Sex, firstly, is not the way we're meant to use our genetalia, we're meant to reproduce using them. Pleasuring from the genetalia is alternative usage.

Homosexuality is alternative genetalia usage, usually a result of abstract reality, such as man-made civilization on a solar-made planet. Homosexuality is an abstraction of heterosexuality, more specific than sex for pleasure; it's sex, with the same gender, for pleasure.

I believe the sky is red; does this mean the sky is identified as red in my view? Seems dodgy and inefficent.

A male turned female is still a male, I don't care what he says he is; the fact of the matter is not false because someone's belief contests it.

No. Gender is not about gender roles; gender is about genetals. There are sets of genetalia, and depending on which set you have defines your gender.

It's not Top and Bottom, masculine and feminine - go back to grindr.

one example of the non local aspect is the shape of a tree; you create it in mind, but before you can do this you need original environment where a tree shape can at least be theorized.

the shape of a tree is as new to mind.

no.

Yes.

Yes, they are; but aren't they also derived from the non-local? (You should see what I'm saying here).

It is the localized non-local; I am definitely experiecing an outside to sense; as well as being a sensory organism, consciousness is not, but is derived from the non-local, much like peanut butter and peanuts.

when did i say it was identical? your original answer was disorientated.

partially peanuts, and if we're asking the question where did consciousness arise from it clearly is the universe (rather than coming from nothing, you come from sexual intercourse that has momentum enough to create your consciousness; consciousness derives from universe, where human pairs can exist. Where do thoughts arise from; can be traced to universe interaction as well as mind; however - mind is clearly also in the picture. Mind does simulate thought process, but this thought process wouldn't happen without the stimulation from world or environment.

Even if you existed in space - you would still observe an environment - any thoughts you have are co-existent between mind and universe; even if it is just that space; what would you think?

something is always derived from universe.

I said of the mind with world/simulation; therefore, it is always at least associated with the world.

In my opinion omnipotence is added to God, and be subtracted whenever, because God is a way to worship such a thing I do not like, you do so scientifically. I worship the status quo in light of heaven and hell (what's also added to God); key; worshipping the status quo; benefiting the status quo.

What goes around comes around; things like karma are implied by the status quo; the Earth is sustainable and we can benefit it by tapping into it's potential; dying with a success in mind. Who's to say it is the best success, but is it's success valuable? Murder, is it wrong? (people's lifes hold particular value); morality is to do with beneficence or malefience to the greater system; in a universe as chaotic as this lot's is forgiven; lot's of value is determined good, and you can be beneficent or maleficent. Simple logic is, if you aren't, you will either go to hell, degraded or even just not given entry into the better lives. Why should anyone be nice to you if they catch you?

but are these not a product of mind with world/simulation?

Foi ex. I can now imagine a tree because I have seen one; it's likely I comes first, or something I-like, because it has memory.

Being honest, Baden, it's a stupid topic.

No.

It's penis/vagina logic; because homosexuals exist doesn't abolish the reproductive status quo.

Homosexuality is the abstract case, I don't care how sugar coated the topic is for their social security.

Penis's/vagina's are opposites that work in harmony, and this is gender.

What's mental-only?

Perfection is comforting; like why people buy paintings.

If someone regularly creates perfect art, they're likely to become rich from their efforts - this doesn't mean that imperfection isn't art, it means that perfect art is preferred.

If you could have everything you wanted at the simplest thought, that would be more perfect (and thus comfortable), no?

Consciousness is the localization of the non-local; sense data, is better put here data/mind; experience is of the external but it's localized into a conscious observer.

There's no multiplex; consciousnesses are separate to each other.

As you can see there is no conscious A.I that recharges and recallibrates like the human body.

Consciousness is like a rolex watch that charges as you move your wrist.

Sexual intercourse leads to reproduciton, and what's re-produced is a vessel who's momentum is self-sustaining on the planet using it's nature (oxygen, land, etc).

Consciousness is dependant on the non-local, so it's not a multiplex, but a unity (with consciousness support).

Yes, it's called Heaven and Hell.

One example:

Some people have good genetics, some people have bad genetics; the odds are better for people with good genetics.

You can get good genetics in the next life by being moral throughout your life.

Some people with good genetics may expereince a bad life; which, is where other examples may arise.

There are many ways a heaven or hell can be created; such as: environment, competition, fear, pain/pleasure, etc.

Given you are in lot's of pain and on your death bed, and I'm healthy and taking lot's of pleasure, I'm a man who's better than you, but if I was evil and you were good, you might just be going to heaven and I'm on my way to hell - so it's down to the righteous judgement.

No. God doesn't exist - you would benefit from using the term 'natural forces involved in the big bang and vessel-selection-process.'

Words are an abstraction of reality; to name 'natural forces involved in the vessel-selection-process', God, is firstly, an abstraction of the reality of these forces, and finally, inaccurate therefore.

It seems, people who have no answers, use God, for no other answer exists for our reference; not to mention it refers to a holy book, but given you're implying God is the dictionary definition, we'll skip the theatrics...

You can theorize all day different definitions for God, such as 'the multi-verse', 'light', 'the status quo', but these aren't the definition of God, that is 'deity' or 'higher power'.

'The status quo' exists, we can sense it; why would you reduce the status quo, named accurately, to God? Then you will use this knowledge immaturely, by going to church, rather than helping/hindering the status quo?

At most, the word is useful when defined as 'pointer to forces that we currently do not know about until further notice...'

Can your mind grow out of God, and actually define the higher forces in question? If not, please stop redefining God as you please, it's silly use of words technology.