₦airaland Forum

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

TenQ:
Real and Tangible do not mean the same thing!

Then I think you should provide your definition of tangible, since I have provided mine which does suggest they are.

budaatum:
Tangible, means real and not imaginary; able to be shown, touched, or experienced.

The software in an AI machine is tangible and real since it can be shown and touched and experienced if you don't limit yourself to your naked eyes.

Air one breathes is definitely tangible, as you will find if you hold your nose and cover your mouth for 5 minutes.

TenQ:
Show me anything you know that is tangible but does not have any of mass or dimension or energy?

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

Machine code in an AI machine is tangible despite not having mass or dimension, though I'd argue it has energy, since it can produce an action.

Thoughts in my head are tangible to me despite not having mass or dimension, though those thoughts are intangible to others. I'd also argue that my thought have energy since I think before I act.

Now, would you kindly answer my questions to you?

LordReed:
My dear buda we have had a discussion along this line in the past. Remember when we spoke about images on a screen or mirror? Those images are intangible, you cannot physical touch them but you can carry the medium they are on. It is the same with software. You can physically carry the medium it's on but you cannot directly touch the software itself.

My Lord, tangible does not only mean touch. It also means feel, see, hear, etc.

If you can observe the "images on a screen or mirror", then those images on a screen or mirror are tangible in their own right since you can see and observe it, which you could not possibly do if it were intangible.

I do not need to "directly touch the software itself" in the machine, though I can argue that I could if I wanted to since I could very easily decompile the software so I can see it, which is what one does if one wants to debug the code in the machine. The point is that I must write tangible code in a tangible format on a tangible medium and tangibly give it to a tangible compiler to convert it to machine readable code that some are here claiming is intangible. I can even decompile the machine readable code back into its tangible human readable code, which I am arguing can not be done if the code in the machine is not tangible in itself.

Just think. I can be sitting here in my home instructing you in my mind to stick your fingers in your eyes, but the intangibility of that instruction would be obvious because you would neither see nor hear nor feel it in anyway and would not be able to follow the instruction in my mind. But as soon as I make the intangible instruction in my mind tangible for you to hear or read or see, you will be able to either follow it or tell me to go do one.

The contention here is the tangibility of the code when it is in the machine, but that to me sounds like asking me to prove with my naked eye that there is machine code in the machine, which is simply oxymoronic since I am not limited to proving anything only with my naked eyes and not with all my other senses.

TenQ:
The software in a Machine is REAL but not tangible. You can't touch it nor feel it by any mechanical means.

This is where you lose yourself. It's like saying the instruction I give you to stick your finger in your eyes, is not tangible after you have received it because you can't touch or feel the instruction you've received.

If the instruction I gave you is not tangible, how the heck did I convey it to you in the first place I wonder.

Why do you not include 'hear' in your "touch and feel"? Are your senses limited to your eyes and your hands alone?

ijebosb:
Though, I don't think bodily rights should be state dependent, I do find it hilarious that all these "abortion is murder" folk now want some form of pro choice position. Basically they are saying, "we'll accept murder for 15 weeks because we don't want to lose the election". I guess it was never about principle.

But it is not state dependent, but dependent on a majority of we the people in a state, which is what democracy is.

Think death as a sentence for committing murder. We the people in a state can decide that any one who commits murder should be sentenced to death. It's why some states have such laws and many don't. We the people decided, and thankfully, most of us in most states have decided otherwise. And just like most countries don't have death sentence laws do most states not have anti-abortion laws because we the people decided.

It is the fear of we the people that has made the anti-abortion brigade become abortion at 15 weeks. Principles go out the window if it loses them power and seats, as they are showing us.

Aemmyjah:
See kweshon
Define tangible before you ask questions

How I wish you'd do the same instead of using words you lack understanding of what they mean.

budaatum:
Tangible, means real and not imaginary; able to be shown, touched, or experienced.

TenQ:
This is not what is useful to the machine.

Are you admitting that the "human readable instructions" is tangible?

And can the machine have anything to read if the tangible human readable instructions is not compiled into machine readable code?

TenQ:
Is any instruction tangible?

Yes, Tenq. Every instruction must be tangible for it to be an instruction. I must make an instruction tangible for it to instruct you or anyone or anything.

If I want to instruct you to stick your finger in your eyes, I can't just think it intangibly in my head, but must state it in tangible words for you to hear the instruction! Same as I must write tangible human instructions that are compiled into ones and zeros for the machine to read!

TenQ:
The Compiler or Interpreter is another software whose job is to transform the human readable instructions to sequences of logical zeros and ones.

They are not tangible!

Is the "human readable instructions" tangible or not?

TenQ:
The human readable instruction on paper is meant only for the human being (it is useless to the target machine)

It may be
1. An algorithm (logical sequence of instruction)
2. A High level Programming Language Eg Python, C/C++, Java, etc
3. Assembly Language (Low level human readable language)


The High Level language or the Assembly language is Interpreted or Compiled by an appropriate Software program called a Compiler or Interpreter into a machine readable or machine executable code which are sequences of logical zeros and ones

The sequences of the logical zeros and ones written in any appropriate hardware medium is the software.

Slowly, we are getting there.

Is the "High Level language or the Assembly language" that is "Compiled by an appropriate Software program called a Compiler or Interpreter into a machine readable or machine executable code which are sequences of logical zeros and ones" tangible or not?

TenQ:
No it isn't.

The medium on which it is carried is tangible but the software it contains is NOT.
The software code is a sequence of machine readable sequences of logical Ones and Zeros. acting on data also stored as logical sequence of Zeros and Ones

How are those "Ones and Zeros" created please?

basilico:
Must be a raging liberal.

You think? The truth shall soon out.

ijebosb:
The dog that caught the car.
I'm sure all the Conservatives in this thread are pleased. Nevada can now ban Abortion during the 2024 election. (sarcasm).

I so love democracy. Nevadans can now vote to abolish abortions if that is what they want.

TenQ:
Those are mediums on which the software codes are written (media where the program can exist)

Is software code not tangible?

TenQ:
What you write as human readable instructions on paper is not the software.

Software is the non-physical instructions in appropriate hardware of the computer.

Tell me. What is the relationship between the "human readable instructions on paper", and "instructions in appropriate hardware of the computer"?

TenQ:
Everytime you open your mouth, you reveal how ignorant you are.
A Software is not the hard disk drive nor the CPU nor the Ram but the information written on them. The software in a Machine is REAL but not tangible. You can't touch it nor feel it by any mechanical means.
Only with another software will you be able to detect or interact with the information (software program)!

SMH!

The software is the code it is written from and in! It can be typed out on a piece of paper and put it in front of your naked eyes so you can see it for yourself and touch it too!

That said, please explain what you use to detect spirits.

AuthorMan:
The guy got you and the only thing you can say is to insult him?

Above is from your very first post on this thread, and below is your very first response to me.

Did you insult because I got you, or do you need a mirror so you can better see yourself?

AuthorMan:
You are guys are actors.
You act smart but remain the most stupid of humans.

triplechoice:
Apart from tools,there are alternatives to knowing something. Ask a doctor to know that

See, a software is not the same as your God. Stop fooling yourself

I'd say the software is more like the God books that their pastor codes into their heads, but of course the pastor might code them with his own garbage understanding, so garbage in garbage out, as they are proving here.

The God books (software) themself are not garbage though, least not according to atheist me, because if this particular software were not coded into them they'd be much less intelligent than they currently are.

LordReed:
I have answered your questions now answer mine.

That, my Lord, would be the day.

LordReed:
It amazes me how someone who sees himself as intelligent will be struggling with something so simple. Software produces effects that can be measured, simple but TENQ needs a kindergarten teacher to explain it to him.

Software itself is tangible, since you can very easily observe its physically existing code.