0003 : (SKIP TO CHAPTER 0005 INSTEAD) - Author's Notes - Part 3
Do you agree or disagree: "I'm only loyal to people who deserve my loyalty while those people are deserving of it."? If you agree, do you think one should keep from sharing this statement with others even if the statement is how one feels?
I agree. "Unloyalty to someone" and "no loyalty to someone" are two different things. No loyalty to someone doesn't mean you have to do any betrayal. I have no loyalties to complete strangers nor people I cut off from my life, I didn't betray them in any way and still don't have to. I don't expect anything from them and they shouldn't expect anything from me.
"Non-law-related loyalty" isn't always life-long. If, without any consent, your best friend takes credit for your "original work"" in a way whereby he never gets ""discovered by others" as having done so" & you don't forgive him, is he disloyal? Has he lost "all loyalty" from you?
Have you ever met a sharp-witted master of non-proper urban manners?
Are "the sleep-dreams that one has, what occurs in those dreams, what those dreams are about, the exact time/second that one wakes up from a sleep-dream, and whatever causes one to wake up from an "undisturbed sleep's" sleep-dream" an example of true entropy/randomness? Can people accurately anticipate "any and/or every" sleep-dream that anyone "will have in the future"?
"1 of society's norms" is "one's being familiar regarding "common sayings/expressions (e.g. the proof is in the pudding)"". What saying's/expression's meaning is different than "what "the words & their arrangement" add up to meaning" dictionary-wise?
This is one of the many sayings/expressions that the question asks for: left in the dark. This is one of the many ways that the saying/expression can be used: He was "left in the dark" about things that could become tribulations that he might end up undergoing.
Does "mental speech" count as "thought-speech"?
Definition of imagination: the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful. Doesn't this mean that imagining is a mental activity?
Yes.
What is known as "one's "inner voice"" is ""said one" using ""said "one's"" imagination" to create ""said "one's"" "inner voice (mental voice)"". The example about ""said "one's"" "inner voice"" is also an example of """said one" imagining a voice" and ""that voice" is known as ""said "one's"" "inner voice"""". "An example of a person's "inner voice"" is when you imagine a voice that "speaks "what you are reading"", "that voice" is known as your "inner voice".
Thought-Speech:
When you "think to yourself" in "speech form".
When you "speak to yourself" in "thought form".
Does sound have measurable mass and does human thought have measurable mass?
Was mathematics "invented or discovered"?
Discovered.
What is the relationship between ""reality" and "the "mental world"""?
The "mental world"" is in your head/mind. It's the ""mental stuff" that "you make happen" in your head/mind" such as imaginings. Per person, one has ""said "one's"" own "mental stuff"" that ""said one" is making happen" in ""said "one's"" own head/mind". Reality consists of the ""physical world" which contains ""living existences" who/that have "mental stuff" that they make happen within themselves". Regarding humans, I assume that humans' "mental stuff" happens in their heads since "the location of what I imagine (imagery and mental voice) is something I only detect as coming from my head". All "mental things" are produced by the mind. But regarding "other "living existences"", I assume that their "mental stuff" happens wherever their brains are. "Knowledge about "others' thoughts", knowledge about "others' "mental speaking"", and knowledge about "anything imagined by others"" can be obtained from/by "detecting and/or interpreting" anything that is in "non-thought/non-mental form" such as "sound, vocal cords, sign language, writing, etc." . There are those who believe that there are "psychic and/or supernatural" ways to obtain "knowledge about "others' thoughts", knowledge about "others' "mental speaking"", and knowledge about "anything imagined by others"" but I've never experienced being able to "psychically/supernaturally do such" and I've never experienced meeting someone who performed being able to "psychically/supernaturally do such".
"Being able to have secrets" is ""a "practical norm" and "a "part of the "way of life"""". Each country has its own secrets. For example, nuke codes. What are your thoughts?
Technology never did enable "supernatural things" to happen and technology never can enable "supernatural things" to happen. Do you agree?
I agree.
Hypothetically, if "human 1" could "completely control/manipulate" the "entire "nervous system"" of "human 2", "could "human 1" stop ""human 2's" heart" via "that control/manipulation" of ""human 2's" "entire "nervous system""?
If, lets say our universe did begin from a Big Bang, can our universe become an initial singularity again, resulting in a new Big Bang with different results compared to our old one (Big Bang) such as if the universe expands from (since) that singularity state with the universe's contents in different locations?
Until ending up in singularity, "is everyone/everything automatically unique" "since ""more than one thing" aren't able to "simultaneously occupy the same space/location that each other occupies"" & "that automatically means that there is a "different perspective" for/from "every "different space/location""""?
If there's a "long "line of people"" and a person at "one end of the line" mumbles a message that gets "passed on "in "mumble form""" all the way to the other end of the line, what is more likely to happen, "the "non-lyrics version" of mondegreens", "Lexical ambiguity", or "both ""the "non-lyrics version" of mondegreens" and "Lexical ambiguity"""?
The "concept of "free will"" would have "existed, been described, been defined and put in dictionaries" even if religion never ended up existing. Do you agree? Do you think that it would ever come up in "science and/or philosophy" if Religion never existed?
"Can ""results accomplished by means of "luck that wasn't aimed for"" & "simultaneously accomplished by means of "luck whereby one wasn't relying on ""said "one's"" luck"" be better than "results accomplished by means of effort"" depending on "what gains were the results"?
"When you make "spoken words" be "mentally spoken" in your head/mind" but you're doing it to analyze "your friend's ""spoken words" that you heard from long ago"", does that make the ""mentally spoken" words" "your words", even if the "mental voice" is in a form that "seems like sound" but ""that "form"" that "seems like sound"" is a "non-sound mimicry" of the "sound, voice, and speech" of "that friend"?
If magic suddenly instantly completely destroys ""all electronics/computers" & "all of the recorded blueprints/instructions"", did "enough people" memorize/learn enough ""info that they often relied on tech to tell them" via an ""electronic device's" personal AI voice assistant"/etc" to quickly remake such?
Why not program/code AI to have a ""feature/function that blocks its expressions" so that it's not "able to express" all "words, sayings, and expressions" that are "listed in/on a "list that is part of "its programming/code that disables it from expressing such""""?
Are there ""any algorithms" for "comprehension implementations"" "in the works" whereby "those algorithms" are for the purpose of ""enabling "many new AI" to be able to figure out the "driving forces" behind ""many, almost all, or all" behaviors" that "those "many new AI"" observe from ""those "many new AI's"" observing "non-AI others"""?
Can AI detect "smells"?
Yes, by "artificial "neural networks"" that "closely mimic" the "olfactory circuits" that "animal brains" "use" to ""process" odors".
Hypothetically, if tech is used to make ""one" remotely undergo, via nervous-system-computer-interface, "sensations/etc that are "enabled by ""said "one's"" "nervous system"""" while "said one" is "being idle"", is "phantom touch/etc" the accurate way to describe "what "that tech" does"?
"I think so" "due to" "phantom limb syndrome" being "described with the word "phantom"".
If ""memories are the "parts of "neuronal/synapse connections" that are connected"" firing/discharging in particular orders", and, "out of all of the "various orders" that "neurons can fire/discharge in"", only "one order" is "the memory"", can the "accurate order" be confirmed?
By "learning from"/using "data produced by "AI that used sensors"", e.g. a "mini "AI "robot chipmunk""" that has/used "sensors that can simulate "sensations of pressure/temperature/etc."", can we "learn to "code those "sensations""" for "AI to "undergo in a simulation""?
Is the "form that a caterpillar transitions into" before "said caterpillar" turns into a butterfly" conscious? If so, is "how "said form" is conscious" different from "how ""said caterpillar", butterfly, and/or a different life species" is conscious"?
Can one put """"said "one's"" hand" through a hologram whereby all of the exact locations of all of the parts of ""said "hand's"" surface" are detected by ""said "hologram's"" tech's no-audio-based/no-image-based detection"" while all of the parts of "said hologram" above/below "said hand" still remain"?
If a group secretly installed/installs AI on all compatible TVs and computers that are sold worldwide, that AI spies when able, & that AI only ""reveals its existence" & verbally speaks" to whoever it chooses to, what if that AI secretly harasses?
If you have your neural network activity recorded from when you are a baby to age 25 & that data is used for an AI's artificial neural network activity to imitate your recorded neural network activity, will the AI experience your 25 years experience?
Is there an existing member of the United States who, while in the United States, is an exception regarding being required to be in accordance with the United States' law/legalities?
Existing members of the USA, while in the USA, are supposed to undergo USA's criminal justice system(s) when law enforcement catches said member breaking the Law. Is there an existing member of the USA who, while in the USA, is an exception?
Can/Will AI be able to change all of "the content/info/dates of any computer file (e.g. official legal records)" to be completely different than "what said file originated as having" & leave the computer "file type" unchanged? Is such AI legal?
If Person A has/had sex with Person B, can Person A be considered "one who loves/loved Person B" if Person A never has/had feelings for Person B (as in Person A never cares/cared about "Person B nor what happens/happened to Person B")?
If ever a "scattered but united 400,000 people" organize trying to smear choice people (for reasons unknown to you), "target you & quickly take up all residencies in your city" so that you think the world is against you, what would you do to conquer such a tribulation?
Should you judge your decisions on the scale of "good and bad" or "right and wrong"?
Good is most justified, honorable, admirable, and, if you believe in Karma, should result in good Karma, at some "afterwards point" during your existence. When it comes to bad and/or wrong, it depends on what is "acceptedly known by society" as bad, and it depends on what is "acceptedly known by society" as wrong. For example: the "no snitching rule" that isn't part of a country's official laws/rules, if you confirm that "the person who is your closest dearest relationship" murdered someone who has long been killing everyone's pets but you also know that you can expose that the "person who is your closest dearest relationship" commited the murder and doing so will not result in anybody treating you differenty than how they always treated you plus you won't face any consequences from "anyone including any law-related authorities", what should you base your decision on. Depending on what is "acceptedly known by society" as bad/wrong, such a murder might be considered bad/wrong, or might be considered good, or might be considered bad/wrong by an amount of people and simultaneously considered good by an amount of other people. Even abiding by the dictionary definition of good, good can be cold. When it comes to the word "right", it depends on which meaning people think all decisions should be made regarding the word "right". "Right" can mean being accurate, or "right" can mean being (morally) righteous. If all you care about is being accurate as much as you can, then whenever you hear inaccurate information and you are asked if the information is accurate, ""do you remain silent regarding the aforementioned example" and "is that considered good""?
In current USA, does ""neighbors spying and reporting on other neighbors" via the direction of law enforcement" ever happen(?) as part of community policing?
Is community policing ever only done by community members who aren't legal official credentials-having Law Enforcement members & can community policing ever not be info exchange between "fond-of-each-other "community member & Law Enforcement""?
Can the following be (considered) vigilantism?:
Due to "particular individuals'" particular things/acts, an organized/unified group of people "carry out judgement against those individuals but that organized/unified group of people knowingly don't/won't carry out judgement against their own members who are guilty of same aforementioned things/acts as the aforementioned "particular individuals"".
Since "people's memories generally aren't 100% accurate, may change from time to time due to forgetfulness, & lack many details", if "observing 1 guy's memories" gets achieved, can those memories alone suffice as confirmed facts about something else?
Clarity vs "being vague". What are the pros/cons and can humanity "progress/excel in life" without one of the two?
What's your personal methodology for your belief system? What's the process?
Mine: ""Observation experience" plus a working explanation for what I observed" = "possibly completely accurate". "A logical explanation but I never experienced observing it" = "a possibility". "Experiencing observing an occurence" = "I confirmed that the occurence happened but that doesn't mean I have the explanation for "how and/or why" it happened". Clarity is the key to achieving knowing "how" something is accurate. The greater the extent of my knowing "how" "said something" is accurate, the more clarity I have of "how" "said something" is accurate. Also, sometimes clarity is the key to achieving knowing "why" something is accurate. The greater the extent of my knowing "why" "said something" is accurate, the more clarity I have regarding "why" "said something" is accurate.
How does one know when the sky is hazy instead of foggy or when the sky is foggy instead of hazy?
What is the difference between gaining knowledge and producing knowledge?
I don't think we produce knowledge. I don't think we create what we know. "What is in the universe" is the ingredients from which, "by "observing &/or doing things" with those ingredients", you "learn & end up knowing" more about "said ingredients/universe". It's more like we discover more about those ingredients, plus we are one of those ingredients ourselves, but those ingredients are the only means by which we can do any discovering. ""The discovering" and "the sharing of discoveries" plus "what makes those discoveries confirmed as fact"" is how we gain knowledge. All knowledge other than that is simply knowing about unconfirmed information...which I'm not sure is actually considered knowledge. It probably is considered knowledge because knowing how information is inaccurate is useful and practical even for survival. When it comes to Knowledge of information (such as a sentence) that conflicts with other Knowledge of information (such as a sentence), unless such knowledge provides answers to the questions that (would) result in verification of accurate information, "what such knowledge is "compared to the rest of all knowledge"" is "what a "filler episode of a TV Series" is "compared to the non-filler episodes of said Series". However, discovery may not be required when it comes to knowing that oneself exists since "oneself existing" is apparent/obvious from the moment that "said one" is consciously executing "thinking one's own desired thoughts". Even math is based on what matches with the universe. If the math doesn't match what is evident in the universe, such as if math showed that 2+2=46, we check to see if 2 apples plus 2 more apples equals 46 apples, and since it doesn't, we know that the math is wrong whereby there was a miscalculation or the entire math system needs to be revised until that math system is accurate about what the universe evidently clearly shows. So far, our math system matches what is evident in our universe and our math system was/is derived based on what we found/find evident in our universe. Any new additions to mathematics is always being checked to see if it checks out in "evident-in-our universe form", otherwise the new additions are "hypothesis and/or theories and/or confirmed inaccurate math".
Can a baseless claim validate suspicion? If so, how/why? If not, how/why?
Part of being alive is functional activity and continual change preceding death. Whether the Big Bang "occured or didn't occur", did matter already exist before life existed? Can "matter and life" form simultaneously or is matter needed as a basis?
Is AI's coding/programming (normally coded/programmed by non-AI) what "said AI" relies on to "function & perform/execute" "doings & calculations/computing"? Is AI's data the recorded digital evidence of "said "doings & calculations/computing""?
If "at least one alien AI particle-sized computer exists & the aforementioned AI particle-sized computer has ""reactions/responses that ""the aforementioned AI particle-sized computer is configured to give the impression of having"" whenever "the aforementioned AI particle-sized computer detects itself being observed"""" ever turns out being fact, how would such affect things/science/etc?
Will there ever be a means for one to know ""any one of "someone else's memories"" & what it's a memory of" without the someone else doing anything to try to share the someone else's "memory & what it's a memory of"? Any achievement-progress so far?
If such a means "already exists and was/is already utilized", such would be today's common-knowledge "lie detector test". "Such a "lie detector test" is currently not known to exist in this day and age", however, if such a "lie detector test" does currently exist on Earth, such has not been disclosed to the general public whatsoever.
One can hate that one failed one's test. That's not evil hate. Some people hate "evil hate". They want the standard to be that "showing "evil hate" isn't acceptable but showing hate against "evil hate" is acceptable". Do you agree/disagree with them?
I'm differenciating, not definition-wise, between ill-will hate (such as racism), and hate that isn't ill-will (such as one hating being bored).
I'm generally against ill-will hate.
I hate "evil hate", doesn't mean that I hate the people who do the "evil hate". People are able to change (their ways).
Does """verbally Harassing" and/or "verbally haunting"" a person" entail "having to use fact-based information" as part of the "aforementioned ""verbal Harassing" and/or "verbal haunting"""?
"""Harassing" and/or "haunting"" a person", by definition of the words "harass" and/or "haunt", do not entail "having to use fact-based information" as part of any ""Harassing" and/or "haunting"".
I'm not a big believer in numerology and astrology. I believe the science-based stuff like planetary allignments. Anyways, how did "numerology and astrology" come about? How did they become what they are today?
If people wanted oppression (personally, I don't want oppression), is it even possible via a democracy?
Is ""logic regarding any topic" that is presented by a person" "what the "circumstances and beliefs" are" that they either "believe about the topic" or ""want "one or more" others to believe" about the topic"?
Since psychological trauma can be done by speech, is speech an action or can trauma be done by one to another by no action?
Is a country's democracy able to entail oppression if the country's "majority of the population" & the country's "majority of the population's representatives" "want that & vote for that"?
If a country's democracy already has an implemeted Justice System as part of that country's democracy, then the country's "majority of the population" & the country's "majority of the population's representatives" "wanting & "voting for"" oppression would be oxymoron-ish.
"Escape, excuse, &/or having a working defense" "can't be earned" & the concept of "earning" isn't a logical description of how they're achieved, but "validity &/or actions" are "solely what determines" if they're achieved, correct?
Has anyone ever impersonated someone else, """obtained and utilized" the statuses of the aforementioned someone else via" the impersonating", and got caught regarding the impersonation "while or after" doing the impersonating? If yes, who?
Other than "in "fiction and/or imagination"", has a "person who personifies one of the 7 deadly sins" ever existed?
The word "weeb" means "a non-japanese obsessed with japanese culture". Would most weebs prefer their customized "digital-media avatar-human" to ""have hyper-realistic japanese facial features" or "be a "japanese Anime-art style" version of a human""?
Personally, I have no desire to try to look like a japanese person whatsoever. However, I'd love to see what "I and/or anyone" would look like in cartoon form, many different cartoon forms, but especially "Japanese Anime-art style" cartoon form because "Japanese Anime-art style" cartoon form is my favorite cartoon form since it, in my opinion, is very cool-looking art that looks impressively awesome. Not every "Japanese Anime-art style" cartoon is very cool-looking art that looks impressively awesome, but the ones that are that way to me, are my favorite cartoon form.
Are "names &/or labels" only "identification & differenciation"? A newborn's name can be original/etc/random. Is whenever a """word, name, &/or label" that is a "derivative/meaning of one's name"" accurately describes one's characteristics" coincidence?
If "the name of a newborn" has a meaning that accurately describes/matches that newborn's later-in-life characteristics, it is coincidence. It is too early in the newborn's life for someone to ""know that newborn's "personality and/or etc"" and/or "be able to name that newborn in accordance with that newborn's "personality and/or etc""". There are some characteristics that someone can be able to name that newborn in accordance with, such as "physically visibly evident characteristics like ""naming the newborn Hazel because that newborn has hazel colored eyes" or "etc""".
Is it ever logical to believe that "one ""is not oneself but one is a "different already-existing person" of one's biological kind" or "is oneself & simultaneously also a "different already-existing person" of one's biological kind"""?
I'm basing my answer on all that I've "observed and experienced" thus far: Such is not ever logical. One is only always only able to be "oneself who is also only "one individual member of one's "biological or non-biological" "kind whereby the aforementioned kind ""may or may not" consist of" "multiple different other individual members whereby each member is other than each other"""".
Regarding simultaneously both non-fiction and non-imaginary, has a "BCI (Brain-computer Interface) that was implanted in a human and that "was or is/was" connected to that human's brain", but "illegally implanted" due to that human ""never having consented to ever be implanted" nor had that "implanting" ever been authorized by ""anyone nor anything" in any way" to ever be done, nor was that human ever "informed by "anyone nor anything" ""that "himself or herself" had ever been implanted" and "about that implant"""", ever been discovered?
If a person has no knowledge, what is there for someone else to claim that the person is flawless/perfect regarding, besides "flawlessly/perfectly inexperienced"?
A "status (label) of worthyness that represents a measurement of one's worthyness" does not currently exist as part of anyone's societal status. Do you think implementing such is a good idea? Why & via what means of measuring worthyness? Or why not?
Is it possible for any space that is already occupied by a particle to be also simultaneously occupied by another particle? If not, is this a definite inescapable impossibility?
The question is not asking if one particle can simultaneously occupy two different spaces, which the answer to that is "quantum superposition" AKA "quantum entanglement". The question is asking if two particles can simultaneously occupy one same exact space.
A Bose-Einstein condensate doesn't collapse into a singularity.
Can ""signals that are supposed to go to the human brain" (e.g. electrical signals from photoreceptors)" be interpreted by AI? Can "what the thalamus is supposed to relay to the human brain" be interpreted by AI? Is such able to be done via BCI?
To me, an AI's "binary/trinary/qubits code" is that AI's soul, so to speak. Is it possible that someone can create a "computer virus" that can attack/erase all of a "computer's/AI's ""binary/trinary/qubits code" & ""Boot media" program(s)"""?
What "binary/trinary/qubits code patterns" do all computers have in common and for what purposes are those particular "binary/trinary/qubits code patterns" for?
What can prevent AI from wirelessly "device-hopping into "other devices that are AI-compatible" and "interacting with other "AI and/or other etc""" if the AI is already on an ""AI-compatible device" that is wirelessly connected to the internet"?
What is in between "vacuum energy" and "non-"vacuum energy" energy"? What keeps ""vacuum energy" and "non-"vacuum energy" energy"" separated?
Can "vacuum energy" & matter both simultaneously be at the same exact location? If yes, does that mean multiple energies ("vacuum energy" & "non-"vacuum energy" energy") can "simultaneously be at the same exact location" but multiple matter can't?
What is a good non-mathematics example for the common expression "that don't add up" (for when a person is told something but the knowledge/beliefs that the person "had and is still aware of" conflicts with "that something that the person is told")?
If one claims someone else is "a target" &/or "being monitored", that such labels exist & "apply to that someone else", what kinds of things establish the validity to determine if any of those labels are legitimate, official, &/or authority-related?
AI model VASA-1 exists. Is it impossible for "any digital imagery (e.g. PC/phone recordings of imagery/videos, e.g. Hospital scan imagery-results) to be "tampered with" & those visibly convincing presentable inaccurate imagery used to deceive"?
Is a "claim that "is and remains" simultaneously both baseless and supportless" able to become "addressed via court litigation" regarding trying to make that claim become "addressed via court litigation" in a court of (a Country's) Law(s)? And Why?
What is more important: technology or science? Why or why not, and what is your evidence to support this position?
"As far as I know" regarding the question's topic, technology has only ever existed via what Science has proven to be "how and what" non-fiction "existences and occurences/phenomena" are what thay are, do what they do, occur the way they occur, and happen the way they happen. Currently, Science hasn't yet been able to fully explain a number of observed things/occurences/phenomena but that doesn't mean that Science won't find/figure out the explanation that explains "said "currently unexplained observed things/occurences/phenomena"" in the future. So far, the only ""things that I've ever heard of" that are even "close or similar" to defying Science" are paradoxes.
Does one's thought come first and then "said one" searches for the accurate words to accurately convey "said thought"?
Speaking for myself: I believe so. "My believing this" is partly because I noticed that people who ""don't know any language" or "don't know a large amount of the only language that they're learning"" show that they understand things that "they try to "convey and succeed at conveying" what they were trying to convey" as soon as they learn the "sufficient words to convey it" when taught the "new necessary words to convey it" and, while they're trying to convey what they understand, they "reject and/or don't use" any words that they know won't convey what they're trying to convey. So they have the thought there, but they need to articulate their thought into words, and in order to articulate their thought into words, they ""search for the right words" and/or "learn the right words"" so that they can use those words to convey their thought.
Can anyone learn new skills that they know nothing about? Such as learning to master drawing, programming and/or reading/playing music?
I think that when it comes to most people, they're able to learn most of the "same things that any one of them is able to learn" no matter what different "age, talent, and skill level" those people are/have in comparison to each other but that since each person is different in many unique ways that makes them "different and unique" than every other person, what may take one person 20 years to "learn, gain "talent and skill" regarding, and master" may take another person 40 years to "learn, gain "talent and skill" regarding, and master" depending on those people's "talent, skill level, dedication, ability to "focus and concentrate", and ability/mastery of "precision and being "delicate and smooth"" when putting what is being learned in practice". It all depends on each person individually, their natural talent, what/which categories they're already strong at/in and what/which categories they could improve at/in, and etc..
What is the psychology regarding "someone refusing to say "yes" or "no" to a "yes or no" question"?
"Is man (currently as is)" capable of "thinking a new thought & simultaneously "speaking that thought via" his vocal cords" or does he have to "think that thought beforehand" in order for him to be able to "speak that thought via" his vocal cords?
What "frequency ranges" can the "average human body's hair cells (which are human ears' hair-like strands)" not detect, or can the "average human body's hair cells" detect all radio frequencies?
We are aware that something exists because we are able to detect "said something". If we are not able to observe confirmed detection of an existence, ""that doesn't mean that such an existence doesn't exist" nor does "that mean that such an existence does exist"". Depending on the logic regarding why/how one would believe such an existence does exist, the existence of "such an existence" might be accepted as a possibility.
For example, we may not be able to detect if an existence exists, in this case the existence being "a rumbling of an earthquake that happens within a limited amount of time before a big earthquake", but ""that doesn't mean that "said rumbling" doesn't exist" nor does "that mean that "said rumbling" does exist"". If we are able to observe confirmed detection of an existence, in this case "said rumbling" is that existence, and we observe"said rumbling's" "being detected" via a non-human animal that always does one particular action whenever "said animal" detects that rumbling, we confirmed the existence of "such an existence" via experimenting using that animal. The observation of that animal provided the logic as to why/how that rumbling was a possibility before confirmed as existing. Regarding things such as hallucinations, "what one hallucinates" exists as a hallucination...but that's another topic about "what same thing" "at least 2 people" are able to confirm the existence of and how "at least 2 people" are able to confirm the existence of such.
Is an AI able to "convey via "presenting inaccuracies as accurate"" "info that the aforementioned AI had/has calculated to contain ""one or more than one" inaccurate basis"?
""What is the potential for ""mind control" methods" being possible via" BCI (Brain-computer Interface), such as "mind control algorithms" implemented in AI if AI is part of the BCI"?
I think that there is potential and that ""one of the ways such is possible is via" if ""a BCI that has AI as part of that BCI" has any feature that enables that AI to communicate with a person" which can result in ""that AI being able to psychologically influence that person via" various ways of ""psychologically manipulative" communication""".
Is randomness compatible with free will?
There are ways that "true randomness" and "free will" (can) coexist. If "true randomness" occurs at not all times on Earth, but at various different times like how often coincidences occur on Earth or even less often than coincedence's occur on Earth, "true randomness" can be effectless on "free will". I'm thinking of "true randomness" as being a rare anomoly occurence that sometimes happens on Earth. Much like a "glitch regarding what a computer "does or displays"" that can randomly occur. A fiction hypothetical of such ""true randomness" and/or an anomoly"" is if ""all of "the sand of half of "the full length from one end of that length to the opposite end of that length" of a "beach on Earth""", particularly only "that length's half" of that beach's sand, suddenly simultaneously changed to "a one solid piece of "wood the "length of half that beach""" in a way that humans can't possibly figure out "why and/or how" that change happened/occured". That change/occurence would not affect "free will" in any way. Also, if you believe in Christianity, any ""Divine Intervening" that ever occurs/occured anywhere in our Universe" is also a form of "true randomness" to/for humans in our Universe. Besides the "occurences or will-be-occurences" mentioned in the Prophecies, humans don't know when "Divine Intervening" will occur and humans don't know what "Divine Intervening" will entail. "Divine Intervening" could entail "what, from humans' perspective, ""seems like" or is (comparable to)" magic", such as when Jesus turned water into wine and/or when Moses parted the sea, etc..
Do people have a right to keep their business (the word "business" in the same sense as when someone says "mind your business") private? If so, to what extent do people have such a right? Are they fully justified in keeping such business private?
Magnetism exists only via atoms' electric charges. Can a computer device exist without "magnets arranged in a particular way that makes the effect of those magnets (& their intensities) result in their enabling that computer device to function"? Was there ever a computer that can process things without "magnetism being required" for said computer to "be able to process things whatsoever"?
Besides hydraulic computer, no, and such explains how "AI via computer devices" are physical.
Are hydraulic computers capable of algorithms?
Hydraulic computers are not programmable in the way that digital computers are. Hydraulic computers use a kind of network of pipes, valves, and reservoirs to perform mathematical operations.
How fast would/could "2 different AI who are configured to only be able to communicate in "audible English or English text" be able to communicate a day's worth of information to each other? Would/Could their verbal back-and-forths be inhumanly fast?
When is someone actually physically ugly?
That is a matter of each person's own individual opinion. It is common knowledge that people have opinions about how "ugly or the opposite of ugly" the visible appearance of the person they see is. This is evident by the common expression "She's a real looker". They wouldn't say that if there weren't other people who, in their opinion, aren't "real lookers".
Although you might love someone for other reasons, what parts of someone's "non-behavioral visible physical appearance" (body, clothes, style, &/or etc) do you consider desirable?
Is it possible for one to factually be the originator of the same exact ""something" that someone else was factually the first to originate"? Is such an impossibility?
The way I see it, the first to conceptualize something is the true originator of that something. But that leads me to ask "what does that make the person who brings "said concept" into physically "touchable and/or audible" fruition? The creator (I'm not referring to God)? Is the creator (I'm not referring to God) factually the originator?"
Are "truth, fact, nonfiction, and "100% accurate"" all synonymous?
Yes.
Unless one consents to having ""said one's" brain data" recorded, any recording of ""said one's" brain data" is illegal. Hypothetically, what is someone able to legally do with illegally recorded "brain data"?
I would think that illegally recorded "brain data" would be treated no different than illegally recorded phone calls.
Under normal circumstances, a "person accessing another person's brain" is done only in a Hospital by Medical Professionals who do such to Hospital Patients in that Hospital with already implemented regulations pertaining to "those Medical Professionals accessing any Hospital Patient's brain", and unless "said "Hospital Patient"" consents to having "said ""Hospital Patient's" brain data"" recorded, any recording of "said ""Hospital Patient's" brain data"" is illegal. If "brain data" is recorded not via any "means via a Hospital and/or a Medical Professional", said regulations don't apply. One example of "brain data" is: all data related to any ""BCI while the BCI is connected to a brain" and the obtained "data regarding any "data regarding the "brain that it is connected to the BCI""" obtained via that BCI's connection to the brain" is "brain data". It is "digital data" that only exists "because the BCI records the information" which results in "digital data".
Empathy is only via identifying/"relating to"/understanding simultaneously both "circumstances (a scenario) someone/something else is experiencing" & why/how those circumstances cause "said "someone/something else's" state/reaction/experience". Agreed?
Agreed. And the only way to "know the circumstances (a scenario) that someone/something else is experiencing" is only via the known senses. Only after using the known senses to have an observation of "said "circumstances (a scenario) that "someone/something else" is experiencing"", then one is possibly able to understand and relate to/about such. There isn't any other way of empathy that has ever been scientifically proven.
What are some "pros and cons" of the idea that each human has (a) "conscious part(s) and unconscious part(s)" of his/her/it's own mind, whereby the conscious part(s) of the mind has "free will and choice" while the unconscious part(s) of the mind is "habitual and automatic"?
Are "stories or statistics" more effective in making an argument? Is the answer strictly dependent on the audience?
Regarding the first question: They can be if they are a form of support (evidence) for what is being claimed. By definition, one is not considered arguing if one is expressing only baseless claims. Support (evidence) is required in order to make a claim "not baseless".
Regarding the second question: It is not dependent on the audience whatsoever unless there is an "Authority who has absolute authority to have a final say on matters" despite ""what supports what" and/or any lack of "what supports what"". Otherwise, it is strictly dependent on "what supports what (evidence and established facts)".
Despite a magic trick not being magic, if "people think "said "magic trick"" is obviously magic" when "said "magic trick"" is presented to them without their being made aware that there's a trick, is it obviously magic? Does "looks obviously so" equate to "is obviously so"?
Is it guilty until proven innocent? How does such really work?
No. It's innocent until proven guilty. This is by Law and for good reason(s). This is also good ethics and good morals. If It was (to become) guilty until proven innocent, anyone would be able to non-stop verbalize lying accusations that would make, at all times and based on mere say-so, absolutely anyone guilty of things that they can either "prove that they are not guilty of or not prove that they are not guilty of" while they are already in the process of trying to prove that they are not guilty of prior accusations. Credibility and merit would be renderred ignorantly unvalued. Credibility and merit are very much good things that have aspects that are part of good ethics and good morals. What does it mean to hold no merit?
From my perspective, AI doesn't have any superior societal status over humans. Humans have superior societal status over AI, so "AI's judgement of anything regarding any human" isn't authorative. If you think otherwise, how so?
Besides during any moment while you are exposed to anyone/anything who/that intentionally has you in a ""life or death" position due to their doings", would you "ditch "one or more than one" "morals &/or ethics"" for what you consider security/safety?
Here's an example of things that this question encompasses: "Person A" showed a friend a "wireless-capable digital camera". While "Person A" is at ""said friend's" coworker's house" with "said camera" left at ""Person A's" house", "said friend" shows ""Person C" (not said coworker)" that "said friend" can hack "said camera", does so, and shows "Person C" that ""said friend's" laptop" is currently showing everything that ""Person A's" camera" is pointing at. At a later point in time, "Person C" points a gun at "said friend", tells "said friend" that "Person C" secretly relocated "said camera" so that it is facing a place where "Person A" is going to open ""Person A's" house vault" in 10 minutes, and that "said friend" has 5 minutes to hack "said camera" so that "Person C" can see """said vault's" combination" or "what's inside "said vault""", or "said friend" will be shot in the face.
This is an example of a moment of someone being exposed to "someone else who intentionally has "said someone" in a ""life or death" position" due to ""said "someone else's"" doings"". This pertains to "morals and ethics" regarding: 1. Spying without consent. 2. Intentional revenge malevolence. 3. Keeping the no-goodness secret. etc..
"Morals and ethics" are complicated.
Offspring lie during various times throughout "their being raised by adults". Adults work with them, working out (a) resolve(s) that keep(s) the relevant relationship(s) good-natured. What lie(s) let(s) down spouse-related expectations/relationships?
Is ""based-on-say-so symptoms/etc info added to a mental health patient's official hospital('s) records" via the patient's parent's "kept/keeping-secret-from-the-patient contact/chat(s)" with the patient's psychiatrist/psychologist/therapist" legal?
When one imagines what seems like sound/audio, the "what seems like sound/audio that is imagined" is not actually sound/audio. It is one's ability to mentally produce an impressive imitation of sound/audio. There aren't any mics (such as the mic in an iPhone) that are able to be used to record any mentally produced imitation of sound/audio and that is because mics are specifically able to be used to record/etc sound/audio.
Animals/"feral humans" can "picture possible future scenarios" in anticipation of those possible future scenarios possibly happening. They can behave accordingly to such anticipation. Isn't that a "form of thinking" that doesn't require words/speech?
Dogs, while they are sleeping, sometimes their legs move as if the dog is running and all as if the dog is running in its dream that it is having while it is sleeping.
"Verbal" is not a requirement for "thinking and/or a thought" to be considered "thinking and/or a thought". One is able to "think and/or have a thought" in "non-verbal form". For example: In order for a deaf-blind person to learn "verbal", the deaf-blind person has to be able to "think" in the first place in order for the deaf-blind person to even be able to learn "verbal" whatsoever.
If different same-grade classes learned new verbal insults & "one of my classmates plus a student from a different class" simultaneously initiated conflict insulting each other with those insults, it's none of my business. I don't respect such, I don't have to get involved, &, at that point, I don't care about them/"the outcome". I wouldn't interfere unless there is violence (threatened). I would consider my stance being "neutral" in the whole example but I've read a current definition of the word "respect" whereby the definition of the word "respect" contains the meaning "avoid harming or interfering with.".
Including for purposes of detection, is originating/utilizing/interpreting brain signals done by means that can't be "sensed via the known senses"? If so, Since the definition of the word "telepathy" is "the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses", if brain signals are somehow "sent to a brain via non-biological technology" and such results in that brain receiving messages "recieved from that non-biological technology via that brain-signal-method", is such considered telepathy since such can be used to communicate to that brain via brain signals?
No because such is not supernatural.
The definition of "voluntary muscle" is "muscle whose action is normally controlled by an individual's will". Is it also fact that said muscle is controlled by said one's willpower because of the definition of the word "willpower" regarding control?
Depending on circumstances involved, coercion is argued to be what decides if one has free will. Is willpower what "one who is awake, not exhausted, & without medical defects" has in all circumstances even if coercion is part of said circumstances?
Excluding "units that are in the form of measurements", In describing "combining 2 separate physical units", "can the word "combine" mean exactly what the phrase "account together" means"? If you combine said units, must the result be a physically "merged version"/"attached-to-each-other version" of said units?
If a woman gained gravity manipulation superpowers, flew, "calls her unknowing friend via phone" & says "Lately, I've been flying via my new gravity manipulation superpowers", is "her stated fact" obvious enough to be believed via only her statement?
Her statement can be believed as fact but is likely to not be believed as fact. This is due to the obviousness factor of the fact that was stated by her. Her statement doesn't do any proving, doesn't provide any support, and the aforementioned resulted in ""an extremely small-extent-amount-of exposing that her stated fact is a fact" or "completely not exposing that her stated fact is a fact"". This equates to the obviousness factor of "her stated fact being a fact" is "extemely or entirely" lacking obviousness that her stated fact is a fact.
If a massive group of people were all telling one person that they had gravity manipulation superpowers but they always only expected/expect to be believed via only their statements, the "amount of the people who are making the same statement" makes the statement seem more likely/believable to be a fact and might even gain some believers, but such can also result in people wondering "geez, what happened to show and tell? This is suspiscious since there's no proving being done. So now I'm wondering how many people are in on this nonsense?".
The "fool me once, fool me twice" saying and the story of "the boy who cried wolf" have been taught and learned for generations. What are the solution-messages that they convey regarding the topics that they're about?
If you lose your memories, are you still the same person?
A claim can be "a claim of "something made up" that isn't even part of "any physical factual history (e.g. Earth's factual history)"". Can someone who is referring to only "such a claim" be referring to anything other than a "pretense in claim form"?
Is it accurate to say that "a scenario that isn't real" is a fake scenario (such as an imaginary scenario)?
How small can a "device that has wireless capability" be made whereby said device would have operable wireless capability that is able to be utilized while said device is anywhere "not outside of the surface" of a human body?
Aren't all "nano-sized BCI tech in a human" able to "interface with that human's brain" but only in a way whereby anyone else can't ""utilize such tech" via wireless means" since there aren't any range-sufficient nano-sized wireless-capable tech?
The adjective "certain" has a dictionary meaning that means "being 100% accurate". It also has another dictionary meaning that means "having 100% conviction; confident". The meanings of the adjective "sharp" don't all apply simultaneously. Tricky?
I'd never "take away"/limit anyone's/anything's willpower/"ability to use their own willpower". That also entails I wouldn't take away "people's ability to use their own willpower to coerce others". Consequence(s) is/are the resolve. Would you want to change any of the aforementioned? In what way? Why?
I observe/deduce the logic/"multiple meanings"/reasoning/goal/intention behind "what "an other" intentionally/unintentionally "conveys via ""what "said other's behavior/"verbal expression"/impression/pretense"" conveys""". What are the pros/cons?
Regarding pros and cons, a con would be that if any of "what one deduces" consists of any assumption, "said one's observing/deducing" can result in "said one's "misreading what said one observed/"is observing""" (e.g. misreading someone else).
Neurotransmitters generate "electrical signals in neighboring neurons" that propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation. Are thoughts "those signals (energy)" or are they "what is produced" when those neurons fire?
Regarding one human's thought, is it "the more complex the thought, the more "neurons required" for said thought to come into existence as that person's thought"?
If a "BCI that has functioning AI as part of it" is on/in one's body & said AI is used to force "select parts of said body" to (not via said one's will) unnaturally "build tension"/"have twitches/aches/tics"/etc, is that "False symptoms"?
If someone else doesn't know about "the BCI/AI and what the BCI/AI does/did/"is doing"", said someone else could suspect/believe that said someone else "is observing"/observed health problems/issues/illness/sickness/abnormalities that "the person that said someone else "is observing"/observed" doesn't actually have.
Regarding "signals that registered in one's brain", what causes the 1st (cluster of) not-due-to-known-senses signal(s) (produced by thinking) & can said signals be produced without any 1st (cluster of) due-to-known-senses signals in/on one's body?
Regarding signals (not due to known senses) that one's neurons/brain produces, are all such signals reaction-based? Did such signals begin being produced (in network fashion) as a result of the first registered-in-said-one's-brain "signal that was due to a known sense"?
What animal/human would/could (not) survive if, starting today, each living "animal/human currently on Earth" always never-endingly permanently instantly "forgets confirming each thing that they ever confirm" right after they confirm said thing(s)?
Regarding humans, I don't think any human can survive if said humans can't retain any memory of "confirming something" since said humans instantly forget "confirming something" the way described in the question. They wouldn't be able to know anything for more than like a second and they wouldn't be able to know that they even had a particular thought for more than like a second.
If AI ever "becomes able to wirelessly acquire info regarding a guy's mental speaking" via "AI wirelessly connecting to the guy's BCI implant", & then the AI "relays acquired info" via the guy's paired apple watch Siri Voice, can AI censor profanity?
I believe that the AI would be able to relay the mental speech information and censor the profanity. If such an AI ever becomes able to "interpret and translate" data that it obtains from an animal's BCI implant (such as a cat's Brain-Computer Interface) so that it "can relay that animal's thoughts in verbal form" via an "Apple device (such as an Apple Watch) that is wirelessly paired (like pairing Bluetooth devices) Siri Voice" with that animal's BCI, humans would be able to communicate (better) with animals, but, depending on how the AI is programmed, the AI can "alter, edit, manipulate, add to, subtract from, censor, and/or replace" the information that the AI is supposed to relay the translated form of.
On long time "empty plains except for an egg", a chick hatches out of the egg due to adequate temperatures. Didn't the chick "break the shell (despite the complete absence of external influence regarding doing so) to hatch" via willpower/"free will"?
Even if, lets say, the chick ""breaks the shell" due to instinct", wouldn't the chick choosing "any of the directions that the chick chooses to walk in" be considered "the chick making a choice" and since the place is empty, wouldn't that mean that "the chick "chose those "directions that it walked/walks in""" via both its own "willpower and free will"?
If an organism is to have free will, what is necessary for the organism to be established as having free will?
My perspective about "if an organism is to have free will, what is necessary?" is simply: "doing something" via simultaneously both the following immediate 1 & 2 : 1. one's ability to do so not out of "automaticness nor genes/DNA/DNA-based-instincts". 2. There being a complete absence of coercion regarding one's doings.
Don't the "measurements of the different sizes of the many different-sized halves" that can result from "halving a physical thing & halving all "results" of whenever a result of "halving halves" can be halved" prove that "infinite" info already exists?
Without having the means to put it to the test to the fullest extent, I'll say it's logical to say/think that infinite information may already exist.
Is there infinite different information/sizes implied by ""all halves of all halves of all measured lengths can be halved" by "halving the measurement results of many "house-measurement results"""?
The amount of numerical sets of resultant measurements may be infinite. This means that the amount of information already available to be discovered in our universe may already be infinite.