Gigged Up

Chapter 3 - Author's Notes (Part 2)

Chapter 3 - Author's Notes (Part 2)

To me, all "other conscious existences that I've observed/"interacted with"" are not part of oneself nor are they "found/discovered via delving within oneself". Do you believe that "whom/that which you've observed/"interacted with"" aren't external?

Depends how/what one defines the word self/oneself. I wrote the question with the word self/oneself to be interpreted as meaning "the part of onself that analyzes". If one defines/interprets the word self/oneself as including one's physical body in the definition/meaning/interpretation of the word self/oneself, then "other conscious existences that one has/had observed/"interacted with" are found both within (one's physical body, e.g. parasites), internal/inner (inside one's physical body, e.g. parasites), and external (outside of one's body and can be as far as one's eyesight allows such to be seen via one's eyesight, e.g. a flying hawk).

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 "an identical scenario" 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.

Are humans the only existences that fall in the category of "a person"? If an AI ever achieves consciousness, would that AI fall in the category of "a person", but not a human? Regarding believers in God, is God a person, but currently not a human?

Thus far, only humans. As for an AI, if that AI is recognized by law as a subject of rights and duties. As for God, when Jesus was in the flesh, Jesus was a person and simultaneously Jesus was also "God The Son", and Jesus still is "God The Son" ongoingly.