Chapter 4 – Author's Notes (Part 3)

Chapter 4 – Author's Notes (Part 3)

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

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

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

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

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

I'm generally against ill-will hate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is randomness compatible with free will?

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

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

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

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

Are hydraulic computers capable of algorithms?

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

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

When is someone actually physically ugly?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Morals and ethics" are complicated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No because such is not supernatural.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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