Gigged Up

Chapter 2 - Author's Notes

Chapter 2 - Author's Notes

All of "these "questions and answers" of mine in "all of these chapters that are after Chapter 1"" are for the reader to see ""where I'm coming from" regarding the story that is before 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.

What does a semicolon mean in a dictionary definition?

Use a semicolon to join two related independent clauses in place of a comma and a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet).

If "a sentence has a word that is enclosed by parenthesis", can the sentence mean both (as if without parenthesis) what it means "without "the part of it that is comprised of only "that word enclosed by parenthesis"" & "with "the part of it that is comprised of only "that word enclosed by parenthesis""""?

The answer is yes.

If you're not disrespecting, then you're showing respect. If you lack respect, you're disrespecting. Is there an alternative status such as "neutral" whereby you don't respect someone but you don't go out of your way to interfere in their matters?

Is "one's "simultaneously "being aware of a stranger's presence, not attempting harming that stranger, not interfering in that stranger's matters, & not having intention to do such"" due to "indifference & not avoidance"" misinterpreted as respect?

What is something inescapable?

Here are examples when it comes to at least one "thinking existence" that we know of:

"Confirming" is inescapable because one wouldn't know that one had a thought if one isn't able to confirm that one had a thought. "Confirming" is required in order to be able to "know" (something).

"Believing" is inescapable because "would one refer to something if one didn't believe that there is something to refer to?". Is one ever able to "know something and simultaneously not believe "the aforementioned something that "said one" knows""? No. If one knows that something happened and "said one" says the common saying "I can't believe it", does that mean that "said one" doesn't believe that "the aforementioned something happened" or does that mean that """said one" is extemely surprised that it happened or that "said one" is extremely baffled that it happened" but "said one" actually "knows and believes" that "the aforementioned something happened"?

Consequence(s) are inescapable partly due to "things physically moving", but is/are punishment(s) inescapable?

Information is "abstract and not physical". Information is metaphysical. There isn't/wasn't any Information that ever is/was an existence that originated independently. Physical things can be observed, and although physical things can be sources of information, ""such information is "thought up"/etc via" one's "observing/etc and/or (then) describing in "one form or another form"". One is not able to ""look at a star in the sky for one moment" in any way whereby "doing so" results in naturally automatically "obtaining at that moment" all of the information possible about that star".

How "closely related" are "knowledge and information"? Regarding "knowledge and information", due to "what they are" and "how they're related", is it possible for knowledge to not be abstract?

An individual's knowledge is "the "known information" but specifically known by that particular individual" in regards to said individual "knowing of an information", regardless of what that information encompasses. One is not able to know something without "confirming" said something's existence. If said something's existence is not confirmed, it is possible to believe in said something's existence without "confirming" said something's existence, but that is not "knowing", that is "believing". Also, ""knowledge/information is able to be acquired via" solely observation", e.g. a dog's shock collar ""shocks that dog via" an electric shock" whenever that dog is outside of a particular distance radius, and ""that dog learned/realized via" that dog's "observing what "distance or locations" result(s) in "that dog's experiencing an electric shock""", ""so that dog, from that moment onward, "has ""the knowledge of those location-related consequences" or "the distance-related consequences"" via" information acquired/obtained by that dog's "observing"" and "that dog "chooses not to go to locations that result in that dog experiencing an electric shock" as a direct result of "that dog utilizing the aforementioned knowledge that the dog acquired""". Even a person simply memorizing another person's sentence, whether that person's sentence "conveys accurate info or not" and/or "is incoherent or not", a person simply memorizing another person's sentence is ""knowledge acquired by "the person who memorized that sentence"" due to "the person who memorized that sentence" having knowledge of that sentence (such as how that sentence is pronounced) even if "the person who memorized that sentence" doesn't know what that sentence means whatsoever and/or even if "the person who memorized that sentence" doesn't know/understand the language that the sentence is in. Even one knowing that one heard a sound, whether they were able to ""establish any details to be able to describe more than only having heard a sound" or not" and/or whether they can't ""remember "anything about that experience" other than that they heard a sound" or not", one knowing that one heard a sound is knowledge that one has. I don't see how "believing that knowledge is not abstract" is accurate. That "belief that knowledge is not abstract" "sounds similar to believing that Science is/are all the "physical things and etc" of the universe, instead of Science being the description/explanation of all the "physical things and etc" of the universe.