Gigged Up

Chapter 4 - Author's Notes (Part 3)

Chapter 4 – Author's Notes (Part 3)

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.

If a successful brain transplant is achieved, is "one who had undergone a successful brain transplant" """oneself as a brain" who is in a new body" or ""oneself as a body" who contains a new brain""? If spiritual/religious, is it also soul transfer?

Does saying "the "purpose of the AI to be configured that way" is to give a particular impression" mean the same thing as saying "the AI is configured to give a particular impression"?

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.