What are you even talking about? I exhaustively defined it. How the fuck is the subconscious defined as being agency of choices, and a matter of chosen opinion what is in it?

It is anti common sense thinking that everyone is entitled to enter a country.

Entitled, lol.

Trump was and is obviously putting the fire to anyone holding those currupt nothing jobs. Anyone who holds such a nothingjob is liable to be called out for it now. That reduces corruption.

Total bullshit, it's nothing.Biden's son is real corruption. Trump caused all those holding corrupt nothingjobs to be punished.

What if you made the electricity in an electric engine, all particles, througout the engine, instead of waves. Would there be any difference?

All your questions are answered in the original post, which you still have not read.

When you were frightened, you might have yelled, "AAAAAAAH". To yell aaaaah, basically is the same as saying I am afraid. Do you insist aaaaaaah is fact, as you insist fear is fact?

Consider the basic logic.
There are alternative futures A and B available, A is made the present, meaning A is chosen.

Then there is the question "what was it that made the choice turn out A instead of B?

Now you are basically saying that this question must be answered by gathering evidence in order to establish a fact of what it was, while I am saying the question must be answered by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing an opinion on what it was.

Say it was in fact X which made the choice turn out A. Then X being a definite factual thing, X forced A, and the choice could not have turned out B. So you get a logic error of contradiction between B being possihle and impossible.

But if you just express a personal opinion fear made the decision turn out A. Then fear being a subjective thing, then you have posited no definite factual thing forcing the result A. No logic error, it works.

Also, you simply provide no room for subjectivity at all. You make everything including beauty, factual.

Also, it is a bit odd to say language is material, as I do say, but actually for newspaper writers, they do refer to articles they write as material. Have you got any material on this person, as meanng have you got any written articles about this person.

It is simply the truth of how it works, that opinions are in reference to a creator, and facts are in reference to a creation.

Fear is not a fact, it is your opinion that you were frightened. A good clue as to that it is an opinion, is all the variety in expression of fear. Screaming, cowering, and so on. Wide variety. There is no monotone factual statement of fear existing in the brain. The variety shows that it operates with free will. Because with choosing, you have alternative futures available, and you choose one, choose another, and you get variety.

The categories are at the bottom of the original post. All your questions are already answered in the original post.

Mathematics, properly understood, is the theory of everything.

The proper understanding of math derives all numbers, mathematical operators, and all the other mathematics, from the starting symbol 0.

Then as by rules most parsimonious, there would be an ordering of mathematical structures, in regards to the zero.

The start would be 0. Then to derive the 1 from the 0, the 0 is rewritten as a 1. The rewrite principle is like when the same information can be rewritten to harddisk, and to a dvd, and to RAM, and it's still the same information, but rewritten in a different form.

So the 1 is essentially a rewrite of the 0. Now we also get the boolean operator, because 1 being a rewrite of 0, means they have boolean interchangeability.

Now we have the mathematical structures of 0, 01, 10, 00, 11

0, 01, 00, and 10 would all total 0, because of the boolean operator making the 01 and 10 also total zero. But there is no boolean operator for 11, making it not total zero, which is totally uncool.

Therefore logic must respond to make it total 0 zero again. So logic responds to the 11 with a 00. And all is parsimoniously total zero again, and we get additional mathematical structures. And so on.

And it should be shown to be the case that in physics, the physical 0 and 1 in isolation, would have boolean properties, that this would be some kind of phenomenon of physics.

And the main laws of physics, and constants, would be apparent in the ordering of the mathematical structures in respect to the zero.

And the human mind, and the DNA system, and the universe, would all be shown to have the same fundamental mathematical ordering. But no the sequence of CATG, or where the planets and stars are, and what pictures someone dreams of. That is not fundamental.

Opinion is the proper straightforward word.

And it's not some kind of innocent accident that people are clueless about emotions, choosing. Choosing you say, your honor? I made choices? I don't know what it means judge. People have emotions? Yes, another supercomplicated issue that I don't understand the basics about. My opinions you say, on what is good and loving. That word does not sound quite right to me, "opinion". Preference maybe, or maybe something else. It's all so complicated.

The better way is to first comprehend common discourse. It contains what you say is true in daily life. Then from that position, you can bargain towards a new position. Because what you are saying seems to be unrelated to common discourse, contrived from nothing.

Not really the point here. The point is that all opinions are in reference to the agency of a choice. Personal opinion is an inherently creationist concept.

Generally for people creating, only the agency of people's choices, their emotions, would be the creator, and the result of the choices would be the creation.

It seems sensible for the sake of clarity to reserve cause and effect, for things being forced.

Except that cause and effect is the logic of being forced, while a creator chooses in freedom.

No, creator is here defined, as what did the job of making the choice turn out A instead of B. Emotions are in this category of the creator. Emotions are more commonly referred to than God is.

Also, this conceptual scheme states specifically that any question about the identity of a creator must be answered with a chosen opinion. So choosing the opinion God did not create the universe, is perfectly valid, according to this conceptual scheme. It is totally wrong interpretation that this scheme requires belief in God.

True. Everyone will want to start their own country, with themselves as souvereign, with a gun to enforce their laws. That is what you get when emotion is discarded. Then it all just disintegrates.

Why would that be? You have a model of the moon, and then there is the actual moon itself.

Indeed, society goes to shit. And religion as well.

Thanks. I was helped by that generally everyone already uses the correct logic of fact and opinion in common discourse. Also this was already made plain by the emphasis on faith in religion generally, that there is a distinction between matters of opinion and matters of fact.

But we can erect monuments to commemorate the stupidity of modern people to not know what free will, choosing, fact, opinion, emotions, subjectivity is.

My view explains the logic used in common discourse. Also generally every academic discipline was founded by a creationist.

All in the universe appears contingent, it can be, or not be. All appears to be preceded by the possibility of it, and then the possibility is made the present, meaning it is chosen.

That is why the existence of God is almost universally acknowledged as a matter of faith, which faith is a form of opinion. It is not considered a matter of fact.

Facts are by definition about creations.

Uh, you know the distinction between a model of something, and what it is a model of.

Well, you cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of for instance "fear". Which is in category 1, the creator category. You can make a painting to express what fear is, but it's not a model. And as there doesn't seem to be any other categories besides creator and creation, it is proven that facts are only about creations. But why don't you present a fact which is not about a creation.

Either you are asking a nonsense question of verifying verification, or you just want a fact of how facts are verified. And I gave you the fact of how facts are verified.

Probably you were asking a nonsense question, and you want fact to mean, to feel certain. Seeing as that you are emoting.

A fact is a model. The fact of people verifying facts, is a model of people verifying facts. So a picture.

Picture factcheckers comparing facts with what the fact is about.

Warn as in, you cannot just bluster your way through, with someone who has thoroughly studied an issue for a long time.

To verify a fact, means to verify that the fact corresponds 1 to 1 with what the fact is about.

Got any facts which are not about creations?

As to the soul being that which makes choices, it might make choices, but even in common Christian theology it is held that the soul can be sold (and bought) by the choices of conscious selves. So, even here there is maintained a distinction between soul and the conscious self which chooses – although not necessarily one of otherness — javra

Because the soul is all emotions throughout life, as distinct from emotions now, as being agency of a choice.

Meaningless for God to judge the soul, if the soul does not choose.

A crime takes place, the police question the witnesses in order to establish the facts of what happened. He came at her with a knife. He held the knife high.

It's basically making a 1 to 1 corresponding picture of what occurred. In pictures, words, mathematics, it is all about making a 1 to 1 corresponding model.

You cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of fear. You can make a painting to express what fear is. Not the same thing as a model.

To model decisionmaking or randomness, then the model would also have randomness at the same points, where the thing modelled has randomness. And then you would just have to record every decision made, and copy it to the model.

Facts are 1 to 1 corresponding models (of creations) , that is how facts are forced.

You cannot make a model of agency, like for instance fear. It's just not factual.

I see your point that if it is established that a choice is made, then there would also be an agency of that choice.

Still, it is simply not factual, because agency cannot be modelled.

Sorry, I did not make up that the soul chooses, and God judges the soul. What is weird is that you do not come to the defense of your own understanding of how subjectivity functions. As if you have no critical understanding of subjectivity at all.

Without the underlying logic of the soul choosing, and it being a matter of chosen opinion what is in the soul, or if the soul is real, then the concept of the soul is arbitrary meaninglessness.

You show no comprehension whatsoever of subjectivity, emotions.

When you start to take subjective issues seriously, then obviously one would come think of all emotions you had in life as a whole. And as emotions are agency to choices, the soul also chooses. And in the end the soul is judged by God. It does not make any sense for God to judge the soul, if the soul does not choose.

A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it in the mind.

The facts about planet X, are essentially a model of it. The planet is covered in ice. It is twice the size of earth. etc. And so on, to make a 1 to 1 exhaustive model of it in words, forced by the evidence of it.

The soul is indeed spiritual, and so are emotions too, spiritual. And indeed, no material law like aging applies to the soul. As I explained, you can have fear in the soul, for being frightened previously.