UyiIredia: So the chips containing firma\ware software on a device are immaterial ? Windows CDs are also immaterial?! PAthetic. Bros Seun abeg helep me tell these guys say software are material.

I was talking about the coding.

The software you download on the internet is mostly immaterial. It has both immaterial and material aspects

Ubenedictus: i could get the figures, but i can't multi task on my phone.

Beside by opinion isn't based on bigotry. You guys believe man is a product of some universal chance, in essence, man is not essentially better than animals, he just has a bigger and better brain.

It is science that one of the best ways to keep a population healthy (whether animal or human) is to make sure that the most healthy mates with the most healthy and the sick are left to die of. Eugenics make more sense from an atheistic perspective.

The bold is a lie that you have been corrected on. We dont know that much the origins of life and the universe to be sure that it is from chance.


Furthermore, man is only better than animals because man can reason. Without reasoning, we are just another ape-like primate.


Eugenics is not science. To even put Eugenics on atheists shows how bigoted you are. Sicko.



And please, we are waiting for the figures

Ubenedictus:
Besides you demostrated in the euthanasia thread that you don't care injecting a lethal substance in a living person, put simply you don't care killing him because pain trumps life.

It amazes me the way you blend an ignorant opinion with a splash of reductionist mentality to distort someone's (an atheist's) position.


Euthanasia is far more nuanced than your ridiculous assertions-

Here are some conditions for Euthanasia

-the patient is in extreme agony
-the patient has given his consent for Euthanasia (with a lawyer, state rep, doctor and family member)
-the patients medical problem is terminal and cant be improved upon.

TheBigUrban2:


biochemistry....the brain is responsible for thoughts. What more you want?

Chai! I give up bro.

Reyginus: Chai! I give up bro.

because i didnt give you space to smuggle in your immaterial nonsense?

UyiIredia: This is physically impossible under the current laws of nature. Consciousness (ie the knowledge of one's existence etc ) is first and foremost immaterial and it is something that man can't manipulate.

No one is talking about Physical possibility but virtual possibility through manipulating and developing prototype from Human Consciousness !!

Consciousness extend beyond knowledge of One's existence , it encompases how you relate with your environment and abilities to co-exist with other variables in one's environment !

Consciousness has deep relation with sensitiveness !

It is truly immaterial like the MIND, which is the most complex subsystem in humanbody !!!


I believe Human mind is a kind of abstract undestructible Program that is beaming from the brain which enables man to be aware of his existence and Judge between Positive and Negative !!


I think we have computers that are enable with these features though not as weird and complex as HUMAN( an esoteric system) but a kinda of Prototype !!

I wanto believe advancement in studies in this field may actually bring them close to human perfection !!

Human and Robots may co-exist in future maybe 1000s of years to come !!

donroxy: No one is talking about Physical possibility but virtual possibility through manipulating and developing prototype from Human Consciousness !!

Consciousness extend beyond knowledge of One's existence , it encompases how you relate with your environment and abilities to co-exist with other variables in one's environment !

Consciousness has deep relation with sensitiveness !

It is truly immaterial like the MIND, which is the most complex subsystem in humanbody !!!


I believe Human mind is a kind of abstract undestructible Program that is beaming from the brain which enables man to be aware of his existence and Judge between Positive and Negative !!


I think we have computers that are enable with these features though not as weird and complex as HUMAN( an esoteric system) but a kinda of Prototype !!

I wanto believe advancement in studies in this field may actually bring them close to human perfection !!

Human and Robots may co-exist in future maybe 1000s of years to come !!

Uyi iredia does not realise that the only thing holding scientists back is human experiments.


20 years of cloning and human testing can bring about a greater understanding of consciousness.

Never say never.

Go and watch the movie; transcedence

TheBigUrban2:


because i didnt gave you space to smuggle in your immaterial nonsense?

Mr Urban, the truth is that I am scared of pursuing this argument with you. I am tired of all this our close minded arguments here.

Please motivate me to see a reason to argue or discuss this point with you. Or you can leave it like that if you don't think it is necessary.

Reyginus: Mr Urban, the truth is that I am scared of pursuing this argument with you. I am tired of all this our close minded arguments here.

Please motivate me to see a reason to argue or discuss this point with you. Or you can leave it like that if you don't think it is necessary.

I am quite sure bigurban is logicboy, I can smell that guy a mile away. He has a distinctly bad way of reasoning that you just can't miss. It's like a signature.

striktlymi:
I believe it's pretty straight forward.

Is it really? Ok let's see

* Yes, I do hold that humans are not equal.

* I do not conclude that those who hold a contrary view are lying. I take it as their opinion. Unless you are taken me for a 'liar' for expressing my opinion.

So you think the position you hold is true yet it's exact opposite is not a lie? Or you don't think that your position is true? Which is it really?

No! That was not my expression. I said everyone deserves to be treated fairly. Fairness need not mean equality.

I see, let me be more specific. Is it fair that the weak and the strong have an equal right to life?

(a)If yes, then why ought they to be treated equally? Why not kill off the weak in order to attain a stronger species? Why is it fair to treat the unequal as if they are equal?

(b) If no, then you would be consistent in holding that by fairness you mean that the unequal should be treated unequally.

That's what you are implying. I am not responsible for the implications you decide to draw from my comments.
My opinions are actually not directed at wanting peeps to hold my view and you have every right to believe that my view is a lie. Simply your opinion!
I didn't set out to explain the equality of humans. I actually hold that humans aren't equal for very obvious reasons, some of which were enumerated in the OP; and quite frankly, I don't think the 'principle' of fair treatment for members of the same specie is difficult to understand.
The above is a misrepresentation of my comments. You should be in the best position to explain the implications you drew from my comments.

Ok...I believe your response to the above will further clarify your position

cyrexx:
1. Yes, it is highly possible.

But then nearly all information starts out as simple and gets increasingly complex. A novel for instance was first an alphabet, then it became a word and then became a sentence then a paragraph and so on. This brings you right back to the position where you can't tell whether any immaterial information/software/mind has a creative mind behind it.

2. If we follow the logic that everything requires a creator. Then yes, the creator mind also could not have been uncreated. If we follow the logic that some realities or elements of nature has always existed, then the creative mind and the informations MAY have always been existing.

So is it possible for an uncreated creative mind to exist or not?

MrAnony1:
I am quite sure bigurban is logicboy, I can smell that guy a mile away. He has a distinctly bad way of reasoning that you just can't miss. It's like a signature.

You must feel so smart!! You found out something that everyone knows from 3 months ago.

Or did you think I was hiding my true identity?


lol.....and my reasoning is so bad abi? How many people have you swayed with your sophistry?

Reyginus: Mr Urban, the truth is that I am scared of pursuing this argument with you. I am tired of all this our close minded arguments here.

Please motivate me to see a reason to argue or discuss this point with you. Or you can leave it like that if you don't think it is necessary.

You must be foolish. You came here asking simple-minded questions and now, you are acting as if I am forcing you to discuss with me.

You are the one close-minded here. One that cant accept that the brain is what controls our thoughts- it is the mind. How simple can it get?

MrAnony1:
Is it really? Ok let's see

So you think the position you hold is true yet it's exact opposite is not a lie? Or you don't think that your position is true? Which is it really?

I do believe my position is true! This belief, in itself, is not enough to accuse another who hold a contrary opinion of falsehood. It takes more than making a wrong statement to tell lies. In my opinion, the following components must be demonstrated before one can be accused of telling lies:

1) The statement in itself must be false.
2) The individual knows that the statement is false.
3) The individual's intent is to deliberately deceive.

For me, without those components present, I can't really say someone is lying. It may be easy to demonstrate that the statement made is untrue but how I know for sure that the individual knows this and deliberately attempts to deceive is another matter. It is possible for one to give an opinion without knowing it is false nor does he have an intent to deceive.

MrAnony1:
I see, let me be more specific. Is it fair that the weak and the strong have an equal right to life?

Yes!

MrAnony1:
(a)If yes, then why ought they to be treated equally? Why not kill off the weak in order to attain a stronger species? Why is it fair to treat the unequal as if they are equal?

* They should be treated equally because it is fair in that instance. If one human being can be allowed to live without anyone determining whether it is murdered before birth then the next child deserves the same treatment. Our lives, unlike some other things, belongs to us. It will only be unfair for another to 'destroy' it for very selfish reasons.

Fairness for me, is what is key here. Like I implied in one of my posts, people need not be equal to be treated fairly. The very fact that you said one is strong while the other weak demonstrates that humans are not equal.

We may get fair treatment which some times may mean being given equal rights but this does not suggest that every human was born with equal capabilities. Let's forget about Children born deformed and focus more on those who are born in good health.

Even with that, the abilities of humans defer regardless of whether they are brought up in the same environment and given the same opportunities in life. Some will most definitely turn out better than others because of the disparity in abilities.

* Fair treatment does not always mean equal treatment or equal rights. I am pretty sure that I don't have the same rights as a diplomat nor do I have the same rights as a member of the senate. I am also very sure that, though people's right to life is equal, they don't have access to the same medical facilities.

MrAnony1:
(b) If no, then you would be consistent in holding that by fairness you mean that the unequal should be treated unequally.

Nah, that's not my position! My view is not that the unequal should be treated unequally. My view rather is that people are unequal but deserve fair treatment.

MrAnony1:
I am quite sure bigurban is logicboy, I can smell that guy a mile away. He has a distinctly bad way of reasoning that you just can't miss. It's like a signature.

Lol. Of course he is. I am 100% sure of that.

Reyginus: Lol. Of course he is. I am 100% sure of that.

Was I hiding it before?

TheBigUrban2:


You must be foolish. You came here asking simple-minded questions and now, you are acting as if I am forcing you to discuss with me.

You are the one close-minded here. One that cant accept that the brain is what controls our thoughts- it is the mind. How simple can it get?

Lb, be calm. I am only scared of learning or imparting nothing in the argument. Be patient.

Let me assume you are ready for a sincere argument.

Mr Urban, it is not as simple as you think. The brain consists of the CNS and the peripheral nerves. When you say the brain, which is the mind as you claim, controls our thoughts, do you mean that it is the nerves in the brain that thinks for us, that is, if the brain thinks for itself and not for the carrier of the brain?

Please don't shout at me.

Reyginus: Lb, be calm. I am only scared of learning or imparting nothing in the argument. Be patient.

Let me assume you are ready for a sincere argument.

Mr Urban, it is not as simple as you think. The brain consists of the CNS and the peripheral nerves. When you say the brain, which is the mind as you claim, controls our thoughts, do you mean that it is the nerves in the brain that thinks for us, that is, if the brain thinks for itself and not for the carrier of the brain?

Please don't shout at me.

You are really dense. How did I shout at you? Am I your father or some evil tyrant?

Reyginus:
Mr Urban, it is not as simple as you think. The brain consists of the CNS and the peripheral nerves. When you say the brain, which is the mind as you claim, controls our thoughts, do you mean that it is the nerves in the brain that thinks for us, that is, if the brain thinks for itself and not for the carrier of the brain?

I am not claiming that the brain is the mind. That is a fact. It is neither my claim nor an opinion but a FACT!

You people always claim to be wanting honest discussions but you make the most dubious assertions.

TheBigUrban2:

I am not claiming that the brain is the mind. That is a fact. It is neither my claim nor an opinion but a FACT!

You people always claim to be wanting honest discussions but you make the most dubious assertions.

Mr Urban, be honest with yourself. How does this my question?

omonuan:

The bible is not open to interpretation

- 2 Peter 1:20-21:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. KJV

◄ Revelation 22:16 ►

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

Unlike you, I don't do private interpretation of the Bible. I knew one of you would show up to give your own private interpretation of several concise statements attributed to Christ. You appear to be one of those who regularly say that the bible does not mean what it says, it says what you mean but beware of the admonitions.

In the context of the use of Dog to refer to Syrophoenician woman, it is obvious Christ used the "dog" comparison to her. I guess you are proud of Christ using a derogatory term for a woman in need.

I can't help but notice that you've bought into the balderdash that the Jews and Israel are chosen. For a chosen people God sure found one of the most desolate and wretched places in the world for them. He did not even give them water to drink nor peace. The biblical proportion war is still raging till date. So much for being chosen people. Do you really think that Israel was more chosen than Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or U.A.E. not to talk of the good ole USA?

I did not know that Paul was a disciple of Christ and that Christ sent him to the Gentiles. I know that Paul says that it is okay to lie to help Christianity "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7. Paul is a self acclaimed liar.

Paul says to the Colossians: “Do not lie to one another.” (Colossians 3:9). And yet, Paul himself is not committed to truth. Instead, he justifies telling lies to the Philippians: “The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” (Philippians 1:18). He even openly boasts of being a deceiver to the Corinthians: “Crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!” (2 Corinthians 12:16).


It is a truism that Christ said salvation is of the Jews. Do not blame the messenger blame the message.

I see that you are proud that Christ would use parables to confuse people so that they wont be saved. Does it really matter that Jews were also included in his outsiders? That a "savior" would confuse people in order for them not to be saved should be of more concern to you than anything else.

Hehehehe. Lol. If daftness of comprehension for the sake of criticism is anything to go by, you surely glory in it.

Keep deluding yourself, keep riding on your high horse of imagining you are special for posting what others had never seen or understood befor. Smh for infantile excitement.

If i give a word picture of being broke for the sake of passing an object lesson, then in truth i am broke. True. No ?

You sure have an issue, if it is mental, i cant say from here, maybe, it comes from what you are feeding, be it physical or spiritual, i dont know, but i do know it is not good for your mental ativity/ comprehension.

I have wasted too much time on you already.

Enjoy anyway, in your ..................

Reyginus: Mr Urban, be honest with yourself. How does this my question?

To answer your question, the brain handles different aspects.


Frontal Lobe- associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving
Parietal Lobe- associated with movement, orientation, recognition, perception of stimuli
Occipital Lobe- associated with visual processing
Temporal Lobe- associated with perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and speech



Some functions, we cant do consciously and some we control consciously.


The conscious part sometimes override the other parts....to put it in layman terms

TheBigUrban2:


To answer your question, the brain handles different aspects.


Frontal Lobe- associated with reasoning, planning, parts of speech, movement, emotions, and problem solving
Parietal Lobe- associated with movement, orientation, recognition, perception of stimuli
Occipital Lobe- associated with visual processing
Temporal Lobe- associated with perception and recognition of auditory stimuli, memory, and speech



Some functions, we cant do consciously and some we control consciously.


The conscious part sometimes override the other parts....to put it in layman terms

Don't be angry o, just that you didn't actually answer the question. What you did was to tell me about the functions of the brain which is not really relevant in this case.

I think what my question seeks to understand is what is behind or responsible for the activities of the brain like thinking? What is it that tells the brain that it is going to be used for the processing of a particular idea?

I like the consciousness angle you are coming from. In your words:'we cant do consciously and some we control consciously'. What is it that makes us able to do consciously? Why 'we' can do consciously, instead of following your argument, the brain can do consciously? Or are we now our brain? To clarify further, if we were to remove a human brain and placed in a jar that still retains the property of its life, could it be possible that this brain would be in that isolation capable of thinking?

Reyginus: Don't be angry o, just that you didn't actually answer the question. What you did was to tell me about the functions of the brain which is not really relevant in this case.

I think what my question seeks to understand is what is behind or responsible for the activities of the brain like thinking? What is it that tells the brain that it is going to be used for the processing of a particular idea?

I like the consciousness angle you are coming from. In your words:'we cant do consciously and some we control consciously'. What is it that makes us able to do consciously? Why 'we' can do consciously, instead of following your argument, the brain can do consciously? Or are we now our brain? To clarify further, if we were to remove a human brain and placed in a jar that still retains the property of its life, could it be possible that this brain would be in that isolation capable of thinking?

You are just asking the same questions over and over again.

A part of the brain is used for conscious thoughts

Consciousness is a result of the brain and the CNS working.



A brain can not work without a CNS or oxygen or blood flowing.





===========================


Just give up. You wont find anywhere to smuggle in your immaterial nonsense

TheBigUrban2:



You are just asking the same questions over and over again.

A part of the brain is used for conscious thoughts

Consciousness is a result of the brain and the CNS working.



A brain can not work without a CNS or oxygen or blood flowing.





===========================


Just give up. You wont find anywhere to smuggle in your immaterial nonsense

I am trying to clarify things for your better understanding. You seem to be answering something entirely different from the question I am asking. Let me still rephrase for you one more time.

When you remove the human brain from a human being and place it in a jar of formaldehyde, will the brain be able think?

Reyginus: I am trying to clarify things for your better understanding. You seem to be answering something entirely different from the question I am asking. Let me still rephrase for you one more time.

When you remove the human brain from a human being and place it in a jar of formaldehyde, will the brain be able think?

No.

Didnt I answer this in my previous comment when I said this?

TheBigUrban2:
A brain can not work without a CNS or oxygen or blood flowing.

TheBigUrban2:


I was talking about the coding.

The software you download on the internet is mostly immaterial. It has both immaterial and material aspects

No. Computer software is ALWAYS material. I cant believe you Mr Anony and donroxy can misunderstand something so basic.

TheBigUrban2:

No.

Didnt I answer this in my previous comment when I said this?

Lol. In other words, you are saying that the brain and Central Nervous System, or better still, the spinal cord, is responsible for thinking?

Or the brain alone and not with the Spinal cord is responsible for thinking?

Whichever one you choose, if we are to further isolate it, let's use the CNS for standard, will they/it be able to think?

Let's forget about blood flow now because we have built a system that sustains the life? Except you are of the opinion that blood flow is not necessary for life but for some other thing.

TheBigUrban2:
Uyi iredia does not realise that the only thing holding scientists back is human experiments.

I read and think on science a lot and I am well aware that lack of human guinea pigs is hampering the progress of science but still science will NEVER make a dead human regain their consciousness. Consciousness is immaterial. The faster you understand that the better.

TheBigUrban2: 20 years of cloning and human testing can bring about a greater understanding of consciousness.

True.

TheBigUrban2: Never say never.

Go and watch the movie; transcedence

Oh I will say never. The same as I say never to time travel. Tech predictions such as those are based on a misunderstanding of nature.

Reyginus:
if we were to remove a human brain and placed in a jar that still retains the property of its life, could it be possible that this brain would be in that isolation capable of thinking?

its sounds like a bush man argument.

I thought the argument was about 'mind' and not life ?

Reyginus: I am trying to clarify things for your better understanding. You seem to be answering something entirely different from the question I am asking. Let me still rephrase for you one more time.

When you remove the human brain from a human being and place it in a jar of formaldehyde, will the brain be able think?

Lol. Smh. Its just that you are talking to an atheist that is the only reason am holding off.

Try not to drag involuntry actions into it.

truthislight:

Lol. Smh. Its just that you are talking to an atheist that is the only reason am holding off.

Try not to drag involuntry actions into it.

You didn't get why I held to conscious actions? That really is the opposite of involuntary here.