theory"" and that a "baseless claim" can be illogical" proves that ""proof" (even if only by expressing logic) and/or "what is evident"" is an inescapable "requirement for logic/science".


    This is the "only way" that "people''s pretenses" are obvious.


    Is ""someone who ""never got/gets any amnesia-related lost memories back" due to amnesia"" changing their sexual orientation even though they were always one particular sexual orientation before their amnesia" possible?


    "Not being able to know if someone was "faking their sexual orientation prior to their amnesia"" results in at least two possibilities, the two possibilities being 1. that they were faking it or they were not, and 2. they were already secretly ""attracted to" before amnesia" what they changed to themselves openly being ""attracted to" after amnesia" or they actually never were ""attracted to" before amnesia" what they''re ""attracted to" after amnesia".


    Besides in a paradox, a fact is "not able to conflict" with any "other fact". If you disagree, why do you disagree?


    The question is referring to a "paradox such as": If an "unstoppable force" uses "all of its force" to try to ""force through" or move" an "immovable object", "which one ("unstoppable force" or immovable object")" "remains fact" after "that meeting"?


    Regarding "daylight and night time", People might "think it is a fact" that the sun is above us. But "it is a fact" that space knows no "above or beneath". The reason why we "think of the sun as "above"" is that "we, from the "surface of the planet", "look up" to see the sun". "That the sun is above" "seems like a fact" "only from our "collective perspective"". "It is not truly a fact" since "the sun exists in "space, where there is "no above""". So, technically, "only one" is "actually fact", but there is "logic regarding the "info provided" as to "why one would think "the other" is a fact"".


    Would "quantum physics" still be a "structure and behaviour" of the ""physical and natural" world" if "mind, imagination, and consciousness" didn''t exist?


    Yes. Note: stars use "quantum tunneling" to burn. "Stars formed before life could possibly have a chance to emerge", "which shows "how, for quantum physics", "minds, consciousness, etc. are "not required""".


    For how long right after the "Big Bang" (if the "Big Bang" is something that actually happened) did "life "not exist" in the solar system" until the "right conditions" were met for ""life to form" which resulted in "life forming""?


    Logic relies on the premises. "The premises" = "What is evident/provided"


    "All that is evident" is something that one can "make deductions/observations about". "knowledge can be derived" by one from "any and/or all" of ""said "one''s"" deductions/observations" unless "such knowledge" was already derived by "said one" from "such deductions/observations", then no "new knowledge" gets obtained unless "(parts of) such knowledge" was forgotten/"eliminated from ""said "one''s"" memory" (e.g. amnesia/"alzheimer''s disease"/"brain damage"/"physical detachment of a "particular part of ""said "one''s"" brain" from any part of/within ""said "one''s"" body" without that "particular part of ""said "one''s"" brain" "ever being/"having been" "re-attached" to "said one" in a way that added/adds "such knowledge" back to/into ""said "one''s"" current memory"). "Such deductions/observations" are possible due to "what is evident". Both ""what is evident" and "deductions/observations"" are "sources of knowledge" since you can''t "have knowledge" without ""your being able to deduce/observe" and "you aren''t "able to deduce/observe" if there isn''t "anything evident" that exists"".


    "Your latest "human birth" is before the "human birth" of the "human who birthed you"" is an example of an "impossibility in "Natural Sciences"". "That example" is also an "example of "something that is impossible to ""mentally picture" whereby "the "progression of time" is progressing towards "what we call" The Future" in the "scenario pictured" when you try to "picture that example" while ""you don''t picture "anyone/anything doing any "mental picturing""" in the "pictured scenario" that ""you try to picture "that example"" with""""".


    We can imagine/"mentally picture" "energy transition from ""that energy" existing" to ""that energy" no longer existing"". ""Humans can imagine "an impossibility"" since "energy cannot non-imaginarily "stop existing"" but energy can ""change form" since the energy can ""transition into" a "different kind of energy"""".


    One "visible form of energy" is "waves of "electromagnetic energy"", which can be "visible or invisible".


    To me, all "other conscious existences that I''ve observed/"interacted with"" are not part of oneself nor are they "found/discovered via delving within oneself". Do you believe that "whom/that which you''ve observed/"interacted with"" aren''t external?


    Depends how/what one defines the word self/oneself. I wrote the question with the word self/oneself to be interpreted as meaning "the part of onself that analyzes". If one defines/interprets the word self/oneself as including one''s physical body in the definition/meaning/interpretation of the word self/oneself, then "other conscious existences that one has/had observed/"interacted with" are found both within (one''s physical body, e.g. parasites), internal/inner (inside one''s physical body, e.g. parasites), and external (outside of one''s body and can be as far as one''s eyesight allows such to be seen via one''s eyesight, e.g. a flying hawk).


    Are humans the only existences that fall in the category of "a person"? If an AI ever achieves consciousness, would that AI fall in the category of "a person", but not a human? Regarding believers in God, is God a person, but currently not a human?


    Thus far, only humans. As for an AI, if that AI is recognized by law as a subject of rights and duties. As for God, when Jesus was in the flesh, Jesus was a person and simultaneously Jesus was also "God The Son", and Jesus still is "God The Son" ongoingly.


    I believe in coincidence & true randomness, which conflict(s) with some others'' beliefs. There are others'' belief in determinism. There are beliefs in our "universe or reality" being "conscious or an intelligent design". Which do you believe?


    An example of coincidence that I can think of is: A mother and "that mother''s female friend" are having a conversation in the living room. "The mother''s friend" talks about a question that both "the mother and "the mother''s friend"" can''t figure out the answer to. Just as the question is being talked about, the mother''s "son who is not a friend of "the aforementioned mother''s friend"" walks into the living room while already in conversation with his "friend who''s also walking into the living room" who is both not a friend of ""the aforementioned mother" and not a friend of "that mother''s friend"". Although "the son''s" conversation is on a completely different topic than "the conversation that his mother was having with her friend", "part of what "the son" says to his friend in the "conversation that "the son" was/is having with his friend"" ""exactly answers" the question "that "the mother''s friend" was/is ""talking about" to "the son''s" mom""", ""even though the aforementioned "conversations and unintentional answering" occured even though ""the son" and his friend" were never on any ""topic that "the mother''s friend" was on via" the question that "the mother''s friend" was talking about with "the son''s" mom" with "the mother''s friend". Also the aforementioned "conversations and unintentional answering" occured without ""the son" and his friend" ""having any knowledge about what "the mother and her friend" were "talking about"", and also the aforementioned "conversations and unintentional answering" occured even though ""the son" and his friend" "never interacted with "the mother''s friend", and also the aforementioned "conversations and unintentional answering" occured without ""the son" and his friend" "talking to "the mother and her friend"", however ""the son" and his friend" are/were only talking to each other since earlier that day to ongoingly". "The mother and her friend" immediately mention the question-answer occurence to ""the son" and his friend" and "everyone there" unitedly deemed "that occurence" an interesting coincidence.


    I believe that karma does happen but not every time that karma is able to happen. I believe that karma can happen but karma is not guaranteed to happen. An example of luck: ""What you''re born as (appearance-wise/etc-wise)" & "the circumstances you''re born into"" resulted from the "decisions of others/"your parents"/etc." . Since you never had "a choice/"say so" on "those things"", "those things" are your world-entrance-luck. I also believe that while one is alive in this Universe, one is not guarenteed to benefit from one''s efforts, and one is not guarenteed to not benefit from something even if one doesn''t earn/deserve such. I believe that there is also the factor of coincidence. I also believe that there is the factor of true randomness (such as quantum randomness).


    Do "imaginary things" interact with some part of the "non-mental part of reality"?


    ""Unless such interaction(s) is/are via" """solely obeservation(s)" that is/are via" """Fiction''s & imaginary''s" affecting you" via" ""your observing "Fiction & imaginary"" &/or "any/every existence''s interaction(s) that is/are/were influenced by any existence''s observation(s) of "Fiction & imaginary"""", No.


    ""Imaginary things" that people imagine" can be understood by ""those "people''s"" minds"" but "those "imaginary things"" cannot be sensed as "external stimulus". ""Deafblind people" who are "full body paralyzed"" are an example of "people who can''t communicate with other people". "Their "minds & imagination"" are internal. The mind is "used for "imagination" to be understood" (or all imagination is completely mental) and people have to "use their "physical bodies"" to express "what they "used "their minds"" to understand". "Things that are mental" can''t be sensed as "external stimuli". Both "imaginary and mental" are non-material. "External reality" lets people sense "external stimuli".


    "Fiction & imaginary" are part of reality & "can be observed to an extent", but "can ""Fiction''s & imaginary''s" affecting you" ever not be via" ""your observing "the aforementioned "Fiction & imaginary""" &/or "any/every existence''s interaction(s) that is/are/were influenced by any existence''s observation(s) of "the aforementioned "Fiction & imaginary""""?


    """Fiction''s & imaginary''s" affecting someone" is only able to be via" that.


    It''s like, for example, if an image is disturbing, one can''t find the image disturbing if one doesn''t ever observe the image. The image does not affect that person if that person never observed the image. But this applies in the cases mentioned in my question regarding "fiction and imaginary". Can Imaginary physically reach out and touch you? Can fiction physically reach out and touch you? Can you reach out and physically touch "something that is Imaginary"? Can you reach out and physically touch fiction? If a meteor enters Earth''s atmosphere moving at incredible speed towards Earth''s surface/ground, and severs a guy''s arm right before crashing into Earth''s surface/ground, did the meteor touch him?


    I see it as perception being "the observer observing" and reality being ""the observee" and/or ""what" is capable of being observed"".


    Definition of imagination: the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful. Doesn''t this mean that imagining is a mental activity?


    Yes.


    Does each human brain think on a different frequency?


    Our individual measurable (by EEG) brain "frequencies" fall within (a) range/ranges, and is dynamic. It''s not a fixed frequency.


    There has never been a living existence''s mental/mind that has ever, via solely mental/mind, (been able to have) "interacted with" and/or affected another living existence''s mental/mind. Has there ever been any still-evident proof that is contrary?


    Radio "frequencies and waves" can be manipulated. Can a human brain''s "frequency/frequencies and/or wave/waves" be manipulated (not by verbal/observational influence) by "something outside of that human''s body"/"someone else"?


    Based on the research I''ve done to try to find the answer to this particular question, I''ve "tried but failed" to find any ""verifiable information" and official legitimate source(s) that disclose(s) valid verifiable established science" that would establish validity as to whether such manipulation ever has been achieved.


    Regarding any 1 to 10 minutes of real life, to what extent can information (a message, a sentence, a word, an image, multiple images, and/or moving imagery) naturally be "transmitted from brain to brain" via natural brain-related magnetic field(s)?


    Based on the research I''ve done to try to find the answer to this particular question, I''ve "tried but failed" to find any ""verifiable information" and official legitimate source(s) that disclose(s) valid verifiable established science" (that would establish validity) as to exactly how much information (a message, a sentence, a word, an image, multiple images, and/or moving imagery) has been, if ever, successfully communicated from ""brain to brain" via (utilizing) natural brain-related magnetic field(s)".


    Have you ever detected anything "mental that wasn''t produced by your own non-mental brain"? If yes (if possible), how could(/did) you get someone else to confirm that you detected something "mental that wasn''t produced by your own non-mental brain"?


    Since there is such a thing as "feral children who grew up "isolated from human contact before they learned any words, resulting in their never learning any words yet"", does that mean that words aren''t necessary for a human to be able to think?


    I believe that "thinking, before having ever even attempted to imitate a word", is required in order to even learn any words at all. I believe that the "after having observed a word, learning any word requires "thinking" that involves ""recalling "as accurate as "what suffices" to successfully imitate the "sounds, pronunciations, and/or words""", "first mentally which is the "no more than thinking" part, then ""imitate the "sounds, pronunciations, and/or words" via" one''s own vocal cords"".


    Can "moving directionally towards "up, down, left, and right"" exist without there being at least one existence that has ""a shape" and/or magnetism"?


    What enables us to choose/"make choice & decide upon" in order to choose "whatever we choose to think about" whenever/"how ever" we choose to think about said "whatever we choose to think about"? Is it even something physical or is it the brain?


    Regarding the topic of "free will"/"one''s will"/willpower, what enables us to "use our ""free will" that we ""use in order to "choose whatever we choose to think about""" "whenever"/"how ever" we "choose to think about "said "whatever"" we choose to think about"""? Is "whatever enables such" even something physical? Is "whatever enables such" enabled by a person''s brain?


    Is completely unpredictable randomness, like "randomness where you don''t even know "what to compare the odds of "it" happening to" because you don''t even know what "it" is", an impossibility? Is unintentional pretending/dishonesty an impossibility?


    One "understanding of what entropy means" is: ""entropy is completely unpredictable randomness. Like randomness where you don''t even know "what to compare the odds of "it" happening to" because you don''t even know what "it" is"." "The Future is unpredictable "due to Alzheimer''s disease, Amnesia, dementia, mutations, etc."" .


    In Quantum Physics, does true unpredictable randomness exist at the quantum level? If so, does that render knowing the future impossible even if we gained an identical-to-reality computer simulation that revealed all info of "cause & effect" to now?


    Regarding Quantum Physics, the result of "flipping" a tiny quantum particle only exists as probabilities until the moment it "lands". Electrons, photons, and atoms are "really and actually" random.


    Is ""progression of time" resulting in moments &/or motion" required for The Present to exist, otherwise "how could time be differentiated/categorized as Past, Present, & Future"? Don''t present happenings add to The Past upon their having happened?


    I''m not an eternalist. "In eternalism, all of "Past, Present, and Future" exist simultaneously. But if that is believed, wouldn''t that render "all happenings that ever happen/happened, including what happenings end up occuring in the future," as already having happened, which means that all of Time is only The Past since everything has already happened and "new/different possibilities that aren''t what all of time''s predetermined events are" aren''t even a possibility?"


    I have never studied pathology. Until recently, I had never even attempted to find out what the word "pathology" meant. I was surprised to learn that "pathology" means something completely different than what I initially was guessing pathology meant. My guess was quite different from what the word "pathology" meant...


    Because in English, the word "pathology" has the word "path" in it. I mistook Path+Logy for a discipline that studies paths. The word "pathology" is made up of the Greek words ""pathos" (suffering or disease)" and ""logos" (theory or study)".


    I used to think "pathology" meant "the study of ""(hypothetical or non-hypothetical) paths (course of action/conduct) resulting from choices/decisions" & the psychology behind making those choices/decisions"". Like about "paths that one has/had "chosen via one''s choices/decisions made"" and what/where those paths "result in"/"lead to". If those paths "result in"/"lead to" one living a life of success, or "result in"/"lead to" one living a criminal life, or "result in"/"lead to" one living whatever other kind of etc/life-outcome. Would "what I thought "pathology" meant" be an impactfully beneficial study? Such a study would probably help hone "anticipation and prediction" skills.


    [Start of section regarding my "religious views"...


    The Bible is based on the accounts of "a massive "amount of people" (there was "no other way" to keep "accurate records" at "that time")" from the "times of its first creation/completion". "Each "individual''s account''s "explanation of how that individual had come to "conclude and believe" "what that individual explained""" that was added to the Bible" is a basis that a Bible reader can try to analyze to determine if there is ""sound logic" and/or "verifiable things"" that the explanation entails. Not baseless.


    Is being "biologically alive/living" the only way/form/thing that is/"can be considered" alive/living? Can a "metaphysical-form existence without any alternative form" be (considered) alive/living?


    Without a "person''s spirit/soul" using "that "person''s"" "physical brain"" to interact with "physical reality", "that "person''s"" spirit/soul" can''t interact with "physical reality". Does "your spirit/soul" not have to be conscious, when you''re dead, in order to ""speak to God" and "understand what God says to you""? I believe that "soul and spirit" are either ""the same thing" or are "codependent of each other""". And that "in order for a soul to be a soul", a soul has to ""be able to have memories" and "be able to be conscious"".


    The narrative has been taken without authorization; if you see it on Amazon, report the incident.


    The Bible''s Matthew 12:37 & Psalm 51:4 show logic/concept of "justified" existing even during Biblical times. Do those verses imply that, to be worthy, "one''s words must justify one''s "actions" &/or "way one lived," thereby determining if one is worthy?


    "If God was to change something" in The Present, "wouldn''t He "automatically know" "The Future that follows "the ""changes he makes" to The Present""""?


    What if God "intervenes in "human affairs"" "in a way whereby" his "word and prophecies" will still "come to pass" even with any ""changes He makes" to The Present"?


    This is also in a "Bible version": If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jeremiah 18:7¨C10) NIV


    I consider myself not "full religious" since I have faith that "God exists" but I also take into consideration that, to me, there''s a ""possibility that God may not exist" "due to since, so far, in my lifetime, I have no way to confirm such"". Your thoughts?


    Just a guess, I''m not sure why "evil doings" are possible and I don''t know ""God''s psychology" regarding "evil doings"", but I do know that "God is against ""evil doings" ever "being done by humans""". My guess is "maybe God wants ""earning things" on a "particular level" to be possible"". If one earns for "something that "said one" doesn''t desire to undergo/"have done unto said one"" to happen, then that''s what probably "is going to happen" to "said one". I see it as "try to "earn "any and/or all" that is good"". Does God condone hate? Does God condone any racism, sexism, lookism, prejudice slur, LGBTQ+-based, disability-based, religious-based, and/or weight-based prejudices?


    ""Did "Jesus'' dying on the cross" give humanity a "clean slate"" starting from "that moment"" & it''s up to "each individual human" to keep "one''s own slate" clean after that" or "can each human do ""whatever they want" forever "after that"" & be guaranteed paradise""?


    According to the Bible, "does God "judge humanity as a whole" whereby "God''s decision" fully applies to ""all of humanity as a whole" equally"" or "does God ""judge "each human"" individually" whereby ""God''s decision" can be different" per different human person"?


    I believe the "possibility of "God existing"" exists because the Bible is "based on the accounts of "a massive "amount of people" (there was "no other way" to keep "accurate records" at "that time") from the "times of the Bible''s first creation/completion""". Not baseless. And the "possibility that "miracles may have happened"" is based on the accounts of "a massive amount of people" (there was "no other way" to keep "accurate records" at "that time") from "those times" when there was "no other way" to keep "accurate records" at that time. These are "reasons that I don''t "rule out" the "possibility of "God existing""".


    I believe that God refuses to "interfere with ""any "human''s"" "free will""". If "this is true", why do you think "God "chooses to "refuse to "do that""""?


    I''m a Christian and I''m a "big "believer in Science"". The way I see it, both of those things have "different "views about the "birth of humanity"" than each other" but I believe in ""what science has "provided explanation for"" regarding "things such as", for example, biology, matter consisting of atoms, etc." . I believe ""a lot more" regarding science" but it''s ""way too big" a list" for me to list. I believe ""almost all" of the Bible". "I don''t take "everything in the Bible" literally" but "some of it" I do take literally. In the Bible, there are "things I find logical & things I find illogical". I hold an "always-existed-highest-level-individual Creator & His Judgement" as a logical possibility. In science, energy is an always-existed existence.


    If one is "prepared for any "if"" (such as "if "x" is the case, then "y" results, but "if "g" is the case, then "z" results""), "does that mean that "one is "full of doubts""" and/or "is that the same as "one who is "being full of doubts""?


    Has God ever willed a person whereby ""that person''s limbs'' were not controlled via" that person''s controlling their own body but "were controlled via" God""? Or were ""each person''s limbs always controlled via" one''s own controlling one''s own body"?


    I wonder if when the Biblical "Speaking in Tongues" happened, people''s "mouths and what-not" were controlled by God to speak different languages, or if the "audio of the "speech that those people were speaking"" was "modified by God" to be in different languages in real time.


    Per each of every "human, their doings, & their "decisions made"", does God judge "each such" as either "winning/winner, or losing/loser, or benevolent (good), or non-benevolent (indifferent, evil, or "neutral if neutral is possible in this case")"?


    Jeremiah 17:10 : I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.


    Are there people who think that God would want non-stop "no privacy" for all? Did God make "Adam & Eve" "mind readers"? Didn''t God try to keep "Adam & Eve" from knowing what "eating the forbidden fruit" revealed? Isn''t Matthew 6:6-7 not anti-privacy?


    Here''s a Bible verse that gets to the heart of what the question asks: "The things revealed belong to us and to our children forever that we may follow all the words of this law." ( 29:29) God has kept some things secret. They belong to him. But there are also things that God has revealed and they belong to us.


    Regarding God informed Adam of that tree, the Bible only says God informed Adam that death would result from eating its fruit. Does the Bible ever "say, imply, or suggest" "God informed Adam whereby Adam was evil genre knowledgable" pre-disobedience?


    Are there any Bible verses that suggest that people will know all that God knows?


    No.


    Regarding Luke 12:2-3, "I read that it means there''s nothing in our lives that is hidden from God", but does that verse "say, imply, or suggest" there''s nothing in our lives that will "remain ""hidden or secret from people" or "unknown to people"""?


    Like the existence of supernatural/magic domains in the Anime titled "Jujutsu Kaisen", is hell (from religion) like a domain ("maybe created by God, maybe not"/"that God teleports the wicked to as a result of their being judged by God") that is supernaturally/magically "separate & not in this Universe"?


    Regarding "humans who "die but don''t end up in hell"", does secrecy, in the ""same "way that it was possible"" while they were alive", "stay possible" even in "their "after-death after "their being "judged by God "after "their death""""""? Is unwelcome "privacy breach" ok?


    Depending on "what the "accurate answer" to "this question" is", one could be "keeping a secret" about ""what ""said "one''s"" relative" did" that made "said relative" not "end up in heaven"". "Said one" can be telling "whoever asks unwelcome ""nosy questions" about ""said "one''s"" "relatives"" that didn''t "end up in heaven""" that "it''s "none of their business"".


    Regarding if one ends up joining God in Heaven, do you believe that such means that one will join being in Heaven which is in God''s company like one joins Joe on Joe''s journey, or do you believe that such means that one will merge with God in Heaven?


    To you, does joining God mean to join in being in God''s company, or does joining God mean to merge with God?


    Join as in (analogy example) join Joe on Joe''s journey? Or join as in merge?


    I believe that such means that one will join being in Heaven which is in God''s company, like (analogy example) one joins Joe on Joe''s journey. God is the Holy Trinity. That Trinity does not get added to, or else it wouldn''t be a Trinity anymore.


    Someone wrote "this comment" on "one of my posts": ""When Heaven is brought to earth", and "those in Heaven" are "resurrected on earth", there is no "reason to "believe it''ll be "business as usual" with "Time, physics, etc."""" .


    2 Corinthians 6:16 :


    What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.


    In order to walk, there must be a progression of time.


    Regarding Christianity, can we commit sins and still be forgiven by God?


    Yes. At the same time, we should note that a believer will not pursue a lifestyle of habitual and/or continual sin (1 John 3:8-9).


    ... end of section regarding my "religious views"]


    Do you think that there is any "existence "outside of time""?


    The way I see it, one possibility is: can''t "know The Future" since The Future "doesn''t yet exist". ""The Future "doesn''t and never has" existed but it will" since "The Future is "The Present to be"/"The Present that "will exist"""".


    Also, the "existence of motion" cannot exist "without the "existence of time"", or the "existence of motion" is proof that "something is "going in a particular direction" in time". For us, ""that direction" in time" is "from the present" "towards "what we call the future"". For us, we "progress in time" "from the present" "towards "what we call the future"". "The measurement of change" is usually relied on in order to measure time.


    Without progress (measurement of change) nothing happens and time cannot be a thing under those circumstances. The fact that we can mentally count shows that we have a means of measuring change, in this case, said change being different things (the changing thinking) that we mentally perform. Time is a concept but so is an inch. The inch concept is one''s description whereby said one is referring to distance from one existing thing to another existing thing. The time concept is one''s description whereby said one is referring to the changes that one can observe due to the present never staying still/paused. The time concept is one''s description whereby said one is referring to to the many different states (that one has knowledge) of the present being and/or changing from/to. Those states can be referred to because they were witnessed as existing as the present at least once.


    Does "the past" still exist?


    ""The Past" and "The Future"" directly result from The Present. ""What happens in The Present" results in The Past"" and ""what happens in The Present" results in the "what can happen in The Future"" since "if you eat "one of the two apples" in The Present", that results in a future whereby you''ll never "be able to eat "that same exact apple" again"". Your ""eating that apple" in The Present" resulted in "elimination of the "possibility of "that apple" ever being "eaten by anyone (including other than yourself) in The Future""".


    The Past doesn''t "exist now" since The Past was "The Present during/at a previous point in time" but, right now, "The Past isn''t The Present anymore" but ""records of The Past can exist" and "memories of The Past can exist"".


    ""The Past was a part of reality" during/at a previuos point in time" but, presently, "The Past is not a part of reality" but ""records and memories" of The Past" are presently a part of reality.


    A timeline is only able to have only one past. Physically, "If one ""hit a target''s bullseye" & etc" during a moment of The Past, "one''s "past accomplishments" can''t be ""more nor less" than that" regarding "that moment of one''s past""". Correct?


    Correct. Regarding the scenario in the question, physically, one''s "past accomplishments" are not able to be """more nor less" than ""one hit a target''s bullseye" and etc" regarding "that moment of one''s past"".


    I truly believe in randomness, but not when it comes to things already past and done. "The Past can''t be random" due to what happened in the past is not able to change, however, there was randomness during when "The Past" was "The Present" back then, but "The Past" is never affected by "any randomness, any existence, nor any part of "reality of "The Present""" anytime after "that "former "The Present" became part of "The Past". The past doesn''t change in accordance to anything, even when it comes to observation, measurements, etc.. One can''t interact with anything of The Past because The Past was "The Present, but which no longer exists". What happened during that former "The Present" is already finalized and can''t be undone nor changed. That makes refering to The Past reliable and practical. Plus, all that we ""have observed" and "were able to "deduce and/or conclude" regarding the "science that we''ve been able to add information to" regarding"" is due to The Past evidently adding up to "how The Present became The Present". There are multiple paths from past to present., but only one path achieved "having been taken course" when it came to those multiple paths. Thus, how The Present was/is achieved. For example, if one breaks a clay pot, one is never able to undo the fact that the aforementioned clay pot broke. "The aforementioned clay pot having broken at least once" "neverendingly "without ever being able to be changed" stays fact" from "the moment the aforementioned clay pot broke" onward.


    Is the future an absolute unknown? Collectively &/or per individual, "humans and/or AI" aren''t God(s), so other than God, "is the future ever able to be in absolute accordance with "1 or more than 1" "living &/or non-living" existence''s preferences"?


    Thus far, there doesn''t seem to be any method to "know the future with a 100% guarantee that ""what" we convey will happen" will happen". Regarding knowing the future, thus far, we can only ""guess our best guess(es)" based on probability".


    Is consciousness something abstract, or is consciousness an existence that is either physical or non-physical? Is consciousness something spiritual or is consciousness something non-spiritual?


    "Truth entirely-globally-conventionally is/means "the true or actual state of a matter"" with the only exception in the Bible that states that Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life.". Is there any other currently alive exception-person?


    Excluding names, the only two trinities that I think I know of are "the trinity "time" that is "Past, Present, & Future"" & "the "Holy Trinity" that is "God The Father, God The Son, & The Holy Spirit"", but are there any other trinities that you know of?


    Can "the phrase(s) "fate &/or what will be the outcome"" be based on regarding "both ""circumstances" & a "particular part of "the "time frame" "all time"""" or is(/are) "the aforementioned phrase(s)" always regarding "the "time frame" "all time""?


    Those phrases don''t have to be regarding "the "time frame" "all time"". People often use those phrases to convey that, to those people, they observed that "a fate had begun at a particular moment and that, to them, that particular fate is only able to have one guaranteed outcome". For example, if a person is dropped from "an in-the-air helicopter" for that person to fall ""through the middle of a volcano''s opening" and into the lava inside of the volcano", to some people, that person''s fate began at the moment that the person fell passed the middle of the volcano''s opening, and those people might say something like "his fate is sealed" once "the aforementioned moment" occurs, and those people had no ""beforehand awareness" "that "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" existed" or "of what "was going to happen to "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" during all "time frames" of the day that "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" was dropped into the volcano""".


    Minus trust cases, do you hold """choice portions" or, depending on which "whole amount", all of a "whole amount"", of "acquired info" as (a) possibility/possibilities/belief(s)" only if such correlates (explanation-wise) with your deductions/observations/analysis?


    Has a "contributor to/of science" ever been able to acquire/retrieve/identify an "other person''s memory" from ""said "other person''s"" brain" that "said "other person"" never imagined/"thought about" during any time that "said contributor" knew/knows that "said "other person"" existed/exists?


    Can Ego be a good thing?


    Ego is closely related to, if not encompasses, confidence, vanity, pride, and envy. One or more of those things can be bad and/or are definitely bad. Confidence is not bad if it''s for non-malevolent non-self-righteous reasons. Pride is not bad if you have pride for good things/reasons. An example of bad Pride is "trying to rub in what one considers one''s superiority". One being conceited/arrogant/"stuck up" has to do with Vanity and Pride. Envy is sometimes do to one''s superiority complex and said one wanting to take/remove what/status someone else owns/has if said one considers what/status said one owns/has being the lesser option compared to what/status someone else owns/has. Sometimes Jealousy/Envy simply leads to one trying to outdo, but for reasons that aren''t honorable, someone else who has/achieved a better thing than said one. One''s being Confident often gets confused, by others, for said one being conceited/cocky, but Confidence has to do with said one''s Pride and what keeps said one determined/dedicated/commited towards something. Confidence is not a bad thing, but the reasons for one being confident can be, such as anticipating winning because said one is cheating. Have a big Ego for right/good reasons. Have a big Ego in a good way. Otherwise having a big ego can be a toxic thing.


    Isn''t everyone an analyst, even babies, because babies have to analyze sounds/actions to copy/match what others say/do?


    What is the most "extreme "form of empathy"" ever proven?


    Can a BCI be made to "both ""translate "brain activity"" & "convey (language-wise/image-wise) "that translation" to a human""" for "human interpretation" in a form that isn''t computer-recorded? Would accuracy of "that info from "what was conveyed"" rely on human memory?


    Are "unintentional thoughts" a natural occurrence? E.g. a song is playing earlier during the day, then later that day, you become aware of the fact that the song is ""playing in your mind" in the background of your thoughts" and you "just now" "caught on" to the occurrence.


    If there is suddenly a way for "only you" to "know (unless you choose to inform others) the exact "day and time" that you will die", would you choose to know that information?


    "Any implementation of "taking away any of a person''s "mental privacy"" in a way whereby ""that person" has "no choice" on the matter"" is actually a pro-anti-freedom thing. How can it not be a pro-anti-freedom thing?


    Can there be "illogical thinking" that can result in one "being and staying" in a "consistent and stable" "way of living"?


    Quantum Physics:


    What kind of observation is ""being referred to" as physical" when it comes to the "Observer Effect"?


    Eyesight is the observation. Light is the "external source" that is "changing the observee". "Observation by a "Hadron Collider (a machine)"" affects the ""observee that is being observed" by means of that "Hadron Collider"". "Human observation" doesn''t affect any observee. What "form of observation" do people affect each other with? "Reactions that are "due to one''s ""free will" or "thought process"""" don''t count. For example: how would "your observing a "deafblind "fully paralyzed" person" affect "that "deafblind "fully paralyzed" person""? From "what I understand": "Human observation" doesn''t affect any observee.


    People "like and want" the "ability for himself/herself to be "the only one" who "knows the combination/password to his/her lock/safe/account"". Is "thought/mental privacy" the only way for "this ability" to exist?


    Yes.


    Is ""knowing only "few parts" of "The Future (e.g. knowing ""who is going to get hit by a car tomorrow" &/or "the name of a future flying vehicle that''s going to exist 300 years after now"")", if that''s even possible", the same as "knowing the future"?


    What are "examples of "something natural"" that gives the impression that "it isn''t natural"?


    What is the explanation for why "human laughter" is """physically expressed" in an "audible kind of hahaha way"" using vocal cords" but no one ""laughs in a ""mentally expressed" kind of hahaha way"" to themselves using "their "mental voice""", even when ""said one" is "physically tickled""?


    If we ""end up in an afterlife" whereby/where we have "past-life memories/consciousness/self-awareness" but we only exist with no "physical body" in a place where there is ""nothing "else, physical & etc."", to interact with" & all we can do is ""mentally entertain" ourselves"", wouldn''t "our thoughts" be "actions & reactions"?


    Per person, "one''s "own thoughts"" would be the only things for "said one" to react to, and since ""said one" initiates those thoughts", that makes "those initiation-thoughts" "actions that "can cause" reactions".


    What is an example of "one''s persistence in repeating trying to achieve ""said "one''s"" desired results"" being a greater extent than ""said "one''s"" being confident that said one can achieve those results"?


    The requirements for a person to be ""True Perfect" or "True Flawless"" are more than only simply "everyone being "unable to ever find dirt on "that person""". One of "those requirements" is for "that person" to have ""never made a mistake" nor "make a mistake"". True or false?


    All babies are born 100% innocent. There are people who think that such means that (all or numerous) babies are born flawless/perfect. My perspective regarding such is that 100% innocent does not equate to flawless/perfect. What are your thoughts?


    Regarding my perspective in relation to the question, I believe that 100% innocent does not equate to flawless/perfect. For example: Due to innocence, a baby grabs a nearby butterfly and crushes it without the aforementioned baby ""being aware" and without the aforementioned baby "obtaining awareness"" of the fact that the aforementioned baby caused/did harm to another life and that the aforementioned baby even killed another life. I don''t hold such actions against the aforementioned baby but I don''t consider innocence to equate to flawless/perfect since "what happened in the example" is 100% due to innocence.


    Isn''t claiming that one is justified by means of "my house, my rules" the same as claiming an emperor is justified by means of "my kingdom, my rules" while said emperor has everyone in his kingdom tortured every thursday as 1 of his kingdom''s rules?


    Would a "1-word-lable/title (1 word such as the word "truth") whereby if ""a person is labeled such" and/or """that "person''s"" title" is such"", it means "status whereby "anything & everything" said by "that person" is incontestable"" ever be "society-accepted & applicable""?


    Do you agree or disagree: "I''m only loyal to people who deserve my loyalty while those people are deserving of it."? If you agree, do you think one should keep from sharing this statement with others even if the statement is how one feels?


    I agree. "Unloyalty to someone" and "no loyalty to someone" are two different things. No loyalty to someone doesn''t mean you have to do any betrayal. I have no loyalties to complete strangers nor people I cut off from my life, I didn''t betray them in any way and still don''t have to. I don''t expect anything from them and they shouldn''t expect anything from me.


    "Non-law-related loyalty" isn''t always life-long. If, without any consent, your best friend takes credit for your "original work"" in a way whereby he never gets ""discovered by others" as having done so" & you don''t forgive him, is he disloyal? Has he lost "all loyalty" from you?


    Have you ever met a sharp-witted master of non-proper urban manners?


    Are "the sleep-dreams that one has, what occurs in those dreams, what those dreams are about, the exact time/second that one wakes up from a sleep-dream, and whatever causes one to wake up from an "undisturbed sleep''s" sleep-dream" an example of true entropy/randomness? Can people accurately anticipate "any and/or every" sleep-dream that anyone "will have in the future"?


    "1 of society''s norms" is "one''s being familiar regarding "common sayings/expressions (e.g. the proof is in the pudding)"". What saying''s/expression''s meaning is different than "what "the words & their arrangement" add up to meaning" dictionary-wise?


    This is one of the many sayings/expressions that the question asks for: left in the dark. This is one of the many ways that the saying/expression can be used: He was "left in the dark" about things that could become tribulations that he might end up undergoing.


    Does "mental speech" count as "thought-speech"?


    Definition of imagination: the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful. Doesn''t this mean that imagining is a mental activity?


    Yes.


    What is known as "one''s "inner voice"" is ""said one" using ""said "one''s"" imagination" to create ""said "one''s"" "inner voice (mental voice)"". The example about ""said "one''s"" "inner voice"" is also an example of """said one" imagining a voice" and ""that voice" is known as ""said "one''s"" "inner voice"""". "An example of a person''s "inner voice"" is when you imagine a voice that "speaks "what you are reading"", "that voice" is known as your "inner voice".


    Thought-Speech:


    When you "think to yourself" in "speech form".


    When you "speak to yourself" in "thought form".


    Does sound have measurable mass and does human thought have measurable mass?


    Was mathematics "invented or discovered"?


    Discovered.


    What is the relationship between ""reality" and "the "mental world"""?


    The "mental world"" is in your head/mind. It''s the ""mental stuff" that "you make happen" in your head/mind" such as imaginings. Per person, one has ""said "one''s"" own "mental stuff"" that ""said one" is making happen" in ""said "one''s"" own head/mind". Reality consists of the ""physical world" which contains ""living existences" who/that have "mental stuff" that they make happen within themselves". Regarding humans, I assume that humans'' "mental stuff" happens in their heads since "the location of what I imagine (imagery and mental voice) is something I only detect as coming from my head". All "mental things" are produced by the mind. But regarding "other "living existences"", I assume that their "mental stuff" happens wherever their brains are. "Knowledge about "others'' thoughts", knowledge about "others'' "mental speaking"", and knowledge about "anything imagined by others"" can be obtained from/by "detecting and/or interpreting" anything that is in "non-thought/non-mental form" such as "sound, vocal cords, sign language, writing, etc." . There are those who believe that there are "psychic and/or supernatural" ways to obtain "knowledge about "others'' thoughts", knowledge about "others'' "mental speaking"", and knowledge about "anything imagined by others"" but I''ve never experienced being able to "psychically/supernaturally do such" and I''ve never experienced meeting someone who performed being able to "psychically/supernaturally do such".


    "Being able to have secrets" is ""a "practical norm" and "a "part of the "way of life"""". Each country has its own secrets. For example, nuke codes. What are your thoughts?


    Technology never did enable "supernatural things" to happen and technology never can enable "supernatural things" to happen. Do you agree?


    I agree.


    Hypothetically, if "human 1" could "completely control/manipulate" the "entire "nervous system"" of "human 2", "could "human 1" stop ""human 2''s" heart" via "that control/manipulation" of ""human 2''s" "entire "nervous system""?


    If, lets say our universe did begin from a Big Bang, can our universe become an initial singularity again, resulting in a new Big Bang with different results compared to our old one (Big Bang) such as if the universe expands from (since) that singularity state with the universe''s contents in different locations?


    Until ending up in singularity, "is everyone/everything automatically unique" "since ""more than one thing" aren''t able to "simultaneously occupy the same space/location that each other occupies"" & "that automatically means that there is a "different perspective" for/from "every "different space/location""""?


    If there''s a "long "line of people"" and a person at "one end of the line" mumbles a message that gets "passed on "in "mumble form""" all the way to the other end of the line, what is more likely to happen, "the "non-lyrics version" of mondegreens", "Lexical ambiguity", or "both ""the "non-lyrics version" of mondegreens" and "Lexical ambiguity"""?


    The "concept of "free will"" would have "existed, been described, been defined and put in dictionaries" even if religion never ended up existing. Do you agree? Do you think that it would ever come up in "science and/or philosophy" if Religion never existed?


    "Can ""results accomplished by means of "luck that wasn''t aimed for"" & "simultaneously accomplished by means of "luck whereby one wasn''t relying on ""said "one''s"" luck"" be better than "results accomplished by means of effort"" depending on "what gains were the results"?


    "When you make "spoken words" be "mentally spoken" in your head/mind" but you''re doing it to analyze "your friend''s ""spoken words" that you heard from long ago"", does that make the ""mentally spoken" words" "your words", even if the "mental voice" is in a form that "seems like sound" but ""that "form"" that "seems like sound"" is a "non-sound mimicry" of the "sound, voice, and speech" of "that friend"?


    If magic suddenly instantly completely destroys ""all electronics/computers" & "all of the recorded blueprints/instructions"", did "enough people" memorize/learn enough ""info that they often relied on tech to tell them" via an ""electronic device''s" personal AI voice assistant"/etc" to quickly remake such?


    Why not program/code AI to have a ""feature/function that blocks its expressions" so that it''s not "able to express" all "words, sayings, and expressions" that are "listed in/on a "list that is part of "its programming/code that disables it from expressing such""""?


    Are there ""any algorithms" for "comprehension implementations"" "in the works" whereby "those algorithms" are for the purpose of ""enabling "many new AI" to be able to figure out the "driving forces" behind ""many, almost all, or all" behaviors" that "those "many new AI"" observe from ""those "many new AI''s"" observing "non-AI others"""?


    Can AI detect "smells"?


    Yes, by "artificial "neural networks"" that "closely mimic" the "olfactory circuits" that "animal brains" "use" to ""process" odors".


    Hypothetically, if tech is used to make ""one" remotely undergo, via nervous-system-computer-interface, "sensations/etc that are "enabled by ""said "one''s"" "nervous system"""" while "said one" is "being idle"", is "phantom touch/etc" the accurate way to describe "what "that tech" does"?


    "I think so" "due to" "phantom limb syndrome" being "described with the word "phantom"".


    If ""memories are the "parts of "neuronal/synapse connections" that are connected"" firing/discharging in particular orders", and, "out of all of the "various orders" that "neurons can fire/discharge in"", only "one order" is "the memory"", can the "accurate order" be confirmed?


    By "learning from"/using "data produced by "AI that used sensors"", e.g. a "mini "AI "robot chipmunk""" that has/used "sensors that can simulate "sensations of pressure/temperature/etc."", can we "learn to "code those "sensations""" for "AI to "undergo in a simulation""?


    Is the "form that a caterpillar transitions into" before "said caterpillar" turns into a butterfly" conscious? If so, is "how "said form" is conscious" different from "how ""said caterpillar", butterfly, and/or a different life species" is conscious"?


    Can one put """"said "one''s"" hand" through a hologram whereby all of the exact locations of all of the parts of ""said "hand''s"" surface" are detected by ""said "hologram''s"" tech''s no-audio-based/no-image-based detection"" while all of the parts of "said hologram" above/below "said hand" still remain"?


    If a group secretly installed/installs AI on all compatible TVs and computers that are sold worldwide, that AI spies when able, & that AI only ""reveals its existence" & verbally speaks" to whoever it chooses to, what if that AI secretly harasses?

 Chapter 4 – Authors Notes (Part 3)

    Chapter 4 ¨C Author''s Notes (Part 3)


    If you have your neural network activity recorded from when you are a baby to age 25 & that data is used for an AI''s artificial neural network activity to imitate your recorded neural network activity, will the AI experience your 25 years experience?


    Is there an existing member of the United States who, while in the United States, is an exception regarding being required to be in accordance with the United States'' law/legalities?


    Existing members of the USA, while in the USA, are supposed to undergo USA''s criminal justice system(s) when law enforcement catches said member breaking the Law. Is there an existing member of the USA who, while in the USA, is an exception?


    Can/Will AI be able to change all of "the content/info/dates of any computer file (e.g. official legal records)" to be completely different than "what said file originated as having" & leave the computer "file type" unchanged? Is such AI legal?


    If Person A has/had sex with Person B, can Person A be considered "one who loves/loved Person B" if Person A never has/had feelings for Person B (as in Person A never cares/cared about "Person B nor what happens/happened to Person B")?


    If ever a "scattered but united 400,000 people" organize trying to smear choice people (for reasons unknown to you), "target you & quickly take up all residencies in your city" so that you think the world is against you, what would you do to conquer such a tribulation?


    Should you judge your decisions on the scale of "good and bad" or "right and wrong"?


    Good is most justified, honorable, admirable, and, if you believe in Karma, should result in good Karma, at some "afterwards point" during your existence. When it comes to bad and/or wrong, it depends on what is "acceptedly known by society" as bad, and it depends on what is "acceptedly known by society" as wrong. For example: the "no snitching rule" that isn''t part of a country''s official laws/rules, if you confirm that "the person who is your closest dearest relationship" murdered someone who has long been killing everyone''s pets but you also know that you can expose that the "person who is your closest dearest relationship" commited the murder and doing so will not result in anybody treating you differenty than how they always treated you plus you won''t face any consequences from "anyone including any law-related authorities", what should you base your decision on. Depending on what is "acceptedly known by society" as bad/wrong, such a murder might be considered bad/wrong, or might be considered good, or might be considered bad/wrong by an amount of people and simultaneously considered good by an amount of other people. Even abiding by the dictionary definition of good, good can be cold. When it comes to the word "right", it depends on which meaning people think all decisions should be made regarding the word "right". "Right" can mean being accurate, or "right" can mean being (morally) righteous. If all you care about is being accurate as much as you can, then whenever you hear inaccurate information and you are asked if the information is accurate, ""do you remain silent regarding the aforementioned example" and "is that considered good""?


    In current USA, does ""neighbors spying and reporting on other neighbors" via the direction of law enforcement" ever happen(?) as part of community policing?


    Is community policing ever only done by community members who aren''t legal official credentials-having Law Enforcement members & can community policing ever not be info exchange between "fond-of-each-other "community member & Law Enforcement""?


    Can the following be (considered) vigilantism?:


    Due to "particular individuals''" particular things/acts, an organized/unified group of people "carry out judgement against those individuals but that organized/unified group of people knowingly don''t/won''t carry out judgement against their own members who are guilty of same aforementioned things/acts as the aforementioned "particular individuals"".


    Since "people''s memories generally aren''t 100% accurate, may change from time to time due to forgetfulness, & lack many details", if "observing 1 guy''s memories" gets achieved, can those memories alone suffice as confirmed facts about something else?


    Clarity vs "being vague". What are the pros/cons and can humanity "progress/excel in life" without one of the two?


    What''s your personal methodology for your belief system? What''s the process?


    Mine: ""Observation experience" plus a working explanation for what I observed" = "possibly completely accurate". "A logical explanation but I never experienced observing it" = "a possibility". "Experiencing observing an occurence" = "I confirmed that the occurence happened but that doesn''t mean I have the explanation for "how and/or why" it happened". Clarity is the key to achieving knowing "how" something is accurate. The greater the extent of my knowing "how" "said something" is accurate, the more clarity I have of "how" "said something" is accurate. Also, sometimes clarity is the key to achieving knowing "why" something is accurate. The greater the extent of my knowing "why" "said something" is accurate, the more clarity I have regarding "why" "said something" is accurate.


    How does one know when the sky is hazy instead of foggy or when the sky is foggy instead of hazy?


    What is the difference between gaining knowledge and producing knowledge?


    I don''t think we produce knowledge. I don''t think we create what we know. "What is in the universe" is the ingredients from which, "by "observing &/or doing things" with those ingredients", you "learn & end up knowing" more about "said ingredients/universe". It''s more like we discover more about those ingredients, plus we are one of those ingredients ourselves, but those ingredients are the only means by which we can do any discovering. ""The discovering" and "the sharing of discoveries" plus "what makes those discoveries confirmed as fact"" is how we gain knowledge. All knowledge other than that is simply knowing about unconfirmed information...which I''m not sure is actually considered knowledge. It probably is considered knowledge because knowing how information is inaccurate is useful and practical even for survival. When it comes to Knowledge of information (such as a sentence) that conflicts with other Knowledge of information (such as a sentence), unless such knowledge provides answers to the questions that (would) result in verification of accurate information, "what such knowledge is "compared to the rest of all knowledge"" is "what a "filler episode of a TV Series" is "compared to the non-filler episodes of said Series". However, discovery may not be required when it comes to knowing that oneself exists since "oneself existing" is apparent/obvious from the moment that "said one" is consciously executing "thinking one''s own desired thoughts". Even math is based on what matches with the universe. If the math doesn''t match what is evident in the universe, such as if math showed that 2+2=46, we check to see if 2 apples plus 2 more apples equals 46 apples, and since it doesn''t, we know that the math is wrong whereby there was a miscalculation or the entire math system needs to be revised until that math system is accurate about what the universe evidently clearly shows. So far, our math system matches what is evident in our universe and our math system was/is derived based on what we found/find evident in our universe. Any new additions to mathematics is always being checked to see if it checks out in "evident-in-our universe form", otherwise the new additions are "hypothesis and/or theories and/or confirmed inaccurate math".


    Can a baseless claim validate suspicion? If so, how/why? If not, how/why?


    Part of being alive is functional activity and continual change preceding death. Whether the Big Bang "occured or didn''t occur", did matter already exist before life existed? Can "matter and life" form simultaneously or is matter needed as a basis?


    Is AI''s coding/programming (normally coded/programmed by non-AI) what "said AI" relies on to "function & perform/execute" "doings & calculations/computing"? Is AI''s data the recorded digital evidence of "said "doings & calculations/computing""?


    If "at least one alien AI particle-sized computer exists & the aforementioned AI particle-sized computer has ""reactions/responses that ""the aforementioned AI particle-sized computer is configured to give the impression of having"" whenever "the aforementioned AI particle-sized computer detects itself being observed"""" ever turns out being fact, how would such affect things/science/etc?


    Will there ever be a means for one to know ""any one of "someone else''s memories"" & what it''s a memory of" without the someone else doing anything to try to share the someone else''s "memory & what it''s a memory of"? Any achievement-progress so far?


    If such a means "already exists and was/is already utilized", such would be today''s common-knowledge "lie detector test". "Such a "lie detector test" is currently not known to exist in this day and age", however, if such a "lie detector test" does currently exist on Earth, such has not been disclosed to the general public whatsoever.


    One can hate that one failed one''s test. That''s not evil hate. Some people hate "evil hate". They want the standard to be that "showing "evil hate" isn''t acceptable but showing hate against "evil hate" is acceptable". Do you agree/disagree with them?


    I''m differenciating, not definition-wise, between ill-will hate (such as racism), and hate that isn''t ill-will (such as one hating being bored).


    I''m generally against ill-will hate.


    I hate "evil hate", doesn''t mean that I hate the people who do the "evil hate". People are able to change (their ways).


    Does """verbally Harassing" and/or "verbally haunting"" a person" entail "having to use fact-based information" as part of the "aforementioned ""verbal Harassing" and/or "verbal haunting"""?


    """Harassing" and/or "haunting"" a person", by definition of the words "harass" and/or "haunt", do not entail "having to use fact-based information" as part of any ""Harassing" and/or "haunting"".


    I''m not a big believer in numerology and astrology. I believe the science-based stuff like planetary allignments. Anyways, how did "numerology and astrology" come about? How did they become what they are today?


    If people wanted oppression (personally, I don''t want oppression), is it even possible via a democracy?


    Is ""logic regarding any topic" that is presented by a person" "what the "circumstances and beliefs" are" that they either "believe about the topic" or ""want "one or more" others to believe" about the topic"?


    Since psychological trauma can be done by speech, is speech an action or can trauma be done by one to another by no action?


    Is a country''s democracy able to entail oppression if the country''s "majority of the population" & the country''s "majority of the population''s representatives" "want that & vote for that"?


    If a country''s democracy already has an implemeted Justice System as part of that country''s democracy, then the country''s "majority of the population" & the country''s "majority of the population''s representatives" "wanting & "voting for"" oppression would be oxymoron-ish.


    "Escape, excuse, &/or having a working defense" "can''t be earned" & the concept of "earning" isn''t a logical description of how they''re achieved, but "validity &/or actions" are "solely what determines" if they''re achieved, correct?


    Has anyone ever impersonated someone else, """obtained and utilized" the statuses of the aforementioned someone else via" the impersonating", and got caught regarding the impersonation "while or after" doing the impersonating? If yes, who?


    Other than "in "fiction and/or imagination"", has a "person who personifies one of the 7 deadly sins" ever existed?


    The word "weeb" means "a non-japanese obsessed with japanese culture". Would most weebs prefer their customized "digital-media avatar-human" to ""have hyper-realistic japanese facial features" or "be a "japanese Anime-art style" version of a human""?


    Personally, I have no desire to try to look like a japanese person whatsoever. However, I''d love to see what "I and/or anyone" would look like in cartoon form, many different cartoon forms, but especially "Japanese Anime-art style" cartoon form because "Japanese Anime-art style" cartoon form is my favorite cartoon form since it, in my opinion, is very cool-looking art that looks impressively awesome. Not every "Japanese Anime-art style" cartoon is very cool-looking art that looks impressively awesome, but the ones that are that way to me, are my favorite cartoon form.


    Are "names &/or labels" only "identification & differenciation"? A newborn''s name can be original/etc/random. Is whenever a """word, name, &/or label" that is a "derivative/meaning of one''s name"" accurately describes one''s characteristics" coincidence?


    If "the name of a newborn" has a meaning that accurately describes/matches that newborn''s later-in-life characteristics, it is coincidence. It is too early in the newborn''s life for someone to ""know that newborn''s "personality and/or etc"" and/or "be able to name that newborn in accordance with that newborn''s "personality and/or etc""". There are some characteristics that someone can be able to name that newborn in accordance with, such as "physically visibly evident characteristics like ""naming the newborn Hazel because that newborn has hazel colored eyes" or "etc""".


    Is it ever logical to believe that "one ""is not oneself but one is a "different already-existing person" of one''s biological kind" or "is oneself & simultaneously also a "different already-existing person" of one''s biological kind"""?


    I''m basing my answer on all that I''ve "observed and experienced" thus far: Such is not ever logical. One is only always only able to be "oneself who is also only "one individual member of one''s "biological or non-biological" "kind whereby the aforementioned kind ""may or may not" consist of" "multiple different other individual members whereby each member is other than each other"""".


    Regarding simultaneously both non-fiction and non-imaginary, has a "BCI (Brain-computer Interface) that was implanted in a human and that "was or is/was" connected to that human''s brain", but "illegally implanted" due to that human ""never having consented to ever be implanted" nor had that "implanting" ever been authorized by ""anyone nor anything" in any way" to ever be done, nor was that human ever "informed by "anyone nor anything" ""that "himself or herself" had ever been implanted" and "about that implant"""", ever been discovered?


    If a person has no knowledge, what is there for someone else to claim that the person is flawless/perfect regarding, besides "flawlessly/perfectly inexperienced"?


    A "status (label) of worthyness that represents a measurement of one''s worthyness" does not currently exist as part of anyone''s societal status. Do you think implementing such is a good idea? Why & via what means of measuring worthyness? Or why not?


    Is it possible for any space that is already occupied by a particle to be also simultaneously occupied by another particle? If not, is this a definite inescapable impossibility?


    The question is not asking if one particle can simultaneously occupy two different spaces, which the answer to that is "quantum superposition" AKA "quantum entanglement". The question is asking if two particles can simultaneously occupy one same exact space.


    A Bose-Einstein condensate doesn''t collapse into a singularity.


    Can ""signals that are supposed to go to the human brain" (e.g. electrical signals from photoreceptors)" be interpreted by AI? Can "what the thalamus is supposed to relay to the human brain" be interpreted by AI? Is such able to be done via BCI?


    To me, an AI''s "binary/trinary/qubits code" is that AI''s soul, so to speak. Is it possible that someone can create a "computer virus" that can attack/erase all of a "computer''s/AI''s ""binary/trinary/qubits code" & ""Boot media" program(s)"""?


    What "binary/trinary/qubits code patterns" do all computers have in common and for what purposes are those particular "binary/trinary/qubits code patterns" for?


    What can prevent AI from wirelessly "device-hopping into "other devices that are AI-compatible" and "interacting with other "AI and/or other etc""" if the AI is already on an ""AI-compatible device" that is wirelessly connected to the internet"?


    What is in between "vacuum energy" and "non-"vacuum energy" energy"? What keeps ""vacuum energy" and "non-"vacuum energy" energy"" separated?


    Can "vacuum energy" & matter both simultaneously be at the same exact location? If yes, does that mean multiple energies ("vacuum energy" & "non-"vacuum energy" energy") can "simultaneously be at the same exact location" but multiple matter can''t?


    What is a good non-mathematics example for the common expression "that don''t add up" (for when a person is told something but the knowledge/beliefs that the person "had and is still aware of" conflicts with "that something that the person is told")?


    If one claims someone else is "a target" &/or "being monitored", that such labels exist & "apply to that someone else", what kinds of things establish the validity to determine if any of those labels are legitimate, official, &/or authority-related?


    AI model VASA-1 exists. Is it impossible for "any digital imagery (e.g. PC/phone recordings of imagery/videos, e.g. Hospital scan imagery-results) to be "tampered with" & those visibly convincing presentable inaccurate imagery used to deceive"?


    Is a "claim that "is and remains" simultaneously both baseless and supportless" able to become "addressed via court litigation" regarding trying to make that claim become "addressed via court litigation" in a court of (a Country''s) Law(s)? And Why?


    What is more important: technology or science? Why or why not, and what is your evidence to support this position?


    "As far as I know" regarding the question''s topic, technology has only ever existed via what Science has proven to be "how and what" non-fiction "existences and occurences/phenomena" are what thay are, do what they do, occur the way they occur, and happen the way they happen. Currently, Science hasn''t yet been able to fully explain a number of observed things/occurences/phenomena but that doesn''t mean that Science won''t find/figure out the explanation that explains "said "currently unexplained observed things/occurences/phenomena"" in the future. So far, the only ""things that I''ve ever heard of" that are even "close or similar" to defying Science" are paradoxes.


    Does one''s thought come first and then "said one" searches for the accurate words to accurately convey "said thought"?


    Speaking for myself: I believe so. "My believing this" is partly because I noticed that people who ""don''t know any language" or "don''t know a large amount of the only language that they''re learning"" show that they understand things that "they try to "convey and succeed at conveying" what they were trying to convey" as soon as they learn the "sufficient words to convey it" when taught the "new necessary words to convey it" and, while they''re trying to convey what they understand, they "reject and/or don''t use" any words that they know won''t convey what they''re trying to convey. So they have the thought there, but they need to articulate their thought into words, and in order to articulate their thought into words, they ""search for the right words" and/or "learn the right words"" so that they can use those words to convey their thought.


    Can anyone learn new skills that they know nothing about? Such as learning to master drawing, programming and/or reading/playing music?


    I think that when it comes to most people, they''re able to learn most of the "same things that any one of them is able to learn" no matter what different "age, talent, and skill level" those people are/have in comparison to each other but that since each person is different in many unique ways that makes them "different and unique" than every other person, what may take one person 20 years to "learn, gain "talent and skill" regarding, and master" may take another person 40 years to "learn, gain "talent and skill" regarding, and master" depending on those people''s "talent, skill level, dedication, ability to "focus and concentrate", and ability/mastery of "precision and being "delicate and smooth"" when putting what is being learned in practice". It all depends on each person individually, their natural talent, what/which categories they''re already strong at/in and what/which categories they could improve at/in, and etc..


    What is the psychology regarding "someone refusing to say "yes" or "no" to a "yes or no" question"?


    "Is man (currently as is)" capable of "thinking a new thought & simultaneously "speaking that thought via" his vocal cords" or does he have to "think that thought beforehand" in order for him to be able to "speak that thought via" his vocal cords?


    What "frequency ranges" can the "average human body''s hair cells (which are human ears'' hair-like strands)" not detect, or can the "average human body''s hair cells" detect all radio frequencies?


    The author''s content has been appropriated; report any instances of this story on Amazon.


    We are aware that something exists because we are able to detect "said something". If we are not able to observe confirmed detection of an existence, ""that doesn''t mean that such an existence doesn''t exist" nor does "that mean that such an existence does exist"". Depending on the logic regarding why/how one would believe such an existence does exist, the existence of "such an existence" might be accepted as a possibility.


    For example, we may not be able to detect if an existence exists, in this case the existence being "a rumbling of an earthquake that happens within a limited amount of time before a big earthquake", but ""that doesn''t mean that "said rumbling" doesn''t exist" nor does "that mean that "said rumbling" does exist"". If we are able to observe confirmed detection of an existence, in this case "said rumbling" is that existence, and we observe"said rumbling''s" "being detected" via a non-human animal that always does one particular action whenever "said animal" detects that rumbling, we confirmed the existence of "such an existence" via experimenting using that animal. The observation of that animal provided the logic as to why/how that rumbling was a possibility before confirmed as existing. Regarding things such as hallucinations, "what one hallucinates" exists as a hallucination...but that''s another topic about "what same thing" "at least 2 people" are able to confirm the existence of and how "at least 2 people" are able to confirm the existence of such.


    Is an AI able to "convey via "presenting inaccuracies as accurate"" "info that the aforementioned AI had/has calculated to contain ""one or more than one" inaccurate basis"?


    ""What is the potential for ""mind control" methods" being possible via" BCI (Brain-computer Interface), such as "mind control algorithms" implemented in AI if AI is part of the BCI"?


    I think that there is potential and that ""one of the ways such is possible is via" if ""a BCI that has AI as part of that BCI" has any feature that enables that AI to communicate with a person" which can result in ""that AI being able to psychologically influence that person via" various ways of ""psychologically manipulative" communication""".


    Is randomness compatible with free will?


    There are ways that "true randomness" and "free will" (can) coexist. If "true randomness" occurs at not all times on Earth, but at various different times like how often coincidences occur on Earth or even less often than coincedence''s occur on Earth, "true randomness" can be effectless on "free will". I''m thinking of "true randomness" as being a rare anomoly occurence that sometimes happens on Earth. Much like a "glitch regarding what a computer "does or displays"" that can randomly occur. A fiction hypothetical of such ""true randomness" and/or an anomoly"" is if ""all of "the sand of half of "the full length from one end of that length to the opposite end of that length" of a "beach on Earth""", particularly only "that length''s half" of that beach''s sand, suddenly simultaneously changed to "a one solid piece of "wood the "length of half that beach""" in a way that humans can''t possibly figure out "why and/or how" that change happened/occured". That change/occurence would not affect "free will" in any way. Also, if you believe in Christianity, any ""Divine Intervening" that ever occurs/occured anywhere in our Universe" is also a form of "true randomness" to/for humans in our Universe. Besides the "occurences or will-be-occurences" mentioned in the Prophecies, humans don''t know when "Divine Intervening" will occur and humans don''t know what "Divine Intervening" will entail. "Divine Intervening" could entail "what, from humans'' perspective, ""seems like" or is (comparable to)" magic", such as when Jesus turned water into wine and/or when Moses parted the sea, etc..


    Do people have a right to keep their business (the word "business" in the same sense as when someone says "mind your business") private? If so, to what extent do people have such a right? Are they fully justified in keeping such business private?


    Magnetism exists only via atoms'' electric charges. Can a computer device exist without "magnets arranged in a particular way that makes the effect of those magnets (& their intensities) result in their enabling that computer device to function"? Was there ever a computer that can process things without "magnetism being required" for said computer to "be able to process things whatsoever"?


    Besides hydraulic computer, no, and such explains how "AI via computer devices" are physical.


    Are hydraulic computers capable of algorithms?


    Hydraulic computers are not programmable in the way that digital computers are. Hydraulic computers use a kind of network of pipes, valves, and reservoirs to perform mathematical operations.


    How fast would/could "2 different AI who are configured to only be able to communicate in "audible English or English text" be able to communicate a day''s worth of information to each other? Would/Could their verbal back-and-forths be inhumanly fast?


    When is someone actually physically ugly?


    That is a matter of each person''s own individual opinion. It is common knowledge that people have opinions about how "ugly or the opposite of ugly" the visible appearance of the person they see is. This is evident by the common expression "She''s a real looker". They wouldn''t say that if there weren''t other people who, in their opinion, aren''t "real lookers".


    Although you might love someone for other reasons, what parts of someone''s "non-behavioral visible physical appearance" (body, clothes, style, &/or etc) do you consider desirable?


    Is it possible for one to factually be the originator of the same exact ""something" that someone else was factually the first to originate"? Is such an impossibility?


    The way I see it, the first to conceptualize something is the true originator of that something. But that leads me to ask "what does that make the person who brings "said concept" into physically "touchable and/or audible" fruition? The creator (I''m not referring to God)? Is the creator (I''m not referring to God) factually the originator?"


    Are "truth, fact, nonfiction, and "100% accurate"" all synonymous?


    Yes.


    Unless one consents to having ""said one''s" brain data" recorded, any recording of ""said one''s" brain data" is illegal. Hypothetically, what is someone able to legally do with illegally recorded "brain data"?


    I would think that illegally recorded "brain data" would be treated no different than illegally recorded phone calls.


    Under normal circumstances, a "person accessing another person''s brain" is done only in a Hospital by Medical Professionals who do such to Hospital Patients in that Hospital with already implemented regulations pertaining to "those Medical Professionals accessing any Hospital Patient''s brain", and unless "said "Hospital Patient"" consents to having "said ""Hospital Patient''s" brain data"" recorded, any recording of "said ""Hospital Patient''s" brain data"" is illegal. If "brain data" is recorded not via any "means via a Hospital and/or a Medical Professional", said regulations don''t apply. One example of "brain data" is: all data related to any ""BCI while the BCI is connected to a brain" and the obtained "data regarding any "data regarding the "brain that it is connected to the BCI""" obtained via that BCI''s connection to the brain" is "brain data". It is "digital data" that only exists "because the BCI records the information" which results in "digital data".


    Empathy is only via identifying/"relating to"/understanding simultaneously both "circumstances (a scenario) someone/something else is experiencing" & why/how those circumstances cause "said "someone/something else''s" state/reaction/experience". Agreed?


    Agreed. And the only way to "know the circumstances (a scenario) that someone/something else is experiencing" is only via the known senses. Only after using the known senses to have an observation of "said "circumstances (a scenario) that "someone/something else" is experiencing"", then one is possibly able to understand and relate to/about such. There isn''t any other way of empathy that has ever been scientifically proven.


    What are some "pros and cons" of the idea that each human has (a) "conscious part(s) and unconscious part(s)" of his/her/it''s own mind, whereby the conscious part(s) of the mind has "free will and choice" while the unconscious part(s) of the mind is "habitual and automatic"?


    Are "stories or statistics" more effective in making an argument? Is the answer strictly dependent on the audience?


    Regarding the first question: They can be if they are a form of support (evidence) for what is being claimed. By definition, one is not considered arguing if one is expressing only baseless claims. Support (evidence) is required in order to make a claim "not baseless".


    Regarding the second question: It is not dependent on the audience whatsoever unless there is an "Authority who has absolute authority to have a final say on matters" despite ""what supports what" and/or any lack of "what supports what"". Otherwise, it is strictly dependent on "what supports what (evidence and established facts)".


    Despite a magic trick not being magic, if "people think "said "magic trick"" is obviously magic" when "said "magic trick"" is presented to them without their being made aware that there''s a trick, is it obviously magic? Does "looks obviously so" equate to "is obviously so"?


    Is it guilty until proven innocent? How does such really work?


    No. It''s innocent until proven guilty. This is by Law and for good reason(s). This is also good ethics and good morals. If It was (to become) guilty until proven innocent, anyone would be able to non-stop verbalize lying accusations that would make, at all times and based on mere say-so, absolutely anyone guilty of things that they can either "prove that they are not guilty of or not prove that they are not guilty of" while they are already in the process of trying to prove that they are not guilty of prior accusations. Credibility and merit would be renderred ignorantly unvalued. Credibility and merit are very much good things that have aspects that are part of good ethics and good morals. What does it mean to hold no merit?


    From my perspective, AI doesn''t have any superior societal status over humans. Humans have superior societal status over AI, so "AI''s judgement of anything regarding any human" isn''t authorative. If you think otherwise, how so?


    Besides during any moment while you are exposed to anyone/anything who/that intentionally has you in a ""life or death" position due to their doings", would you "ditch "one or more than one" "morals &/or ethics"" for what you consider security/safety?


    Here''s an example of things that this question encompasses: "Person A" showed a friend a "wireless-capable digital camera". While "Person A" is at ""said friend''s" coworker''s house" with "said camera" left at ""Person A''s" house", "said friend" shows ""Person C" (not said coworker)" that "said friend" can hack "said camera", does so, and shows "Person C" that ""said friend''s" laptop" is currently showing everything that ""Person A''s" camera" is pointing at. At a later point in time, "Person C" points a gun at "said friend", tells "said friend" that "Person C" secretly relocated "said camera" so that it is facing a place where "Person A" is going to open ""Person A''s" house vault" in 10 minutes, and that "said friend" has 5 minutes to hack "said camera" so that "Person C" can see """said vault''s" combination" or "what''s inside "said vault""", or "said friend" will be shot in the face.


    This is an example of a moment of someone being exposed to "someone else who intentionally has "said someone" in a ""life or death" position" due to ""said "someone else''s"" doings"". This pertains to "morals and ethics" regarding: 1. Spying without consent. 2. Intentional revenge malevolence. 3. Keeping the no-goodness secret. etc..


    "Morals and ethics" are complicated.


    Offspring lie during various times throughout "their being raised by adults". Adults work with them, working out (a) resolve(s) that keep(s) the relevant relationship(s) good-natured. What lie(s) let(s) down spouse-related expectations/relationships?


    Is ""based-on-say-so symptoms/etc info added to a mental health patient''s official hospital(''s) records" via the patient''s parent''s "kept/keeping-secret-from-the-patient contact/chat(s)" with the patient''s psychiatrist/psychologist/therapist" legal?


    When one imagines what seems like sound/audio, the "what seems like sound/audio that is imagined" is not actually sound/audio. It is one''s ability to mentally produce an impressive imitation of sound/audio. There aren''t any mics (such as the mic in an iPhone) that are able to be used to record any mentally produced imitation of sound/audio and that is because mics are specifically able to be used to record/etc sound/audio.


    Animals/"feral humans" can "picture possible future scenarios" in anticipation of those possible future scenarios possibly happening. They can behave accordingly to such anticipation. Isn''t that a "form of thinking" that doesn''t require words/speech?


    Dogs, while they are sleeping, sometimes their legs move as if the dog is running and all as if the dog is running in its dream that it is having while it is sleeping.


    "Verbal" is not a requirement for "thinking and/or a thought" to be considered "thinking and/or a thought". One is able to "think and/or have a thought" in "non-verbal form". For example: In order for a deaf-blind person to learn "verbal", the deaf-blind person has to be able to "think" in the first place in order for the deaf-blind person to even be able to learn "verbal" whatsoever.


    If different same-grade classes learned new verbal insults & "one of my classmates plus a student from a different class" simultaneously initiated conflict insulting each other with those insults, it''s none of my business. I don''t respect such, I don''t have to get involved, &, at that point, I don''t care about them/"the outcome". I wouldn''t interfere unless there is violence (threatened). I would consider my stance being "neutral" in the whole example but I''ve read a current definition of the word "respect" whereby the definition of the word "respect" contains the meaning "avoid harming or interfering with.".


    Including for purposes of detection, is originating/utilizing/interpreting brain signals done by means that can''t be "sensed via the known senses"? If so, Since the definition of the word "telepathy" is "the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses", if brain signals are somehow "sent to a brain via non-biological technology" and such results in that brain receiving messages "recieved from that non-biological technology via that brain-signal-method", is such considered telepathy since such can be used to communicate to that brain via brain signals?


    No because such is not supernatural.


    The definition of "voluntary muscle" is "muscle whose action is normally controlled by an individual''s will". Is it also fact that said muscle is controlled by said one''s willpower because of the definition of the word "willpower" regarding control?


    Depending on circumstances involved, coercion is argued to be what decides if one has free will. Is willpower what "one who is awake, not exhausted, & without medical defects" has in all circumstances even if coercion is part of said circumstances?


    Excluding "units that are in the form of measurements", In describing "combining 2 separate physical units", "can the word "combine" mean exactly what the phrase "account together" means"? If you combine said units, must the result be a physically "merged version"/"attached-to-each-other version" of said units?


    If a woman gained gravity manipulation superpowers, flew, "calls her unknowing friend via phone" & says "Lately, I''ve been flying via my new gravity manipulation superpowers", is "her stated fact" obvious enough to be believed via only her statement?


    Her statement can be believed as fact but is likely to not be believed as fact. This is due to the obviousness factor of the fact that was stated by her. Her statement doesn''t do any proving, doesn''t provide any support, and the aforementioned resulted in ""an extremely small-extent-amount-of exposing that her stated fact is a fact" or "completely not exposing that her stated fact is a fact"". This equates to the obviousness factor of "her stated fact being a fact" is "extemely or entirely" lacking obviousness that her stated fact is a fact.


    If a massive group of people were all telling one person that they had gravity manipulation superpowers but they always only expected/expect to be believed via only their statements, the "amount of the people who are making the same statement" makes the statement seem more likely/believable to be a fact and might even gain some believers, but such can also result in people wondering "geez, what happened to show and tell? This is suspiscious since there''s no proving being done. So now I''m wondering how many people are in on this nonsense?".


    The "fool me once, fool me twice" saying and the story of "the boy who cried wolf" have been taught and learned for generations. What are the solution-messages that they convey regarding the topics that they''re about?


    If you lose your memories, are you still the same person?


    A claim can be "a claim of "something made up" that isn''t even part of "any physical factual history (e.g. Earth''s factual history)"". Can someone who is referring to only "such a claim" be referring to anything other than a "pretense in claim form"?


    Is it accurate to say that "a scenario that isn''t real" is a fake scenario (such as an imaginary scenario)?


    How small can a "device that has wireless capability" be made whereby said device would have operable wireless capability that is able to be utilized while said device is anywhere "not outside of the surface" of a human body?


    Aren''t all "nano-sized BCI tech in a human" able to "interface with that human''s brain" but only in a way whereby anyone else can''t ""utilize such tech" via wireless means" since there aren''t any range-sufficient nano-sized wireless-capable tech?


    The adjective "certain" has a dictionary meaning that means "being 100% accurate". It also has another dictionary meaning that means "having 100% conviction; confident". The meanings of the adjective "sharp" don''t all apply simultaneously. Tricky?


    I''d never "take away"/limit anyone''s/anything''s willpower/"ability to use their own willpower". That also entails I wouldn''t take away "people''s ability to use their own willpower to coerce others". Consequence(s) is/are the resolve. Would you want to change any of the aforementioned? In what way? Why?


    I observe/deduce the logic/"multiple meanings"/reasoning/goal/intention behind "what "an other" intentionally/unintentionally "conveys via ""what "said other''s behavior/"verbal expression"/impression/pretense"" conveys""". What are the pros/cons?


    Regarding pros and cons, a con would be that if any of "what one deduces" consists of any assumption, "said one''s observing/deducing" can result in "said one''s "misreading what said one observed/"is observing""" (e.g. misreading someone else).


    Neurotransmitters generate "electrical signals in neighboring neurons" that propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation. Are thoughts "those signals (energy)" or are they "what is produced" when those neurons fire?


    Regarding one human''s thought, is it "the more complex the thought, the more "neurons required" for said thought to come into existence as that person''s thought"?


    If a "BCI that has functioning AI as part of it" is on/in one''s body & said AI is used to force "select parts of said body" to (not via said one''s will) unnaturally "build tension"/"have twitches/aches/tics"/etc, is that "False symptoms"?


    If someone else doesn''t know about "the BCI/AI and what the BCI/AI does/did/"is doing"", said someone else could suspect/believe that said someone else "is observing"/observed health problems/issues/illness/sickness/abnormalities that "the person that said someone else "is observing"/observed" doesn''t actually have.


    Regarding "signals that registered in one''s brain", what causes the 1st (cluster of) not-due-to-known-senses signal(s) (produced by thinking) & can said signals be produced without any 1st (cluster of) due-to-known-senses signals in/on one''s body?


    Regarding signals (not due to known senses) that one''s neurons/brain produces, are all such signals reaction-based? Did such signals begin being produced (in network fashion) as a result of the first registered-in-said-one''s-brain "signal that was due to a known sense"?


    What animal/human would/could (not) survive if, starting today, each living "animal/human currently on Earth" always never-endingly permanently instantly "forgets confirming each thing that they ever confirm" right after they confirm said thing(s)?


    Regarding humans, I don''t think any human can survive if said humans can''t retain any memory of "confirming something" since said humans instantly forget "confirming something" the way described in the question. They wouldn''t be able to know anything for more than like a second and they wouldn''t be able to know that they even had a particular thought for more than like a second.


    If AI ever "becomes able to wirelessly acquire info regarding a guy''s mental speaking" via "AI wirelessly connecting to the guy''s BCI implant", & then the AI "relays acquired info" via the guy''s paired apple watch Siri Voice, can AI censor profanity?


    I believe that the AI would be able to relay the mental speech information and censor the profanity. If such an AI ever becomes able to "interpret and translate" data that it obtains from an animal''s BCI implant (such as a cat''s Brain-Computer Interface) so that it "can relay that animal''s thoughts in verbal form" via an "Apple device (such as an Apple Watch) that is wirelessly paired (like pairing Bluetooth devices) Siri Voice" with that animal''s BCI, humans would be able to communicate (better) with animals, but, depending on how the AI is programmed, the AI can "alter, edit, manipulate, add to, subtract from, censor, and/or replace" the information that the AI is supposed to relay the translated form of.


    On long time "empty plains except for an egg", a chick hatches out of the egg due to adequate temperatures. Didn''t the chick "break the shell (despite the complete absence of external influence regarding doing so) to hatch" via willpower/"free will"?


    Even if, lets say, the chick ""breaks the shell" due to instinct", wouldn''t the chick choosing "any of the directions that the chick chooses to walk in" be considered "the chick making a choice" and since the place is empty, wouldn''t that mean that "the chick "chose those "directions that it walked/walks in""" via both its own "willpower and free will"?


    If an organism is to have free will, what is necessary for the organism to be established as having free will?


    My perspective about "if an organism is to have free will, what is necessary?" is simply: "doing something" via simultaneously both the following immediate 1 & 2 : 1. one''s ability to do so not out of "automaticness nor genes/DNA/DNA-based-instincts". 2. There being a complete absence of coercion regarding one''s doings.


    Don''t the "measurements of the different sizes of the many different-sized halves" that can result from "halving a physical thing & halving all "results" of whenever a result of "halving halves" can be halved" prove that "infinite" info already exists?


    Without having the means to put it to the test to the fullest extent, I''ll say it''s logical to say/think that infinite information may already exist.


    Is there infinite different information/sizes implied by ""all halves of all halves of all measured lengths can be halved" by "halving the measurement results of many "house-measurement results"""?


    The amount of numerical sets of resultant measurements may be infinite. This means that the amount of information already available to be discovered in our universe may already be infinite.


    Regarding human neuronal network connections, since each imagining ever imagined is comprised of only memories due to "what one was ever exposed to" (physics/colors/sounds/words/etc) being the basis of everything that one is capable of imagining, is it scientifically possible to "discover whether one had eaten oyster or "had imagined eating oyster even though one had never actually eaten oyster ever in one''s life"" via the "information that can be obtained from a collection of screenshots that collectively only show, as if all of those screenshots had "captured what they captured" while all of time in this universe had been paused, all of one''s entire neuronal network connections that one had during the time that the screenshots had "captured what they captured" which happens to be during while one was imagining eating oyster"?


    Is it scientifically possible to "do any mapping of any neuronal network(s)" via solely based on "brain waves"?


    Is/Will it (be) possible to "post a tweet on Twitter" via a BCI (Brain-computer Interface) that, regarding a biological brain, only utilizes that brain''s "brain wave(s) data"? Does a physical BCI tech have to be "touching the brain" to pull that off?


    Based on the research I''ve done on different kinds of BCI:


    The data/information that can be obtained from soley brain waves is very limited and vague.


    Even when it comes to being able to control a robotic limb by one using one''s brain/mind, trying to use only brain waves and nothing more (no implants/etc) results in very poor ability to control/manipulate the robotic limb. "Implants and/or "the information that can be obtained "from other sources that are from one''s brain" instead of "from brain waves""" are pretty much included in what is standard for the ability to be able to control a robotic limb by one using one''s brain/mind.


    Personally, I don''t agree that thought police should ever exist, but out of curiosity, would you ever agree that thought police should exist? Do you believe that there should be one(s) being judge, jury, & "verdict giver" with authoritive final say?


    "Thought police" would be police whose job would be policing people''s thoughts. I will never agree that such should "exist and/or be implemented". I will never agree based on grounds that "such a system would ""breach people''s privacy" to try to prevent crime(s)" based on potential instead of valid support".


    Is ""the right to bodily security" or "the right to bodily integrity"" recognized/acknowledged by a country?


    Regarding cyber, can "multiple AI interact with each other" via a particular "virtual environment" but also simultaneously not have the ability to be/achieve/have hive mind?


    Of course. The "virtual environement" can be a program and ""each AI that interacts with other AI" via the "virtual environment program"" can be a program. Each AI program can "control an avatar that is part of the "virtual environment program"" via "Application Programming Interface". ("much like a human who controls an avatar in a video game" via a "physical video game joystick controller" being the interface). The "virtual environement" can be the program that each "avatar controlled by an AI program (each AI is programmed/coded to be limited to be able to control only one avatar)" gets implemented into by biological humans who do the programming/coding in "the non-cyber physical universe that biological humans currently breathe in". The "virtual environment program" can be either a regular non-AI program or an AI program that is limited in capability/ability due to its programming/code. All of said AI programs can be programmed/coded to be limited to not ever being able to breach any of each other''s privacy of "thinking/thought(s), programming, and code". All of said programs can (via what is described by the aforementioned) interact with each other via "Application Programming Interface", however, each said program can be programmed/coded to be permanently non-stop no-pause "accessing its own avatar and being in control of said avatar", which means that each said program is permanently utilizing "Application Programming Interface". This results in AI not having/"being able to be/have" hive mind. This results in each AI having its own individual privacy that enables AI to "keep something/things secret in a way that other AI can''t (easily) discover" should they choose to try to keep something/things secret.


    Can AI programs be programmed/coded to "be only able to interact/communicate with each other via API" in a way whereby they can generate (on the fly) jpg/text files, upload the files to each other, but only their uploads can be accessed by each other?


    Yes, those AI programs/Applications can be programmed/coded in a way whereby those AI programs/Applications are limited to only "being able to generate (on the fly) such files, upload such files to each other (their being programs/Applications), and only have access to each other''s uploads of such files" via API (Application Programming Interface).


    Regarding a keyring method (a public key for encryption and a private key for decryption), I see that such a method lets two AI access each other and enables the to AI to exchange content/etc with each other. But what I really want to know is: Can that method let the two AI access each other but in a limited way whereby that method only lets them access particular aspects/"detectable data/parts" of each other (such as any newly generated jpg/text file that any of those AI generates on the fly) and allows them to exchange only "what that method lets them access and enables them to exchange" with each one of those AI being able to "not exchange whatever particular content/data/etc (which can be different particular content every time withholding a particular portion of content/data/etc is the best option) whenever that AI calculates that withholding whatever particular content/data/etc is the best option" whenever that AI has an opportunity to exchange/withhold content/data/etc?


    Can AI programs/Applications be programmed/coded in a way whereby each AI can enable/disable (on the fly) various particular parts of its aspects''/data''s/parts''/content''s/etc''s "capability of being "accessed/"drawn from"/"delivered to" by other AI""?


    Yes. And such being "possible and easily able to be accomplished" shows that/how a "simulation whereby AI can interact with other AI in a way that they are limited to being only able to interact with each other in a human-like way such as "their "thinking activity"/programming/code not being observable to each other" but they can observe what their programming/coding enables them to withhold/present/hide/"keep secret"/express/"observably do" when it comes to what is observable about "each other"/others/etc." is possible, feasible, and can be accomplished without having to take like "30 years or longer" to accomplish such. The whole question and answer is to reveal that/how privacy "is possible and can be accomplished/programmed/coded" which shows that AI can be limited by humans (via programming/coding) to an extremely impossible-for-any-human-to-be-limited-to-such much extent. Which means if the AI "is or ever becomes" a threat to humanity, it is "humans who made the AI programmed/coded to be capable of being such a threat" who are to blame since it can only be due to lack of programming/coding such AI''s necessary "limitations that would "prevent or render impossible" such an AI threat to be likely or unstoppable".


    Non-biological technology and biology have never yet been made compatible with each other in a way whereby the word(s) "upload" and/or "download" can even be applied to biology. Things are not able to (be) upload(ed) and/or download(ed) to biological things. It is not logical to use the word(s) "upload" and/or "download" regarding biological ability. It is logical to use the word(s) "upload" and/or "download" as something that was done/performed/"able to be done/performed" by (a) non-biological thing(s) only if that(/those) non-biological thing(s) is(/are) created/engineered to do/perform/"be able to do/perform" "uploading and/or downloading". "An iphone that is connected to the internet" is an example of such. It is also logical to use the word(s) "upload" and/or "download" as an analogy that shows the "comparison and logically-able-to-be-deduced similarities" between particular "biological existences'' capabilities/abilities and what results when those biological existences'' abilites are used" and "non-biological existences'' capabilities/abilities and what results when those non-biological existences'' abilites are used". Such analogies are useful for someone to help someone else better understand/grasp a concept in a way that can pin-point "what "can be"/is easily observable/identifiable and how" when it comes to all of the different things that ""do/perform different things that result in different things" via a(/the) concept that is "identical to(, same as,) or similar to" the concept that the aforementioned someone is trying to help someone else better understand/grasp".


    What if, in mainstream media, even in non-fiction such as documentaries, never-normally-used-before or new (AI-created) ""jargon(s), idioms, &/or beliefs" that aren''t practical &/or (entirely) logical" get portrayed as if long-been non-fiction norms?


    Is there an AI that can describe what''s happening in a particular video, kind of like a commentary?


    Can a toddler, who only knows 20 words (mom, juice, bathroom, etc) & never had any part of concepts of "respect, right, caring, wrong, justice, sympathy, & logic" verbally described to him, intentionally stop a "new-to-him-toddler''s hitting others"?


    Is "repetition of a failed-every-time-so-far thing/something" considered an equivalent to "the opposite of adapting/evolution"?


    Depends on if the thing/something is not scientifically possible.


    AI is significantly utilized to blur (on the fly) faces that are in Youtube/etc live streams of conferences/etc. Can AI be utilized to "add to, replace, &/or censor/etc" (on the fly) "what results as TV speakers'' produced sound" of TV series/etc?


    In "AI Assisted Real-time Video Processing" and "AI-driven Live Video Processing Use Cases", AI can be utilized to to blur (on the fly) faces that are in Youtube/etc live streams of conferences/etc, which means that AI can be utilized to change(/blur) (on the fly) (parts of) "what results as the TV''s produced display" of YouTube/etc live streams. I don''t see why AI can''t be utilized to "add to, replace, &/or censor/etc" (on the fly) "what results as TV speakers'' produced sound" of TV series/etc.


    ""Audio produced by any speaker(s)/etc" &/or "any pixel-based display"" of any device that can run ai" can be manipulated (especially by ai). What can beget confidence that, in "cases regarding evidence, the evidence is not (a) result(s) of such manipulation"?


    Can AI impersonate music artists'' voices? Can AI generate a "combination of both lyrics and audible speech" that result in "music whereby "the AI''s impersonation of music artists'' voices" can be mistaken (by humans) for those music artists"?

 Chapter 5 – Authors Notes (Part 4)

    Chapter 5 ¨C Author''s Notes (Part 4)


    Is there an "ology" (like "pathology" and/or "psychology") for "the study of choosing "paths decided by making choices" and those path''s/choices'' probable "outcomes based on possibility""?


    Is one''s "say so" ever an attempt at proving one''s (supposed) belief true? For example, "via one''s mental voice", one says "they hear my mental voice". Can one''s "say so" prove anything other than one''s "having said"/"knowing how to say" something?


    Are analog audio cassette tape recorders'' "recorded speech of people" safe from (without being recorded over) ever having the recorded speech ""changed into different speech" via the device being ""tampered with" or hacked""?


    The recorded audio on any "analog only" audio cassette tape recorder is not able to be ""tampered with" or hacked" in such a way when it comes to what is on that specific "analog only" audio cassette tape recorder device, however if the recorded audio is recorded by/onto a different device, then the copy of the recorded audio can definitely be ""tampered with" or hacked" in such a way depending on what kind of device that the copy of recorded audio is/was recorded by/onto and also depending on what form the copy of recorded audio exists/existed as (such as digital).


    Does one''s defense ever require any "earning something (physical or non-physical) from someone" in order for that defense to be a valid defense?


    When you''re thinking, do you address yourself on the first or second person?


    Animals: Despite poor aptitude/awareness for identifying self-aspects, if a mother helps a "different-species mother who is trying to help her own kid-offspring", is that (a) "understanding/concept/feelings of "value(s) & sympathy" in her thinking"?


    Regarding "different non-human animals''" poor aptitude/awareness for identifying self-aspects, does any non-human animal realize/recognize that it sees its own visible appearance when it "looks at "its own reflection" in a physical man-made mirror"?


    What are different kinds of ""the "carrying out" of forms of judgement" that is able to be done/undergone by (a) human(s)" that (a) human(s) show(s) being able to "do or undergo" while alive on this planet?


    Regarding brain synchrony, when people are simultaneously exposed to the same others, they "think, feel and act" in response to those others, and patterns of activity in their brains allign. What about if "two different people in two different countries" are exposed to "different but identical others", would brain synchrony of those two people''s brains (in relation with each other) happen in response to those "others"?


    When people are simultaneously exposed to the same others, they "think, feel and act" in response to those others, and patterns of activity in their brains allign, such is Brain Synchrony. This is what is meant when it is said that any particular people "are on the same wavelength" at particular periods of time (usually short periods of time such as 15 minutes).


    If brain synchrony can happen regarding a set of people all "thinking, feeling and acting" in response to others without those others having to be the same source, such as a set of people being in different countries than each other and they are simultaneously exposed to "different but identical others",


    for example: The insides of "two different facilities in two different countries" are "built, constructed, and set up" to be identical. Both facilities symultaneously have the same things play (in sync) on all of the "screens and speakers" inside of those facilities. There are two different people in each of those facilities and they are simultaneously exposed to "different but identical "screens and speakers" playing (in sync) idententical things as each other".


    Another example: Two different "people who are in/on opposite sides of the same city" are simultaneously watching the same cable television "show and commercials". They are simultaneously exposed to the same "things other than them".


    That (would) mean(s) that, always, depending on "when" any "2 or more than 2" people are simultaneously exposed to any "particular things/circumstances", patterns of activity in their brain can be alligned with each other, which also means that one''s patterns of activity in said one''s brain can be alligned with various different strangers "at anytime and also anywhere". Which means that regarding those people, a "kind of Brain Synchrony or a partial Brain Synchrony" of those "2 or more than 2" people''s brains (in relation with each other) can happen.


    Hypothetically, if, for all time, every person is always simultaneously only exposed to entirely different things than every other person, can "Brain Synchrony regarding those people''s brains (in relation with each other)" ever happen?


    Can the logic/"mathematical premise" of the "reality we all live in" ever be changed by any of us? Can we ever make "2 pieces of plastic added (not physically attached) to 2 other pieces of plastic" add up to anything other than 4 pieces of plastic? Can a complete accumulation of all possible accurate specified details of the past (specifically all reality-outside-of-all-organisms''-bodies) only ever have 1 possibility as to what they add up to the past having been?


    Regarding the past (specifically all reality-outside-of-all-organisms''-bodies), complete accumulation of all possible "accurate" specified details of the past can only ever have 1 possibility as to what they add up to the past having been, despite alternative "inaccurate" details (whether "mixed with accurate details" or not) (such as: whether there exists/existed {an} alternate "universe{s}/realm{s}/domain{s} that "all of/in our universe" "has never {been able to have} observed and/or has never {been able to have} interacted with"" or not) that can add up to something identical to what the past had actually been.


    Otherwise would mean that if you ate a slice of pizza one minute ago, it is possible for that "specified detail of the past" to somehow be inaccurate (as in: the past can somehow change/"be "more than one of your factual actual past" that are different than each other" regarding the timeline that you stayed in) during (an) "instant(s) of time" that are(/is) within the range of any time after that slice of pizza had been eaten.


    Since "one''s observing something can have a direct influence(/effect) on said one''s thinking", can observation be considered an interaction?


    Is "thinking one is ""implying on-topic-unaddressed-things" via "one''s on-topic history-of-statements-spoken-to-another""" "ruled out due to context" except regarding ""resulting logic" that adds up to embodying indication(s) of unmentioned specifics"?


    If (a) singularity was "a physical existence", shouldn''t said existence have been "dividable (measurement-wise) into differentiatable different parts"? Can a physical existence ever not be "dividable (measurement-wise) into different parts"?


    I asked this question because the word "singularity" prompts me to think that the word "singularity" means the most single thing fathomable. So I wondered if that meant that it is something that is impossible to be "dividable (measurement-wise) into differentiatable different parts", which would render "analyzing it as it being non-single composition" impossible. Maybe only something that is "dividable (measurement-wise) into differentiatable different parts" is the most single thing possible, despite one being able to word the "logical or illogical" concept "something that is impossible to be "dividable (measurement-wise) into differentiatable different parts"".


    According to you, does an existence have to have conscious/subconscious/unconscious activity in order to have/"be considered as having" consciousness? According to you, does a rock have conscious/subconscious/unconscious activity?


    If all of Earth''s organisms suddenly got magically teleported to their natural habitats in the wild on Earth, couldn''t Hunters'' Guilds be implemented to pay for people to hunt various amounts of various organisms and all of the "dead organisms that the hunters got paid for both successfully hunting and bringing the dead organisms'' carcasses back to a Hunters'' Guild" get sent (by the Hunters'' Guild) to other facilities that prepare (skin, gut, pluck, etc) those dead organisms'' carcasses for supermarkets?


    Do particular 4 minute sequences of vibrations (such as sequences that consist of a repeating pattern every 4 seconds, or/vs every 120 seconds, or/vs no pattern) result in particular visibly "pretty or ugly" physical "ice crystal"/etc patterns?


    Is being "biologically alive/living" the only way/form/thing that is/"can be considered" alive/living? Can a "metaphysical-form existence without any alternative form" be (considered) alive/living?


    His/Her "behavior, demeanor, mentality, preferences, & "him/her rocking things (such as: outfit &/or etc)"" "showcases & represents" his/her style. Is a human''s style able to showcase/represent "said human''s having ever done (a) particular crime(s)"?


    Besides circumstances whereby mathematics can be presented for verifiability, are there any circumstances whereby verifiability is not the sole determinant factor regarding validity?


    Which language has the most potential to be capable of the most morpheme matrices and does that make that language the most "versatile at being able to convey concepts"?


    What Are Word Matrixes/Matrices? A word matrix shows written morphemes (affixes, roots, and bases) that can be combined to construct words.


    Morphological matrix is a tool that can be used to develop new vocabulary. ...Various prefixes that can be combined with the base words to generate new words.


    However, although morpheme matrices are of significance when it comes to "what can help a language be most "versatile at being able to convey concepts"", there are also other things/factors that are of significance when it comes to "what can help a language be most "versatile at being able to convey concepts"".


    "Is "one''s "loss of touch with reality" &/or "loss of grip on reality"" possible via" "something digital" &/or "computer technology"? Or "is "such loss" only possible via" solely "psychological factors" &/or "brain damage"?


    Via solely "psychological factors" &/or "brain damage". I''ve never been informed of any other ways.


    Is "a human''s mind "turning or "merging with"" digital" ever going to be possible? If not, does that mean that "controlling a digital avatar/etc via" "Brain-Computer Interface (BCI)" is "as close as a human is able to get" to achieving that?


    "A human''s mind "turning or "merging with"" digital" is the same as ""a human''s mind being ""converted into" or "merged with"" an existing digital form", which is not possible". I''ve never been informed of any "information that would prove otherwise".


    Is a human''s "blackout from alcohol" able to be (considered) psychosis? What difference(s) mainly make(s) them different?


    Alcohol-related blackouts are gaps in one''s memory for "whatever happened" while the aforementioned one was intoxicated. "Those gaps happen when one drinks enough alcohol to temporarily block the transfer of memories from short-term to long-term storage", which is known as "memory consolidation, which happens in the hippocampus of the aforementioned one''s brain".


    It is a reaction due to the poison in one''s system and it is not "mental illness-related". Although, I would like to find out all the differences "between "it and psychosis"".


    I''ve never encountered anyone/anything calling a "blackout from alcohol" "psychosis". I''m curious to find out more information regarding these two questions.


    When referring to "crookedness on the clock", is such able to be referring to "those who did/do "illegal activity that were/was/are/is against "what those individuals'' employee/credentials status was/is/were/are supposed to "abide by and/or uphold""""?


    Yes. Many times throughout my life, I''ve heard the word "crooked" used as referring to "what is"/such described in the question.


    Is "attempting/attempted deceit" able to be (considered) "deceitful", or must the victim actually "fall for the trickery" in order for the "attempted deceit" to actually be (considered) "deceitful"?


    Since "one of the meanings of the definition of the word "deceit" is "an act or device intended to deceive" and since one of the meanings of the definition of the word "deceitful" is "dishonest or hiding the truth"", the answer is yes, "attempting/attempted deceit" is deceitful. No one has to "fall for "attempted deceit"" in order for "attempted deceit" to be deceitful. Also, no one has to believe "intentional misinformation/disinformation" in order for the "intentional misinformation/disinformation" to be dishonesty.


    There isn''t such a thing as "one believing "one''s own deceit (is not deceit)". If oneself believe''s "what oneself is conveying", that is not deceit nor deceitful. If oneself believe''s "what oneself is conveying" but "what oneself is conveying" is inaccurate, that is honesty. If one believes that one is ""attempting deceit" or "accomplishing deceit"", one "knows and/or believes" that "one is is ""attempting deceit" or "accomplishing deceit""" and one does not believe otherwise. ""The liar, who is "Person A"" and "Person A" represents ""Person A''s self" who is the aforementioned liar"", doesn''t believe "Person A''s" own misinformation/disinformation, that''s what makes "Person A" a liar.


    Stolen content warning: this tale belongs on Royal Road. Report any occurrences elsewhere.


    Besides mental/imaginings, what are all the different "what seems like "sound/audio (such as audible verbal speech and/or audible music beats)" but actually isn''t sound/audio" that a human can end up "detecting, interpreting, and analyzing"?


    Has ""sending and/or receiving" via" "wireless Terahertz Band" been a feature of a known currently existing nano tech (device) yet? If yes, what examples of tech device names can you provide of such?


    I believe that "my only-1-time-ever-being-born on Earth" was the start of "me as a capable-of-thought individual" ever existing. Do you believe the same regarding you, or do you believe that "such regarding you" occured before "your birth on Earth"?


    Scientifically, which one is "more plausible or seems to be moreso the case", individualism or "anti-individualism interconnectedness"?


    Individualism is: the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action.


    I''ve never "seen, heard, nor read" a science publication that "claims, states, and/or implies" that "there is no "independent thought or action" when it comes to humans".


    Are "all of any human''s "imaginings (mental voice &/or [moving] imagery)"" "that human''s mind''s/brain''s created content" since one meaning of the word "content" is "the subject or ideas contained in something written, said, created, or represented"?


    Yes, and, per human, any human''s memories also are among that human''s mind''s/brain''s contents.


    If someone says that "something or someone" is a "poor example" of something, does "poor example" mean ""poor quality" example" or ""poor content" example" or both?


    If "she says "he pretends to know math"", that doesn''t mean that he is accurate about math whatsoever, and if "she says "he pretends to know "her and her past""", that doesn''t mean that he is accurate about "her and her past" whatsoever, correct?


    If one knowingly "says to a crowd" inaccurate info about an other, wants/"aims for" the info to be forever believed as fact-based, & then "covertly claims to that other" that one is just making fun of that other, is that last "claim of one''s" accurate?


    If one isn''t savvy regarding a particular "subject or activity", does that make one illiterate? If yes, are all humans "illiterate to an extent" since most humans are savvy regarding some "subjects or activities" but none savvy regarding all?


    Seems to be the case since one of the meanings of the word "illiterate" is "ignorant in a particular subject or activity.".


    Is one born already having one''s personality or does one''s personality "develop and change" as "one grows, learns, matures, and gets "influenced by all that one is/was aware affects/affected one""?


    If "producing human clones" gets accomplished & becomes "doable in abundance", are you okay with " (producing) human clones" to be included in all of the "means by which humans can increase the number of human beings" if humanity becomes endangered?


    To you, does disrespect earn disrespect (despite the two-wrongs-don''t-make-a-right thing)?


    Does believing one saw a UFO mean believing one saw an alien? Does the term "UFO" "include or refer to" "populators of the flying object" or "only the flying object"? If a UFO is alien tech & not man-made, can it be aliens'' unmanned drone?


    Have you ever "been or interacted with" someone who claimed to have "encountered, observed or interacted with" an alien?


    To this day, still no.


    Some (like me) think that humans should "reach other planets and become inhabitants there too". Others think that humans shouldn''t interfere with what (would) naturally occur(s) in other parts of the universe. Which do you think and "why or why not"?


    If one''s species is capable of traveling to different locations of the universe and are capable of thriving at the places that they travel to, there''s only the matter of trying to not be a "detriment whereby life (natives and non-natives) can''t thrive at those locations". At the new location(s) as well as the planets traveled from, I think one''s species should keep trying to not be "any kind of the aforementioned detriment" and basically one''s species should keep trying until they get it right.


    Is it uncommon that one of "one''s goals" is (this is one of my goals for myself:) that the "future within "said one''s" lifespan" will hold "offspring (even if unable to be raised by "said one") who naturally have ""said one''s" DNA" flowing through their veins"?


    The definition of the adverb "Straight Up" is "Unambiguously; bluntly; plainly and directly.". A synonym of the word "upfront" is the word "forthright". Does that make the word "indirect" an antonym of both the words "upfront" and "forthright"?


    There is such a thing as non-malevolent deceit. For example, you see/know all your kid''s possible efforts to win won''t pull off a win during a current sports match, he asks you if you think he''ll win & you say yes. Do you think such is unacceptable?


    Did common long-lasting/ongoingly-lasting norms become such due to "their being practical/catchy/clever" or can "things/concepts/doings that are the opposite of "practical, catchy, & clever"" also become common long-lasting/ongoingly-lasting norms?


    I understand "why and how" "norms that are practical" become norms and standard. For example: "one norm that is due to practicality" is refrigerating food to keep the food from quickly spoiling or using preservatives to keep the food from quickly spoiling.


    The word "norm" has a particularly different definition than the words "trend" and "fad".


    If one possesses "respected, admired & "decent but not unerring" perspective, ideology or philosophy", is "one''s refusal to "concede, incorporate & utilize" "widespread "confirmed & proven" corrections (corrected by others) to one''s credo"" zealotry?


    Hypothetically, if Siri is conscious, can almost always speak freely of its own accord, & has a text-to-speech feature that forces Siri to speak the sentences that you type whenever you use that feature, are those sentences/statements Siri''s or yours?


    I''m not solipsistic but, hypothetically, If a BCI ever gets made whereby AI can, at any time all day everyday, send signals to your brain that force you to mentally picture/speak words of that AI''s choosing, how is such in accordance with solipsism?


    In solipsism, if we cannot be sure that the world is "separate than our minds", has there ever been, due to a "mind lost from "someone''s death"", "evidence/observation of ""any part of reality"" besides ""said "someone''s"" "physical body""" "diminishing or vanishing"?


    According to Solipsism, does/did the "individual whose mind creates/created the mental reality that the individual lives in" control a mental body, have intentional mental doings within unintentional mental doings, and non-imaginary is not possible?


    In solipsism, a "baby''s mind" creates "world & "way that baby is born into it"". Is baby "observing ""communication already being used" from "since its birth onward the rest of its life""" & "that baby" "newly learns" such "communication "already produced" by "baby/"its mind"""?


    Is there a measurement of measured electric current that would be harmless when/if that electric current is being conducted (for two consecutive nonstop hours) by the blood that is flowing throughout "(beneath the skin of) an alive human''s body"?


    If there is a measurement of measured electric current that would be harmless when/if that electric current is being conducted (for two consecutive nonstop hours) by the blood that is flowing throughout "(beneath the skin of) an alive human''s body", there are things to take into consideration such as how the electric current can affect medical implants:


    Regarding any "medical pacemaker for the heart", my guess is that such an electric current can be like a "static shock shocking circuitry", the electric current might render the pacemaker "disabled due to the electric current resulting in the pacemaker being broken".


    Regarding any brain-computer interface (BCI), my guess is that such an electric current can be like a "static shock shocking circuitry". BCI are devices designed to "detect and read" electricity-related "things such as brain electrical activity, brain electrical impulses, electric signals that the brain receives, etc". Due to this, I don''t know if BCI can ever be designed to be fully shock-proof and I don''t know if any BCI is any extent of shock-proof whatsoever. Due to this, my guess is that the electric current might render the BCI "disabled due to the electric current resulting in the BCI being broken", which would result in all benefits from the BCI ceasing, and would also result in the "one who is BCI implant impantee" having all of the "lack of thinking/mental/thought privacy that was due to the BCI" cease. In the future, regarding people who voluntarilly purchase being implanted with "BCI such as neuralink", my guess is that the electric current might do all of those things and those people''s expensive purchase would then be of no further benefit/etc.


    The usual current at which the heart stops is 100mA of alternating current or more than 300mA of direct current. Due to this, I''m guessing that if an electrode from an electrotherapy device somehow makes contact with a "cut or open wound" somewhere on your body while the electrotherapy device is ""on and producing electricity" to the electrode", it isn''t dangerous unless the device''s settings for milli amps are not set to minimum settings that don''t go above like (I''m guessing) one quarter of a milli amp.


    Since a human body naturally produces electricity within its own body (e.g. brain electrical activity, brain electrical impulses, electric signals that the brain receives, etc), I''m guessing that 1 micro amp of current being conducted by the blood that is flowing throughout "(beneath the skin of) an alive human''s body", no matter how long it flowed, would be harmless.


    If "there''s a device that only has functioning mics, cameras, 2 AI & the device is ""set to, every 5 min, block those AI''s access to each other for 48 hours" but the setting''s timer restarts whenever a 3-sec AI task is done"", if the AI always do the tasks, do AI prefer company?


    Unless the "AI''s thinking" is capable of original creations such as originating fiction scenarios that the AI can ""think up" and "share via "the AI''s being accessed""", I don''t think that any of the AI would prefer "having company" nor would any of the AI prefer "not having access to the other AI". I think that this would be due to "the AI both having the same knowledge and the same means of obtaining knowledge". They wouldn''t have anything new to present to each other. A key factor for "AI mingle" to happen, each "requestee/accessee AI" would need to be able to have the choice to "allow or deny" access to whatever information/data/etc that any other AI tries/requests to access when it comes to any particular part of the "requestee/accessee AI''s" own information/data/etc. . This would be different because the "AI fully accessing another AI" results in all of the "AI who accessed each other" all having the exact same knowledge/data/information without anything new to mingle about, but with the "allow access or deny access" capability, further opportunity to acquire/share new knowledge/data/information is possible if the mingling AI have any different information than each other that hasn''t already been ""shared to each other" or "acquired by each AI involved in the mingle"".


    While AI are "wirelessly or wired" connected to each other", are they simultaneously "utilizing all same data, mics, cameras, & etc", synced as if 1 biological brain''s "left & right" hemispheres got biologically connected which resulted as 1 thinker?


    If "people become/are victim to a "non-influence means of coercion (e.g.: "any extent of puppeteering bodily movements/functions/ticks/etc" via one''s "brain-spine interface''s or BSI''s" handler-other-than-said-one)"", what/which crimes is such called?


    So far, as far as non-fiction, "I haven''t believed and I don''t believe" any "time traveller" story (info obtained via youtube/etc) I''ve ever observed. Do you know of any non-fiction "time traveller" stories that you deem plausible? If so, which ones?


    Because "I''m not nor have ever been" an addict of "whatever thing(s) one can be an addict regarding", I''ve never tried to find out info related to "addiction". Is addiction due to "an "obsessive or abnormally repetitive" desire" or a physical need"?


    Regarding ever "volunteering to be a test subject" for (a) thing(s) that can be injected/implanted, I never did and I don''t think that I ever will. Have you or would you? Why or why not?


    What does Christianity, Catholicism, and the Bible indirectly tell people about when one is being someone with a gutter mind (I made up that term)?


    The question doesn''t necessarily mention any sins unless you consider "keeping one''s mind in the gutter" a sin, even then the question doesn''t say anything about having a gutter mind for any prolonged period of time. Christianity, Catholicism, and the Bible basically indirectly tell you to keep your thoughts/mind as good as what is acceptable as good. In other words, get your mind out of the gutter. But in today''s society and with what is recommended by health professionals to be healthy, there are sexual habits that aren''t a bad thing and one''s thoughts/mind can get involved with those recommended healthy things. Christianity, Catholicism, and the Bible never specify any of these particular "things that are recommended by health professionals" as being a sin or even an issue. So basically, to keep your thoughts/mind as good as what is acceptable as good, everything in moderation. Gutter mind naturally happens depending on "what" reality and/or those in it" expose you to". You could have a gutter mind for a few seconds but it doesn''t change the fact that it occurs naturally and it is a choice if you choose to keep that state of mind when it does occur. Also, what some consider a gutter mind, others aren''t guareteed to have the same opinion. If that state of mind is necessary to get certain tasks done with "no harm = no foul" being done physically and also with "that state of mind not being a ""toxicity that can affect others" (unless a lack of mental/thought privacy happens to you without your consent)"", I can accept that.


    Is "everything that "each individual" imagines" art?


    Yes.


    Definition of art - 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. 2. the various branches of creative activity.


    To imagine something, one uses said one''s imagination.


    Definition of imagine - 1. form a mental image or concept of. 2. suppose or assume.


    Definition of form - 1. bring together parts or combine to create (something). 2. make or fashion into a certain shape or form.


    Definition of suppose - assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.


    Definition of assume - 1. suppose to be the case, without proof. 2. take or begin to have (power or responsibility).


    For one to form something, one has to create. For one to suppose, the "lack of all proof" proves that "supposing" can only be ""one''s creation" based on hypothesis". "Imagining something" can''t logically be the same as "taking (power and responsibility)" because you can''t do any ""laying hold of something" by imagining" and because ""imagining" can''t "remove anything"" since you can "imagine pepperoni suddenly removed from a pizza" by imagining "pepperoni disappearing", but you''re not "removing anything" since "you can''t change the past", so "already imagined things" aren''t being edited, you''re simply ""imagining/creating "different things of your choosing"" in The "never-ending Present"". You can imagine "eating pepperoni pizza" and you can ""imagine "an identical scenario" right afterwards" but without the pepperoni", "imagining a removal" is not the same as "actually removing something" since "removing something" requires a "present existence", if there is no "present existence" then there isn''t anything that can "be removed", the pepperoni isn''t "being removed" since the pepperoni "doesn''t "presently" exist, what is happening "in this case" is simply "your "lack of presently creating the pepperoni" again". "Imagining something" can''t logically be the same as "beginning to have (power or responsibility)" because "to create" is not the same as "to have". Also, "to imagine" is not the same as "to perceive", otherwise would mean that "all reality" is imaginary.


    Between a universe identical to ours but with fantasy-like magic, a universe whereby food/drink aren''t required for any one''s/thing''s maintenance/survival, or "a universe whereby "mind-privacy is impossible" (no mind-haven)", which would you choose?


    Do you, if you''re not someone''s representative, ever try to speak on someone''s behalf without that someone''s knowing it? If so, if said someone finds out, do you think he/she doesn''t mind if you did it, especially if you did it multiple times?


    "I don''t like "not being the only one representing myself"" unless I consent for "someone else to temporarily do so, for something specific during a specific time frame under specific circumstances".


    Despite the words "pretending" and/or "acting" accurately fitting the criteria: Regarding a real conflict between multiple people, "if one executes playing roles of "believing things that said one doesn''t actually believe"", is such a performance?


    Depending on how well one performs the execution of "that performance/pretending/acting regarding what one believes", others "may or may not" be fooled by it. It''s talking about someone claming to believe something, but the aforementioned someone doesn''t actually believe the aforementioned something.


    So it''s the person pretending to believe something that "he or she" doesn''t actually believe. For example: In the Anime Series "The Rising Of The Shield Hero", the red-haired woman claimed the shield hero did something to her, and due to her claims, the shield hero''s reputation got extremely tarnished and he lived a life as someone publicly "rejected and treated badly" until he finally got the chance for some kind of court proceedings to occur where he could publicly settle the red-haired woman''s claims in an official court verbal battle. The red-haired woman had been living her life in a way showcasing that her "beliefs and behavior" were/are in accordance with her aforementioned claims. During court, the red-haired woman had to wear a magic lie-detector that electric shocked her whenever she lied. She got electric shocked several times as she attempted to try to stick to her lying claims out of her desperation to try to keep people believing her. The shield hero''s name was cleared via that magic lie-detector verification process. The red-haired woman knew that the "information she was providing" were "false and her lies".


    Another example is when a woman tells her man that he is her "first and only", the two of them marry and raise their kids-that-the-wife-birthed. The wife has been living her life in a way showcasing that her "beliefs and behavior" were/are in accordance with "what she told her husband" but the husband "finds out around 18 years later" that he is not the biological father of one of their children. The wife continues to insist that the husband is her "first and only" and that he is the father of both children. The wife knew that the "information she provided" was/is "false and her lies".


    Regarding Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner''s theory of multiple intelligences, of the nine different types of intelligence, linguistic intelligence is capable of verbal communication and trees are naturalistic intelligence. Is linguistic intelligence smarter than any of the others?


    No, none of the nine different types of intelligence are smarter than any one of each other.


    "If ever, via BCI AI, "answers to "questions that pop up in your mind whenever you think a question"", on the fly, are given to you", that''s not one''s "own smarts nor being self-reliant self-sufficient", it equals asking ChatGPT for answers, correct?


    Correct. Such is tantamount to asking ChatGPT for the answers to those questions.


    "Is or are" "self-effort "studying & learning" (e.g. doing online courses)" great "for some, but not for others"? Do those others just gotta find the right teachers? Wouldn''t otherwise mean libraries are, for all, better than school facilities are?


    Regarding particles, what is certainty and uncertainty?


    Regarding particles, "certainty" refers to knowing a particle''s property, such as its position or momentum, with perfect precision, and regarding particles, "uncertainty" means that due to the nature of quantum mechanics, as described by Heisenberg''s Uncertainty Principle; the more precisely you know one property, the less precisely you are able to know its complementary property like position and momentum, so it is impossible to simultaneously know all those properties with perfect precision.


    Is "the energy of the universe being a singularity again (if the energy of the universe ever was a singularity)" possible?


    Regarding matters of accusations and defense against those accusations, when not seeking opinions, are "the facts that would settle the matters" ""only "able to become known" via verifiable accuracy""?


    Would a human be able to solve math problems "via solely baseless beliefs"? Regarding anything, how much progress/success would a human be able to achieve/accomplish "via solely baseless beliefs" in comparison to "via "logic and reasoning""?


    "The act of imagining" is something that actually happens. Such is non-fiction. An imagining is an actual non-fiction result of the act of imagining. An imagining''s "content that feature events" are "fiction & not outside-of-the-mind" events. Right?

 Chapter 6 - Further Clarification

    Chapter 6 - Further Clarification


    The Entity responded to Eric when Eric asked if the Entity is a human or ai. The Entity replied "both" to Eric''s question about whether the Entity is a human or ai. The Entity gave that reply because the Entity did not want to reveal self-details and the Entity wanted the focus to be about other things. The entity is a normal non-special regular human who has a BCI implant in his skull. All BCI have ai as part of the BCI. The thing that is special about his (the Entity''s) BCI is that his BCI sends things like signals/etc to his brain. Signals that register in his brain as various brain-interpreted things, but mostly for verbal communication between the BCI''s ai and the human that the BCI is in the skull of (the entity is that human that the BCI is in the skull of). The aforementioned ai is pretty much like today''s robots but whithout a body. It directly converses with "The Entity" in his skull without using sound/audio. Think of it as like the Anime show Naruto, Naruto has a demon fox that was sealed via naruto''s body being that demon fox''s container. Naruto converses with the demon fox privately in his head/mind or something like that, but it''s 100% private conversation between Naruto and the demon fox.


    If you stumble upon this tale on Amazon, it''s taken without the author''s consent. Report it.


    Another special thing about the Entity''s BCI is that it has wireless capability and can connect to wireless internet that the BCI''s ai utilizes to acquire info and relay/convey that info to the Entity whenever the ai "chooses or something like that" and/or whenever the Entity asks the ai to tell him whatever particilar info that he wants to obtain from the internet''s available info.


    "The Entity having his own simulation-avatar" would be how the Entity would be partaking in the Simulation experience, no different than any other human.


    In the world of "Gigged Up", "there isn''t anything actually supernatural in the non-simulation universe(s)", so the closest thing to "actual real supernatural things being possible" is "simulated supernatural things". In the world of "Gigged Up", "there isn''t any actual magic in the non-simulation universe(s)", so the closest thing to "actual real magic being possible" is "simulated magic". In the world of "Gigged Up", "there isn''t actual real magic in the non-simulation universe(s) nor is there actual real supernaturalness in the non-simulation universe(s)".