₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
In OBEs, people experience REAL life environment while physically not within such environment. OBEs are sometimes verified by others: there are many reports of that!

Funny how you discard my own report of my own subjective experience so easily.

Good for her. Huge selling power!

Ekemeze:
Wow, so much for a party of "love, respect, inclusiveness, care". It's all the opposite.
. And here I am defending Joe Biden for getting attacked by House Republicans who are trying to impeach him for bribery.

So the mere fact that Trump is alive is a nightmare to you and other liberals.

Well, wetin concern ordinary Nigerian like me. none of my business.. but if it makes any of you liberals feel better, I think y'all have gone totally insane.

Welcome to the thread, Ekemeze. You will live long.

Maynmaynmayn:
Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused.......

Who the fuq has ever been bold enough to claim that they have a clue what Plato understood or what Plato's focus was? Are you aware how much he wrote, and how diverse and interconnected his writings were? The world is so still trying to figure out what Plato understood and focused on that you don't even get to study his works until you start a first degree, and even then you are only getting a syllabus of Plato. To have a clue is years of personal study after uni. And even then you "focus" on a small part of Plato unless you PhD. And Mayn is telling buda "Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused...." Lol.

Plato's "Ideal Form" εἶδος (eidos) originally meant "visible form", as in, the form that you see before your eyes here and now.

We see a lake. The lake is being a lake. The lake is being the perfect ideal form lake because it has completely gone through the process of fulfilling its potential of being a lake and arrived at being in the ideal form of the visible lake that we see.

Then something interacts with the lake such that part of the lake is no more the lake that we saw. It is an imperfect form of that lake. A lesser form of the ideal form of the lake that it was because it is going through the process of non-being the ideal form of that lake and is approaching the fulfilment of its potential to become visible in the ideal form of something else.

When the non-being lake has completely gone through the process of fulfilling the potential of the ideal being that it shall become by first becoming the imperfect lesser non-being of that lake that we saw, that thing will become it's own ideal form of being the perfect visibly stream that we now see

Now, say in the future sometime something interacts with the ideal form of the perfect stream that we have been seeing such that part of the stream is not the stream that we had been seeing anymore but a lesser imperfect stream of the stream that we saw. A non-stream of that stream so to speak, because it has begun to start to go through the process of fulfilling the potential of becoming something else, which could be a flood if more water, or a desert if less. But not a car nor a bird, because streams don't have the potential to become birds or cars. And when the stream that we saw has completely gone through the process of becoming the imperfect lesser non-being form of that stream that we had been seen, it shall become visible in its perfect ideal form of the something else that it had the potential to become and that we now see.

"Plato's understanding of change and transition is primarily focused...." on buda's ass!

Ekemeze:
I tell you, too cruel, such a person with that level of hatred in his heart is not any different from Trump himself 😏😏

That's barbaric.. same thing I'm seeing on Reddit, r/politics .. wishing trump a death sentence.. seriously? Are you sure these guys are still sane?

I believe Trump should be locked up if proven guilty but death penalty? For what?

If no say I weak past "too cruel" I'd shoot dump myself.
Some gops he enables are the worst kind.

So consider me the blacker pot please.
My TDS has one cure. Me dancing on dumps grave.

Obrigardo:
But he has to make a deal just like Spiro Agnew. I'll rather see him die on outright execution.

You too cruel

Maynmaynmayn:
I never said such.
The lake and streams are analogy, i said that repeatedly.

Then you must have been mixing up your analogies, because what you are trying to analogise it to mean just doesn't add up.

Maynmaynmayn:
No, Plato did not argue that objects must move into a state of non-being to fulfill their potential. Rather, Plato's concept of change, as described in his philosophy of Forms, involves a transition from a state of imperfection to perfection, or from a less real or less ideal state to a more real or more ideal state.

Mayn. That "transition from a state of imperfection to perfection", is precisely what is meant by a thing becoming non-being what it was to become whatever it becomes.

It's after all not the case that a lake is in a state of imperfection and only becomes perfect when it changes into the state of being a stream.

The lake can be a perfect lake, if there could said to be any such thing, and the stream can be a perfect stream. But there is absolutely no way that a lake, perfect or imperfect can become a perfect or imperfect stream. Or do you think there is?

Maynmaynmayn:
I never said nothing “created” something.

Really? I suggest you go back and read what you've been saying means.

At one point you were even arguing that the lake the stream came out was nothing, and thought that's what Plato said.

Maynmaynmayn:
I told you the analogy of Nothing “creating” something can be liken to a Lake “creating” Streams, they are distinct but the streams emerges from the Lake, it contains the same elements as the Lake.

“Nothing comes from Nothing” is different from “creation from Nothing”.

Maynmaynmayn:
In this analogy, the lake represents the initial state of rest, and the stream represents the subsequent state of motion. The transition between the two involves a change in the water's properties and characteristics, just as Plato suggests.
The Lake and Streams contain the same elements.

Plato said object must move from a state of non-being (or potentiality) to being (or actuality). In other words, the object must actualize its potential for motion. This transition represents a change or transformation that requires the object to go from a state of non-motion to motion.

False!

Plato said object must move in to a state of non-being (what it is) to fulfil the potential of what it becomes.

A body remains at rest being as it is without fulfilling any potential until a force acts on it to make it non-being what it is so it can fulfils is potential of becoming what it will become.

Take the lake. Left by itself it remains a lake. But when the force of additional water interacts with the lake and fills it to a stage where it flows, or if some idiot blows up a dam that stopped the water in the lake from flowing, you'd get a stream, or a flood.

Maynmaynmayn:
Our current conversation is on creation from Nothing and nothing from Nothing.
Creation from nothing is a theistic concept.

Talking about theism doesn’t make one a theist.

Hello Mayn. This is buda. The buda you very well know can talk theistically even though an anti-theist.

Creation from nothing is false and there is no point me talking about it. A thing created or emerging or transitioning from nothing is even more false and stupid as I've explained in numerous posts already. But for some reason you keep insisting on it like you don't understand a word I've been saying.

Maynmaynmayn:
Plato would argue that for this transition to occur, the object must move from a state of non-being (or potentiality) to being (or actuality).

And Plato would be correct since the lake must move from non-being a lake to being a stream.

Therefore the (some-thing) stream comes out of the (some-thing) lake, which is clearly not not-thing.

In fact, some-thing force must act on the some-thing that is a lake to make it non-being a lake and to change into a some-thing being a stream. So, 3 some-thing's are actually involved, the lake, the stream, and the force that causes the transition. Newton's First Law!

Maynmaynmayn:
I’m not introducing any gods.
Creation from nothing is a theistic concept, i only talked on it.

Stop talking on it! Unless you are a theist yourself. I don't give a flying fuq about what some dumb "theistic concept" is when it comes to our current conversation because it is an irrelevant stupid concept!

Maynmaynmayn:
Nobody said the lake is no-thing. It is an analogy explaining what plato said.

No it is not "an analogy explaining what plato said"! It is an analogy you are using to try to explain what you think Plato said. And Plato said it's exact opposite.

Maynmaynmayn:
This No-thing does not have the characteristics of the monotheistic definition of god.

Then stop with the gods, why don't you please! You are after all the one introducing it when you claim this no-thing is somehow responsible for some-thing.

Oh, and don't make me laugh to death by trying to educate buda about atum. It's like a child trying to teach its grandma to suck eggs!

Maynmaynmayn:
As the stream begins to flow, the water in the lake undergoes a transformation. It moves from a state of non-being (the calm water in the lake) to being (the flowing water in the stream). This transition involves a change in the state of the water—its location, speed, and direction.

There you go! Though I think you are posting stuff you don't quite comprehend!

The water in the lake must become non-being a lake to being a stream. That does not however imply that the stream or the lake were ever "no-thing". The lake was. The stream just never existed until the water in the lake stopped being in the lake and became the stream by changing location, speed, and direction.

Maynmaynmayn:
It is an analogy, i was trying to explain how B can emerge from A.
A thing emerges from No-Thing.

Like the universe emerged from the No-Thing called God? I mean, just see yourself putting it in capitals as if it were some god, lol

Note that I am ignoring all the "theists say". I don't give a flying fuq what theists say, Mayn. Let theists speak for themselves and I would gladly stoop to what I presume to be the theist level of comprehension. Currently, I am talking to Mayn, and not some dumb fuq theist! I hope.

A thing needs Non-Being in order to change: Suppose a thing is at rest and later in motion, this cannot happen without itself changing, as Plato says, and it cannot do this without making a transition.

Translation/Interpretation

A thing needs to stop being what it is in order to become something else. Suppose a thing is at rest (like a lake) and later in motion (like a stream), this change cannot happen without itself changing (from lake that is at rest, to a stream that is in motion), as Plato says, and it cannot do this without making a transition (changing from being a lake at rest to becoming a stream in motion).

Non-Being above means, the water must stop being in a lake in order to become the water that is being in a stream. Because, if the water does not stop being in the being state of resting in a lake, it, the water, can not change into the being state of motion in a stream.

It cannot happen that the being state of water in a lake becomes in the being state of water in a stream without the water in the lake changing its being state. The water must become non-being in the state of being at rest that it was in when it was a lake, and become in the state of being in motion in the stream. And Newton would add, "and an outside force must act on it to change its state and make it transition", hence Newton's First Law of Motion.

P.s. Martin Heidegger wrote an entire book on the subject that might interest you. I have so far read only 12 hours of it, or rather, listened to because it is above my reading level so I can not read it. But I've not listened to any hour less than 12 times, the tenth and eleventh hour at least 14, as I've been stuck on it for months now trying to grasp when I am hearing. I think in about 5 or 10 years time I might get to the end of it. I wouldn't have a clue what he's talking about if I hadn't read some of those who influenced him like Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Kant etc, and some of those he influenced, like Arendt, Derrida, Foucault, Marcuse, Sartre, Popper etc. Try it if you can and tell me what you understand.

https://www.nairaland.com/6023861/being-time-martin-heidegger/1#99456897

Maynmaynmayn:
I said stream emerged from Lake.
Then i used an analogy representing it.
Stream is something and it emerges from Lake, Nothing.

Why is the stream a something, but the lake is a nothing?

Is a child also something but the mother it emerges from a nothing?

Obrigardo:
Thank God for the Appeals Court. But we still don't know the number of aces the DOJ has up their sleeves.

But I know criminal trump will die in jail or somehow in any other way.

I can bet you, no jail time for dump. Unfortunately.

Maynmaynmayn:
I never said streams come from nothing.
In the analogy, the stream is the something, the lake is the nothing.
I said streams emerged from lake.
Something emerged from nothing.

That bold statement contradicts everything you said preceding it, especially your first statement ("I never said streams come from nothing", because the bold is you saying exactly what you are claiming you are not saying, which is that "the stream comes, emerged, from nothing"!

A lake can not be nothing! If a child emerges from a mother, you don't just wipe out the mother and call her "nothing"!

We covered this in the initial stage of the conversation. Go back and read it please.

Maynmaynmayn:
My asterisk is to show that lake doesn’t perform act of creation, yet streams emerge from this lake and distinct.

So, the stream that emerges from the lake does not emerge from nothing, hence, nothing (stream) does not come from nothing, because it (stream) comes and emerges from a something called a lake just as a something called child comes from and emerges from a something called its mother.

In this religious section, "create" has a distinct meaning. It's why it's illogical to claim "a mother creates a child", or some Yahweh created the universe. Both statements are not exactly accurate, especially if it is claimed that they created those things out of nothing, which is moreso not true.

Mayn, let me say that despite our disagreeing, I appreciate how you've conducted yourself during this entire conversation. Respect. Do please take time to reread the thread. I find it helps a lot to listen to oneself to see what others might be hearing one say. And it helps even more if one hears what is said to one.

LordReed:
I hope so.

Sometimes, the problem is understanding English. He mentioned it as a "definition problem" earlier on, and I thought he'd place that at the forefront of his deliberations. But I guess I presumed.

Maynmaynmayn:
I never said anything about “creation from nothing”.
I defined what nothing means no—thing.


I never said the lake was nothing, i said the Creation of nothing can be liken to a lake “creating” streams. It is an analogy.
What i implied is that a lake can not “create” a stream since it is the same element, the stream is the source of the lake. The streams comes from lake.
Nothing can’t “create” Something.
A lake can’t “create” a stream.

"A lake can not “create” a stream", is illogical English, since lakes do not perform the act of creation. But if anyone said it, we'd ask if they accept that the lake is the source of the stream, and move on if they said yes.

If they however claim that the stream came into existence with nothing to do with the lake, we'd ask them to explain the source of the stream, and tell us what it's relationship to the stream is.

LordReed:
It exists without existing. Right.

OK this is my busstop. Bye.

Should be my busstop too, to be honest. Hopefully, he'd read the thread again sometime in the future

Maynmaynmayn:
I told you the analogy of Nothing “creating” something can be liken to a Lake “creating” Streams, they are distinct but the streams emerges from the Lake, it contains the same elements as the Lake.

“Nothing comes from Nothing” is different from “creation from Nothing”.

“Nothing comes from Nothing” is the exact opposite of “creation from Nothing”! Unfortunately, you err in your understanding of "Nothing comes from Nothing", and are saying "creation from Nothing"! And more unfortunate is that you are not listening to yourself. If you did you'd have noticed your error by now.

We have repeatedly told you that the lake is not nothing despite it being distinct. A mother is distinct from a child like your lake is distinct from the stream. Would you claim the child came out of nothing therefore? And would you have a stream if there were no lake?

Everything must come out of something. The lake is a something, and out of it does the thing called stream come.

Maynmaynmayn:
We said same thing.

Ex nihilo nihil fit" is a Latin phrase that translates to "out of nothing, nothing comes."

Mayn. We are saying the same thing! You just understand it different.

"Ex nihilo nihil fit" means "out of nothing, nothing comes". So, if you have nothing, nothing will come out of it. Zero input = zero output

But you are arguing that it means things come out of nothing. Zero input = something output, which is not the same thing, and is not true.

Things do not come out of thin air. You can't have no Naira in you pocket and Naira just generates into your pocket without you doing something. In order for Naira to generate into your pocket, something must do the generating.

Maynmaynmayn please read the entire text your image came from. It really is very self explanatory.

"there is no break in-between a world that did not exist and one that did, since it could not be created ex nihilo in the first place".

The bold bit means "since it could not be created out of nothing" in the first place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

Maynmaynmayn:
But in the last line it didn’t say “ NO nothing comes from nothing.“ it simply said “nothing comes from nothing.“

Yeah, I understand your confusion. You don't understand that it means exactly "NO nothing comes from nothing" because you've for some reason decided to ignore the "no" in there is no generation ex nihilo which does exactly mean NO nothing comes from nothing", except that that is not how English is written.

There is no generation of things out of nothing because all things must generate out of a some thing that existed, is what is being said here.

IjeBos:
I'm sorry, but this is a bad take. Trump cannot win the General. Republicans are freaking out over it and finally waking up what that means. Hence the recent spade of mealy mouth Republicans walking back their initial defense of him on this indictment.

And I don't think Democrats went out to get him (that's a Republican stalking point), but his actions were so atrocious it left Smith no other choice. The guy literally did not comply with a DOJ subpoena and tried to hide Classified Top Secret documents. That's a big deal for anyone.

I not only want it to be a bad take, I want it to be a wrong and false take too, Ije. My fear is that it becomes the dominant prevailing take. And I have that fear because this indictment might end up not as kosher as is being claimed.

I can just imagine a jury finds dump guilty and the judge sentences him to a day in jail or 100 hours community service. Or worst, that it is televised, and dump drags it on till after the midterms.

Maynmaynmayn:
In summary, "ex nihilo nihil fit" expresses the idea that there must be some existing foundation, material, or cause for something to come into being or for change to occur. It is a philosophical principle that aligns with our observations and scientific understanding of the world.

Aristotle is saying the same thing.
“how substances come into existence even though, as he maintains, there is no generation ex nihilo, that is that nothing comes from nothing.“

The above, is what I've been explaining to you all along, that things do not come from nothing. You are unfortunately reading the last "nothing comes from nothing" like it were "x comes from x", instead of "no x can come from no x".

I said when we started with myths that Yahweh's creation did not come out of nothing.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Means there was first a something called God who created a something called heavens and the earth. And, while some might claim this particular something called God came out of nothing, you at least know of a Yahweh of Shasu who preceded it.

Hence, "ex nihilo nihil fit", as in all things must come from something.

If things can come from nothing, things would appear out of thin air, and that is not what is observed and scientifically understood of the world.

Maynmaynmayn:
The origin of the word “thing” means that. Our definition in dictionary is sometimes screwed and have lost their original meaning.

But the drawings are on the canvas which was blank and empty before the drawer started drawing on it, it is an analogy.
Because the canvas is blank and empty is signifies potential and willingness for that potential to be actualized.

Nothing here signifies Potential energy, when this potential energy is used it turns to kinetic energy.
Potential energy means energy at rest, even though no action there is lot of potential/energy in it.

The Hebrew bible is about Ayin.
“For a long time, I have remained silent, keeping myself quiet and restrained. However, now, like a woman in labor, I cry out, gasping and panting (Isaiah 42:14).”

You bloody theist, is all I can say about this. In good humour, of course.

Does the blank canvass have the potential to draw on itself, I wonder.