@thunderdragon900 Totally! I'll try to keep it a reasonable length😂 I meant to say self-defined as in: I believe an entity protects its body (foundational interface with reality) on a certain level relative to its possessions, which is true for people, animals, and companies (entity is to mean a force which the energy and controling reactions of that force are within the force itself, and being is meant to describe a physical version of that; a company being an entity but not a being because the people aren't all hopefully touching at the same time)

Consentual is supposed to refer to a level of tolerance that people have to allow each other the most room to personally experiment while giving everyone the same amount of room (which isn't the same as resources) Which, I'm proposing to be that, if people can choose their position at some point in their life and they are also given the option to make purly their decision, that they can't blame other people for those people being themselves within their space (as in, if the things Individual A does doesn't change the way that Individual B sees people in general or their ability to accomplish their goals in their environment, individual B has to tolerate what Individual A does so that Individual A can learn everything they can to find themselves, even if it's destructive only to themselves or the people that agree to it)

By complexity, I'm trying to use a term that describes the universe as being one level of "complexity" in all of it's reactions until considering life (which I'm definining as a process which creates the ideal environment for it's own continuation -- so if a computer just started building it's own factories for new computers autonomously, I would consider it to represent the same complexity level as bacteria, in that way)
The levels of complexity I'm using are Motivation (like bacteria), Planning (like a mouse), and Logic (Defined as a being creating it's own list of things it needs to find out how to learn)
The fact that the result of what life produces is both similar to the original and a catalyst for its own creation are the most basic "concepts" (building blocks of complexity on top of the basic complexity level of what things are happening) because, to process the fact that the result is similar to the input, you need to process more about them than just all their exact qualities and outcomes on a trial by trial basis (because, to the universe, life is just a bunch of processes happening and it doesn't consider them similar or dissimilar it just processes what happens because even the slightest change can have huge effects) but it's beneficial for us to group reactions to create an ideal environment for ourselves (pretend like all slight changes will have slight effects and then figure it out from there), and just that fact that we care (because caring helps us create a better environment for ourselves), which is a subjective process, is also the basis of concepts because it's a way of comparing reality in ways that aren't perfect representations (based on our bias and needs)
So complexity is just saying a specific part of reality where things are happening, and it's ideal for as many things to be conceptually happening in the smallest advantageous area because 1. it doesn't take more energy to create more complexity 2. if we could continue the universe into the conceivable future, which is the most inherent goal we could have if we had any other goal, it'd be ideal to have the most complexity to choose from possible for natural selection 3. the closer we can bundle our resources while keeping them safe from mass corruption, the less leakage we could have over all (which is also really important if we're going to continue the universe)

lol, and

Okay, yeah! I can definitely see where you're coming from; Personally, when I think of ideal self, to me it means that one is the best one could be in that moment, even if it isn't doing the actions it wants to do; I find it interesting you mention mistakes, I believe my ideal self for this particular universe will also make mistakes, but be in as good of a conceptual place to recover as possible, because mistakes don't inherently end badly, just usually; is that something you feel disagreement with?

It's completely true that people have their own preferences! My idea is that, maybe even though a lot of people have not been able to define "good" perfectly enough to keep beings who just wanted to live their lives unconventionally safe, maybe it's still possible... And my goal is actually becominh to define exactly how much people should be able to do whatever they want before it becomes intrusive to anyone else (and ideally, thus good, because people have to do everything they're possibly allowed ro to have the greatest range of complexity)

But I definitely think that the inward reflection represents probably the most important part of moral/behavioral growth! Maybe I should have said it in a way that was supportive of looking for things to react and grow from also, so maybe it's important but not just because they are those books themselves

I find your definition of ideal self really intriguing! If you don't mind, when you say potential given to you naturally I wonder, how much would you condiser it to be natural potential for people to constantly look for new interests and dissenting belifs on purpose?