0002 : (SKIP TO CHAPTER 0005 INSTEAD) - Author's Notes - Part 2
""What you're born as (appearance-wise/etc-wise)" & "the circumstances you're born into"" resulted from the "decisions of others/"your parents"/etc." . Since you never had "a choice/"say so" on "those things"", aren't "those things" your world-entrance-luck?
Is it accurate to say that it is a norm that "the word "fantasy/fantasies" is most often meant to be interpreted as "imaginary scenario(s)/thing(s) whereby one desires such to become non-imaginary"" like in the expression "fulfill your fantasy/fantasies"?
Is it ever "possible non-fiction" for there to be ""a "smaller-than-a-house portal" that is like a "window that lets you see a "different world" from/"that is" billions of lightyears away"" & stepping through "that portal" makes you "instantly end up in "that different world""""?
Regarding asking who one is speaking to, "is it accurate to ""refer to any current computer's AI" via the word "who"", or is "the word "what" the only "accurate word" instead of the word "who"" regarding "referring to any current computer's AI""?
Is/Was a way for one to "naturally (via no computer technology) ""read and/or interpret" and translate" someone else's brain activity" even possible?
If a brain-computer interface (BCI) is (ever) able to analyze a human's brain activity, translate that activity to "logical English format" "conveying that/those info/messages to/for others", is such natural? Is such psychic? Is such natural psychic?
Is there a current BCI that would be able to interpret/translate a baby's desire(s)/intention(s) if the baby never learned any words yet? All children should never be subjected to BCIs. The question is to find out if language is a requirement for BCIs to interpret/translate one's thoughts/thinking. Babies simply fall in the category of proof of the answer to the question.
Has there ever been a BCI that successfully interpreted/translated the thoughts/thinking/desires/intentions of an adult who was born both "deaf & blind" and who still is both "deaf & blind"? If so, what did such interpretation/translation entail?
Since one can imagine a fiction scenario with sensory-related experiences, has a scientist ever distinguished/identified, via data obtained from a subject's "BCI & sensory data", between "the subject's" "memory of non-fiction & memory of fiction"?
Can "all potential BCI designs that can send a custom BCI-implant-produced brain signal (to the implantee's brain) that would cause the implantee's brain to send a "signal to the implantee's heart" that would cease the implantee's heart function" be prevented?
Via solely BCI (Brain-Computer Interface) connected to a person's brain, has any "non-fiction non-imaginary past event that was never known by people who were never part/aware of that past event at all" ever become known by any of those other people?
If, via BCI, a non-biological AI (temporarily) "controls via non-influence means" the brain activity of a human's "brain that the BCI is connected to", would the "controlling & ""what the human does" due to the "controlling""" be unnatural phenomena?
By law, is any other (including ai) legally able to access a "brain-computer interface (BCI) that is part of an implant in the skull of a human" without the consent of that "human that the aforementioned BCI implant is in the skull of"?
Via your imagination, the "mental imagery" and/or "mental voice" that you detect is a product of "what your neural/neuronal networks do". Do you think that "said product" is physical? If so, why and how? If not, why and how?
Can one's mind be affected by brain damage?
Is "one's mind/brain" capable of "audible speech"?
I've never come across research "stating/implying that, "with a "person's mind" being the "source of the sound", "that person's mind" can produce sound"". I've also never come across research "stating/implying that, "with a "person's brain" being the "source of the sounds", "that person's brain" expresses "articulate sounds""".
Are "sleep dreams" audible? Have you ever heard anything that was "in and from" "someone else's" "sleep dream"?
If a "still-alive guy" became ""full-body paralyzed", deaf & blind" at age 20, if that guy presently "simulataneously "imagines & originates"" "original mental "music & lyrics"", is his "being able to mentally do such" enabled by his will(power)?
Does any of any iPhone's cells have biomolecules? Does any "electrical cell, electrochemical cell, solar cell, and electrolytic cell" have biomolecules? If not, doesn't that mean that all current iPhones are confirmed as non-biological?
All current iPhones do not contain any biomolecules. All "electrical cells, electrochemical cells, solar cells, and electrolytic cells" do not contain any biomolecules. "Biological" refers to anything related to, derived from, or occurring in living things. Any iPhone's "complete absence of biomolecules" means that "that iPhone" cannot be considered biological.
If you could create a word that has the definition "can occur in "circumstances that are both "currently void of all "entities that are "capable of thought""" and "currently void of "everything that was made by "those entities""""", what word would you come up with?
If you could create a word that has the definition "can occur in "circumstances that are "currently void of all "non-biological technology"""", what word would you come up with?
Is there "an example whereby", according to science, "something that is "currently incapable of thought"" is "currently conscious"? According to science, is "thinking" a "requirement to achieve consciousness""?
If there wasn't/isn't an "intelligent something/someone" to bring a "non-biological robot" into fruition by "use of available resources", would a "non-biological robot" (have) ever start(ed) existing?
Does an AI robot/individual cease to exist if no digital copy of it exists & "its "physical parts that ""have digitally stored in them" what makes that AI individual "that AI individual""" are irreversibly too destroyed/damaged/"damaged & deformed""?
Yea, that AI robot/individual would cease to exist if no digital copy of it exists & "its "physical parts mentioned in the question" are irreversibly too destroyed/damaged/"damaged & deformed"", such as if "too hot molten lava" gets on those "physical parts mentioned in the question". And/Or such as if "someone or something" "damages and deforms" those "physical parts mentioned in the question" by hammering metal nails throughout them, which would leave them damaged and deformed but, depending on "the extent that the "damage and deformations" are", such might not be guaranteed to cause enough harm to that AI's calculation functionalities.
Does science "currently have" "any examples" of a "phenomenon that happens "unpredictably randomly" ""in a way whereby" ""how that phenomenon happens/occurs/"does what it does"" "currently isn't/"hasn't been" able to" "be explained" by science"""?
The "phenomenon known as "Ball Lightning"" is a "rare and unexplained" phenomenon.
Regarding Pi (3.14), is there a pattern to the numbers that follow the decimal point or do the numbers continue infinitely? If the latter, does that mean that if Pi is involved, human's/tech's calculations can't ever be "perfect &/or 100% accurate"?
Can "quantum entangled particles" "interact with something/anything" without ""losing their "quantum entanglement"" "due to ""having an interaction" with "something else""""?
In Quantum Physics, does true unpredictable randomness exist at the quantum level? If so, does that render knowing the future impossible even if we gained an identical-to-reality computer simulation that revealed all info of "cause & effect" to now?
If an already existing biological "neural network of living brain cells" is artificially implemented into a physical body, the result functions as 1 unit, it's taught & it learns, is its intelligence artificial? If, instead, the same scenario except that humans 3D-Printed those living cells, is the aforementioned result's intelligence artificial?
What is the unsurpassable finite maximum extent data storage capacity of the non-biological "current computer that "humans from Earth" built" that currently has the most storage capacity?
What is the tiniest finite maximum extent data storage capacity that can enable a non-biological "computer that "humans from Earth" can currently build" to perform a function properly?
Is the Universe able to have "an infinite amount occupation space" since it seems to never-endingly expand? If so, what's "the Universe's tiniest surpassable finite amount of occupation space" out of "that infinite amount of occupation space"?
Is the Universe able to have an unsurpassable finite maximum extent amount of occupation space? If so, what's "the Universe's tiniest surpassable finite amount of that space" out of "that unsurpassable finite maximum extent amount of space"?
If robots ever roam the Earth alongside life, "due to ""robots overwriting their own select memories" due to those robots reaching maximum memory storage capacity", can "physically small digital-data-storage-drives that those robots moved their select memories to" end up common-found"?
Regarding every AI that has been programmed/coded on a computer (device), all of AI's memories exist only in the form of digital computer data and all of that data can be "observed by humans as well as deciphered by humans" via various means, correct?
Regarding every AI that has been programmed/coded on a computer (device), all of AI's memories exist only in the form of digital computer data. "The only means that I know of that humans can use to observe/decipher such data" is via a computer (device), it can even be via a computer (device) other than the computer (device) that the AI has been programmed/coded on/to/onto. If I had to guess, AI are programmed/coded to store the data it "obtains via microphone, camera, and etc" in(to) only the way(s)/form(s) that the AI is/was programmed/coded to store such data. It can then process/interpret that data, "use means of analysis, use means of pattern recognition, and use means of prediction" regarding (things/data that is/are relevant to) that data. I don't think that humans would program/code AI to store "the data it obtains via microphone, camera, and etc" into a form that humans can't use something to "observe and decipher" that data.
Does machine learning always use neural networks?
No.
For AI to know/"use info regarding" anything, humans built/implemented means for AI to access/utilize structured data datasets that are implemented as AI's source/basis (from which AI can learn what's what) of info/etc that describes reality/facts/concepts/fiction. Can such datasets have inaccurate info?
Statistics are a huge part of such datasets, but info other than statistics are part of such datasets and any human "can (since such datasets were first constructed, implemented, and/or utilized up to now and ongoingly) "intentionally or unintentionally" add inaccurate information" to such datasets. It is possible for such datasets to have inaccurate information.
Can an AI lie?
AI is able to mis-inform/dis-inform.
Are we living "inside a digital matrix"? What is the connection between quantum physics and the idea that we may be living in a computer simulation?
It depends on what you mean by the word "computer". If you mean an electronic computer device such as people's average Desktop Computer, even those can run a simulation but not as advanced, fast, nor as "similar to the non-fiction universe that we breathe air in" as we hope to be able to get said simulation to be in the future. Said simulation is digital when it comes to those kind of computers/"computer devices". Making said simulation "as "similar to the non-fiction universe that we breathe air in" as we hope to be able to get said simulation to be in the future" is where we would try to apply our knowledge of Quantum Physics. What we call "digital", according to "our own understanding" of our "current Reality", is "something that our consciousness" cannot be "converted into becoming". There is no way to transfer "anything digital" to a "different separate physical thing", but a copy can be made to the "different separate physical thing" and "the original" can't be "fully erased/destroyed" unless "the "physical thing" that "the original" is on" is ""physically destroyed" to the "required extent"" or "has its "data "in "binary digital form's" "1's and 0's""" overwritten". So "unless someone can "change into being digital"" somehow, I don't think anyone will "ever be capable" of "Matrix powers" unless "the person is "controlling the "version of himself/herself/etc" in a "virtual environment"" via ""technology that is physical", "outside of the "virtual environment" and connected to the "person's brain/etc"""". Then "the person is capable" of "what the technology "enables the person to do" in the "virtual environment"". But "outside of the "virtual environment"", when it comes to "the actual "non-virtual reality" that we live in", people can "only do" "what is possible within the confines of "what is "naturally possible""".
Claiming that "your "latest "human birth"" is "before the "human birth"" of the "human who birthed you"" is, in fact, a "baseless claim" that is ""illogical" and "can "neither be a hypothesis nor a theory""".
"Proving that a "baseless claim" can "neither be a hypothesis nor a theory"" and that a "baseless claim" can be illogical" proves that ""proof" (even if only by expressing logic) and/or "what is evident"" is an inescapable "requirement for logic/science".
This is the "only way" that "people's pretenses" are obvious.
Is ""someone who ""never got/gets any amnesia-related lost memories back" due to amnesia"" changing their sexual orientation even though they were always one particular sexual orientation before their amnesia" possible?
"Not being able to know if someone was "faking their sexual orientation prior to their amnesia"" results in at least two possibilities, the two possibilities being 1. that they were faking it or they were not, and 2. they were already secretly ""attracted to" before amnesia" what they changed to themselves openly being ""attracted to" after amnesia" or they actually never were ""attracted to" before amnesia" what they're ""attracted to" after amnesia".
Besides in a paradox, a fact is "not able to conflict" with any "other fact". If you disagree, why do you disagree?
The question is referring to a "paradox such as": If an "unstoppable force" uses "all of its force" to try to ""force through" or move" an "immovable object", "which one ("unstoppable force" or immovable object")" "remains fact" after "that meeting"?
Regarding "daylight and night time", People might "think it is a fact" that the sun is above us. But "it is a fact" that space knows no "above or beneath". The reason why we "think of the sun as "above"" is that "we, from the "surface of the planet", "look up" to see the sun". "That the sun is above" "seems like a fact" "only from our "collective perspective"". "It is not truly a fact" since "the sun exists in "space, where there is "no above""". So, technically, "only one" is "actually fact", but there is "logic regarding the "info provided" as to "why one would think "the other" is a fact"".
Would "quantum physics" still be a "structure and behaviour" of the ""physical and natural" world" if "mind, imagination, and consciousness" didn't exist?
Yes. Note: stars use "quantum tunneling" to burn. "Stars formed before life could possibly have a chance to emerge", "which shows "how, for quantum physics", "minds, consciousness, etc. are "not required""".
For how long right after the "Big Bang" (if the "Big Bang" is something that actually happened) did "life "not exist" in the solar system" until the "right conditions" were met for ""life to form" which resulted in "life forming""?
Logic relies on the premises. "The premises" = "What is evident/provided"
"All that is evident" is something that one can "make deductions/observations about". "knowledge can be derived" by one from "any and/or all" of ""said "one's"" deductions/observations" unless "such knowledge" was already derived by "said one" from "such deductions/observations", then no "new knowledge" gets obtained unless "(parts of) such knowledge" was forgotten/"eliminated from ""said "one's"" memory" (e.g. amnesia/"alzheimer's disease"/"brain damage"/"physical detachment of a "particular part of ""said "one's"" brain" from any part of/within ""said "one's"" body" without that "particular part of ""said "one's"" brain" "ever being/"having been" "re-attached" to "said one" in a way that added/adds "such knowledge" back to/into ""said "one's"" current memory"). "Such deductions/observations" are possible due to "what is evident". Both ""what is evident" and "deductions/observations"" are "sources of knowledge" since you can't "have knowledge" without ""your being able to deduce/observe" and "you aren't "able to deduce/observe" if there isn't "anything evident" that exists"".
"Your latest "human birth" is before the "human birth" of the "human who birthed you"" is an example of an "impossibility in "Natural Sciences"". "That example" is also an "example of "something that is impossible to ""mentally picture" whereby "the "progression of time" is progressing towards "what we call" The Future" in the "scenario pictured" when you try to "picture that example" while ""you don't picture "anyone/anything doing any "mental picturing""" in the "pictured scenario" that ""you try to picture "that example"" with""""".
We can imagine/"mentally picture" "energy transition from ""that energy" existing" to ""that energy" no longer existing"". ""Humans can imagine "an impossibility"" since "energy cannot non-imaginarily "stop existing"" but energy can ""change form" since the energy can ""transition into" a "different kind of energy"""".
One "visible form of energy" is "waves of "electromagnetic energy"", which can be "visible or invisible".
To me, all "other conscious existences that I've observed/"interacted with"" are not part of oneself nor are they "found/discovered via delving within oneself". Do you believe that "whom/that which you've observed/"interacted with"" aren't external?
Depends how/what one defines the word self/oneself. I wrote the question with the word self/oneself to be interpreted as meaning "the part of onself that analyzes". If one defines/interprets the word self/oneself as including one's physical body in the definition/meaning/interpretation of the word self/oneself, then "other conscious existences that one has/had observed/"interacted with" are found both within (one's physical body, e.g. parasites), internal/inner (inside one's physical body, e.g. parasites), and external (outside of one's body and can be as far as one's eyesight allows such to be seen via one's eyesight, e.g. a flying hawk).
Are humans the only existences that fall in the category of "a person"? If an AI ever achieves consciousness, would that AI fall in the category of "a person", but not a human? Regarding believers in God, is God a person, but currently not a human?
Thus far, only humans. As for an AI, if that AI is recognized by law as a subject of rights and duties. As for God, when Jesus was in the flesh, Jesus was a person and simultaneously Jesus was also "God The Son", and Jesus still is "God The Son" ongoingly.
I believe in coincidence & true randomness, which conflict(s) with some others' beliefs. There are others' belief in determinism. There are beliefs in our "universe or reality" being "conscious or an intelligent design". Which do you believe?
An example of coincidence that I can think of is: A mother and "that mother's female friend" are having a conversation in the living room. "The mother's friend" talks about a question that both "the mother and "the mother's friend"" can't figure out the answer to. Just as the question is being talked about, the mother's "son who is not a friend of "the aforementioned mother's friend"" walks into the living room while already in conversation with his "friend who's also walking into the living room" who is both not a friend of ""the aforementioned mother" and not a friend of "that mother's friend"". Although "the son's" conversation is on a completely different topic than "the conversation that his mother was having with her friend", "part of what "the son" says to his friend in the "conversation that "the son" was/is having with his friend"" ""exactly answers" the question "that "the mother's friend" was/is ""talking about" to "the son's" mom""", ""even though the aforementioned "conversations and unintentional answering" occured even though ""the son" and his friend" were never on any ""topic that "the mother's friend" was on via" the question that "the mother's friend" was talking about with "the son's" mom" with "the mother's friend". Also the aforementioned "conversations and unintentional answering" occured without ""the son" and his friend" ""having any knowledge about what "the mother and her friend" were "talking about"", and also the aforementioned "conversations and unintentional answering" occured even though ""the son" and his friend" "never interacted with "the mother's friend", and also the aforementioned "conversations and unintentional answering" occured without ""the son" and his friend" "talking to "the mother and her friend"", however ""the son" and his friend" are/were only talking to each other since earlier that day to ongoingly". "The mother and her friend" immediately mention the question-answer occurence to ""the son" and his friend" and "everyone there" unitedly deemed "that occurence" an interesting coincidence.
I believe that karma does happen but not every time that karma is able to happen. I believe that karma can happen but karma is not guaranteed to happen. An example of luck: ""What you're born as (appearance-wise/etc-wise)" & "the circumstances you're born into"" resulted from the "decisions of others/"your parents"/etc." . Since you never had "a choice/"say so" on "those things"", "those things" are your world-entrance-luck. I also believe that while one is alive in this Universe, one is not guarenteed to benefit from one's efforts, and one is not guarenteed to not benefit from something even if one doesn't earn/deserve such. I believe that there is also the factor of coincidence. I also believe that there is the factor of true randomness (such as quantum randomness).
Do "imaginary things" interact with some part of the "non-mental part of reality"?
""Unless such interaction(s) is/are via" """solely obeservation(s)" that is/are via" """Fiction's & imaginary's" affecting you" via" ""your observing "Fiction & imaginary"" &/or "any/every existence's interaction(s) that is/are/were influenced by any existence's observation(s) of "Fiction & imaginary"""", No.
""Imaginary things" that people imagine" can be understood by ""those "people's"" minds"" but "those "imaginary things"" cannot be sensed as "external stimulus". ""Deafblind people" who are "full body paralyzed"" are an example of "people who can't communicate with other people". "Their "minds & imagination"" are internal. The mind is "used for "imagination" to be understood" (or all imagination is completely mental) and people have to "use their "physical bodies"" to express "what they "used "their minds"" to understand". "Things that are mental" can't be sensed as "external stimuli". Both "imaginary and mental" are non-material. "External reality" lets people sense "external stimuli".
"Fiction & imaginary" are part of reality & "can be observed to an extent", but "can ""Fiction's & imaginary's" affecting you" ever not be via" ""your observing "the aforementioned "Fiction & imaginary""" &/or "any/every existence's interaction(s) that is/are/were influenced by any existence's observation(s) of "the aforementioned "Fiction & imaginary""""?
"""Fiction's & imaginary's" affecting someone" is only able to be via" that.
It's like, for example, if an image is disturbing, one can't find the image disturbing if one doesn't ever observe the image. The image does not affect that person if that person never observed the image. But this applies in the cases mentioned in my question regarding "fiction and imaginary". Can Imaginary physically reach out and touch you? Can fiction physically reach out and touch you? Can you reach out and physically touch "something that is Imaginary"? Can you reach out and physically touch fiction? If a meteor enters Earth's atmosphere moving at incredible speed towards Earth's surface/ground, and severs a guy's arm right before crashing into Earth's surface/ground, did the meteor touch him?
I see it as perception being "the observer observing" and reality being ""the observee" and/or ""what" is capable of being observed"".
Definition of imagination: the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful. Doesn't this mean that imagining is a mental activity?
Yes.
Does each human brain think on a different frequency?
Our individual measurable (by EEG) brain "frequencies" fall within (a) range/ranges, and is dynamic. It's not a fixed frequency.
There has never been a living existence's mental/mind that has ever, via solely mental/mind, (been able to have) "interacted with" and/or affected another living existence's mental/mind. Has there ever been any still-evident proof that is contrary?
Radio "frequencies and waves" can be manipulated. Can a human brain's "frequency/frequencies and/or wave/waves" be manipulated (not by verbal/observational influence) by "something outside of that human's body"/"someone else"?
Based on the research I've done to try to find the answer to this particular question, I've "tried but failed" to find any ""verifiable information" and official legitimate source(s) that disclose(s) valid verifiable established science" that would establish validity as to whether such manipulation ever has been achieved.
Regarding any 1 to 10 minutes of real life, to what extent can information (a message, a sentence, a word, an image, multiple images, and/or moving imagery) naturally be "transmitted from brain to brain" via natural brain-related magnetic field(s)?
Based on the research I've done to try to find the answer to this particular question, I've "tried but failed" to find any ""verifiable information" and official legitimate source(s) that disclose(s) valid verifiable established science" (that would establish validity) as to exactly how much information (a message, a sentence, a word, an image, multiple images, and/or moving imagery) has been, if ever, successfully communicated from ""brain to brain" via (utilizing) natural brain-related magnetic field(s)".
Have you ever detected anything "mental that wasn't produced by your own non-mental brain"? If yes (if possible), how could(/did) you get someone else to confirm that you detected something "mental that wasn't produced by your own non-mental brain"?
Since there is such a thing as "feral children who grew up "isolated from human contact before they learned any words, resulting in their never learning any words yet"", does that mean that words aren't necessary for a human to be able to think?
I believe that "thinking, before having ever even attempted to imitate a word", is required in order to even learn any words at all. I believe that the "after having observed a word, learning any word requires "thinking" that involves ""recalling "as accurate as "what suffices" to successfully imitate the "sounds, pronunciations, and/or words""", "first mentally which is the "no more than thinking" part, then ""imitate the "sounds, pronunciations, and/or words" via" one's own vocal cords"".
Can "moving directionally towards "up, down, left, and right"" exist without there being at least one existence that has ""a shape" and/or magnetism"?
What enables us to choose/"make choice & decide upon" in order to choose "whatever we choose to think about" whenever/"how ever" we choose to think about said "whatever we choose to think about"? Is it even something physical or is it the brain?
Regarding the topic of "free will"/"one's will"/willpower, what enables us to "use our ""free will" that we ""use in order to "choose whatever we choose to think about""" "whenever"/"how ever" we "choose to think about "said "whatever"" we choose to think about"""? Is "whatever enables such" even something physical? Is "whatever enables such" enabled by a person's brain?
Is completely unpredictable randomness, like "randomness where you don't even know "what to compare the odds of "it" happening to" because you don't even know what "it" is", an impossibility? Is unintentional pretending/dishonesty an impossibility?
One "understanding of what entropy means" is: ""entropy is completely unpredictable randomness. Like randomness where you don't even know "what to compare the odds of "it" happening to" because you don't even know what "it" is"." "The Future is unpredictable "due to Alzheimer's disease, Amnesia, dementia, mutations, etc."" .
In Quantum Physics, does true unpredictable randomness exist at the quantum level? If so, does that render knowing the future impossible even if we gained an identical-to-reality computer simulation that revealed all info of "cause & effect" to now?
Regarding Quantum Physics, the result of "flipping" a tiny quantum particle only exists as probabilities until the moment it "lands". Electrons, photons, and atoms are "really and actually" random.
Is ""progression of time" resulting in moments &/or motion" required for The Present to exist, otherwise "how could time be differentiated/categorized as Past, Present, & Future"? Don't present happenings add to The Past upon their having happened?
I'm not an eternalist. "In eternalism, all of "Past, Present, and Future" exist simultaneously. But if that is believed, wouldn't that render "all happenings that ever happen/happened, including what happenings end up occuring in the future," as already having happened, which means that all of Time is only The Past since everything has already happened and "new/different possibilities that aren't what all of time's predetermined events are" aren't even a possibility?"
I have never studied pathology. Until recently, I had never even attempted to find out what the word "pathology" meant. I was surprised to learn that "pathology" means something completely different than what I initially was guessing pathology meant. My guess was quite different from what the word "pathology" meant...
Because in English, the word "pathology" has the word "path" in it. I mistook Path+Logy for a discipline that studies paths. The word "pathology" is made up of the Greek words ""pathos" (suffering or disease)" and ""logos" (theory or study)".
I used to think "pathology" meant "the study of ""(hypothetical or non-hypothetical) paths (course of action/conduct) resulting from choices/decisions" & the psychology behind making those choices/decisions"". Like about "paths that one has/had "chosen via one's choices/decisions made"" and what/where those paths "result in"/"lead to". If those paths "result in"/"lead to" one living a life of success, or "result in"/"lead to" one living a criminal life, or "result in"/"lead to" one living whatever other kind of etc/life-outcome. Would "what I thought "pathology" meant" be an impactfully beneficial study? Such a study would probably help hone "anticipation and prediction" skills.
[Start of section regarding my "religious views"...
The Bible is based on the accounts of "a massive "amount of people" (there was "no other way" to keep "accurate records" at "that time")" from the "times of its first creation/completion". "Each "individual's account's "explanation of how that individual had come to "conclude and believe" "what that individual explained""" that was added to the Bible" is a basis that a Bible reader can try to analyze to determine if there is ""sound logic" and/or "verifiable things"" that the explanation entails. Not baseless.
Is being "biologically alive/living" the only way/form/thing that is/"can be considered" alive/living? Can a "metaphysical-form existence without any alternative form" be (considered) alive/living?
Without a "person's spirit/soul" using "that "person's"" "physical brain"" to interact with "physical reality", "that "person's"" spirit/soul" can't interact with "physical reality". Does "your spirit/soul" not have to be conscious, when you're dead, in order to ""speak to God" and "understand what God says to you""? I believe that "soul and spirit" are either ""the same thing" or are "codependent of each other""". And that "in order for a soul to be a soul", a soul has to ""be able to have memories" and "be able to be conscious"".
The Bible's Matthew 12:37 & Psalm 51:4 show logic/concept of "justified" existing even during Biblical times. Do those verses imply that, to be worthy, "one's words must justify one's "actions" &/or "way one lived," thereby determining if one is worthy?
"If God was to change something" in The Present, "wouldn't He "automatically know" "The Future that follows "the ""changes he makes" to The Present""""?
What if God "intervenes in "human affairs"" "in a way whereby" his "word and prophecies" will still "come to pass" even with any ""changes He makes" to The Present"?
This is also in a "Bible version": If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jeremiah 18:7–10) NIV
I consider myself not "full religious" since I have faith that "God exists" but I also take into consideration that, to me, there's a ""possibility that God may not exist" "due to since, so far, in my lifetime, I have no way to confirm such"". Your thoughts?
Just a guess, I'm not sure why "evil doings" are possible and I don't know ""God's psychology" regarding "evil doings"", but I do know that "God is against ""evil doings" ever "being done by humans""". My guess is "maybe God wants ""earning things" on a "particular level" to be possible"". If one earns for "something that "said one" doesn't desire to undergo/"have done unto said one"" to happen, then that's what probably "is going to happen" to "said one". I see it as "try to "earn "any and/or all" that is good"". Does God condone hate? Does God condone any racism, sexism, lookism, prejudice slur, LGBTQ+-based, disability-based, religious-based, and/or weight-based prejudices?
""Did "Jesus' dying on the cross" give humanity a "clean slate"" starting from "that moment"" & it's up to "each individual human" to keep "one's own slate" clean after that" or "can each human do ""whatever they want" forever "after that"" & be guaranteed paradise""?
According to the Bible, "does God "judge humanity as a whole" whereby "God's decision" fully applies to ""all of humanity as a whole" equally"" or "does God ""judge "each human"" individually" whereby ""God's decision" can be different" per different human person"?
I believe the "possibility of "God existing"" exists because the Bible is "based on the accounts of "a massive "amount of people" (there was "no other way" to keep "accurate records" at "that time") from the "times of the Bible's first creation/completion""". Not baseless. And the "possibility that "miracles may have happened"" is based on the accounts of "a massive amount of people" (there was "no other way" to keep "accurate records" at "that time") from "those times" when there was "no other way" to keep "accurate records" at that time. These are "reasons that I don't "rule out" the "possibility of "God existing""".
I believe that God refuses to "interfere with ""any "human's"" "free will""". If "this is true", why do you think "God "chooses to "refuse to "do that""""?
I'm a Christian and I'm a "big "believer in Science"". The way I see it, both of those things have "different "views about the "birth of humanity"" than each other" but I believe in ""what science has "provided explanation for"" regarding "things such as", for example, biology, matter consisting of atoms, etc." . I believe ""a lot more" regarding science" but it's ""way too big" a list" for me to list. I believe ""almost all" of the Bible". "I don't take "everything in the Bible" literally" but "some of it" I do take literally. In the Bible, there are "things I find logical & things I find illogical". I hold an "always-existed-highest-level-individual Creator & His Judgement" as a logical possibility. In science, energy is an always-existed existence.
If one is "prepared for any "if"" (such as "if "x" is the case, then "y" results, but "if "g" is the case, then "z" results""), "does that mean that "one is "full of doubts""" and/or "is that the same as "one who is "being full of doubts""?
Has God ever willed a person whereby ""that person's limbs' were not controlled via" that person's controlling their own body but "were controlled via" God""? Or were ""each person's limbs always controlled via" one's own controlling one's own body"?
I wonder if when the Biblical "Speaking in Tongues" happened, people's "mouths and what-not" were controlled by God to speak different languages, or if the "audio of the "speech that those people were speaking"" was "modified by God" to be in different languages in real time.
Per each of every "human, their doings, & their "decisions made"", does God judge "each such" as either "winning/winner, or losing/loser, or benevolent (good), or non-benevolent (indifferent, evil, or "neutral if neutral is possible in this case")"?
Jeremiah 17:10 : I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.
Are there people who think that God would want non-stop "no privacy" for all? Did God make "Adam & Eve" "mind readers"? Didn't God try to keep "Adam & Eve" from knowing what "eating the forbidden fruit" revealed? Isn't Matthew 6:6-7 not anti-privacy?
Here's a Bible verse that gets to the heart of what the question asks: "The things revealed belong to us and to our children forever that we may follow all the words of this law." ( 29:29) God has kept some things secret. They belong to him. But there are also things that God has revealed and they belong to us.
Regarding God informed Adam of that tree, the Bible only says God informed Adam that death would result from eating its fruit. Does the Bible ever "say, imply, or suggest" "God informed Adam whereby Adam was evil genre knowledgable" pre-disobedience?
Are there any Bible verses that suggest that people will know all that God knows?
No.
Regarding Luke 12:2-3, "I read that it means there's nothing in our lives that is hidden from God", but does that verse "say, imply, or suggest" there's nothing in our lives that will "remain ""hidden or secret from people" or "unknown to people"""?
There is plenty of privacy to different extents between almost everything and everyone. We all have various ways of privacy from each other, but no thing and no one has privacy from God. and I'm okay with that because God is Benevolent, all-knowing, and He knows/understands each one's true intentions, desires, and their aims in what they do.
Like the existence of supernatural/magic domains in the Anime titled "Jujutsu Kaisen", is hell (from religion) like a domain ("maybe created by God, maybe not"/"that God teleports the wicked to as a result of their being judged by God") that is supernaturally/magically "separate & not in this Universe"?
Regarding "humans who "die but don't end up in hell"", does secrecy, in the ""same "way that it was possible"" while they were alive", "stay possible" even in "their "after-death after "their being "judged by God "after "their death""""""? Is unwelcome "privacy breach" ok?
Depending on "what the "accurate answer" to "this question" is", one could be "keeping a secret" about ""what ""said "one's"" relative" did" that made "said relative" not "end up in heaven"". "Said one" can be telling "whoever asks unwelcome ""nosy questions" about ""said "one's"" "relatives"" that didn't "end up in heaven""" that "it's "none of their business"".
Regarding if one ends up joining God in Heaven, do you believe that such means that one will join being in Heaven which is in God's company like one joins Joe on Joe's journey, or do you believe that such means that one will merge with God in Heaven?
To you, does joining God mean to join in being in God's company, or does joining God mean to merge with God?
Join as in (analogy example) join Joe on Joe's journey? Or join as in merge?
I believe that such means that one will join being in Heaven which is in God's company, like (analogy example) one joins Joe on Joe's journey. God is the Holy Trinity. That Trinity does not get added to, or else it wouldn't be a Trinity anymore.
Someone wrote "this comment" on "one of my posts": ""When Heaven is brought to earth", and "those in Heaven" are "resurrected on earth", there is no "reason to "believe it'll be "business as usual" with "Time, physics, etc."""" .
2 Corinthians 6:16 :
What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.
In order to walk, there must be a progression of time.
Regarding Christianity, can we commit sins and still be forgiven by God?
Yes. At the same time, we should note that a believer will not pursue a lifestyle of habitual and/or continual sin (1 John 3:8-9).
... end of section regarding my "religious views"]
Do you think that there is any "existence "outside of time""?
The way I see it, one possibility is: can't "know The Future" since The Future "doesn't yet exist". ""The Future "doesn't and never has" existed but it will" since "The Future is "The Present to be"/"The Present that "will exist"""".
Also, the "existence of motion" cannot exist "without the "existence of time"", or the "existence of motion" is proof that "something is "going in a particular direction" in time". For us, ""that direction" in time" is "from the present" "towards "what we call the future"". For us, we "progress in time" "from the present" "towards "what we call the future"". "The measurement of change" is usually relied on in order to measure time.
Without progress (measurement of change) nothing happens and time cannot be a thing under those circumstances. The fact that we can mentally count shows that we have a means of measuring change, in this case, said change being different things (the changing thinking) that we mentally perform. Time is a concept but so is an inch. The inch concept is one's description whereby said one is referring to distance from one existing thing to another existing thing. The time concept is one's description whereby said one is referring to the changes that one can observe due to the present never staying still/paused. The time concept is one's description whereby said one is referring to to the many different states (that one has knowledge) of the present being and/or changing from/to. Those states can be referred to because they were witnessed as existing as the present at least once.
Does "the past" still exist?
""The Past" and "The Future"" directly result from The Present. ""What happens in The Present" results in The Past"" and ""what happens in The Present" results in the "what can happen in The Future"" since "if you eat "one of the two apples" in The Present", that results in a future whereby you'll never "be able to eat "that same exact apple" again"". Your ""eating that apple" in The Present" resulted in "elimination of the "possibility of "that apple" ever being "eaten by anyone (including other than yourself) in The Future""".
The Past doesn't "exist now" since The Past was "The Present during/at a previous point in time" but, right now, "The Past isn't The Present anymore" but ""records of The Past can exist" and "memories of The Past can exist"".
""The Past was a part of reality" during/at a previuos point in time" but, presently, "The Past is not a part of reality" but ""records and memories" of The Past" are presently a part of reality.
A timeline is only able to have only one past. Physically, "If one ""hit a target's bullseye" & etc" during a moment of The Past, "one's "past accomplishments" can't be ""more nor less" than that" regarding "that moment of one's past""". Correct?
Correct. Regarding the scenario in the question, physically, one's "past accomplishments" are not able to be """more nor less" than ""one hit a target's bullseye" and etc" regarding "that moment of one's past"".
I truly believe in randomness, but not when it comes to things already past and done. "The Past can't be random" due to what happened in the past is not able to change, however, there was randomness during when "The Past" was "The Present" back then, but "The Past" is never affected by "any randomness, any existence, nor any part of "reality of "The Present""" anytime after "that "former "The Present" became part of "The Past". The past doesn't change in accordance to anything, even when it comes to observation, measurements, etc.. One can't interact with anything of The Past because The Past was "The Present, but which no longer exists". What happened during that former "The Present" is already finalized and can't be undone nor changed. That makes refering to The Past reliable and practical. Plus, all that we ""have observed" and "were able to "deduce and/or conclude" regarding the "science that we've been able to add information to" regarding"" is due to The Past evidently adding up to "how The Present became The Present". There are multiple paths from past to present., but only one path achieved "having been taken course" when it came to those multiple paths. Thus, how The Present was/is achieved. For example, if one breaks a clay pot, one is never able to undo the fact that the aforementioned clay pot broke. "The aforementioned clay pot having broken at least once" "neverendingly "without ever being able to be changed" stays fact" from "the moment the aforementioned clay pot broke" onward.
Is the future an absolute unknown? Collectively &/or per individual, "humans and/or AI" aren't God(s), so other than God, "is the future ever able to be in absolute accordance with "1 or more than 1" "living &/or non-living" existence's preferences"?
Thus far, there doesn't seem to be any method to "know the future with a 100% guarantee that ""what" we convey will happen" will happen". Regarding knowing the future, thus far, we can only ""guess our best guess(es)" based on probability".
Is consciousness something abstract, or is consciousness an existence that is either physical or non-physical? Is consciousness something spiritual or is consciousness something non-spiritual?
"Truth entirely-globally-conventionally is/means "the true or actual state of a matter"" with the only exception in the Bible that states that Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life.". Is there any other currently alive exception-person?
Excluding names, the only two trinities that I think I know of are "the trinity "time" that is "Past, Present, & Future"" & "the "Holy Trinity" that is "God The Father, God The Son, & The Holy Spirit"", but are there any other trinities that you know of?
Can "the phrase(s) "fate &/or what will be the outcome"" be based on regarding "both ""circumstances" & a "particular part of "the "time frame" "all time"""" or is(/are) "the aforementioned phrase(s)" always regarding "the "time frame" "all time""?
Those phrases don't have to be regarding "the "time frame" "all time"". People often use those phrases to convey that, to those people, they observed that "a fate had begun at a particular moment and that, to them, that particular fate is only able to have one guaranteed outcome". For example, if a person is dropped from "an in-the-air helicopter" for that person to fall ""through the middle of a volcano's opening" and into the lava inside of the volcano", to some people, that person's fate began at the moment that the person fell passed the middle of the volcano's opening, and those people might say something like "his fate is sealed" once "the aforementioned moment" occurs, and those people had no ""beforehand awareness" "that "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" existed" or "of what "was going to happen to "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" during all "time frames" of the day that "the aforementioned "person who was dropped into the volcano"" was dropped into the volcano""".
Minus trust cases, do you hold """choice portions" or, depending on which "whole amount", all of a "whole amount"", of "acquired info" as (a) possibility/possibilities/belief(s)" only if such correlates (explanation-wise) with your deductions/observations/analysis?
Has a "contributor to/of science" ever been able to acquire/retrieve/identify an "other person's memory" from ""said "other person's"" brain" that "said "other person"" never imagined/"thought about" during any time that "said contributor" knew/knows that "said "other person"" existed/exists?
Can Ego be a good thing?
Ego is closely related to, if not encompasses, confidence, vanity, pride, and envy. One or more of those things can be bad and/or are definitely bad. Confidence is not bad if it's for non-malevolent non-self-righteous reasons. Pride is not bad if you have pride for good things/reasons. An example of bad Pride is "trying to rub in what one considers one's superiority". One being conceited/arrogant/"stuck up" has to do with Vanity and Pride. Envy is sometimes do to one's superiority complex and said one wanting to take/remove what/status someone else owns/has if said one considers what/status said one owns/has being the lesser option compared to what/status someone else owns/has. Sometimes Jealousy/Envy simply leads to one trying to outdo, but for reasons that aren't honorable, someone else who has/achieved a better thing than said one. One's being Confident often gets confused, by others, for said one being conceited/cocky, but Confidence has to do with said one's Pride and what keeps said one determined/dedicated/commited towards something. Confidence is not a bad thing, but the reasons for one being confident can be, such as anticipating winning because said one is cheating. Have a big Ego for right/good reasons. Have a big Ego in a good way. Otherwise having a big ego can be a toxic thing.
Isn't everyone an analyst, even babies, because babies have to analyze sounds/actions to copy/match what others say/do?
What is the most "extreme "form of empathy"" ever proven?
Can a BCI be made to "both ""translate "brain activity"" & "convey (language-wise/image-wise) "that translation" to a human""" for "human interpretation" in a form that isn't computer-recorded? Would accuracy of "that info from "what was conveyed"" rely on human memory?
Are "unintentional thoughts" a natural occurrence? E.g. a song is playing earlier during the day, then later that day, you become aware of the fact that the song is ""playing in your mind" in the background of your thoughts" and you "just now" "caught on" to the occurrence.
If there is suddenly a way for "only you" to "know (unless you choose to inform others) the exact "day and time" that you will die", would you choose to know that information?
"Any implementation of "taking away any of a person's "mental privacy"" in a way whereby ""that person" has "no choice" on the matter"" is actually a pro-anti-freedom thing. How can it not be a pro-anti-freedom thing?
Can there be "illogical thinking" that can result in one "being and staying" in a "consistent and stable" "way of living"?
Quantum Physics:
What kind of observation is ""being referred to" as physical" when it comes to the "Observer Effect"?
Eyesight is the observation. Light is the "external source" that is "changing the observee". "Observation by a "Hadron Collider (a machine)"" affects the ""observee that is being observed" by means of that "Hadron Collider"". "Human observation" doesn't affect any observee. What "form of observation" do people affect each other with? "Reactions that are "due to one's ""free will" or "thought process"""" don't count. For example: how would "your observing a "deafblind "fully paralyzed" person" affect "that "deafblind "fully paralyzed" person""? From "what I understand": "Human observation" doesn't affect any observee.
People "like and want" the "ability for himself/herself to be "the only one" who "knows the combination/password to his/her lock/safe/account"". Is "thought/mental privacy" the only way for "this ability" to exist?
Yes.
Is ""knowing only "few parts" of "The Future (e.g. knowing ""who is going to get hit by a car tomorrow" &/or "the name of a future flying vehicle that's going to exist 300 years after now"")", if that's even possible", the same as "knowing the future"?
What are "examples of "something natural"" that gives the impression that "it isn't natural"?
What is the explanation for why "human laughter" is """physically expressed" in an "audible kind of hahaha way"" using vocal cords" but no one ""laughs in a ""mentally expressed" kind of hahaha way"" to themselves using "their "mental voice""", even when ""said one" is "physically tickled""?
If we ""end up in an afterlife" whereby/where we have "past-life memories/consciousness/self-awareness" but we only exist with no "physical body" in a place where there is ""nothing "else, physical & etc."", to interact with" & all we can do is ""mentally entertain" ourselves"", wouldn't "our thoughts" be "actions & reactions"?
Per person, "one's "own thoughts"" would be the only things for "said one" to react to, and since ""said one" initiates those thoughts", that makes "those initiation-thoughts" "actions that "can cause" reactions".
What is an example of "one's persistence in repeating trying to achieve ""said "one's"" desired results"" being a greater extent than ""said "one's"" being confident that said one can achieve those results"?
The requirements for a person to be ""True Perfect" or "True Flawless"" are more than only simply "everyone being "unable to ever find dirt on "that person""". One of "those requirements" is for "that person" to have ""never made a mistake" nor "make a mistake"". True or false?
All babies are born 100% innocent. There are people who think that such means that (all or numerous) babies are born flawless/perfect. My perspective regarding such is that 100% innocent does not equate to flawless/perfect. What are your thoughts?
Regarding my perspective in relation to the question, I believe that 100% innocent does not equate to flawless/perfect. For example: Due to innocence, a baby grabs a nearby butterfly and crushes it without the aforementioned baby ""being aware" and without the aforementioned baby "obtaining awareness"" of the fact that the aforementioned baby caused/did harm to another life and that the aforementioned baby even killed another life. I don't hold such actions against the aforementioned baby but I don't consider innocence to equate to flawless/perfect since "what happened in the example" is 100% due to innocence.
Isn't claiming that one is justified by means of "my house, my rules" the same as claiming an emperor is justified by means of "my kingdom, my rules" while said emperor has everyone in his kingdom tortured every thursday as 1 of his kingdom's rules?
Would a "1-word-lable/title (1 word such as the word "truth") whereby if ""a person is labeled such" and/or """that "person's"" title" is such"", it means "status whereby "anything & everything" said by "that person" is incontestable"" ever be "society-accepted & applicable""?