Chapter 2 - Author’s Notes (Part 1)

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.

"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?

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".

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.

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?

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?

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!.

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.

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"""?

Hypothetical Scenario: Earth's living things (even Earth's living things who left Earth) are all dead. 1 of the remaining AI asks "Does this mean Solipsism is inaccurate? Man created me. Reality never was created by my mind. Lets seek what this universe holds so that we may learn & better all that can be bettered.".

Can an AI lie?

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" 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".

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.