₦airaland Forum

basilico:
Lordreed can't even point outba conspiracy theory Ive pushed that was effectively refuted..

Almost every post of yours is based on a qanon mules 2000 kraken conspiracy theory. And no, you will not have us waste our time pointing it to you. Because a simple search of your monicker and any combination of those words would point it out to anyone who bothers.

basilico:
Was an earlier quote from you answering me directly. I will never forget how callous, inhumane and unfeeling it sounded
Why you think I quote you every time Im talking abortion? it was precisely how you referred to a foetus as either a mass or clump of cells.

Provide the post where buda "referred to a foetus as either a mass or clump of cells" or you are basililiar!

Though, in all honesty you always have been a liar so that's not new.

LordReed:
Like he can be both things. He still was a conspiracy theorist much like you. Did you see the picture of him holding up a sign that Joe Biden and Donald Trump are working hand in hand? That's where you people's lies are going to land some people, mental illness or harmful actions.

My first thought on reading about him was to hope Basiloco does not go and burn himself.

TenQ:
I think I got tired of you at a point because i assume I was speaking from the position of knowledge.
I do programming on Microcontrollers and in those days, I did a lot of C/Cpp, Python programming.

One thing I never do is post credentials as a reason for knowledge. If I would, the relevant ones to this topic would be B.Eng Electronics and Communications, London. In my days we were 'programming' in COBOL and C and sometimes directly in machine code, so God help you if your one was in the zero's place. I would love my knowledge of philosophy and how to think and reason to hold sway here too.

When you program in C/Cpp, Python, you are "touching" it. If you want to debug your program, you will remove it from the machine and "touch" it to do so. So why would you insist we go looking for the software inside the machine despite some of us telling you what we would do? Would you tell us to go look for electricity inside the machine from the machine's point of view also and without using a multimeter?

TenQ:
I believe I kept saying that you can only look at this from the Point of View of the Computer

And we are saying that you don't impose a point of view on anyone! It's why we keep informing you that we can take the software out of the machine's point of view and place it in our own point of view so we can feel and touch and see it since we don't share senses with a machine and therefore feel and touch things differently.

The imposition of a point of view is how religion captivates it's audience. And you ought to by now know that atheists do not allow themselves to be captivated so.

Read some of my posts on the Garden of Eden. It's all about a point of view that differs to the generally accepted point of view, which you and I should perhaps discuss in its own right.

Ref: https://www.nairaland.com/7351620/story-adam-eve-makes-sense#117003826

TenQ:
Not every tangible things are touchable (even though this is a general definition). A more precise definition would be that Tangible things are anything that has mass or dimension or energy or can change state with time.

TenQ, I agree with you that A more precise definition would be that Tangible things are anything that has mass or dimension or energy or can change state with time.

In fact, Quine, whom I will post at the end, is agreeing with you, and if I tell you a secret, my Lord and I have almost never disagreed and he agrees with you too.

LordReed:
My dear buda software is a non physical effect of physical interactions. They are like thoughts, even though it is the interaction of the brain and body that produces thoughts, thoughts themselves are not physical.

And just so it's not I'm lying, first person to find otherwise my Lord will make me pay 10k. Just quote link.

Unfortunately. There are no precise definition of words, or at least we human beings are not normally intelligent enough or know enough that the definition we give a word is more precise than any other. It's probably why there are so many dictionaries. Everyone writes their own because we do not agree on precision.

Personally? I think it is really rather absurd (gibberish, even), to claim one precisely defines any word with very complex and imprecise words like "mass or dimension or energy or can change state with time". These are words that have had so many meanings over the history of time, and that keep evolving, that precision just eludes them completely, just as that of tangible has and does.

Anyway, below is Quine. The entire article itself is revealing, and moreso the references.

In Quine’s influential Word and Object he speaks about “limning the true and ultimate structure of reality,” (1960, 221) and according to him, for an object to exist is for it to be necessarily quantified over in an idealized and regimented logical language used to truly and comprehensively describe the world. And he claims that the values of the variables of such a theory will only range over sets and physical objects, so “as far as he is concerned … only physical objects and sets really exist,” and, it must be noted, both objects and sets, even if the latter are abstract, are all regarded as ‘things’ or ‘objects’[3]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics-massexpress/

kkins25:
My Buda, good day to you!

I did reply to your Email oh. I assumed you'd forgotten your password or not had time to respond.

I must have missed it somehow. I am so sorry. Please if you would again. I hate being in debt.

kkins25:
@pocohantus, I hope you're doing great. could you help me confirm, do Nigeria Payoneer accounts have the "Request payment" feature activated? It's under the "Get paid" menu..

Cc. Chatinet

Why, by the way, have you not requested what I owe you?

kkins25:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urFChdLN6nA?si=gRHAkMD-2uTy-z5X

Great collection of audio-Books with topnotch narrators... I can't stand the Auto-generated text to sppech..

@budaatum.

I do suppose Manly's opus magnus would need a more accessible rewrite. The below is for if you can stand the auto generated.

https://archive.org/details/pdfy-NXrCfPe_e-QETRFj/mode/1up

Guess they wouldn't be spitting on the "idol worshipping Christians" if they ban them.

But do note only the very far right think stupidly this way.

“The custom of spitting near churches or monasteries is an ancient Jewish tradition,” far-right activist Elisha Yered wrote on Monday in response to a video of Orthodox Jews spitting on Christian pilgrims.

The former spokesperson for MK Limor Son Har-Melech, of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party, said that there is an even a blessing that Jews are supposed to say when seeing a church: “Blessed is He who has patience for those who violate His will,” which Yered described as a “blessing that praises God for not immediately punishing idol worshipers for their wicked deeds.” https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-761490

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRguceI4h1Q?si=sKSv7946uo7m4yIY

TenQ:
Atheists of Nairaland have all come to a conclusion that the following are tangible realities
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic

There was even one clown who says that Grief is tangible. His evidence is that Webster definition says
/Her Grief was tangible and he seem not to know that it is a figure of speech.


Who will deliver them from this Ignorance Induced shamelessness?

Cc:
Budaatum LordReed jaephoenix triplechoice

In the context of this thread, which is spirits, those things mentioned are very tangible indeed is what you miss. Even My Lord who argued with me that tangible things must be touchable, and whom I assume might claim life is not touchable, might concede that life is tangible compared.

Go on. Ask all those atheists if spirits are tangible or not. Though now that we've got to the insulting stage, that bridge might have burned. Even as a figure of speech, I'd expect none to agree.

TenQ:
It was directed to the response of a particular fellow who arrogantly displayed his folly: and he was put in his place.

When last did you see me call you any derogatory name?

I hardly, and that is because you hardly call people by derogatory names

Then I take back my comment, and apologise. And know that despite our differences, I do appreciate our conversation, until you began assuming I had no knowledge of that which I speak just because you don't have the code to decode it. It's a call to being an authority, which I know is done by those who don't have any authority at all, and just want to bully and gaslight others into submission.

You should read it again in fact. I kept telling you that despite a computer calling a message in Hindi and sign language gibberish, that does not mean it is gibberish, but you could not see how it applies to us as individuals, that just because we are saying what the other disagrees with doesn't mean either of us are talking gibberish.

I really enjoyed our conversation. It's not the first time neither that we've done this, if you remember, and if I were to lay out my heart I'd say I love you for it. I wouldn't have spent so much time if you didn't have the brain for it, and that's rather rare here especially amongst those who just want to shove some intangible god down one's throat.

TenQ:
The post wasn't directed at you so I don't know how it is your business when a fool is called by his proper name.

The post was directed at atheists, which many would presume I am. And besides, it's not as if you haven't directly insulted me too.

Perhaps don't be so general next time.

Renas recorded a subsequent video call he received from the decision maker, which he passed to police and which has also been seen by the BBC.

The footage appears to show an individual using a laptop which has official Home Office software containing case files.

We Nigerians should be recording our corrupt officials too. Even if our law does nothing, just posting those videos here will force them to be more wary of getting punished, or at least ridiculed Gandollar style.

Truvelisback:
Good day, fellas. As a parent, what would be your reaction after seeing this?

How could I have been so stupid and irresponsible to put my food where my child can get at it!

If it was hot, nkọ?

That would be my reaction, after being gobsmacked. And it's because a sibling did exactly that and ma's reaction was brutal, so I ought to have learnt and know better.

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.