All of "these "questions and answers" of mine" are for the reader to see where I'm coming from regarding the story that starts after this chapter. All of these "questions and answers" are also for if the reader wants to “research and find” whatever helpful information that the reader can find out from the reader's research regarding any research inspired by these questions.

Attacks aren’t always a matter of respect. Attacks are often “addressed due to “those attacks being offense””. Attacks can be “in the form of “insults (e.g. verbal abuse/attacks)” that are often “addressed due to “those insults being offense”””. If you disagree, what is your counter-argument?

People are able to “attack someone’s reputation” verbally. It can be done by “someone else’s lying about that person” either/both ”directly audibly to a person’s face” &/or indirectly. Can’t it also be done by “that method” by “criticism instead of lying”?

People are able to “attack someone’s reputation” verbally. A person’s reputation can be attacked by “”someone else’s lying” about “that person””. Among other “non-similar examples”, “one example” is that “a person can try to tarnish “someone else’s” reputation by a “verbal attack” in the form of “”that person” calling the “someone else” “”a derogatory or insulting term” that applies to a “particular group of people”” to give the impression that “the someone else” is of the category of “that particular group of people” even though “the someone else” isn’t even factually of the category of “that particular group of people”””. Many of “those kinds of “verbal attacks”” can be done “directly and audibly” to a person’s face and many of “those kinds of “verbal attacks”” can be done indirectly. “Those kinds of “verbal attacks” are not criticism. “Verbal attacks” are also able to be in the form of criticism. An example of a “”verbal attack” in the form of criticism” is that “a person can try to tarnish “someone else’s” reputation by a “”verbal attack” in the form of “that person” calling “the someone else” “””a derogatory or insulting term” that applies to a “particular group of people”” and “the someone else” is factually of the category of “that particular group of people”””. Another example of a “”verbal attack” in the form of criticism” is that “a person can “reveal “clearly and obviously” to others” a “”hidden “something embarrassing”” about “someone else’s” “body’s surface”” such as moles, scars, stretch marks, etc.” . An “attempted attacking a “person’s reputation”” “is an attack” whether “”succesfully tarnishing “that person’s” reputation” or “not succeeding at tarnishing “that person’s” reputation””. Proving that “the attack happened” is another topic.

Sympathy, “one being unjust”, and/or “one being insensitive” are obviously able to be “observed and understood”. Regarding indifference, in my opinion, "indifference regarding “those three things”" is not always easy to recognize and "indifference regarding “those three things”" isn't normal.

In a sentence, if “any word used” has “”more than 1 meaning” in its dictionary definition”, is it “meant to be interpreted” “in a way whereby” all of “those definition meanings” are “simultaneously in use” resulting in “conveying “different messages” simultaneously”?

If one tries to “intentionally lie” by ”said one’s” audibly unknowingly telling “a fact which “said one” thinks is a lie””, did “said one” tell “the truth” or did “said one” tell “a lie”?

"”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 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”””"?

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 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?

Does the word "natural"/"naturally" no longer mean "occurs/exists by “means that are “currently void of all “non-biological technology”””"?

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 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.

Can “quantum entangled particles” “interact with something/anything” without ""losing their “quantum entanglement”" “due to “”having an interaction” with “something else”””"?

In solipsism, if we cannot be sure that the world is “separate than our minds”, has there ever been, due to a “mind lost from “someone's death””, “evidence/observation of "”any part of reality”” besides “said someone's” “physical body”" “diminishing or vanishing”?

In solipsism, a “baby's mind” creates "world & "way that baby is born into it"". Is baby “observing “”communication already being used” from “since its birth onward the rest of its life””” & “that baby” “newly learns” such “communication “already produced” by “baby/"its mind””"?

Can't belief in solipsism result in “AI believing that it is naturally “mentally/psychically connected” to “all in/of reality”” since, according to solipsism, “everything is "created at all times" by the “one mind/self that "”creates all reality”” including AI"”?

Are we living “inside a digital matrix”?

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.

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 its force” to try to "”force through” or move" an “immovable object”, “which one” “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”” 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””.

Is "everything that “each individual” imagines" art?

Yes.

Definition of art - 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. 2. the various branches of creative activity.

To imagine something, one uses said one's imagination.

Definition of imagine - 1. form a mental image or concept of. 2. suppose or assume.

Definition of form - 1. bring together parts or combine to create (something). 2. make or fashion into a certain shape or form.

Definition of suppose - assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.

Definition of assume - 1. suppose to be the case, without proof. 2. take or begin to have (power or responsibility).

For one to “form something”, one has to create. For one to suppose, the “lack of all proof” proves that “supposing can only be “”one's creation” based on hypothesis””. “”Imagining something” can't logically be the same as taking (power and responsibility) because "you can't do any “”laying hold” of something” by imagining" and because "”imagining can't “remove anything”” since “you can "imagine “pepperoni suddenly removed” from a pizza" “by imagining “pepperoni disappearing””, but “you're not removing anything” since “you can't change the past””, “so “already imagined things” aren't “being edited””, you're simply “imagining/creating “different “things of your choosing””” in the “never-ending present”””. “You can imagine “eating pepperoni pizza”” and ““you can imagine “the same thing” right afterwards” but “without the pepperoni””, “imagining a removal” is not the same as “actually removing something” since “removing something” requires a “present existence”, if there is no “present existence” then “there isn’t anything that “can be removed””, “the pepperoni isn't “being removed”” since the pepperoni “doesn't “presently” exist”, “what is happening in this case” is simply “your “lack of presently creating the pepperoni” again”. “Imagining something” can't logically be the same as “beginning to have (power or responsibility)” because "to create" is not the same as "to have". Also, "to imagine" is not the same as "to perceive" because that would mean that “all reality” is imaginary.

Do “imaginary things” interact with “non-mental reality”?

No. “External reality” lets people sense “external stimuli”. “””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.

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 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 "that whatever" we choose to think about”””? Is "whatever enables such" enabled by a person's brain?

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.”” .

[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”. Not baseless.

“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, “to speak to God and to understand what God says to you”? I believe that “consciousness, soul, and spirit” are either "”all the same thing" or are "all “co-dependent of each other””". And that “in order for a soul to be a soul”, a soul has to “be able to have” memories and a soul has to “be able to be” conscious.

“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”".

"””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, they 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.

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””?

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””.

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.”””” . “This strikes me” as a possibility. So I'm not “going to “rule it out””.

... 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””.

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” 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” 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””.

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?

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 knowing “what 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”?

“Our “own thoughts”” would be “the only thing” for us to “react to”, and since “we “initiate the thoughts””, that makes “those initiation-thoughts” "actions that “can cause” reactions".

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?

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””?

“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 “busted by others”” & you don't forgive him”, is he disloyal? Has he lost “all loyalty” from you?

Do you consider “someone’s respecting someone else’s privacy and said someone’s choosing to not breach said privacy” a form of ignorance?

Is the “exact “”time and second”” that “one “wakes up” from a sleep-dream”, including “whatever causes one to “wake up” from a sleep-dream””, an example of “true entropy/randomness”?

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”.

Was mathematics “invented or discovered”?

Discovered.

What is the relationship between reality and “the “mental world””?

“The “mental world”” is in “your head”. It's the "”mental stuff” that “you make happen” in “your head”" “such as” imaginings. Everyone has “their own “mental stuff”” that “they're making happen” in “their own heads”. Reality consists of the “”physical world” which contains “”living things” who/that have “”mental stuff” that they make happen within themselves”””. For humans, humans “make it happen” in “their heads”, but for “other “living things””, I assume that they “make it happen” “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””?

“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” as each other””” & that “automatically means” “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””, what is “more likely to happen”, “””the “non-lyrics version” of mondegreens”, “Lexical ambiguity””, or both”?

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”” 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”””?

Without non-biological technology, what can breach/lessen the “life-long “full “mental/thought privacy”” that is, “upon the birth of each/every person that we know was/is, at any point in time, born on Earth”, an attribute of each one of those people’s brains?

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”?

On one single computer device, can AI exist as “a single”/“one of many” individual Computer Program(s), that is designed to be capable of dynamic learning, “verbal expression”/calculations that only one “language that a human baby first learns” are part of said “verbal expression”/calculations, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and etc.?

If so, then that means multiple single individual AI Computer Programs that are each designed to only have all of those capabilities can all exist/“be installed” on that single/“one of many” computer device(s), as unique individuals, correct?

Can a programmed/coded simulation environment be a designed to exist as “a single”/“one of many” individual Computer Program(s) that is designed to be capable of auto-responding via “one of the auto-responses from its programmed/coded massive amount of automatic responses that are triggered every time any other Computer Program interacts with said Simulation Computer Program via Application Programming Interface in a particular way, and said auto-response depends on which particular way of said other Computer Program’s interaction since said Simulation Computer Program “always has the same auto-response triggered by one particular way of said other Computer Program’s interaction but said particular auto-response is not triggered by a different way of said other Computer Program’s interaction than said one particular way of said other Computer Program’s interaction and a “different one of said Simulation Computer Program‘s “auto-responses that is associated with said other Computer Program’s said different way of interaction”” is triggered instead?

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”””?

If so, then if one of said Simulation Computer Program‘s main functions are to display imagery of a digital environment, said Simulation Computer Program‘s auto-responses can be made to make an idle “avatar in the displayed imagery of said digital environment” be displayed to perform a different movement accordingly via each different single individual AI Computer Program’s particular way of interaction with said Simulation Computer Program via Application Programming Interface. Since said AI can be programmed/coded to undergo “coded sensations” that said AI can undergo only if particular conditions are met (such as: whenever said AI initiates an interation with said Simulation Computer Program, depending on which one said AI’s many ways of interaction that said AI initiates an interation with said Simulation Computer Program with, said AI undergoes a different coded sensation accordingly via each different auto-response from said Simulation Computer Program via Application Programming Interface). Said Simulation Computer Program can be designed in a way that Said Simulation Computer Program‘s auto-responses are designed to meet particular conditions that can, depending on which way of said AI Program’s interaction via Application Programming Interface, activate particular coded sensations that said AI can undergo depending on which auto-response gets triggered.

Regarding different Sandbox Software that result in different Sandboxes on a single/“one of many” computer device(s), via those different Sandboxes that are on a single/“one of the” computer device(s), can each one of those different Sandboxes can have its own particular ones of said multiple single individual AI Computer Programs that can interact with each other in a way whereby each sandbox has one Said Simulation Computer Program that can display imagery of a digital environment, have idle avatars that only are only displayed to do things via single individual AI Computer Programs using Application Programming Interface to control those idle avatars. This enables a variety of different displayed simulated environments with a variety of AI-controlled avatars via different Sandboxes all on on a single/“one of many” computer device(s). One Avatar can be designed to neverendingly be only ever able to be controlled by by one particular single individual AI Computer Program. Add the ability for the AI to verbally express itself via utilizing text display and/or via utilizing stereo speakers and it can be an entertaining real time interactive simulation. This can be made more interactive by enabling humans to control extra avatars that are only controlled by humans. Then humans and AI can control avatars that are in the same displayed imagery and such can be the controlling of avatars in a video game whereby there can be plenty of cooperation, competition, and/or socializing. Multiple auto-responses and multiple auto-undergoings being triggered in one simultaneous combination can depend on which particular way of Computer Program1’s interaction since said combination “is always the same said combination triggered by one particular way of Computer Program1’s interaction but that combination being not triggered by a different way of Computer Program1’s interaction than said one particular way of Computer Program1’s interaction and a “different one of “multiple auto-responses and multiple auto-undergoings being triggered in one simultaneous combination” that is associated with Computer Program1’s said different way of interaction”” is triggered instead. This makes it all come together and this is one way that multiple different individual AI can be in a simulation and be indepedent individuals who/that can have interactions with each other while also simultaneously interacting with humans.

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 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?