₦airaland Forum

Awesome.

basilico:
Ive brought the receipts. A foetus is just a thing to you.

You lying dishonest toerag! Where does what you posted equate to "called a baby in the womb as a 'clump of cells' or something like that"?

I so hate that Sainz was crippled today. Makes me want to conspiracisize that it was done to justify replacing him with moany LH

triplechoice:
Then ,Why have you been acting irresponsibly by derailing the thread with something that has nothing do with the topic under discussion, spirit?

Why don't you create your own thread and invite those whom you want to invite?

If you're not using all of these as an extended metaphor for spirits or God,why are you directing your questions specifically to atheists whose position negates spirits and God ?



If your intentions are what you say they're,why are you acknowledging the commendations of fellow believers, including the JW? Why not just tell them it's not about spirit so they focus on the main?

See , you can fool some,not all.

Your ignorance of what an extended metaphor is, is why you think you can fool everyone.

You can continue to play the ostrich. That's your business .

I'm sure your fellow believers are getting very embarrassed seeing how you're now trying to foolishly deny what they have been praising you for.

My friend this thread is set to take us to the land of spirits and goblins. So, please take your discussion about software to where it's much needed. Thank you

Modified. Let me paraphrase your nonsense below

If a God is not tangible, i e, it cannot measured in terms of mass, dimension, energy and time, does it prove it doesn't exist?

It doesn't prove it doesn't exist,but it proves it doesn't exist here in the material world. It's very possible it exist only in your head. That's all

He's being disingenuous and dishonest I think, or perhaps he wants to convince us his God does not exist. He sure has given us enough evidence to presume it doesn't.

The only reason you resort to insults is you lack the intellectual capacity for an intelligent conversation, and that's enough for you to be considered intangible and therefore ignored.

TenQ:
See how stupid your articulation sounds.

I have not even once related software in a machine to soul or spirit. All I've been knocking into your thick skulls is that!

jaephoenix:
Mathematics is a branch of science. I think tangible. Cos we feel its effects and can directly study it. We see the branches of math.
Same as logic.
Information is tangible too

Now before you start convulsing, here is Merriam Webster definition of tangible

tangible
1 of 2
adjective
tan·​gi·​ble ˈtan-jə-bəl
Synonyms of tangible
1
a
: capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : PALPABLE
b
: substantially real : MATERIAL
2
: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
her grief was tangible
3
: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value


From the above definition, we can deduce mathematics, information etc are all tangible since we can appraise them

I wonder, jaephoenix, what makes you see this way and why many others here can't.

Re Mathematics, I too agree that it can be tangible. We after all can talk about Concrete Mathematics, but I expect someone here to ask me how much cement is in it if I dared.

LordReed:
One last try. Is a patent tangible or intangible?

My Lord, you read the examples that I did not write that I posted. So you tell me if a "conflict of Choice’s street scenes", and "tangible, relevant information", are tangible or not, and if not, let us both go and tell those who have suggested they are to correct themselves.

In response to your question, a patent can be both tangible and intangible, depending on the aspect referred to and the purpose. If I sell you a patent, I likely will be placing in your hands something you can touch.

You and I need to someday discuss the concept of duality, and how it imposes the notion of either or on thought.

TenQ:
I am wasting the time I dont have with you sir!

I guess only LordReed can speak some clarity into you

You have a good evening too, TenQ. And thank you very much for your time.

TenQ:
Softwares in a machine do NOT do anything: it is the Hardware in the Machine that does things.

I don't quite know what sort of machine you are limiting yourself to, but if you go to a factory that uses computer controlled machinery to make, say, Ford cars, you'd find that the machines only do whatever they do because the software specially instructs the machine to do what the machine does. And if you take the software out of that machine the machine would literally be dead and do nothing.

TenQ:
It is the hardware that switches, turns on, varies signal. it doesn't even UNDERSTAND the signal it is receiving. It is a dumb slave.

See the video below. It only does what the software installed in it has been programmed to instruct it to do. If you remove the software that instructs it, or if you program the machine with software that it could not understand, it would do absolutely nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNuJPAtQAIs?si=PliObPrVifHsrkzz

If you build a desktop computer and do not install any software in it, it would not even boot up when you switch it on. So, to say the software that instructs it does nothing is just plain dumb.

TenQ:
Tell me then how you can quantify the instruction of Tiunubui in terms of Mass, Energy or Dimension with time. ANYTHING that is tangible can be characterised with this.

I do not want to "quantify the instruction of Tiunubui in terms of Mass, Energy or Dimension with time", and nor do I have to!

Quantifying instruction in terms of Mass, Energy or Dimension with time, is your thing, so you do it if you want to.

And go read my response when you first posed this please.

TenQ:
If it is true that:
The information it NOT the paper on which it is written,
The information it NOT the ink by which it is written,
The information it NOT the language by which it is written,
The information it NOT the style which it is written,

We have done this already. So, unless you want to claim my response to it is gibberish to you, please go back and read my response please.

And at this point, buda rests, because you are only repeating what I have already addressed and I don't feel the need to repeat myself.

If you however have not understood because you lack the appropriate decoder and therefore think my previous responses are gibberish to you, tell me what you can't decode so I can attempt to program you with the appropriate decoder.

ijebosb:
Agree what the current situation is, but to me it is akin to having states decide if black people should vote. It's ridiculous.

I wasn't sure comparing slavery migration to abortion migration was apt. But the more I thought about it, it is. Just like slavery migration, abortion migration isn't easy if at all possible. A lot of slaves died during slavery and trying to migrate to states that were free, a lot of women will die (and have died) with preventable/treatable pregnancy issues and will die in transit to states that do allow abortion.

But, sometimes I think you talk of race/slavery issues in a very facile way.

I think abortion migration is a lot easier than running away as a slave. The Underground Railroad for abortions is way more established than that for slavery was. If you ran as a slave, you'd have been accused of stealing your master's property, and if you got caught running away from your slave master you'd have been whipped or Kunta Kinted (have you leg cut off). While the worse they can do to a run away abortionist is jail the poor woman, which, to be honest, I would love to see done if just for the uproar it would cause.

basilico:
You have previously called a baby in the womb as a 'clump of cells' or something like that.

Sorry, but I refuse to respond to you when you lie.

LordReed:
No my dear buda, how can you say sounds are tangible. Just make a sentence with it. I heard his tangible sounds coming from next door. C'mon!

You are very funny, my Lord.

You don't need to make a sentence about sounds you sense (touch) with your ears. The point is, if he had not made sounds that you could sense, hence that were tangible, you would not have heard him.

Note the below.

Something that's literally tangible can be touched. A rock is tangible, and so is a broken window; if the rock is lying next to the window, it could be tangible evidence of vandalism. When we say that the tension in a room is tangible, we mean we feel it so strongly that it seems almost physical. But if we're being literal, tension, like hope, happiness, and hunger, is literally intangible—it may be real, but it can't be touched. When lawyers talk about an intangible asset, they might mean something like a company's good reputation—very valuable, but not quite touchable.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible

You can not literally touch the "tension in a room". All you can do is sense and/or feel it, which, non-literally speaking, is the same as touching it with your ears. Be aware that there is no reason why one must be literal, and you know buda often isn't.

Below are other examples of untouchable things that are described as tangible.

Example Sentences
The above outlines just a few examples of the challenges facing Google as a business, which will likely have a tangible impact on search.

From Search Engine Watch
That subject, like the conflict of Choice’s street scenes, is tangible and immediate.

From Washington Post
By taking advantage of semantic search opportunities, a retailer offers a potential customer more tangible, relevant information on a product of interest, and the retailer has a clear path to an already interested buyer for a specific product.

From Search Engine Watch
So watching Biden move in his first full week in office was like trying to make sense of smoke — always moving, never tangible and ever open to interpretation.

From Time
He cautioned though that it will take months for the vaccine program to have a tangible impact on the disease.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tangible

You can not touch a "tangible impact on search". You can not touch a "conflict of Choice’s street scenes". You definitely can not touch "tangible, relevant information" Etc. All you can do is sense (feel) them.

The image in a mirror and the sound of the person in a room, are way more senseable (touchable with one's eyes or ears) than some things described since you can see the image in the mirror with your eyes and hear the sound with your ears.

I touched your comment above by sensing it with my eyes and with my mind because you made your intangible thought tangible for me to touch it. If you had not made your comment above tangible for me to touch it with my senses, the only way I would be reading it is with my mind reader.

TenQ:
Good. At least we agree that a string of text is NOT information until there is a shared formular to make sense of the string of characters.

It would seem that you do not have the right decoder. If you had, you would not claim we agree on the bold.

I have told you that a fire alarm that goes off in a building is conveying information whether you know what the fire alarm is telling you or not. I also said that you would not claim a person speaking Hindi is not conveying information just because you don't understand Hindi. So how can you possibly claim that you must understand the data you are giving for it to be information?

Is everything you have written in this thread lack information if I don't understand a word you wrote?

TenQ:
Let me rephrase:
To the Receiver, "The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded. Before the String of text becomes meaningful, there has to be first a Pre-agreed formula for decoding it"
Do you agree now with this?

I 100% agree that To the Receiver, "The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded.

To the transmitter, the string of text has information, unless the transmitter intentionally writes gibberish, which I credit you for not doing.

TenQ:
This has nothing to do with whether the information is Ignored or rejected or misinterpreted.

This is somehow, TenQ.

If the receiver Ignores or rejects or misinterprets the information it is given, then the receiver will receive no information. That, however, does not mean "The string of text is NO information".

You can write the above in perfect Hindi, and I who speaks no Hindi will not receive the information in your words. That does not therefore mean that there is no information in your words.

TenQ:
I think it makes sense only to speak ONLY from the point of view of the Receiver in this case, a Computer.

You are getting a lot warmer already, and I appreciate that you are.

You want to speak "ONLY from the point of view of the Receiver". I am not doing anything of the sort, even where computers are concerned. Please note.

TenQ:
I do not determine HOW information or instruction should be conveyed to the Computer: the hardware capability and the inherent program of the computer determines how information or instruction should be passed to the computer.

[i]You do not determine only because you did not write the software. If you had written the software you would know that you and only you determine what information and how the information is passed to the computer, so long as you make the software you write tangible (readable, perceptible) to the computer).

To say otherwise is to claim that I determine what and how you write what you write here, which clearly is not the case. If it were the case, I would determine that you stop arguing with me and just agree with me, but I am certain you would flex muscle and tell me not to tell you what to write here!

TenQ:
For instance:
Unless my computer through Microsoft WORD is configured to understand sign language, whatever I Instruct the computer in sign Language is meaningless except I type my Information through the Keyboard of the computer.

If you write you sign language to a computer that is not configured to understand sign language, you computer will fail to understand the message you are trying to convey to it in sign language, and it would be as pointless as speaking Hindi to buda.

TenQ:
Thus my information is Gibberish to the computer UNLESS I can put it in the form the Computer can take!

I agree that you information is Gibberish to the computer if your computer can not read sign language. That does not however mean that your sign language is gibberish. It just means your computer does not understand sign language and has no decoder to decode the information you fed it in sign language.

TenQ:
From the framework of the Computer or the point of view of the computer, whatever you say that is NOT in conformity with the syntax of the computer is Gibberish.

I agree that from the computer's framework, sign language will be gibberish to it. That does however mean that your sign language is gibberish. Just that you computer can not decode your sign language.

TenQ:
Can you run Microsoft Word on a Macintosh Computer ?
No!
Why?
Microsoft Word Software is Gibberish to the Mac Computer!

Yes. I can run Microsoft Word on a Mac. Google it if you don't know how!

TenQ:
But from the point of view of the Receiver, he has no way to distinguish between Gibberish Hindi and Real Hindi
The information is USELESS to the Receiver without Interpretation.

From the point of view of the receiver, I agree. The Hindi speaker conveying information in real Hindi would however not agree that they are speaking gibberish.

And I am not buying your "Gibberish Hindi" nonsense! If you speak gibberish English to me I would just stop conversing with you!

TenQ:
I may want to use Sign-Language to pass instruction to my Computer rather than the keyboard. Whatever is my informations is MEANINGLESS to the Computer.
My objective is NOT to claim that Informations is meaningless from the point of view of the speaker, but we have to look from the perspective of the Receiver. After all, it is the Receiver that is supposed to carry out the instruction.

It would be rather foolish of you to sign language to a computer that can not decode sign language.

If you had written this post in Hindi, you'd have wasted your time because it would be gibberish to me despite it likely not being gibberish to you who wrote it in Hindi.

TenQ:
Like I said before:
From the point of view of the Receiver, he has no way to distinguish between Gibberish Hindi and Real Hindi if he does not UNDERSTAND Hindi

I think you keep going on about this your "point of view of the Receiver" only because you are beginning to understand that there may be other points of view, like that of the information giver.

It is appreciated.

TenQ:
The machine doesn't perceive anything sir!
The computer is a dummy!
The computer is NOT aware of anything!

Lol!

If the computer does not understand sign language, I agree that the computer does not receive anything.

But if you write your software and compile it into the specific language the machine can decode, then not only will the computer be aware of the information you give it, it will also carry out any instruction that you coded into the software and fed to the machine.

TenQ:
A matter is tangible if it can be defined either by its Mass, Dimension (length, area, volume) and Energy all will respect to time.

This is the point where I now inform you that your definition of tangible is very narrow, as is your idea of "Mass, Dimension (length, area, volume) and Energy all will respect to time".

Hopefully, you can decode all I have said so far, and comprehend the information therein, and considered the definitions of tangible that I posted for my Lord.

Now, I got a meeting to go to. I will respond to your other post when I am done.

TenQ:
I have defined "tangibles" as precisely as possible: anything that has either mass or dimension or energy is tangible!

You left out time!

There is 'energy' (information) in your words (string of letter that are not random and have meaning).

The energy in your words is what I am responding to.

Your words are in a dimension of here.

Your words are being read at time now.

If you had not imbued your words with dimension and energy and time so I can read them, your words would be intangible to me.

The only reason I am not stating that your words have mass is because you would likely ask how many grams your words weigh.

Think Einstein's Relativity. It might help you comprehend the information that I am conveying to you tangibly.

jaephoenix:
U r using tangible in a different context here

Yes, I indeed am. And thank you very much for noticing what many others are refusing to notice.

If they step out of the narrow context they are in, they'd see it too.

LordReed:
Another example. If I physical was with you and spoke to you would you call my words you are hearing tangible?

Yes I would. So long as I can use my ears to 'touch' the words you speak, your words are tangible.

Let me complicate it for you my Lord, to further confuse you.

The thoughts in my head are tangible to me because I can 'perceive' and feel my thoughts with my mind even though I can not touch my thoughts with my hands.

The thoughts in my head are intangible to you because you can not perceive or feel the thoughts in my mind.

LordReed:
Do me a solid and post the meaning of tangible from the same source you used for intangible.

There. Though Unknown's defines it better, as does wiki.

basilico:
Abortion is a human right..Sometimes i think you got your panties in a wad.

This does not please you at all.

A new study finds that more than 30,000 babies have been born that would have otherwise been aborted since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade.

This is what makes you happy an delirious.

Would you like to ban condoms and the pill since more babies were unborn because of them?

LordReed:
So is the image in the mirror tangible or intangible.

The image in a mirror is tangible because it can be perceived with the senses.

TenQ:
budaatum refuses to learn even with correction.

I'm afraid the correction is wrong.

Touch is not the only sense.

TenQ:
The information is not the string of text, otherwise,
Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune! is a string of text, but is it information?

TenQ, please read me carefully.

A string of text is not information. Your response to me is not just a string of text, but text that has meaning, and the fact that it has meaning is what makes your post informative.

You will note that others are quoting me here but I am ignoring them. The reason is that their posts lack the depth of meaning and information that yours have, which is why I enjoy conversing with you.

TenQ:
The string of text is NO information if it cannot be decoded. Before the String of text becomes meaningful, there has to be first a Pre-agreed formula for decoding it

The first sentence is not true. I may be stupid or unwilling to decode (understand) your string of text and it can still be information.

One may not know how to decode the information conveyed by a fire alarm in a burning building but the fire alarm is still conveying information, and those who call it gibberish are likely to end up dead!

TenQ:
Before a string of text make any meaning, there must first be an AGREEMENT of the use of code. For instance, if I give you a PRIOR sequence of code for the string of text
Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune!
as
spbin=spain, rein=rain, Thy=The, fulls=falls, maily=mainly, ig= in, thn=the, plune=plane

The string of text THEN will have a meaning.

I agree. But you may still write Thy rein gn spbin fulls maily ig thn plune! without giving me the code and still be conveying information. The only difference is that the information you would be conveying would not be decodable by me, and I might conclude that it is gibberish to me, but it is not necessarily gibberish to you who wrote it.

Basically, the lack of understanding does not mean a data is gibberish. One might just be stupid or ignorant or just not have the code.

TenQ:
Conclusion: The string of text is NOTHING without and agreed Code for decoding it. This was why we went ot school to learn the alphabets and words ans sentences etc

Not true Tenq, that a "string of text is NOTHING without an agreed Code for decoding it". It just means that that string of text means nothing to the individual who does not have the code to decode it.

Neither of us went to school to learn Hindi, but I hope we would not claim a Hindi speaker is saying nothing because we can not decode it.

TenQ:
The Question was: Do you concur that Until a data or signal is decoded, it remains gibberish?

And I answered you. A Hindi speaker is not speaking gibberish just because we can not decode Hindi.

TenQ:
The software for a Mac is meaningless for Android and is meaningless for a PC because the decoding the code is not standard between them.
Meaning that it is not the Software code that is important BUT the pre-agreed code of understanding.

Yes, "software for a Mac is meaningless for Android and is meaningless for a PC because the decoding the code is not standard between them", just as speaking Hindi to either of us would be meaningless to us. But that does not mean what the Hindi speaker is saying is meaningless, just as the software for a Mac is not meaningless. It just doesn't mean anything to the Android or the PC.

TenQ:
True BUT not Tangible!

But it must be tangible for it to be perceived by the machine!

Read what you wrote above please. The Mac software is meaningless to the PC and the Android because Mac software is not tangible to the Android and the PC.

Basically, the Android and the PC do not have the right 'senses' for the Mac software to be perceived by them.

TenQ:
The Question was:
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?

This question arose in the very early posts in this thread where it was assumed that ones must perceive with the naked eye. I suggest you go back and read it because I do fail to understand the importance of only perceiving with the naked eye or only physical means when one can enhance ones perception and then perceive.

You can very clearly perceive the effect of the software in the machine, just as you can clearly see the effect of electricity in the machine too. And you can take the software out of the machine and decompile it so you can perceive it, which is exactly what is done if one wants to debug the software.

TenQ:
The Question was: 4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?

This is a senseless question since there are much better ways to prove the existence of software in a machine than the physical quantification of a software within a machine. But if you do want to physically quantify a software in a machine to see if it exists, you can very easily check if the software is on the harddrive.

TenQ:
It is actually stupidity to INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist

I agree. And that is the reason why I have not insisted anywhere that anyone should "INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist"!

That said, if you check for the software on the harddrive of the machine, albeit with other software as opposed to with the naked eye, you might be able to see if the software is in the machine or not.

TenQ:
because, truely a software exist in the machine BUT there is no known physical means by which it can be verified.

This part, however, is not true.

If the software does what the software is written to do, one may conclude the software is in the machine. Also, one can check the harddrive of the machine to see if the software is installed on it. And both are valid "physical" means of verification.

TenQ:
Because it is an IMPOSSIBILITY!

Just as it is impossible to see a virus with the naked eye, I suppose, but as said, why would I limit myself to perceiving with the naked eye when I can enhance my perception with aids (software) so I can see better?

TenQ:
[b]The Question was: [/b]5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

I think it is time for me to tell you that I will tell you no such thing since I do not intend to "prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software".

If there is no software in the machine, the machine itself will tell you there is no software in it as soon as you switch it on and ask the software that is not in it to do what you wrote the software to do in the machine.

If you don't have Microsoft Word in your machine, any attempt to open and run and use Microsoft Word on that machine will fail, and that should be sufficient evidence that Microsoft Word might not be on that particular machine. Of course it might be that you did put Microsoft Word on the machine, in which case I'd expect you'd check the hard drive to see whether it is installed properly or not, but asking to do that "without the use of another software" is like asking to do so without electricity or a battery and just by looking at the hardware, which is stupid if nothing else.

TenQ:
There is not one single equipment other than with another software with which one can even perceive a software code.

And why is it a problem whether I perceive a software code with another software or not?

I equally can not perceive a virus unless I use a device to perceive it, but you would not claim the virus does not exist because I can not perceive it with my naked eye. Or would you?

TenQ:
My dear:
Software in a Machine do not produce any Action because they are INFORMATION, DATA and INSTRUCTIONS.

Please just listen to the gibberish you wrote there!

You call it "INFORMATION, DATA and INSTRUCTIONS", and yet claim it does not produce an action! Did you write the software so badly that it produced no action?

An action is produced if information instructs!

Your machine will return an error code If your instruction were gibberish.

TenQ:
Its just like if Tinubu gives an Instruction that Bobrisky be released from prison tomorrow and he is released, you now conclude that the information is tangible. Information is REAL (it exists) but never TANGIBLE (can be handled).

Interesting. Does the fact that Bobrisky is released following Tinubu's given instruction not in effect mean that Tinubu's instruction has been handled?

If the information was not tangible, it would not have been perceived at all, and would be the equivalent of Tinubu just thinking the instruction in his head without making it tangible for anyone to hear it and be instructed by it so they can handle it.

Tinubu's instruction can only be handled if he makes his instruction perceivable to the senses Otherwise, you would need software to read Tinubu's mind.

TenQ:
The information it NOT the paper on which it is written,
The information it NOT the ink by which it is written,
The information it NOT the language by which it is written,
The information it NOT the style which it is written,

I agree. The information is the message conveyed by the ink and the language and the style, all of which are what make the information tangible. If you were just thinking it in your head, your message would be intangible to me, but it could still be argued that it is tangible to only you.

This, by the way, would be the logical argument of a person who claims they perceive spirits. The spirit is real and tangible to those who perceive spirits, but intangible and unreal to an atheist who doesn't.

TenQ:
Information is about Decoding intended meaning of Actions or Signals made by someone or something

Not necessarily. The fire alarm in a burning building is conveying information regardless of your ability to decode the information and receive the message conveyed or not.

I could write this information you are currently readind in Hindu, which I doubt you can read. But your inability to decode it does not mean it is not information. It would just mean that you are not informed by it since you can not decode it.

TenQ:
If you cannot understand this, too bad!

And this just proves the point, which is that you have conveyed information in your post, whether I understand it or not.

What makes it information is the fact that you have made it tangible so you can transmit it to me so I can read it and be informed by it.

You inform with it by placing it in a dimension and infuse it with Energy so it can be observed in Time, which is your definition of tangible.

I would not have this particular information in this post to handle if you you had not made it tangible for me to handle it with my senses, as I have very clearly done.

Do you not think it is rude not to answer questions you are asked and expect answers to your questions?

TenQ:
Tell me:
As you are reading this post,
1. Is the information your Device (Phone, Laptop etc)

The information is obviously the words you have written which I have obviously read and now respond to.

TenQ:
2. Is the information the strings of text Characters you see?

The information is carried by the string of text.

TenQ:
3. Is the information the electromagnetic wave that carried the message to your electronic device?

No.

TenQ:
4. Is the information the Decoded message in your brain of the things you see?

The information is the string of text. Decoding it with my brain allows me to be informed by it.

TenQ:
If you don't understand English nor read English, will this post be gibberish or information?

Whether I can read English or not does not make the information you have conveyed less of the information that it is. It would only be gibberish to me if I don't understand English. In itself it is not necessarily gibberish.

For instance, if you wrote it in Chinese which I can not read, it still is not gibberish.

TenQ:
Do you concur that Until a data or signal is decoded, it remains gibberish

No, I do not concur any such nonsense!
Whether you decode the information conveyed by a fire alarm in a burning building or not does not make the information gibberish. It just means you don't understand the information because you are stupid!

TenQ:
The Question had been very easy:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does it prove it doesn't exist?

Now, this is where you confuse yourself. You think tangible and existence are the same thing.

A thing can be intangible and still exist. An example is a companies intangible assets like its goodwill.

Tangible or intangible does not prove or disprove existence.

TenQ:
2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?

Software in a machine is real.

TenQ:
3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" by any physical means?

Yes it can. It can be taken out of the machine and can be measured and quantified. It can also be measured by its effect (as in the energy it produces).

TenQ:
4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?

You tell me, since you are the one insisting "on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exists".

Personally, I would just switch on the machine to see if it does what the software I put in the machine does what I wrote the software to do, and if it doesn't I will check first if the software is actually in the machine or not, and if the software actually works.

TenQ:
5. Tell me, how can one prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?

Please tell me why I should prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software, if that is what I want to do?

Regardless, I don't think I would need to prove the existence of Microsoft Windows in a machine with another software or not. After we boot up the machine we would know if Microsoft Windows was in the machine or not. We can also just check the computers hard drive to see if Microsoft Windows is installed on it. If you however want to insist we have used MsDos to do that, I have no problem at all.

Damian911:
The following day I told him about his debt and he showed me bale of cash and said he's got the money but he's not willing to pay me! Wtf!

Indeed wtf, if despite all the warnings you entered his trap again.

I can't tell you what to do to rectify the past but I do hope you learn so you don't make the same mistake a third time.

Verstappen wins Chinese Sprint.

As if a different result could have been expected, though I was hoping the grass caught fire again or it rained.

ijebosb:
We are a Federal Republic and thus there are certain powers abrogated to the federal government and others left to the states. Fundamental rights shouldn't be left to the states or be able to be given or taken away on the whims of 9 people. Before this ruling was Roe v. Wade which did define abortion as a fundamental right under the right to Privacy enshrined in the 14th amendment.

The 3/5 compromise in fact enshrined slavery in the constitution. The obvious difference was the civil war. My point is even the framers got it wrong for ideological reasons as did this supreme court.

Point is the current 9 people on the Supreme Court (though only 5 I think) has now established that having an abortion is not a fundamental right. But like the constitution framers that initially got the 3/5 compromise wrong, this too can be rectified by we the people at an election, which I have no problem with.

Not all states will abolish abortions, and like in slavery times, one can always migrate to a state that doesn't abolish abortions, and much easier too than migrating from a state that did not abolish slavery. And states that make abortion illegal will eventually suffer from their abolishing action, since those who believe abortion should be a fundamental right will mass migrate to pro-abortionist states, and companies will be reluctant to set up business in those states because their products and shares will be boycotted by the pro-abortionists, and those companies will have a smaller pool from which to hire from which will economically disadvantage those states.

It is a pity that some America states are stepping backwards into Handmaid's Tale territory, but I believe the consequences will make them moderate themselves, just as the "abortion is murder" brigade are gradually becoming 15 weekers.

ijebosb:
We are the United States of America. So the will of people would encompass all the people of the USA right not just by state?

Actually, you are the Federal Republic of the United States of America, so the will of the people encompasses what the states will to the federation.

What the Supreme Court decided regarding the abolition of Roe v Wade is that every state should decide for itself, which is not the stance that was taken regarding slavery for obvious reasons.

ijebosb:
But the question is, is bodily rights an inherent civil right which shouldn't be left up to the whims of a majority of people in each individual state but guaranteed to everyone in the country? There was a time when a portion of the country thought slavery should have been a states rights issue as well.

This election will be a good test for the abortion is murder crowd.

Those obvious reasons are established by the constitution of the United States of America.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You can't continue to justify enslaving some unless you decide that "ourselves" excludes some.

KnownUnknown:
I wonder if they will go back to the topic of spirit after the software diversion. Hmmmmmm

It would be interesting if they do, but I doubt they have the intellectual capacity for it considering, which is a pity since they could easily be arguing that the spirit is the tangible instruction or what not in the machines that they are.

Of course I would argue that it is not the spirit that is the instruction in them, but the tangible God book their pastors have coded in to them, which relies on the pastor's understanding and ability to code, and which might not be as good as they think. Or perhaps it's their compiler (their ability to understand) that is at fault.

triplechoice:
Maybe the person who brought you up is donkey and that's why you're quick to insult others who haven't insulted you first

They insult to provoke one to not express oneself intelligently and resort to insult slinging like they do and don't understand it just shows they don't know what they are talking about.

It's why I remain calm so they can continue to make their lack of knowledge tangible so it can be seen.

Atheist me learnt it from their God book too.

TenQ:
Can you touch an information?

I don't need to just "touch" any information! You must hear information or see it or read it or feel it for it to inform you.

I can't just sit in my house thinking up intangible thoughts of what I am tangibly informing you in this thread without making it tangible so you can read it!

If the instruction of a fire alarm in a burning house was not tangible for you to hear it, you will remain in the house and burn!

LordReed:
No my dear buda it only refers to touch.

It would, my Lord, especially if you limit yourself to the most basic meaning.

Below is a definition that includes the use of all the senses, which is obviously far more than just that of touching.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/intangible