Beyond the definitions, a person walks into a room, something happens, they never walk out again, nor is the outside world impacted, nor is anything changed by them. They might as well walk into the wireheading room and have their brains dashed upon the floor. Their body may be breathing, but they are dead just the same.
If the wireheading were un-doable, then it would be nothing more than suspended animation. Pleasurable, but it’s still a machine you plug into then do nothing until you unplug. Frankly, I haven’t the years to waste in an orgasmium.
No matter what you say happens, when you take away the labels and blur your eyes a bit, you’re asking us if we want to die. Granted, we’re dieing and being sent immediately and verifiably to an earthly heaven, but it’s still death. Adding “you experience Xtreme pleasure” before you kill us doesn’t make it any more appetizing.
Death is the eternal enemy of mankind. I will not join its side just because it’s slightly more pleasurable.
Question reversal: suppose Omega reveals to you that your life has been a simulation. Your actions inside the simulation don’t affect the outside, ‘real’ world—nobody is watching you.
However, Omega offers to remove you from the simulation and instantiate you in the real world outside. Unfortunately, Omega predicts that your future life on the outside won’t be nearly as fun as the one you’ve had in the simulation up until now. The difference in satisfaction—including satisfying your preferences that apply to “affecting the ‘real’ world”—may be as great as the possible improvement due to wireheading...
Would you accept the offer and risk a life of extreme misery to improve your chance of affecting the “real” world? Would you consider yourself “dead” if you knew you were being simulated?
I would accept Omega’s offer to ‘pop’ me up a level. I would accept even if it meant misery and pain. I would always accept this offer. Actually, bar that. I would accept the offer conditional on the fact that I’d be able to impact the ‘real’ world more outside the simulation than inside. I’d be comfortable staying in my current level if it was providing some useful effect in the higher levels of reality that I couldn’t provide if I were ‘popped’ out.
Would you consider yourself “dead” if you knew you were being simulated?
Upon learning I was in a simulation, I would make it my life’s sole purpose to escape. I think this would be a common reaction. It is my understanding that Buddhism believes this world is a simulation and the goal of each Buddhist is to ‘pop’ themselves unto a higher plane of reality. Many branches of Christianity also put strong emphasis on proving one’s worth on Earth solely to be in as good a position as possible once we die and ‘pop’ into the ‘real’ world in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Exploring your question more, I realize that there are at least two situations this wouldn’t work in. The first situation would be if reality consisted of a circularly linked list of ‘real’ worlds, and ‘popping’ up or ‘pushing’ down enough times would bring you back to the same world you started at. The second situation would be if there were infinitely many layers to ‘pop’ up through. I’m actually not sure what I would do if reality were in such an impossible configuration.
Why do you think infinitely many layers would be an impossible configuration? If anyone, anywhere has an actual real turing machine (as opposed to a finite approximation of a turing machine), creating such a configuration is basically child’s play.
Wireheads are still experiencing the pleasure. They are not in suspended animation, stuff is still happening in their brains. They don’t affect the outside world anymore (beyond ensuring their survival), but so what? The fact that it is superficially similar to death does not bother me at all. If no more optimization is needed, why bother with optimizing?
You’re essentially just restating the basic intuition against wireheading, just more emphatically. I find it just as incomprehensible.
(For completeness, I don’t share your aversion to death at all. I’m totally indifferent to it. I essentially agree with teageegeepea here. Maybe this influences the intuition.)
I do not mean that Wireheading is metaphorical death. It is not just an emotionally charged statement that means I am really against Wireheading. I mean that Wireheading is literally death.
The cluster of death-space consists of more than just stopping breathing. I am arguing that the important boundary in the definition-space of death is not ‘stopped breathing’ but ‘inability to affect the outside world’. Imagine the following Omega enabled events, rest assured that none of them are reversible once Omega stops toying with you and finishes this experiment. Ask yourself if you consider the following states death:
1 -Omega transforms your body into a corpse! You cannot move or do anything a corpse cannot do.
2-Omega transforms your body into a corpse, but lets you keep moving and taking actions. You return back to work on monday, and thankfully there’s no extra smell.
3-Omega teleports you to a dimension of nothingness, and you’re stuck there for all eternity.
4-Omega teleports you to a dimension full of nothingness, then brings you back out a year later.
5-Omega turns you into a tree. You’re not able to do anything a tree cannot do, like think, move, or anything of the sort.
6-Omega turns you into a tree, but gives you the power to move and think and talk in rhymes.
7-Omega keeps your body the same, but severs your ability to do anything including moving your eyes or blinking. Luckily your autonomic system keeps you breathing and someone puts you a nutrient drip before that ‘not eating’ thing catches up to you.
8-Omega keeps your body the same, but separates your ability to do anything into a separate non-corporeal facility. IE, you can move things with your mind.
9-Omega replaces your body with a corpse doll and shifts you into a parallel plane where you can view the world but not interact.
10-Omega replaces your body with a corpse doll and shifts you into a parallel plane where you can both view and interact with the world.
All the odd numbers seem straight up death to me. 1 is regular death, 3 is getting sucked into a black hole, 5 is well dieing and having a tree planted on you, 7 is brain death, and 9 is christian death. All the even numbers, even though they’re identical except your how much you can effect the world, feel like you’re gaining superpowers. Well, except that solitary confinement for a year one. The meaningful divide of death is not if we’ve stopped breathing or even stopped existing, it’s whether or not we can effect the outside world.
Being strapped into the pleasure machine lets us still breath like brain death, but takes away our ability to do anything, just like brain death. Wireheading that takes away our ability to effect the outside world kills us.
(Thanks for the clarification, that makes your comment much clearer.)
How would 2) work? What do you mean, my body becomes a corpse, but goes to work? As a corpse, I won’t have blood circulation for example, so how could I walk? Unless Omega magically turns me into an actual zombie, but what’s the use of thinking about magic?
Similarly, 6) ain’t a tree, but at best a brain stuck in a tree.
Does 3) include myself as separate from the nothingness? So I’m essentially “floating” in nothingness, kinda like a Boltzmann brain?
8) isn’t possible in principle. There are no separate mental events, unless Omega can change metaphysics, but that’s uninteresting.
I’d consider 3), 4), 7), 9) and 10) totally alive, assuming mental processing is still happening, stuff is still getting experienced, it’s just that any outgoing signals to influence the world are getting ignored. If this isn’t happening (e.g. I’m in a deep coma), then I’m straight-up dead. As long as I have subjective experiences, I’m alive.
Overall though, arguing about the definition of “death” isn’t gonna be useful.
(Omega was supplied so that magical scenarios would be possible for the thought experiment.)
My definition vs your definition of death is very enlightening in light of our differences on wireheading.
You view being alive as being able to think, to receive input and experience. I view being alive as being able to act, to change and shape the world. This division cuts through the experience of wireheading; it is the state of thinking without the ability to act. Life to you; death to me. I would venture a guess that anyone who is pro-wireheading would hold your view of life/death while anyone who is anti-wireheading would hold my view of life/death.
You wanted to know why all those other arguments sounded good to everybody, but not to you. We have incompatible priors. There is no sufficiently convincing argument that can cross the gulf between life and death. I do not have sufficient rationalist superpowers to try and change your priors (or even make you want to change them, as I wouldn’t want to change mine). But if you wish to understand what other people are thinking as they reject Wireheading, simply close your eyes and try and imagine the choice you would make if you instead believed your time of death were the instant you never acted upon the world again.
They are not being convinced by insufficient arguments. They are merely starting from a different metaphysical position than you.
That doesn’t dissolve the problem completely for me, it just moves the confusion from “Why do humans disagree on wireheading?” to “Why do humans have different views on what constitutes death?”. Is it just something you memetically pick up and that then dominates your values?
I’d rather assume that the (hypothetical) value difference comes first and we then use this to classify what counts as “dead”. “yup, can still get pleasure there, I must be alive” vs. “nope, can’t affect the external world, I must be dead”.
That is a very interesting question. I’m sure I feel quite as puzzled looking at you from this side as you do looking at me from that side. I would also assume that there is some other first factor.
Sadly, it would be a bit outside of the depth of my understanding of metaphysics (and the scope of this page) to try and discover what it is. Still, I am intrigued about it and will keep thinking on the subject.
This perspective does explain why I would be much less worried about wireheading if I was older than I am right now and had already reproduced. If I had kids who were off having their own kids, I could think “Ah good, my DNA is off replicating itself and at this point, and whether or not I die is unlikely to change that. In fact, the best way to help them out would probably be to make sure I don’t spend too much of the money they might theoretically inherit, so if wireheading was cheaper than a world yacht tour, my kids and grandkids might even benefit from me deciding to wirehead.
That being said, I say this as someone who hasn’t even experienced a world yacht tour. I mean, now that I’m a working adult, I can barely manage to acquire much more then about 10 consecutive days of not working, which gives one just barely enough time to scratch through the surface of your current hedonism and encounter boredom with choices (The last time I was bored and had a choice of activity, it felt refreshing because of how RARELY I’m bored and have choices, as opposed to being bored because you are stuck in your current activity with no control) Before deciding to wirehead, it seems like it might be well worth while to at the very least take some time to experience being retired to make sure I have a good feel for what it is that I’m giving up.
But I also realize at this point I also feel like it’s a bit presumptuous of me to say what I would want at 70 or so, at 27. I’ve experienced too many changes in philosophy in the last 10 years to feel assured that my current set of desires are stable enough to suggest something that far in the future. I mean, it doesn’t feel likely they’ll change, but it didn’t feel likely they would change before either, and yet they did.
So do you think these reasons for maybe wanting to wirehead at 70 would be good enough reasons to kill yourself? Because if you are accepting Xachariah’s response then it seems like that is the standard you’d have to meet.
Yes, there are definitely a set of circumstances where I could see myself willing to essentially suicide when I’m significantly older. I mean, when you’re old, cheap wireheading seems to be equivalent to being given a choice between:
1: Die pleasantly and painlessly after a grand farewell party, allowing your family to have a good inheritance and ascend to the technological equivalent of heaven.
2: Die in a hospital bed after horrible mind crushing suffering where you are incoherent, draining away money and resources for your family, and then nothing.
If you’re going to die anyway (and I am assuming Immortal life is not on the table. If it is, then the entire scenario is substantially different), option 1 sure sounds a lot better.
And yes, there are also a large number of circumstances where I can see myself not wireheading as well. Maybe my Grandfatherly advice will prove absolutely crucial to my grandchildren, who think that my great grandchildren just won’t be the same without getting to meet me in person. It’s entirely possible that everyone around me will still need me even when I’m 70, or still when I’m 80, or even when I’m 90. (With medical technology improving, maybe 90 will be the new 70?)
That’s why I mentioned I’d want to get a feel for retired life before deciding to wirehead. I don’t really know what it’s going to be like being a retired person for me.
For that matter, the entire concept of retirement may not even be around by the time I’m 70. It’s not just my own philosophy that can change in 43 years. Our entire economic system might be different. And I also had the implicit assumption of cheap wireheading, but it may turn out that wireheading would be horribly expensive. That’s an entirely different set of calculations.
Before deciding to wirehead, it seems like it might be well worth while to at the very least take some time to experience being retired to make sure I have a good feel for what it is that I’m giving up.
The scenario stipulates your wireheading experience will be the best one possible. If you really enjoy yacht tours, you’ll experience simulated yacht tours. You’re not giving anything up in terms of experience.
That’s a good point, and It made me think about this again, but my understanding is that I think I must be giving up SOME possible experience. Wouldn’t it break the laws of physics for a finitely sized wireheading world to contain more possible states to experience than the universe which contains the wireheading world and also contains other things?
Now, for yacht tours, I don’t think this matters. Yacht tours don’t require that kind of complexity. Actually, I’m not even sure how this kind of complexity would be expressed or if it’s something I could notice even if I was a theoretical physicist with trillions of dollars of equipment.
But after rethinking this, I think this complexity represents some type of experience and I don’t want to rush into trading it away before I understand it unless I feel like I have to, so I still feel like I may want to wait on wireheading.
I suppose an alternate way of looking at it might be that I have a box of mystery, which might contain the empty vastness of space or some other concept beyond my understanding, and if I trade it, I will never be able to access it again, but in exchange I get offered the best possible experience of everything that ISN’T in the box, many of which I already know.
There is a distinct possiblity I’m just being irrationally afraid of rushing into making permanent irreversible decisions. I’ve had that type of fear for decisions which are much more minor than wireheading, and it might be coming up again.
That being said, being unsure of this point represents a contradiction to something that I had thought earlier. So I’m definitely being inconsistent about something and I appreciate you pointing it out. I’ll try to break it down and see if I can determine which point I need to discard.
Because wireheading is death.
Beyond the definitions, a person walks into a room, something happens, they never walk out again, nor is the outside world impacted, nor is anything changed by them. They might as well walk into the wireheading room and have their brains dashed upon the floor. Their body may be breathing, but they are dead just the same.
If the wireheading were un-doable, then it would be nothing more than suspended animation. Pleasurable, but it’s still a machine you plug into then do nothing until you unplug. Frankly, I haven’t the years to waste in an orgasmium.
No matter what you say happens, when you take away the labels and blur your eyes a bit, you’re asking us if we want to die. Granted, we’re dieing and being sent immediately and verifiably to an earthly heaven, but it’s still death. Adding “you experience Xtreme pleasure” before you kill us doesn’t make it any more appetizing.
Death is the eternal enemy of mankind. I will not join its side just because it’s slightly more pleasurable.
Question reversal: suppose Omega reveals to you that your life has been a simulation. Your actions inside the simulation don’t affect the outside, ‘real’ world—nobody is watching you.
However, Omega offers to remove you from the simulation and instantiate you in the real world outside. Unfortunately, Omega predicts that your future life on the outside won’t be nearly as fun as the one you’ve had in the simulation up until now. The difference in satisfaction—including satisfying your preferences that apply to “affecting the ‘real’ world”—may be as great as the possible improvement due to wireheading...
Would you accept the offer and risk a life of extreme misery to improve your chance of affecting the “real” world? Would you consider yourself “dead” if you knew you were being simulated?
(Apologies for replying late.)
I would accept Omega’s offer to ‘pop’ me up a level. I would accept even if it meant misery and pain. I would always accept this offer. Actually, bar that. I would accept the offer conditional on the fact that I’d be able to impact the ‘real’ world more outside the simulation than inside. I’d be comfortable staying in my current level if it was providing some useful effect in the higher levels of reality that I couldn’t provide if I were ‘popped’ out.
Upon learning I was in a simulation, I would make it my life’s sole purpose to escape. I think this would be a common reaction. It is my understanding that Buddhism believes this world is a simulation and the goal of each Buddhist is to ‘pop’ themselves unto a higher plane of reality. Many branches of Christianity also put strong emphasis on proving one’s worth on Earth solely to be in as good a position as possible once we die and ‘pop’ into the ‘real’ world in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Exploring your question more, I realize that there are at least two situations this wouldn’t work in. The first situation would be if reality consisted of a circularly linked list of ‘real’ worlds, and ‘popping’ up or ‘pushing’ down enough times would bring you back to the same world you started at. The second situation would be if there were infinitely many layers to ‘pop’ up through. I’m actually not sure what I would do if reality were in such an impossible configuration.
Why do you think infinitely many layers would be an impossible configuration? If anyone, anywhere has an actual real turing machine (as opposed to a finite approximation of a turing machine), creating such a configuration is basically child’s play.
Have you read The Finale of the Ultimate Meta Mega Crossover which explores just this possibility ?
Wireheads are still experiencing the pleasure. They are not in suspended animation, stuff is still happening in their brains. They don’t affect the outside world anymore (beyond ensuring their survival), but so what? The fact that it is superficially similar to death does not bother me at all. If no more optimization is needed, why bother with optimizing?
You’re essentially just restating the basic intuition against wireheading, just more emphatically. I find it just as incomprehensible.
(For completeness, I don’t share your aversion to death at all. I’m totally indifferent to it. I essentially agree with teageegeepea here. Maybe this influences the intuition.)
I do not mean that Wireheading is metaphorical death. It is not just an emotionally charged statement that means I am really against Wireheading. I mean that Wireheading is literally death.
The cluster of death-space consists of more than just stopping breathing. I am arguing that the important boundary in the definition-space of death is not ‘stopped breathing’ but ‘inability to affect the outside world’. Imagine the following Omega enabled events, rest assured that none of them are reversible once Omega stops toying with you and finishes this experiment. Ask yourself if you consider the following states death:
1 -Omega transforms your body into a corpse! You cannot move or do anything a corpse cannot do.
2-Omega transforms your body into a corpse, but lets you keep moving and taking actions. You return back to work on monday, and thankfully there’s no extra smell.
3-Omega teleports you to a dimension of nothingness, and you’re stuck there for all eternity.
4-Omega teleports you to a dimension full of nothingness, then brings you back out a year later.
5-Omega turns you into a tree. You’re not able to do anything a tree cannot do, like think, move, or anything of the sort.
6-Omega turns you into a tree, but gives you the power to move and think and talk in rhymes.
7-Omega keeps your body the same, but severs your ability to do anything including moving your eyes or blinking. Luckily your autonomic system keeps you breathing and someone puts you a nutrient drip before that ‘not eating’ thing catches up to you.
8-Omega keeps your body the same, but separates your ability to do anything into a separate non-corporeal facility. IE, you can move things with your mind.
9-Omega replaces your body with a corpse doll and shifts you into a parallel plane where you can view the world but not interact.
10-Omega replaces your body with a corpse doll and shifts you into a parallel plane where you can both view and interact with the world.
All the odd numbers seem straight up death to me. 1 is regular death, 3 is getting sucked into a black hole, 5 is well dieing and having a tree planted on you, 7 is brain death, and 9 is christian death. All the even numbers, even though they’re identical except your how much you can effect the world, feel like you’re gaining superpowers. Well, except that solitary confinement for a year one. The meaningful divide of death is not if we’ve stopped breathing or even stopped existing, it’s whether or not we can effect the outside world.
Being strapped into the pleasure machine lets us still breath like brain death, but takes away our ability to do anything, just like brain death. Wireheading that takes away our ability to effect the outside world kills us.
(Thanks for the clarification, that makes your comment much clearer.)
How would 2) work? What do you mean, my body becomes a corpse, but goes to work? As a corpse, I won’t have blood circulation for example, so how could I walk? Unless Omega magically turns me into an actual zombie, but what’s the use of thinking about magic?
Similarly, 6) ain’t a tree, but at best a brain stuck in a tree.
Does 3) include myself as separate from the nothingness? So I’m essentially “floating” in nothingness, kinda like a Boltzmann brain?
8) isn’t possible in principle. There are no separate mental events, unless Omega can change metaphysics, but that’s uninteresting.
I’d consider 3), 4), 7), 9) and 10) totally alive, assuming mental processing is still happening, stuff is still getting experienced, it’s just that any outgoing signals to influence the world are getting ignored. If this isn’t happening (e.g. I’m in a deep coma), then I’m straight-up dead. As long as I have subjective experiences, I’m alive.
Overall though, arguing about the definition of “death” isn’t gonna be useful.
(Omega was supplied so that magical scenarios would be possible for the thought experiment.)
My definition vs your definition of death is very enlightening in light of our differences on wireheading.
You view being alive as being able to think, to receive input and experience. I view being alive as being able to act, to change and shape the world. This division cuts through the experience of wireheading; it is the state of thinking without the ability to act. Life to you; death to me. I would venture a guess that anyone who is pro-wireheading would hold your view of life/death while anyone who is anti-wireheading would hold my view of life/death.
You wanted to know why all those other arguments sounded good to everybody, but not to you. We have incompatible priors. There is no sufficiently convincing argument that can cross the gulf between life and death. I do not have sufficient rationalist superpowers to try and change your priors (or even make you want to change them, as I wouldn’t want to change mine). But if you wish to understand what other people are thinking as they reject Wireheading, simply close your eyes and try and imagine the choice you would make if you instead believed your time of death were the instant you never acted upon the world again.
They are not being convinced by insufficient arguments. They are merely starting from a different metaphysical position than you.
That doesn’t dissolve the problem completely for me, it just moves the confusion from “Why do humans disagree on wireheading?” to “Why do humans have different views on what constitutes death?”. Is it just something you memetically pick up and that then dominates your values?
I’d rather assume that the (hypothetical) value difference comes first and we then use this to classify what counts as “dead”. “yup, can still get pleasure there, I must be alive” vs. “nope, can’t affect the external world, I must be dead”.
That is a very interesting question. I’m sure I feel quite as puzzled looking at you from this side as you do looking at me from that side. I would also assume that there is some other first factor.
Sadly, it would be a bit outside of the depth of my understanding of metaphysics (and the scope of this page) to try and discover what it is. Still, I am intrigued about it and will keep thinking on the subject.
unpack “the world” and you’ll maybe sympathize with wireheaders more.
This perspective does explain why I would be much less worried about wireheading if I was older than I am right now and had already reproduced. If I had kids who were off having their own kids, I could think “Ah good, my DNA is off replicating itself and at this point, and whether or not I die is unlikely to change that. In fact, the best way to help them out would probably be to make sure I don’t spend too much of the money they might theoretically inherit, so if wireheading was cheaper than a world yacht tour, my kids and grandkids might even benefit from me deciding to wirehead.
That being said, I say this as someone who hasn’t even experienced a world yacht tour. I mean, now that I’m a working adult, I can barely manage to acquire much more then about 10 consecutive days of not working, which gives one just barely enough time to scratch through the surface of your current hedonism and encounter boredom with choices (The last time I was bored and had a choice of activity, it felt refreshing because of how RARELY I’m bored and have choices, as opposed to being bored because you are stuck in your current activity with no control) Before deciding to wirehead, it seems like it might be well worth while to at the very least take some time to experience being retired to make sure I have a good feel for what it is that I’m giving up.
But I also realize at this point I also feel like it’s a bit presumptuous of me to say what I would want at 70 or so, at 27. I’ve experienced too many changes in philosophy in the last 10 years to feel assured that my current set of desires are stable enough to suggest something that far in the future. I mean, it doesn’t feel likely they’ll change, but it didn’t feel likely they would change before either, and yet they did.
So do you think these reasons for maybe wanting to wirehead at 70 would be good enough reasons to kill yourself? Because if you are accepting Xachariah’s response then it seems like that is the standard you’d have to meet.
Yes, there are definitely a set of circumstances where I could see myself willing to essentially suicide when I’m significantly older. I mean, when you’re old, cheap wireheading seems to be equivalent to being given a choice between:
1: Die pleasantly and painlessly after a grand farewell party, allowing your family to have a good inheritance and ascend to the technological equivalent of heaven. 2: Die in a hospital bed after horrible mind crushing suffering where you are incoherent, draining away money and resources for your family, and then nothing.
If you’re going to die anyway (and I am assuming Immortal life is not on the table. If it is, then the entire scenario is substantially different), option 1 sure sounds a lot better.
And yes, there are also a large number of circumstances where I can see myself not wireheading as well. Maybe my Grandfatherly advice will prove absolutely crucial to my grandchildren, who think that my great grandchildren just won’t be the same without getting to meet me in person. It’s entirely possible that everyone around me will still need me even when I’m 70, or still when I’m 80, or even when I’m 90. (With medical technology improving, maybe 90 will be the new 70?)
That’s why I mentioned I’d want to get a feel for retired life before deciding to wirehead. I don’t really know what it’s going to be like being a retired person for me.
For that matter, the entire concept of retirement may not even be around by the time I’m 70. It’s not just my own philosophy that can change in 43 years. Our entire economic system might be different. And I also had the implicit assumption of cheap wireheading, but it may turn out that wireheading would be horribly expensive. That’s an entirely different set of calculations.
The scenario stipulates your wireheading experience will be the best one possible. If you really enjoy yacht tours, you’ll experience simulated yacht tours. You’re not giving anything up in terms of experience.
That’s a good point, and It made me think about this again, but my understanding is that I think I must be giving up SOME possible experience. Wouldn’t it break the laws of physics for a finitely sized wireheading world to contain more possible states to experience than the universe which contains the wireheading world and also contains other things?
Now, for yacht tours, I don’t think this matters. Yacht tours don’t require that kind of complexity. Actually, I’m not even sure how this kind of complexity would be expressed or if it’s something I could notice even if I was a theoretical physicist with trillions of dollars of equipment.
But after rethinking this, I think this complexity represents some type of experience and I don’t want to rush into trading it away before I understand it unless I feel like I have to, so I still feel like I may want to wait on wireheading.
I suppose an alternate way of looking at it might be that I have a box of mystery, which might contain the empty vastness of space or some other concept beyond my understanding, and if I trade it, I will never be able to access it again, but in exchange I get offered the best possible experience of everything that ISN’T in the box, many of which I already know.
There is a distinct possiblity I’m just being irrationally afraid of rushing into making permanent irreversible decisions. I’ve had that type of fear for decisions which are much more minor than wireheading, and it might be coming up again.
That being said, being unsure of this point represents a contradiction to something that I had thought earlier. So I’m definitely being inconsistent about something and I appreciate you pointing it out. I’ll try to break it down and see if I can determine which point I need to discard.