Chapter 3 – Author's Notes (Part 2)

Chapter 3 - Author's Notes  (Part 2)

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".

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 space something or is it nothing?

Physicist Lawrence Krauss: Empty space has mass, weight, and energy.

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 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 18:7–10) 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.

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".

"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?

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""?