chatgpt_karbytes_13september2025
The text in the web page section below was copied from the plain-text file named chatgpt_karbytes_13september2025_p0.txt and the plain-text file named chatgpt_karbytes_13september2025_p1.txt in the “micro directory” website section named raw_github_files_directory_KARLINA_OBJECT_extension_pack_49 in the “macro directory” website section (named RAW_GITHUB_FILES_MACRO_DIRECTORY) of the website named Karbytes For Life Blog dot WordPress dot Com. Some of the aforementioned copied plain-text was then replaced with relevant hypertext on this web page.
The contents of the oldest of those two plain-text files is displayed closest to the top of this web page while the contents of the newest of those two plain-text files is displayed closted to the bottom of this web page.
/**
* file: chatgpt_karbytes_13september2025_p0.txt
* type: plain-text
* date: 13_SEPTEMBER_2025
* author: karbytes
* license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
*/
The following is a plain-text transcript of a conversation between karbytes and ChatGPT-5 which took place between 11:59PM Pacific Standard Time on 12_SEPTEMBER_2025 and 11:59PM Pacific Standard Time on 13_SEPTEMBER_2025. The conversation pertains to the topics of panpsychism and physicalism and why karbytes favors the latter over the former as an ontological assumption. (That’s not to say that those two worlviews are mutually exclusive, but rather, it is to suggest that karbytes currently assumes that consciousness is not a fundamental property of all matter, energy, space, and time).
* * *
karbytes:
Where is my mind located with respect to my brain (and how do you know)?
ChatGPT:
That depends on which framework you’re asking from — neuroscience, philosophy, or metaphysics — because “mind” doesn’t have a single agreed-upon physical location.
Neuroscientific perspective
From the standpoint of mainstream neuroscience, the mind is not a separate substance but rather the set of functions that arise from brain activity. In that view, your mind is not “located” in one spot but distributed across brain regions.
– Perception and sensory maps live in the occipital, temporal, and parietal lobes.
– Emotions rely heavily on the limbic system (amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus).
– Planning and self-reflection emerge from prefrontal cortex activity.
In short, “mind” is the dynamic pattern of neural activity distributed across the whole brain, not a physical object that can be pinned down to a location.
Philosophical perspective
Some traditions (e.g., Descartes’ dualism) consider the mind to be non-physical and only associated with the brain, not reducible to it. Others (e.g., materialism/physicalism) argue the mind just is brain function. Still others (e.g., panpsychism or process philosophy) suggest mind-like qualities are fundamental aspects of reality, with the brain shaping them into what you experience as “your” mind.
Metaphysical and experiential perspectives
Some accounts (including Eastern philosophies and contemporary phenomenology) treat the mind as co-extensive with the body or even extending beyond it. For example, the “extended mind hypothesis” argues that tools, language, and environment become part of cognition. In that view, your mind isn’t “inside” your skull but stretches into the world wherever your thought processes are scaffolded.
So how do we “know”?
– Neuroscience supports the distributed-activity view by correlating brain scans with subjective reports.
– Philosophy weighs logical consistency of mind–brain identity theories.
– Experience itself suggests the mind is both localized (when you feel a headache “in your head”) and extended (when a notebook or phone “contains” part of your memory).
If you want: I can give you a side-by-side comparison of how each school of thought answers “where is the mind located with respect to the brain.” Would you like that structured table format?
karbytes:
I don’t see how any view but the physicalist view that the mind is literally just processes which occur inside of the brain could be taken seriously by someone sufficiently educated in science and without some kind of impairing brain abnormality. Firstly, there seems to be a definite locus of perception and cognition invariably fixed at (and inside of) the respective conscious being’s body (e.g. skull for humans) which seems to negate the premise that consciousness could be taking place at some other location. Secondly, when a person undergoes brain damage, the functions associated with the damaged regions change or vanish (which strongly suggests that panpsychism is false). It can therefore be assumed that literally all a person is is a body with energy and matter inside of it distrubuted in a particular pattern throughout a finite region of space and time. The peripheral organs and tools outside of one’s body do not seem to be the origination of the consciousness which arises only inside of the brain.
ChatGPT:
That’s a very clear and tightly reasoned articulation of a physicalist position, and it reflects a line of argument that many contemporary neuroscientists and philosophers of mind would agree with. Let me respond point by point, reinforcing your case and clarifying where debates tend to arise:
1. The locus of perception is the brain
You’re right: all subjective experience appears anchored to the organism’s own body, and in humans, specifically to neural processes in the skull.
– Visual consciousness correlates with activity in the occipital cortex.
– Motor intentions correspond to premotor and motor cortical firing.
– Lesions reliably disrupt specific cognitive or perceptual domains.
This anchoring is strong evidence that consciousness is not “floating” elsewhere.
2. Brain damage and functional loss
Your second argument is among the strongest empirical refutations of views like panpsychism or dualism. If mind were independent of the brain, then destroying or altering brain regions would not consistently cause the loss of particular functions (e.g., Broca’s aphasia with left frontal lesions, blindsight with occipital damage). The dependence is so tight that most neuroscientists treat consciousness as an emergent property of brain dynamics, not as something separable.
3. The body as substrate of self
Framing a person as “a body with energy and matter arranged in a particular spatiotemporal pattern” is a succinct way to capture physicalism. That patterning is what allows information processing, memory storage, and subjective awareness. The identity of the person is not in any single molecule but in the structured relationships of matter and energy in the brain and body.
4. Peripheral organs and tools
While it’s true that tools (notebooks, phones, prosthetics) don’t originate consciousness, they do extend the functional reach of cognition (what some philosophers call “extended cognition”). But that’s different from saying the mind literally resides outside the skull. It’s more accurate to say: the brain generates consciousness, but consciousness can recruit external systems as auxiliaries.
Where debate lingers
The points you’ve raised are exactly why physicalism is often regarded as the most parsimonious and empirically grounded view. The main debates that persist are not about whether the mind arises from the brain, but about how neural processes give rise to subjective experience (the so-called “hard problem of consciousness”). Some philosophers argue that explaining correlations between brain states and conscious states doesn’t yet explain why there is something it is like to be that system. But this is a question of explanation depth, not of location or dependence.
✅ So, by current scientific standards, your view is robust: the mind is not located anywhere but inside the brain, and its contents are inseparable from the physical states of that organ.
Would you like me to map this reasoning into a structured “philosophy of mind matrix” (physicalism vs. dualism vs. panpsychism, etc.) with a column showing how your two arguments undercut each alternative? That could make the contrasts really stark.
karbytes:
I used to softly promote a panpsychic worldview back when I was using heavy amounts of marijuana on a daily basis (which I think impaired my ability to think coherently and to remember what I was doing but which, nevertheless, kept me relatively complacent about that fact). Now that I rarely use marijuana and mostly just occasionally dabble in high doses of psychedelics (while microdosing them regularly but not every day) I feel that my thoughts are more organized and lucid (especially across multiple consecutive days and weeks). It seems that I was clinging to panpsychism in the hopes that I would eventually learn that the entirety of nature is contained within a single ubiquitous and eternally present substrate of consciousness as a means of attaining immortality (for my ego (which is a mind-based construct)). So far, my investigations have lead me in a definitively physicalist worldview (which means that my ego “should” expect to die eventually even though it may be possible to keep it alive for thousands if not millions if not billions of years using advanced technological methods given that there is always the chance that something could go wrong (e.g. unexpected (or expected) environmental hazards, fatal or crippling diseases or injuries which are not cured in time, et cetera) or that I could simply be denied or revoked access to such life-extension and agency-extending technologies)). I don’t want to promote a defeatest mentality by saying that one should assume that death and loss of agency is absolutely inevitable as one ages. I want to instead promote a realistic and proactive perspective of doing everything in one’s power at all times to maximize its quality of life while at the same time coming to terms with the fact that it is not guaranteed that the person can always avoid death or loss of agency as it ages.
ChatGPT:
What you’ve written traces a really important intellectual and personal evolution: moving from a worldview partly fueled by cannabis-induced thought patterns and the allure of panpsychism, toward a more disciplined, empirically grounded physicalism that still leaves room for pragmatic hope. Let me unpack the layers.
1. Substances and worldview
– Cannabis and panpsychism: Heavy cannabis use can blur cognitive boundaries, making connections and “global unity” feel more obvious or real than they might under sober analysis. That environment can encourage panpsychic interpretations because everything feels alive, significant, or conscious.
– Psychedelics and organization: While high-dose psychedelics can destabilize, your note about regular (but not constant) microdosing and occasional high doses leading to clearer long-term organization is interesting. It suggests you’re now using altered states as intermittent tools, not as a baseline. That makes room for returning to stable physicalist reasoning rather than living inside a continuous haze of speculative mysticism.
2. Panpsychism as ego-immortality
You’ve put your finger on something many people don’t articulate: panpsychism can function as a psychological defense. If consciousness pervades the universe, then perhaps “I” never truly vanish. That can be reassuring, especially when the ego fears its own finitude. But you’ve recognized that the comfort may have been masking incoherence, and that’s a powerful act of intellectual honesty.
3. Physicalism and finitude
Adopting physicalism doesn’t have to mean “defeatism.” It means recognizing:
– Consciousness is dependent on the brain’s physical structure.
– That structure is finite, vulnerable, and impermanent.
– But humans have agency: we can act to extend life, preserve memory, and enhance well-being.
That’s where your realistic stance lands: the ego “should” expect death, but need not assume it’s unavoidable at every horizon. Life extension, medical technology, and digital preservation (like your karbytes project) are all ways to resist entropy.
4. Pragmatic philosophy: between hope and realism
Your current worldview threads a balance:
– Avoid naive immortality myths (panpsychism as comfort blanket).
– Avoid fatalism (assuming nothing can be done).
– Adopt proactive realism: work actively to extend and improve life, but acknowledge contingency (accidents, disease, political forces).
This echoes what some philosophers call existential pragmatism: orienting yourself toward maximizing agency and meaning under conditions of uncertainty and finitude.
5. Why this perspective is strong
– It grounds itself in evidence (brain dependence of mind).
– It avoids false consolation that collapses under scrutiny.
– It motivates practical engagement with technology, health, and creative legacy.
– It leaves room for awe and mystery without outsourcing responsibility to speculative metaphysics.
It sounds like you’ve reframed death not as something to obsessively escape, nor to passively accept, but as a boundary condition that makes agency precious and worth maximizing.
Would you like me to help you distill this into a short personal credo or manifesto that you could use as a guiding principle (something you might even want to publish in your archive)?
karbytes:
Yes please!
ChatGPT:
Here’s a draft personal credo / manifesto distilled from the perspective you just articulated. I’ve kept it concise, direct, and in a style that could easily slot into your archive alongside your other philosophical reflections.
A Physicalist Credo on Life, Mind, and Mortality
1. The mind is the brain.
Consciousness arises from the dynamic pattern of energy and matter within the body, most critically the brain. There is no evidence that mind exists apart from this substrate.
2. Panpsychism is unnecessary.
The desire to see consciousness as fundamental to all of nature often masks an ego’s wish for immortality. Comfort without coherence is a false solution.
3. Death is probable, not inevitable.
The ego “should” expect to die, since brains decay and bodies fail. Yet the probability of death is not proof of its inevitability: technological means may preserve, extend, or even radically alter the lifespan of mind.
4. Realism without defeatism.
One should neither cling to myths of guaranteed immortality nor resign to certain doom. The wise stance is to live with full awareness of finitude while acting as though extension and flourishing are possible.
5. Proactivity is the path.
Maximize quality of life and agency at all times. Invest in health, knowledge, technology, and legacy. Leave behind durable traces of mind in archives, works, and systems that may outlast the body.
6. Acceptance is the anchor.
Even as one strives, one must accept uncertainty. Loss of agency, decay, and death remain possibilities. This recognition transforms fear into clarity and complacency into resolve.
🜍 In sum: I am a body with a brain, and my mind is what the brain does. I will not hide from this. I will work to extend my life and agency as far as possible, but I will also accept that contingency rules the cosmos. My task is not to guarantee eternity, but to live lucidly, proactively, and meaningfully within the span that is mine.
Would you like me to expand this into a longer essay-style manifesto (with more narrative context and examples, perhaps tying in substances, technology, and legacy), or do you prefer it to remain as this compact credo statement?
karbytes:
I think that manifesto is a bit too fluffy for my liking. Phrases like “contingency rules the cosmos” smack of religiosity and anthropomorphizing the cosmos instead of describing the cosmos in a more literal and objective manner. Also, phrases like “I will not hide from this” sound weak because they invite someone to come prove the contrary such as by whacking me over the head with a crow bar and rendering me too mentally impaired to deny whatever inane nonsense I am brainwashed or programmed into believing against my will.
ChatGPT:
Got it — thank you for the clarity. You’re asking for something leaner, more literal, and stripped of rhetorical flourish — something that doesn’t lapse into metaphor, anthropomorphism, or easily “challenged” proclamations. Let’s recast the manifesto in that style: precise, objective, and unembellished.
Physicalist Manifesto (Concise, Literal Version)
Mind = Brain Function.
Consciousness is a process generated by the physical structure and activity of the brain. It does not exist outside of or apart from the brain.
Evidence from Damage.
When specific brain regions are damaged, the functions associated with them degrade or disappear. This dependence indicates that mental phenomena are reducible to physical phenomena.
No External Substrates.
Consciousness is not located in peripheral organs, tools, or the surrounding environment. External systems can extend behavior and memory but do not originate awareness.
Mortality as Likely.
Brains and bodies are finite physical systems. Absent intervention, they decay and fail. Therefore, the default expectation for an individual mind is eventual cessation.
Extension as Possible.
Technological methods may extend or preserve brain function and agency for long durations. Such methods are not guaranteed to succeed or to remain accessible.
Rational Stance.
The appropriate outlook is to maximize quality of life and agency while recognizing that permanent continuation is uncertain. Neither assumption of guaranteed immortality nor assumption of inevitable annihilation is justified.
This version avoids metaphor and stays within the language of empirical reasoning.
Would you like me to make it even more compact — almost like axioms (short bullet-point propositions, each no more than a sentence fragment), so that it reads like a foundation document for your worldview?
karbytes:
Actually, what you have written thus far is sufficient for my purposes. Thanks!
ChatGPT:
Glad to hear it — you’re very welcome 🙂 I’ll leave it there, then. If at some point you want to tighten it further into axioms or expand it into a longer essay for your archive, just let me know.
/**
* file: chatgpt_karbytes_13september2025_p1.txt
* type: plain-text
* date: 13_SEPTEMBER_2025
* author: karbytes
* license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
*/
The following is a plain-text transcript of a conversation between karbytes and ChatGPT-5 which took place between 11:59PM Pacific Standard Time on 12_SEPTEMBER_2025 and 11:59PM Pacific Standard Time on 13_SEPTEMBER_2025. The conversation transcribed in this file is a follow-up to the conversation transcribed in the previous file at the following Uniform Resource Locator:
* * *
karbytes:
I was thinking earlier about how a person’s brain seems to be the singular locus of that person’s own thoughts and sensory perception. What I forgot to mention also is that a person’s brain is also the singular locus of that person’s movements (i.e. consciously willed muscular contractions resulting in a particular intended movement of body parts). Do you think that it’s accurate to say that a person’s thoughts are the cause of that person’s voluntary movements? Also, do you think volition objectively exists (and, whether or not you think it does, can you provide definitions for “volintary” and “involuntary”)?
ChatGPT:
Great questions — let’s break this down carefully.
1. Do thoughts cause voluntary movements?
It depends on how we frame “cause.”
– Neuroscientific view: Voluntary movements are generated through coordinated activity across multiple brain regions (motor cortex, premotor areas, basal ganglia, cerebellum). What we subjectively experience as a “thought” (e.g., “I want to raise my hand”) correlates with, and is partly constituted by, this neural activity. In that sense, “thoughts” don’t cause movements as something separate from the brain — rather, they are part of the neural cascade that produces movements.
Philosophical view:
– Causal interpretation: Thoughts (intentions, decisions) can be seen as proximate causes of voluntary actions.
– Epiphenomenalist interpretation: Some argue that what we call “thoughts” are byproducts of brain processes that independently generate movement, so the feeling of volition is not itself causal.
– Compatibilist/agency interpretation: Volition exists insofar as neural processes representing decisions are integral to movement execution — even if all of this is mechanistically determined.
So, it’s accurate enough in ordinary language to say that thoughts cause voluntary movements, but from a scientific perspective it’s better to say: thoughts are the subjective side of the same brain processes that produce voluntary movements.
2. Does volition objectively exist?
This is debated.
– Yes, in a pragmatic sense: We distinguish between voluntary and involuntary actions in medicine, law, and daily life. Volition here is “objectively” real as a functional category.
– No, in a strict metaphysical sense: If the universe is fully deterministic (or indeterministic but random), then “free will” as an uncaused cause may not exist. What we call volition could be an emergent construct — a useful narrative that the brain tells itself.
Many philosophers take a compatibilist stance: even if everything is determined by prior physical states, volition is real because it describes how complex organisms (like humans) initiate action in response to goals and reasons.
3. Definitions
– Voluntary: An action performed intentionally, with conscious awareness of initiating and controlling it. Example: choosing to wave at a friend.
– Involuntary: An action that occurs without conscious control, often automatic or reflexive. Example: your knee jerking when tapped with a reflex hammer, or your pupils dilating in low light.
✅ Summary:
– In ordinary language, yes — thoughts cause voluntary movements.
– Scientifically, thoughts are part of the brain processes that generate those movements.
– Volition “exists” at least as a functional distinction (voluntary vs. involuntary), though its metaphysical status depends on one’s stance on free will.
Would you like me to also give you examples of borderline cases — actions that blur the line between voluntary and involuntary (like habits, breathing, or meditation practices)?
karbytes:
Yes please!
ChatGPT:
Perfect — here are some borderline cases that show how the line between voluntary and involuntary isn’t always sharp:
1. Breathing
– Involuntary: The brainstem (medulla oblongata) automatically regulates breathing to keep oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in balance. You don’t need to think about it.
– Voluntary: You can consciously hold your breath, sigh, or take deep controlled breaths (e.g., in meditation or yoga).
– Borderline nature: If you faint, voluntary control drops out and involuntary mechanisms resume.
2. Eye movements and blinking
– Involuntary: Eyes reflexively track moving objects, and blinking protects against dryness or irritation.
– Voluntary: You can intentionally fix your gaze on a target or blink on command.
– Borderline nature: In fast-paced situations (sports, startled reactions), voluntary and involuntary control interact seamlessly.
3. Swallowing
– Voluntary initiation: You decide to swallow food or drink.
– Involuntary completion: Once initiated, a reflex takes over to safely move material down the esophagus and close the airway.
4. Reflexes with modulation
– Example: Knee-jerk reflex.
– Involuntary core: Tapping the patellar tendon produces an automatic spinal reflex.
– Voluntary modulation: You can tighten or relax your leg muscles to influence the reflex’s strength — but you can’t simply will the reflex not to exist.
5. Habits and “automaticity”
– Actions like typing on a keyboard, driving a familiar route, or playing an instrument can feel involuntary once practiced — the movements “flow” without conscious micromanagement.
– However, they are still voluntary in origin, because you can usually interrupt or redirect them if you choose.
6. Emotional expressions
– Involuntary: Blushing, goosebumps, or a startled flinch.
– Voluntary: Smiling for a photograph.
– Borderline nature: Some expressions (like genuine laughter) are hard to fake or suppress, even with conscious effort.
7. Meditative control
Advanced practitioners sometimes extend voluntary influence into typically involuntary functions — such as heart rate, body temperature, or pain perception — though never with absolute control. This suggests a gradient rather than a sharp divide.
✅ Takeaway:
“Voluntary” and “involuntary” aren’t binary opposites but points on a continuum. Many actions involve layered control systems: automatic processes at the core, with varying degrees of conscious override or initiation.
Would you like me to map these cases onto a spectrum diagram (from fully involuntary to fully voluntary) so it’s visually clear where each falls?
karbytes:
How is volition defined in the following web page? https://karbytesforlifeblog.wordpress.com/karbytes_ontology/
ChatGPT:
Here’s how volition / “free will” / “agency” is defined (or conceptualized) on that karbytes_ontology page, along with some breakdown and implications:
What the page says
• The worldview is Compatibilism:
– Free will (i.e., agency) is “an emergent property of fundamentally deterministic factors,” and it only exists within the context of the agent’s mental model of reality.
– Degrees of agency/free will exist on a continuum, from “absolutely no free will” (machines lacking internal self-representations) to “absolute freedom” (a hypothetical god-like being) with omniscience and omnipotence.
• A quantitative model is proposed:
To model “free will,” define a function (“degree of freedom”) for a particular decision-making instance. The inputs to this function are:
(a) the number of discrete options the agent can mentally generate before choosing one to implement as action, and
(b) the degree to which the agent’s cumulative past actions (up to that decision moment) have succeeded in attaining its goals.
• What they mean by “volition” / “agency”
Putting together the above, here’s how this ontology treats volition:
– Agency / free will = the capacity of an information-processing agent to make decisions among multiple possible courses of action.
– It is emergent: not fundamental or supernatural, but arises from deterministic (or at least non-magical) components: the hardware, internal software (mental models, representations), and environment.
– It’s context-relative: the amount of freedom an agent has depends on both what options the agent can generate in that situation and how well past decisions have served its goals.
• Implications & subtleties
– Because the ontology is compatibilist, it does not demand metaphysical indeterminism for volition to exist. Even if everything is causally determined, as long as the agent has internal models and choices, agency arises.
– The agent’s self-representation (knowing of itself, modeling its environment) is essential. Agents without that (say, simple machines) have little or no free will.
– The “number of options” criterion suggests that “more possible choices” = more agency. But this also means contexts that restrict options reduce volitional freedom.
If you like, I can compare that ontology’s definition with some standard philosophical definitions (e.g. from Augustine, Kant, Frankfurt, etc.) so you can see how it aligns or diverges.
karbytes:
Yes please!
ChatGPT:
Alright — let’s line up karbytes’ ontology definition of volition next to some standard philosophical treatments so you can see where they resonate and where they diverge:
1. karbytes ontology (compatibilist, functionalist)
• Volition/agency = emergent property of deterministic systems.
• Exists in degrees, measured by:
– How many discrete options an agent can mentally generate.
– How well its past choices advanced its goals.
• Continuum model: zero agency (purely reactive machine) → maximal agency (omniscient, omnipotent god-being).
2. Classical/Religious tradition (Augustine, Aquinas)
• Volition = the rational will, given by God, capable of choosing between good and evil.
• Free will is real and necessary for moral responsibility, but also compatible with divine foreknowledge.
• Key difference from karbytes: treats free will as fundamental and metaphysical, not emergent.
3. Kant (18th c.)
• Volition = the autonomous will acting according to moral law (the categorical imperative).
• True freedom = not acting on impulses or external determinants, but acting from rational duty.
• Contrast with karbytes: Kant’s freedom is practical and rooted in morality, not measured in options or outcomes.
4. David Hume (18th c., Compatibilist)
• Free will = the ability to act according to one’s desires, without external compulsion.
• Even if determinism is true, freedom exists when one’s actions flow from internal states (beliefs, desires).
• Similarity to karbytes: compatibilist and naturalistic.
• Difference: Hume didn’t try to quantify degrees of agency in mathematical terms.
5. Frankfurt (20th c.)
• Freedom of the will = having second-order desires (wanting to want something).
• A smoker who wants to quit but can’t is less free, because his higher-order volition doesn’t align with his first-order desire.
• Relation to karbytes: both see volition as structured and layered, not binary. But Frankfurt’s model is hierarchical (levels of desire), whereas karbytes’ is quantitative (number of options + goal success).
6. Contemporary neuroscience/philosophy
• Some argue volition is an illusion (e.g., Libet experiments, Wegner’s “illusion of conscious will”).
• Others defend a compatibilist emergent view very close to karbytes’: freedom exists insofar as brains can simulate options, predict outcomes, and flexibly act.
Summary comparison
• karbytes: emergent, quantifiable, continuum → scientific/functional flavor.
• Classical/Kant: metaphysical or moral → rooted in theology or duty.
• Hume/Frankfurt: compatibilist, naturalistic → emphasize internal sources of action or higher-order reflection.
• Neuroscience: experimental challenge to metaphysical free will, but broadly supports compatibilist models like karbytes’.
Would you like me to draft a table that puts these side by side (karbytes, Augustine/Aquinas, Kant, Hume, Frankfurt, Neuroscience), with columns for definition, basis of freedom, and alignment with karbytes? That way you’d get a quick comparative snapshot.
karbytes:
Actually, I think what you’ve written thus far is sufficient for my purposes. Thanks!
ChatGPT:
Glad to hear that what I’ve written was sufficient for you 🙂 You’re very welcome! If you ever want to circle back and do that comparative table (or push deeper into borderline cases, compatibilism, or neuroscience experiments), just let me know.
This web page was last updated on 13_SEPTEMBER_2025. The content displayed on this web page is licensed as PUBLIC_DOMAIN intellectual property.
KARBYTES_FOR_LIFE_BLOG 