Or the possibility that time itself has a mind is never zero, and the possibility that space itself has a mind is possible. We don't know much more, and we know only a few. But when we know that the more we know, the more we don't understand, we still know that we are ignorant. The possibility that things also have a heart is quite realistic.

That hypothesis probably means that anything is just seemed subjectively by us personally, in some impressional extent, nevertheless, to that view, everything could be perfectly objective.

In other words, e. g. at leat to me, your mind is just black box, even if I could observe or gaze at your now expression, that truth is absolute, because what we know personally exactly is only our own mind.
Thus, true exactly correct subjectivity consequently could be only our own mind, thus to any other human personal presence, otherwise to any other just material, that ultimate difference is ultimately could never evidenced at least in terms of certainty.

Of course, anytime usually we try to reject that skepticism to any human presence, that could be one of ethical view as socially just idea.

Nevertheless, machine by itself could have mind as we have it. That possiblity could never be denied, neither.
Mankind may eventually be destroyed by the machine itself. It is not unlikely that supercomputers will start to have a heart in themselves (many excellent scholars have pointed out). The reality of Kubrick movies is being realized. Overuse on a daily basis can also weaken the human psyche. But since everyone is addicted to it, their sensibilities have changed.

Sensibility's change could drag our idea's basis, otherwise, reality by itself we all are surrounded could make us ever refusable sensibility perfectly familiar habitually tangiblity with ever that refusable it and gradually ever rejected objects could be switched into never rejectable far from it, even very addicted mind could be composed, and completely it'd be fixed favoritely ecstatic condition or so.

That overturn certainly proves our action's power or effectiveness for converting our own physiologically physical sensibility or constitution.

After all, to us, as being in world, our own presence means doing and receiving in reaction at which we personally accept or not and with that acquired physiologic memory, we could have natural transition around acceptability and habitualness in daily sensing routine.

Thus, basically we can know that only very familiar and well-known thing is only our own physically sensed physiological sensation, though to anything, precisely any discriminating conclusion could not be effective, that truth must be outputted.

Consequently gradually objectively regarded matter and subjectively regarded one could not have obvious difference and gap, neither. In the end, to us, any impressively specified noticeable things are just arbitrarily chosen them, consequently to everything, at least at our own mind, perfectly homogenous nature could be found, and with the idea, we'd see everything, though any presence could be regarded being at uniformalized and plainly even, and that view to some extent, actually so equivalence, nevertheless, if to its condition, we try to add our own mind, only it could be outstanding, though basically, genuinely to everything completely objectively we could see, certainly everything is at uniformity, nevertheless, if we try to be consicous on that mind, suddenly only our presence with that mind could be specified presence, and only it could be subject and any other confrimable external presence could be object as the equivalence.

Though, fundamentally our view to every presence as the equivalence means certainly one kind of cross secrtion, unless we try to regard even our own subject one part of everything, that cross section could be completely flat, but our mind and its presence could not be so easily equivalence with any other presence, ordinarily, though necessarily only arbitrarily regarding only our mind and its presence just one part of everything, first completed objectivity as one credible regard otherwise the stance to observe everything could be made.

In other words, perfectly objective view could be one of cross sectional view to everything, but consistently only our subjective mind could be outstandingly seen another presence, though consequently only daringly invalidating only own mind's presence as mindset could be one first premise for setting ethical view.

In conclusion, any ethical view must be one of objectively regarding own mind in first premised mindset. 
Then, in terms of principle, objectivity is one of ethically viewing fixation in mind. We could regard it so well.

Even horizontal one cross section means first objective viewing acquirement. And that means making our own picking choice or so in all things so regarded subjective idea or mind for choice as the interesting or impressive, but to it, we regard our own mind as the object to be surmounted at invalidating specified identity so intentionally.

Certainly, there first, we could get perfect cross section, as the field to set equality to any presence. However, truly is what we believe that we could surpass that first gate so appropriate judgement? The question anytime comes up to our mind.

After all, only next truth could be left, just anything confirmable presence and our "myself".
Because only subjective presence to admit any other presence around it could be exceptionally outstanding to our mind.
Surely that could be DesCartes's awareness, it'd not be false, nevertheless, at the matter of fact, either there could have two things' composing set as subjective own mind and its conceivable everything as any object.

And these two items could be regarded as two equal items I can recognize in mind.
In other words, when we try to observe these two items, surely we could get cross sectional evenness or so flat cross sectional surface, nevertheless, that view is notional comprehension.
Meanwhile if we are conscious about only perceptional condition, we suddenly could be awoken to observed objects as each presence to us except "myself" or its mind, and the one specified object we could never regard only one of them as each observable object.
Consequently only that could be our kind of ego, or the sole subject.

Then, for the time being, cross section thing could be made by our arbitrary mind's viewing and judging through that pereption.
Only that truth could be deducted arbitrarily.

(to be continued)

Feb. 14th.      2022