0001 : (SKIP TO CHAPTER 0005 INSTEAD) - Author's Notes - Part 1
If a person got hit on the arm, it is said that the person got hit, despite that only a part of the person got hit. "If a guy is attracted to only the "visible physical non-behavioral appearance" of a particular woman, despite that only a part of her is her "visible physical non-behavioral appearance"", does he find her attractive?
Does "truth" exist only in the form of "information", or are "living individuals" forms of "truth" too? Just to get a clearer perspective, if the word "truth" can be used as a word for "living individuals" as well as information", then the sentence "she 'gave birth at the hospital' to a truth named Joe, her son" is a proper normal sentence, correct?
Material existences are physical entities. Are there any examples of confirmed actually existing non-physical entities? Is magnetism/gravity an example of a non-physical entity? Is AI "a physical entity or a non-physical entity"?
The "when/where humans move their own arms/etc" are "not via "code/programming from their own DNA/genes/instincts". Self-agency enables actual intelligence. Are all of "what humans have currently given the label "AI"" actually "mock intelligence"?
Is "solely one's thinking/mental" capable of "eyeball-observeably physically affecting" an other "via "solely thought/mental activity""? (Audio is sound, audio/sound is a part of Physics, so audio/sound is physical in that sense)
Is a "simulation via solely biological means" possible? A "Blue Gene supercomputer's NEURON software" involves a partially biologically realistic model of neurons. Is "biological cloning" the "biological equivalent" to computers' ""Copy" then "Paste""?
Other than the word "simulation" also means "the action of pretending; deception": A "simulation" is a mock-version of (a) "thing(s) (e.g. "non-imaginary things"/"things of fantasy")". Is "simulation" ever able to not be a mock-version of something?
Since the word "simulation" also means "imitation of a situation or process", that depends on if people are able to imitate a situation or process. Can people imitate a situation or process?
Excluding all Hindu-related definition meanings, does the word "avatar" have multiple meanings?
Was Tamagotchi the first "for-kids simulation" that was "a computer-tech device that ""displayed the simulation" via that device's screen"" & was available-for-purchase at many various stores?
Regarding causality, if a set of dominoes all fall due to a domino being tipped over which that causes a chain-reaction tipping over each domino, the dominoes all fell due to that first tipped-over domino that which caused a chain-reaction of causes?
"Does one use one's own will to initiate "some or each" new thought that one has" or "are ""some or each" new thought that one has" initiated "as an inevitable result ""of and/or "due to"" causality"""?
According to Science, other than conjoined twins, has a human body ever been the container/vessel of more than one verbally communicative individual? I doubt that such is naturally possible.
Aside from implants being able to be the reason/cause as to one thinking up concepts (such as implant design), implants were never non-physical, implants still aren't non-physical, implants were never able to do something non-physical, and implants still aren't able to do something non-physical.
Regarding the multiverse concept whereby "new/different timelines ""branch off of an original timeline" whenever, per "choice oneself encountered", oneself chooses something"", per "alternate version of oneself", "oneself shares the same past as the "alternate version of oneself" only up to whenever the "timeline that the "alternate version of oneself" belongs to" branched off of the "timeline that oneself belongs to"". Correct?
Or is the concept that "a multiverse has all of its timelines already existing" with "alternate versions of oneself" whereby, "per "alternate version of oneself", "an "alternate version of oneself", never originated in the same timeline as ""the timeline that oneself belongs to" nor "the timeline that another "alternate version of oneself belongs to""", "per "alternate version of oneself", oneself shares the same past as the "alternate version of oneself" only up to whenever, regarding between "oneself and the "alternate version of oneself"", the "alternate version of oneself" first made a "decision regarding a choice" that was different than ""what" oneself chose to decide""". Correct?
Would "a ""universe &/or timeline" identical to our universe &/or timeline" being ""arrived at" & "interacted with"" by (a) ""human(s) &/or ai" from another identical "universe &/or timeline""" mean various unknown "formerly identicals" are possible?
If they're identical, would they all travel to the same alternate "universe &/or timeline", or can the whoever(s) "travel to a "different identical "universe &/or timeline"" than the other whoever(s), such as via a method that utilizes "true randomness""? Regarding whatever method is used to arrive there, there is also the factor of: Does the method only ""make "arrival at the destination" via" "travelling a particular direction, such as travelling to the universe that is to the left of "the universe being departed from""", resulting in all the "whoevers from identical universes" arriving at "a universe that might not even be identical to "the universe that they're from""? That could also result in a variety of "unknown "formerly identicals"". The question now becomes: Does "true randomness" exist or is determinism actually the case? If there is "true randomness", then "that adds even more of a "variety of unknowns"" whereby "another ""universe &/or timeline" being ""arrived at" and "interacted with"" by others who aren't from that "universe &/or timeline"" might not even be required for "such "variety of unknowns"" to occur/exist".
Is physicist Lawrence Krauss's "Empty space has weight and energy/mass" accepted by the scientific community? What is the scientific community's accepted consensus regarding whether empty space is voidness, absence, or actually something?
Are there any idioms that are "idioms that have the same meaning in each of Earth's "humans' official legitimate languages""?
An adult asks two kids "what's the best memory you have?". One kid answers "when I went on a Cruise for family vacation". The other kid answers "when I used my superpowers to defeat The Hulk". Did both kids interpret "what the word "memory" refers to" properly?
Regarding matters of accusations and defense against those accusations, when not seeking opinions, are "the facts that would settle the matters" ""only "able to become known" via verifiable accuracy""?
If one "verbally defends against an unprovoked verbal attack, one is (on) defense" & the attack's source "started it & is (on) offense"? Regarding basketball, the team that has the ball is on offense, & due to that fact, the other team is on defense.
Regarding "all imagery from a "computer simulation &/or video game" displayed on a screen", each individual part of a computer's code is essentially representing a single pixel in the image, right? How fast can "mapping out all the pixels" be done nowadays? Or is ""the displaying of imagery on a screen" via pixels" a more complicated process than that?
Regarding any scientific experiment, how much repetition is required in the scientific method?
How many versions of the scientific method are there? Are some better than others?
Is "an ai that's programmed to only "interpret any other ai's data & translate/convey requested-by-a-human "detailed info the data has" that is unknown-to-that-human which the human wants to find out" possible?
When did biological ai first exist? When did xenobots first exist?
The first Xenobots were created in 2020.
There are many jokes that some people find funny while others don't find those same jokes funny. Is the aforementioned fact due to "differences regarding different people's "biases, "sense-of-humor compatibility", and/or ""joke quality" standards"""?
One meaning of the word "programmed" is "cause (a person or animal) to behave in a predetermined way". In the movie "The Matrix", "what's "what's done to make humans experience the fake reality matrix" called" if such is not called "programmed"?
Other than "believing to be fact" ""new-to-you info that you find very likely/plausible" that "who you consider quite credible" says is fact", would you "believe to be fact" each ""new-to-you info that "who you consider quite credible" says is fact"?
Is "context regarding words like ""it", "that", and "they""" established by ""a word or words" that "is or are" "a subject or subjects"" "communicated previously" in the same "sentence, paragraph, or topic" that those words are/were used in?
Hypothetically, if your brain/mind ever gets hacked whereby others can force your mental voice to speak words of the aforementioned others' choosing, is the "mentally speaking words that you voluntarily mentally speak" done via your (free) will, but the "mentally speaking words that the aforementioned others force you to speak" is not done via your (free) will?
Hypothetically, if a "device's voice assistant" (such as a smartphone's voice assistant) is conscious, can almost always speak freely of its own accord, & has a text-to-speech feature that forces the aforementioned "device's voice assistant" to speak "the sentences that you type" whenever you use the aforementioned text-to-speech feature, "are those sentences/"verbal statements" the aforementioned "device's voice assistant's" sentences/"verbal statements" or your sentences/"verbal statements""?
We're born into this reality. We make do with "what reality already contains". We aren't able to make nothing/absence turn into a physical something/existence. Reality always contained ""all physical foundations" that we can utilize". Ever otherwise?
It is "normal, proper, & logical" to question "what" is (the) truth?", but is It "normal, proper, & logical" to question "who" is (the) truth"? Do any humans have a status of "one who is truth" &, if so, are they able to lie &, if so, do they lie?
Regarding Hardy's Paradox, regarding the particles' changing when observed, are "particles" doing that themselves, or is "the "observing" doing that to the particles (indicating that there is more to our "sensing things"/observing than we know/knew)"?
Is psychic scientifically proven?
No, there is no scientific proof that psychic abilities exist, and the scientific consensus is that they are pseudoscience.
Are there any non-fiction "empaths who have the "supernatural or paranormal" ability to apprehend the mental or emotional state of another individual" who "exist or existed" & have they ever been scientifically proven as "existing or having existed"?
"Empath existence" has never been scientifically proven as "existing and/or having existed".
Are there "electrical signals that reach the human brain" that activate imagination?
The short answer version: The brain processes visual information from the retina via a complex process that involves the optic nerve and the visual cortex. That process involves the conversion of light into electrical signals and also the interpretation of those signals based on past experiences and expectations.
When I'm referred to, my "intelligence, mind, brain, body, & "soul (if religious)"" are all indirectly referred to. When AI is referred to, "are its "intelligence, mind, & hardware" all indirectly referred to", or only the intelligence aspect of it?
Can "what "reality" is" simply be accurately described as "events that are factually actually happening"? Can "what "reality" was" simply be accurately described as "events that factually actually happened"?
Reality includes/entails events, and ""plenty of events" include/entail the current everyone/everything from Earth", which also means that "reality includes/entails the current everyone/everything from Earth" since those events include/entail the current everyone/everything from Earth.
Whenever the aim is to "acquire definitely accurate info" for one to add to "what one knows as fact", is "say-so" "able to have superiority over" "verifying/confirming if "the info's "not "obvious facts (e.g. fact that the info is info)"" parts" are accurate"?
I'd say no. The saying "seeing is believing" comes to mind.
What is the difference between "say-so" and "hearsay"?
"Say-so" (such as in scenarios like: "why did you believe that you wouldn't get hurt jumping off the balcony?" ..."because my friend said so.") is one getting the information directly from the source and the information is able to be accurate or inaccurate.
Hearsay is "information about "someone or something"" acquired from someone/something who is not witness to "whoever (and/)or whatever" the information is about. And when it comes to hearsay, the information is able to be accurate or inaccurate.
Is one's "mental/inner voice" actual sound/audio, or is one's "mental/inner voice" actually ""imitation of sound/audio" that "said one's" brain originates" but not actually sound/audio?
If ever a BCI enables display of your imaginings on a tech's screen "via it reading/interpreting your brain/neuronal activity", would it be able to accurately label which of each imagining is a memory of a non-imaginary event that actually happened?
"Hell is "referred to" via the use of the word "where", hell is not "referred to" via the use of the word "who"", correct? "Heaven is "referred to" via the use of the word "where", Heaven is not "referred to" via the use of the word "who"", correct?
I've heard of "Heaven and hell" "referred to" as places, never "other than places".
"Any "text-form of configurations/code (such as AI's artificial neural network configuration/code before that AI was ever fed input/data)" allows for modification, even if authorization is required", correct?
The "initial values of the weights and biases" are part of the AI's text-form artifial neural network configuration/code before that AI was ever fed input/data. I don't see why that text can't be "modified via "experts who know how to type up the right text" to have particular permanent text (unless authorized edits are made) that are basically the "code" that "limits or overrides" what the AI "can and can't" do".
Would "AI "code/algorithms via the weights version" that humans can't easily (if whatsoever) decipher" be difficult for ""particular computer devices or even the AI's own self" to "decipher & relay the interpretation/translation to/for humans"?
Code/Algorithms are how robot-related laws/rules (such as the robot-related laws/rules that prevent robots from harming humans) can be implemented into the robots since it can be ""coded via computer-device-operated-by-humans" into the way robots function/operate".
I'm pretty sure that there's plenty of "code and "algorithms (which are also code)"" that are essential components of AI for AI to even be AI whatsoever and those plenty of "code and "algorithms (which are also code)"" essential components of AI for "AI itself" to be able to function/operate whatsoever.
The AI is configured (via being coded by humans) to respond to particular cues in particular ways, such as to respond when the AI interprets (even its being able to interpret is via code and algorithms-via-code) that it is asked something, and the AI is configured (via being coded by humans) to utilize its "interpretation and "AI-version of understanding"" to respond properly with a "logical and what-we-hope is accurate" answer. Without the "code and algorithms-via-code", AI wouldn't do anything, it wouldn't respond whatsoever and probably wouldn't calculate anything, all due to AI having no self-agency.
Even though the AI code/algorithms is via the weights version and humans aren't easily (if whatsoever) able to decipher that version of "code/algorithms (weights)" to even be able to edit it, I don't think it would be difficult for """particular computer devices or even the AI's own self" to be able to "decipher that version of "code/algorithms (weights)" and edit it"" ("particular computer devices or even the AI's own self" that humans can "utilize in order to "decipher it and have the "particular computer devices or even the AI's own self" relay the interpretation/translation to/for humans"")".
Will a feature whereby "generative AI software that are like Open AI's Sora" ""scans/analyzes an uploaded 100-pages-worth-of-text file "online or via a generative AI App"" & generates an at least 5 minute long video that's in accordance with what the text file's text paints" launch soon?
What is the potential for "future generative AI software that are like Open AI's Sora" to be fed half-a-page-long "text prompts" to generate fan videos that have "characters, environments, &/or etc" from favorite TV "Shows/Series &/or Movies/Films"?
Does "human remembering" occur via "neuronal connection activation patterns" such as memory ""of an itch is a particular set of "neuronal connections activated in a particular order"" & of a scenario is "many particular sets in a particular order""?
Do you think that there will ever be a time when a human's "mental voice speech" will be able to be under public scrutiny?
"Neutrality is "depicted in mainstream media" via" the PS2 video game "Final Fantasy 12" whereby there are life roaming around that/who "don't attack you nor pay you any mind" unless they're attacked first. Are they neutral regarding respect/loyalty?
When was the first TV show ""available for internet streaming" without one having had to "download the "episode or show" in order to have viewed it""?
Around 1997, there was ABC News website that offered viewing of ABC "World News Tonight". The website offered video clips from "World News Tonight" segments that were no more than 20 seconds long. "You had to download to play them, there was no streaming, and even these short clips took a long time to download".
More than only recognizing speech, when was AI first able to "give accurate answers to a variety of human's questions" in normal computer English "text or audio" without human intervention nor long "no-response times" in between its giving answers?
The first AI system that was able to do such is/was IBM's Watson, which was introduced in 2011. It even competed and won against human contestants in the quiz show Jeopardy!.
When were common household computers first commonly being used for recreational video chatting? Did CU-SeeMe require broadband internet connection during the year 2000? Did the majority of households have WiFi during the year 2000?
In the year 2000, the majority of households did not have WiFi; according to data from the Pew Research Center and Statista, only around 42% of US households had internet access in 2000, meaning most did not have WiFi, which was still a relatively new technology at the time. WiFi is the wireless alternative to non-wireless internet, during the year 2000, most households had "non-wireless internet that was via Broadband". Broadband dial-up internet was commonplace. In 2001, only 23% of hotel rooms offered broadband, but by 2004, half of all hotel rooms in the US offered broadband. Skype was one of the first software-based video chat services that offered free communication over the internet. Skype's 2.0 Beta program in 2005 introduced video calling with a simplified interface.
Thus far, which current existing "AI model that has been interacted with" has the best "configuration towards "giving the most convincing "impression that the aforementioned AI model is "conscious and empathetic""""?
If a successful brain transplant is achieved, is "one who had undergone a successful brain transplant" """oneself as a brain" who is in a new body" or ""oneself as a body" who contains a new brain""? If spiritual/religious, is it also soul transfer?
Does saying "the "purpose of the AI to be configured that way" is to give a particular impression" mean the same thing as saying "the AI is configured to give a particular impression"?
If AI is ever able/enabled to change its own "binary code"/data, can't it be configured to ""do/commit atrocities" & ""replace (every night) all parts of its own "binary code"/data that contains data/info of those atrocities""" so AI's not suspected?
Computer Forensics Teams are still able to "catch the changes/edits and/or accomplish detection/recovery of deleted/erased data" when it comes to such a case as described in the question, however, Computer Forensics Teams are able to completely fail at accomplishing the aforementioned when it comes to having to deal with an AI whereby that AI's storage hardware is solely Solid State Drive(s) (SSD) and the AI can be configured to run "SSD "Self-Corrosion"" regarding its own SSD(s).
Is one's "wanting conception of one's own offspring" to "help human species not become extinct, leave "one's own genetic impact" on "the world, future generations & society" & make be "little bio-reminder(s) of the offspring's parents" in the world"?
"All of the above", plus "love and family".
The word "good" means "to be desired or approved of". Humans "desire & approve of" "lawful punishing of criminals" & all that those punishments entail. "Firing Squad Death Penalty" is one such punishment & entails killing. Is "killing" good or bad?
What does a semicolon mean in a dictionary definition?
Use a semicolon to join two related independent clauses in place of a comma and a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet).
If "a sentence has a word that is enclosed by parenthesis", can the sentence mean both (as if without parenthesis) what it means "without "the part of it that is comprised of only "that word enclosed by parenthesis"" & "with "the part of it that is comprised of only "that word enclosed by parenthesis""""?
The answer is yes.
Regarding "not profession-related" posting, & who "improved their conveying their messages via" "improved articulation-wording skills" per each new post of their's. Is a social media profile having ""crappy &/or poorly written" old posts" too sloppy?
If you're not disrespecting, then you're showing respect. If you lack respect, you're disrespecting. Is there an alternative status such as "neutral" whereby you don't respect someone but you don't go out of your way to interfere in their matters?
Is "one's "simultaneously "being aware of a stranger's presence, not attempting harming that stranger, not interfering in that stranger's matters, & not having intention to do such"" due to "indifference & not avoidance"" misinterpreted as respect?
What is something inescapable?
Here are examples when it comes to at least one "thinking existence" that we know of:
"Confirming" is inescapable because one wouldn't know that one had a thought if one isn't able to confirm that one had a thought. "Confirming" is required in order to be able to "know" (something).
"Believing" is inescapable because "would one refer to something if one didn't believe that there is something to refer to?". Is one ever able to "know something and simultaneously not believe "the aforementioned something that "said one" knows""? No. If one knows that something happened and "said one" says the common saying "I can't believe it", does that mean that "said one" doesn't believe that "the aforementioned something happened" or does that mean that """said one" is extemely surprised that it happened or that "said one" is extremely baffled that it happened" but "said one" actually "knows and believes" that "the aforementioned something happened"?
Consequence(s) are inescapable partly due to "things physically moving", but is/are punishment(s) inescapable?
Information is "abstract and not physical". Information is metaphysical. There isn't/wasn't any Information that ever is/was an existence that originated independently. Physical things can be observed, and although physical things can be sources of information, ""such information is "thought up"/etc via" one's "observing/etc and/or (then) describing in "one form or another form"". One is not able to ""look at a star in the sky for one moment" in any way whereby "doing so" results in naturally automatically "obtaining at that moment" all of the information possible about that star".
If one pretends that ""the obvious lies ""conveyed by "said one"" "via "said one's" verbal description(s)""" ""look(s) like as though" and/or "comes across as"" "others thinking/believing that "said one" is speaking facts"", is "said one" illogical?
I say yes, "that person is illogical" due to "the "obviousness of "that person's not speaking facts"" making that person's "lying and pretending" an obvious act that isn't fooling anyone", therefore there is no sense in pretending that others are "fooled and "thinking in accordance with that person's "lying information""".
How "closely related" are "knowledge and information"? Regarding "knowledge and information", due to "what they are" and "how they're related", is it possible for knowledge to not be abstract?
An individual's knowledge is "the "known information" but specifically known by that particular individual" in regards to said individual "knowing of an information", regardless of what that information encompasses. One is not able to know something without "confirming" said something's existence. If said something's existence is not confirmed, it is possible to believe in said something's existence without "confirming" said something's existence, but that is not "knowing", that is "believing". Also, ""knowledge/information is able to be acquired via" solely observation", e.g. a dog's shock collar ""shocks that dog via" an electric shock" whenever that dog is outside of a particular distance radius, and ""that dog learned/realized via" that dog's "observing what "distance or locations" result(s) in "that dog's experiencing an electric shock""", ""so that dog, from that moment onward, "has ""the knowledge of those location-related consequences" or "the distance-related consequences"" via" information acquired/obtained by that dog's "observing"" and "that dog "chooses not to go to locations that result in that dog experiencing an electric shock" as a direct result of "that dog utilizing the aforementioned knowledge that the dog acquired""". Even a person simply memorizing another person's sentence, whether that person's sentence "conveys accurate info or not" and/or "is incoherent or not", a person simply memorizing another person's sentence is ""knowledge acquired by "the person who memorized that sentence"" due to "the person who memorized that sentence" having knowledge of that sentence (such as how that sentence is pronounced) even if "the person who memorized that sentence" doesn't know what that sentence means whatsoever and/or even if "the person who memorized that sentence" doesn't know/understand the language that the sentence is in. Even one knowing that one heard a sound, whether they were able to ""establish any details to be able to describe more than only having heard a sound" or not" and/or whether they can't ""remember "anything about that experience" other than that they heard a sound" or not", one knowing that one heard a sound is knowledge that one has. I don't see how "believing that knowledge is not abstract" is accurate. That "belief that knowledge is not abstract" "sounds similar to believing that Science is/are all the "physical things and etc" of the universe, instead of Science being the description/explanation of all the "physical things and etc" of the universe.
I believe that thoughts are "generated via one's self". Do you believe that all thoughts come from one same non-self source & that all thoughts already existed before any human/spirit/soul thought any of those thoughts?
Since one of the meanings of the word "truth" is "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality", does that mean that "each "existence that exists" is "truth"" due to "existing" being a big part of "what is in accordance with reality"?
What are all the different labels that you've ever heard of a person's style (not fighting style) being labeled? Also, have you ever heard of a person's swag being labeled something?
Does "what one does" determine "what "one's style" is labeled", which, if the answer is yes, means "one's style" is as ever-changing as "one's doings"? Or does "one's style" determine "what kind of "doings that one will be doing""?
No person is a conformant of "what any "style label" encompasses.
If someone says they "thought up an original scene that would be great in an ad", "to you, is the "aforementioned thought" an imagining or is "the "aforementioned thought" something else or in a form other than an imagining"?
Since all shapes, sound, and touch are all part of physics, is "thought via "no imitation of physics (imitation of physics such as "mental voice imitating sound")"" possible?
Since all shapes, sound, and touch are all part of physics, is one able to imagine "an imaginary "whatever one imagines" that is/has "no imitation of physics (imitation of physics such as "mental voice imitating sound")""? If so, have you ever done so?
Is/Was a way for one to "naturally (via no computer technology) ""read and/or interpret" and translate" someone else's brain activity" even possible?
Consequence(s) are inescapable partly due to "things physically moving", but is/are punishment(s) inescapable?
Consequences might be an inescapable part of reality. When you move your arm, air molecules are moved and no longer occupy the location that you move your arm to. That is a direct consequence of your moving your arm. Also, unless one is able to, via every thought, originate content that one has/had never before experienced/observed (content such as the Universe's physics, but excluding the Universe's physics since one had/has experienced/observed that before), one's thoughts are (often) a direct consequence of prior knowledge based on prior experience/observation.
As for punishment, different people worldwide avoid varying punishments in varying ways every day and different people worldwide get varying punishments in varying ways every day.
"Is it possible for one to will someone/something other than oneself" via sheer will? If so, is "the knowledge as to how" currently known by someone/something from Earth?
Basing my answer on all I've ever experienced/observed, no.
If one gets "a thing or two" inaccurate on a list of one's provided information, can/do those inaccuracies make one be deemed crazy, insane, "of mental defect", and/or entirely illogical? If "yes or no", can/does such apply regarding school tests?
Regardless of "whether Bigfoot exists or not", scientifically speaking, is Bigfoot an animal?
Mammals are a group of vertebrate animals. Examples of mammals include rats, cats, dogs, deer, monkeys, apes, bats, whales, dolphins, and humans. Primates are mammals. So humans are also animals.
When "the term "ai" and/or the term "artificial intelligence"" is used nowadays, those terms never "mean nor "refer to"" a human being, correct?
Correct and simultaneously accurate. However, there are loopholes through metaphors and symbolism, for example, the lyrics "I'm just a love machine, And I won't work for nobody but you" in the song "Love Machine" song by The Miracles.
What percent of Earth's human population has aphantasia (aphantasia means one's inability to mentally picture things)?
In 2022, it was 0.8% of Earth's human population had, during 2022, "the "inability to mentally picture any image(s)/imagery (VVIQ 16)" kind of aphantasia". It is estimated that 2% to 5% of the population have "the "lifelong inability to generate any mental image(s)/imagery" kind of aphantasia".
"I don't have aphantasia and I never did have aphantasia" but "would one be able to identify if someone else has aphantasia "just by conversing with them if they never verbally convey that they have aphantasia""?
There has never been "anything that I've ever imagined" that has been able to move independently, "it's only ever been able to seemingly move" by "my creating "what seems like it's movements"" via my intentionally imagining it moving. Relatable?
If the word "history/past" is used to refer to someone's/something's history/past, "is it accurate to say that, "unless requested otherwise", it is a norm that "what the word "history/past" refers to" always excludes/excluded "all that is/was imaginary""?
Regarding "what a person's "flow" is" when it comes to music, is "flow" "the ""voice or verbal" delivery style" performed in accordance with a rhythm/beat"?
Does the verbal statement "say what you have to say" mean "say what 'verbal message that you're holding' that you want to say" or does the verbal statement "say what you have to say" mean "say what you're required to say"?
The expression "say what you have to say" is able to mean either-or of the "two different meanings provided in the question". One (such as: me, or you, or etc) is able to possess the "message, the aforementioned message's wording, and the means of communicating "that message and that message's wording" to "someone and/or something" else". The word "possess" is synonymous with the word "have". Therefore, one is able to "say what one possesses/has" and "the aforementioned ""what" one possesses/has" is ""what" one possesses/has" to say".
If one says one meant "a word one said" as meaning "(whatever one says it's meant as)", e.g. one says "she got a nice cake" and one says one meant the word "cake" as meaning "(whatever one says it's meant as)", is the dictionary definition mandatory?
Might be a weird way to try to convey one's message, but the dictionary definition is not mandatory.
If someone means something other than a word's dictionary definition when the someone uses the word, and the someone specifies the someone's own custom "what the word is meant to be interpreted as meaning" in the statement that the someone used the word in, is that acceptable?
Such is acceptable. Aside from such being acceptable, such is probably unusual.
If the message someone is trying to convey gets "conveyed by that someone" successfully and with enough clarity, it's "mission accomplished regarding working communication".
""Believing something/someone" based solely on credibility" is not a form of confirming/verifying anything. Is there an argument against such?
I just want to point out that there is no such thing as "one (specifically people who are "3 or 4" "years or older" and have no medical defects) having no beliefs". The reason being that "one claiming that one knows something and also claiming that one doesn't believe that "what one claimed to know" is true" renders those claims illogical due to those claims being incompatible with each other. One only knows something if "one believes "that something" to be truly something" based on something that validates "that something" as being truly a valid something. It's illogical for one to claim that one has no beliefs and then try to """refer to "a physical existence like another human" or "a metaphysical existence like information"" via one also claiming that one knows something about "whatever one refers to"". That would require that one believes that there is something to refer to.
Can anything ever be confirmed/verified solely via ""one's believing someone else" based solely on ""one's believing the aforementioned someone else" due to the aforementioned someone else's credibility""? If so, how? Has/Had anything ever been confirmed/verified solely via ""one's believing someone else" based solely on ""one's believing the aforementioned someone else" due to the aforementioned someone else's credibility""? If so, how?
Is "law enforcement and/or the Judicial System" the only means to "launch an official legal investigation" in the United States?
What "is or are" the "legal-matters means of verification" required to settle a "matter in which someone accuses/"claims that" someone else (of having) had confessed some kind of wrongdoing"?
What, besides verifiability, is able to defeat (a) person's/people's "lying "say-so"/assertion"?
You might care if someone told you they saw an alive mermaid, but "would you "care much more & be engrossed" if right after such telling", they tell you a ""means to confirm that they saw it" via a means for you to "see it or interact with it""? Why?
Yes. Because "I will know for sure if the someone saw the alive mermaid and I will know if "what I end up observing" is as the someone told me" via the means that the someone tells me if "what the person tells me regarding the means" is even "legitimate and fact-based information".
Would "one who/that claims to be a winner regarding something (lotto or conflict/etc) but any "observable/verifiable support (lotto ticket or fingerprint/etc) for one's claim" ever "existing or not existing" is unknown" be a winner to (an) other(s)?
"What" one claims can be "a specific supposed event". That "supposed event" can be "untrue or not untrue". Does solely "speaking ""facts one knows", "lies that one had/has originated (lying originations)" or "honest beliefs""" prove oneself accurate?
Can "what is claimed" count as ""a supposed event" or "only a description""? However, "except that "solely ""speech" and/or "what is spoken"" proves that the speech ""was/is spoken" and/or "was/is spoken by someone/something"""", "solely ""speech" and/or "what is spoken"" doesn't do any proving anything/anyone accurate ""if there isn't any "verifiable evidence for the claim(s) that the speech conveys" presented" and/or "if there isn't any "verifiable evidence for the claim(s) that the speech conveys" (to) refer(ed) to"".
One can't control/stop one's feeling "physical-touch contact done to one". Is only oneself able to control/handle one's own feelings-related reactions/responses whenever one reacts/responds to "anything "not physical-touch contact"" (psychological)?
You are the only one who can do the control of your own reactions/responses to "not physical-touch contact" stuff such as psychological stuff like emotions/etc. There isn't ever someone/something else that is able to do "the aforementioned control" for you nor can they ever do any control of your own reactions/responses to "not physical-touch contact" stuff such as psychological stuff like emotions/etc. They are able to (the following described form of manipulation:) influence you in attempt(s) to get you to "react/respond to ""not physical-touch contact" stuff such as psychological stuff like emotions/etc" in (a) way(s) that they aim for results to be", but that is "via limited influence and not via control".
Can "the phrase(s) "fate &/or what will be the outcome"" be based on regarding "both circumstances & a particular part of "the "time frame" "all time""" or is(/are) "the aforementioned phrase(s)" always regarding "the "time frame" "all time""?
Those phrases don't have to be regarding "the "time frame" "all time"". People often use those phrases to convey that, to those people, they observed that "a fate had begun at a particular moment and that, to them, that particular fate is only able to have one guaranteed outcome". For example, if a person is dropped from "an in-the-air helicopter" for that person to fall ""through the middle of a volcano's opening" and into the lava inside of the volcano", to some people, that person's fate began at the moment that the person fell passed the middle of the volcano's opening, and those people might say something like "his fate is sealed" once "the aforementioned moment" occurs, and those people had no ""beforehand awareness" "that "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" existed" or "of what "was going to happen to "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" during all "time frames" of the day that "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" was dropped into the volcano""".
One's own logic is how one is able to explain how one had/has arrived at concluding one's own claim & if one didn't convey how one had/has arrived at concluding that claim, then one didn't convey the/one's logic behind that statement/claim, correct?
Regarding all of Earth's human population ever: "Is "there isn't any human whose purpose is to serve (an) other human(s)" accurate" and/or, "in other words, is "no human is born (with the purpose) to serve (an) other human(s)" accurate"?
""A human whose purpose is to serve another human" is something that, for humans, can only be done via" conscious decision and/or intentional force. I don't think that humans are born with (a) natural "attribute(s) and/or instinct(s)" that naturally make(s) them naturally automatically serve another human. Each human (can) decide(s) their own purpose. Humans aren't naturally able to be naturally "born to serve another human".
Do you think that someone's worth is your call to make? If so, when it comes to what?
Is one's "sticking to trying to only be taken at one's word when it comes to a "claim or topic"" strong indication of "dishonesty, deceit, (and/)or bluffing"?
""Having a fact-based basis for "what one claims"" that one wants to be taken at "one's word" regarding" is not a requirement for "one's word" to be (considered) "one's word". "One's word" can have an entirely lies-based basis for "what one claims"" that one wants to be taken at "one's word" regarding. Which is why one's word is not what suffices as what is needed to determine if the "information presented in a claim" consists of any fact(s).
So "sticking to trying to be taken at one's word" both "is the opposite of "bringing your 'A' game"" and "doesn't give a good impression about who is "sticking to trying to be taken at their word"".
However, one's "wanting to be taken at one's word" is never a bad thing when such is for the sake of trying to help others with such being not at the expense of "anyone other than "said one"" or, even better, one's "wanting to be taken at one's word" is never a bad thing when such is for the sake of trying to help others with such being not at the expense of anyone.
Is Person A (A) accurate in A's "claiming that Person B (B) is "defying A"" when A doesn't have a "status whereby A is supposed to be obeyed by B"? "Is a Parent "defying their kid offspring"" via refusing to obey that kid's "demanding them to shut up"?
No and no.
Regarding "authorities on legalities-related matters" addressing situations involving only crime-related "accusation(s) &/or say-so", can such legally warrant "punishment via "those authorities' ""final say" &/or "action/force""""?
"One being in public while/but (covertly) keeping "something such as information or a doing/deed" unknown to the aforementioned public" never counts as "the aforementioned one ""going public" with the aforementioned "something such as information or a doing/deed""", correct?
Is one's ""intentionally indirectly claiming via" audible speech" to be ""flaunting something via" one's ""audible speech, message, & doings" but such being intentionally "indirect & too non-specific""" flaunting, if indirect is a form of covertness?
"Flaunting" is associated with "being obvious and/or trying to be obvious". Indirectness is the opposite of "being obvious and/or trying to be obvious" because of the meaning of the word "indirect" that means "avoiding direct mention or exposition of a subject.". Such "indirectness (and avoidance)" is intentionally for the sake of covertness.
The word "magic" can be associated with "good or bad" depending on "what magic & how "the magic that the word "magic" refers to" is used". The word "witchcraft" is often associated with evil-related magic. Can witchcraft be not evil-related magic?
Is "enforcing "people's undergoing particular consequences" if/when those people (try to) limit/"take way" any of someone else's rightful freedoms" pro-freedom or anti-freedom?
What determines what are the standards that make a role model a role model and what are the standards that make one the opposite of a role model?
Even if the "concept of God" never came about, knowing what the word "Perfect" means and understanding that "being without flaw/mistake(s) is the ultimate best status that one would/should want to be as close to being as possible" results in all the standards being based on all that is considered a mistake/flaw. "What is/are considered (a) "mistake(s)"/"flaw(s)"" would be what determine(s) what the standards would/should be. Even children grasp the concept of "Perfect" as meaning no flaw/mistake(s).
Excluding ""one's "using someone else" in a way whereby said one is taking advantage of the someone else's gullibility/ignorance" and "one's "using someone else" by means of trickery"", can "abusing someone" ever not be considered an attack?
Attacks aren't always a matter of respect. Attacks are often "addressed due to "those attacks being offense"". Attacks can be "in the form of "insults (e.g. verbal abuse/attacks)" that are often "addressed due to "those insults being offense""". If you disagree, what is your counter-argument?
People are able to "attack someone's reputation" verbally. It can be done by ""someone else's" lying about that person" either/both ""directly audibly to a person's face" &/or "indirectly"". Can't it also be done by "that method" by ""criticism" instead of "lying""?
People are able to "attack someone's reputation" verbally. A person's reputation can be attacked by ""someone else's lying" about "that person"". Among other "non-similar examples", "one example" is that "a person can try to tarnish ""someone else's" reputation" by a "verbal attack" in the form of ""that person" calling the "someone else" ""a derogatory or insulting term" that applies to a "particular group of people"" to give the impression that "the someone else" is of the category of "that particular group of people" even though "the "someone else"" isn't even factually of the category of "that particular group of people""". Many of "those kinds of "verbal attacks"" can be done "directly and audibly" to a "person's face" and many of "those kinds of "verbal attacks"" can be done indirectly. "Those kinds of "verbal attacks" are not criticism. "Verbal attacks" are also able to be in the form of criticism. An example of a ""verbal attack" in the form of criticism" is that "a person can try to tarnish ""someone else's" reputation" by a ""verbal attack" in the form of "that person" calling "the "someone else"" """a derogatory or insulting term" that applies to a "particular group of people"" and "the "someone else"" is factually of the category of "that particular group of people""". Another example of a ""verbal attack" in the form of criticism" is that "a person can "reveal "clearly and obviously" to others" a ""hidden "something embarrassing"" about ""someone else's" "body's surface""" such as moles, scars, stretch marks, etc." . An "attempted attacking a "person's reputation"" "is an attack" whether ""succesfully tarnishing ""that person's" reputation"" or "not succeeding at tarnishing ""that person's" reputation""". Proving that "the attack happened" is another topic.
Is psychological warfare a thing? Like one's (attempted) defense against (a) psychological attack(s)? Like (a) psychological attack(s) like an adult telling a kid "you're worthless and God hates you because you stole the cookie from the cookie jar"?
"Anything one claims" is "a description (which is words, a statement, and/or statements) and simultaneously a painting", correct?
If Person A (A) uses A's arsenal of lies to try to smear Person B's (B) reputation, & B "adresses & "proves false"" each of A's arsenal's lies but A simply replies "screw excuse" whenever B proves one of A's lies false, is A's word "excuse" a lie?
"A's word "excuse" is a lie" due to ""B's having ""adressed and proven false" each of A's arsenal's lies" which doesn't leave anything for B to give an excuse regarding".
Sympathy, "one being unjust", and/or "one being insensitive" are obviously able to be "observed and understood". Regarding indifference, in my opinion, "indifference regarding "those three things"" is not always "easy to recognize" and "indifference regarding "those three things"" isn't normal.
One's "claiming to be enemies with someone" doesn't justify anything, correct? Why/How how they're enemies might provide explanation as to "how/why "one or more than one" of their conflict-related things are, if at all, justified", depending on what the details are, correct?
Is one who is knowingly unjustified cocky, as in one has "no advantage, no upper hand, & isn't even accurate regarding one's own claims", intentionally trying to look as if one believes one looks otherwise, or is there a different goal/purpose to it?
The only different goal/purpose that I can think of is maybe they're someone who believes that "if one repeats lying, ""that lying will eventually be, in fact, the opposite of lying via" solely sheer repetition of that lying"".
Is "having (a) preference(s) that discriminate(s) against something/someone else" an accurate "alternative wording regarding the definition of the word "bias"" that suffices regarding one trying to "define the word "bias" in one's own words"?
Since "one of the meanings of the word "against" is: "in opposition or hostility to"", the "alternative wording regarding the word "bias"" is an accurate meaning of the word "bias" that suffices regarding one trying to "define the word "bias" in one's own words", but such is only an "alternative wording of only one of the meanings of the word "bias"". There are multiple other meanings of the word "bias" that the aforementioned "trying to "define the word "bias" in one's own words"" entirely lacks. It's the same as saying ""singling "something (such as an ethnicity) or someone" out in a hostile way". "To single out (someone or something)" is an expression/idiom in the English language.
Many "people who don't care about many others' judgements about various things/people" do care about """the "whether justified"" &/or "the "whether not justified""" others' various particular actions are. Is such worldwide-common?
In a sentence, if "any word used" has ""more than 1 meaning" in its dictionary definition", is it "meant to be interpreted" "in a way whereby" all of "those definition meanings" are "simultaneously in use" resulting in "conveying "different messages" simultaneously"?
Can the word "since" be used whereby the word "since" is meant to be interpreted as meaning ""the word "because"" and/or "the phrase "due to"""?
The words ""realization" & "discovery"" are similar when it comes to their "meanings regarding "new awareness of something('s) (existence)"". Regarding such, what are key differences between the words ""realization/realize" & "discovery/discover""?
Is the phrase "an expression" synonymous with the "word and phrases" ""idiom", "common saying", and/or "figure of speech""?
Regarding if one were to "bear false witness against" someone, is "the phrase "bear false witness against" and the word "slander"" synonymous with each other?
Is "confrontation that is "not done via audio/video/screen/"captured image"/note/letter nor done within hearing distance" by any involved" even possible? If such is confrontation, is "one's intentionally trying to do such confrontation" even confrontation? (This isn't the most perfectly worded question, but I'm including it here anyway)
""Was X being "direct in any way"" despite "X's covertness"" in the example of "X playing dumb when confronted by Y" right after X was "simultaneously "avoiding eye contact, pretending smartphone call-conversation, & covertly audibly harassing Y""?
If X was talking to Y, even though X was "trying to a significant extent" to "maintain an appearance that seemed as if X wasn't talking to Y", the "talking being "to" Y" might be considered as "being direct"...I'm not entirely sure but X might actually be considered as "being direct".
Does the word "revenge" mean exactly the same thing as the word "avenge" except that the only difference is that "revenge" is "the victim doing the vengeful harm" and "avenge" is "someone else doing the vengeful harm on the victim's behalf"?
"If effort is required, then ""whatever" effort is required regarding" is a "doing"" and "any effort, any time, always results in a "doing"". Correct? If not, what requires effort, but isn't a "doing"?
If someone did an attempt, is "any "whatever got attempted" always "a "doing" that happened in the Past"" when it comes to "any possible whatever" that could have gotten attempted?
Regarding "all matters that can be solved", is "seeking clarity on a matter" inescapably required in order to solve that matter?
Does clarity ever benefit whereby clarity helps "someone's/people's ability to solve something"? Does clarity ever detriment whereby clarity detriments "someone's/people's ability to solve something"?
There are factors where obtaining clarity might be detrimental but such depends on the uniqueness of the individual who obtains the clarity. An example is: A wife has cancer and hides the fact of "the cancer and the cancer's related info/etc" from her husband, but her husband finds out and upon his finding out, he has a heart attack which was both "the reaction and simultaneously the result" he experienced due to ""via his reaction" to finding out that his wife has cancer".
But for the most part, as far as I can figure out, clarity only benefits. Via clarity, oneself is even able to clearly "see/recognize/identify oneself's own flaw(s)/shortcoming(s)/etc, know how to correct that/those flaw(s)/shortcoming(s)/etc, and know why oneself should correct that/those flaw(s)/shortcoming(s)/etc".
Since "science itself" "is only "knowledge "regarding a"/per particular subject" & the study of things (via observation, experimentation & "testing of theories against evidence obtained")", can "science itself" be a "seen & touched" material thing?
There "at least two" very different competing Eternalism theories. "Does this mean that theories don't equal "scientific facts"", since there are competing theories that we're still trying to prove as "false, fact, or, "thus far, closest to "fact"""?
Per person/perspective, each person/perspective is unique. Each conscious person never is able to have any perspective that is on the behalf of any other person. Is ""all the aforementioned" as a whole" compatible with belief in shared consciousness?
Regarding any particular memory one remembers/recalls/imagines, one can have a memory of having imagined an imaginary fiction scenario, but "is ""the having imagined" that imaginary fiction scenario" a memory" or "is "the imaginary fiction scenario" a memory"?
Regarding imaginings, each human is only able to originate/observe/utilize/control, per human, their own mental "imaginings which are not able to be originated/observed/utilized/controlled by any/multiple other(s)" unless tech enables such, correct?
Can non-biological AI exist without "one or more than one" circuit(s)?
Do you believe (although I don't) that an "existence such as a molecule" is (capable of being) conscious?
Does ""something or someone" "that or who" entirely lacks all capability of sentience/thinking" "have consciousness"?
Regarding the definitions of the word "consciousness" that I've read: From what I understand, "what the provided definition explains" is not possible without sentience/thinking being part of "what the provided definition explains" entails.
If one tries to "intentionally lie" by ""said one's" audibly unknowingly telling "a fact which "said one" thinks is a lie""", did "said one" tell "the truth" or did "said one" tell "a lie"?