Out of sleep I found that I was drawn to ramble a long series of vids after too much un orchestrated babble I found that I couldn't say "Uncertainty principle". But the illustration of the other people(you) knowing that what I was saying was incorrect is evidence of a ground upon which the grammar of what it means to be correct lays. In other words you are confident of my mistake so you are grounded upon a grammar which says so. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HP64hmOa2s

The ascription of attributes to some (lingual) variable (x) ...(which is not an actual physical item) which is supposed to ACTUALLY represent a non-existent 'thing' is contra to the idea of ascribing attributes to an existing 'thing'. This is akin to assigning attributes to the 'bust of Beethoven's' body . The bust of Beethoven's body wore a green suit' and we can button up this never existing body's green suite whilst depriving "it" a red suit. ... is but an exercise in imagination . And so the question of 'who' when discussing an "un-conceived body" is also but an exercise in imagination and has no serious, logical, or sensible ramifications. As there exists no actual physical signified beyond a lingual symbol/word. Unless you are spiritual and believe in pre-existing disembodied souls who 'wait' for bodies to enter. Yet 'it' aka this type of imaginary transitive pointing to a lingual variable as a basis from which to start a supposedly 'serious' philosophical discussion begs debaters of antinatalism to put non-existence forth as a serious bases from which to partake in an argument.. Let us reference that which is not first... and then go from there.? omg whatever The ascription of attributes to some (lingual) variable (x) which is supposed to ACTUALLY represent a (non-existent) 'thing' is contra to the idea of ascribing attributes to an existing 'thing'. This is akin to assigning attributes to the 'bust of Beethoven's' body . The bust of Beethoven's body wore a green suit' and we can button up this never existing body's green suite whilst depriving "it" a red suit. ... is but an exercise in imagination . And so the question of 'who?' when discussing an "un-conceived body" is also but an exercise in imagination and has no serious, logical, or sensible ramifications, as there is no signified to the signifier 'it' or 'that'. Since there exists no actual physical signified beyond a lingual symbol/word the transitive lingual action is as good as an intransitive. I.e. 'suffering came upon the un-conceived' compared to 'suffering came' . Yet it aka this type of imaginary transitive pointing to a lingual variable as a basis from which to start a supposedly 'serious' philosophical discussion begs debaters of antinatalism to put it forth as a serious bases from which they want other debaters to stand upon and partake in an argument.. The Benatar argument starts with 2 premises which most people seem to 'simply' accept as not only reasonable, apriori but as obviously the case. There is no reason to assume these 2 premises out of hand as being 'always enduring truths'. -Only thing to add is that I myself am limited in what I'm saying here. I can't say that all that i'm saying is gospel or logically solid, and in that, even ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux7flS8BUE8

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AugOQl9QoMc

-Tribe 2 the remainder nons speaks in House 1 ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu_xIHyS-_0