₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
I was attempting to illustrate how immaterial can arise from material.

Explain please. How does immaterial arise from material?

LordReed:
They do differ my dear buda. The physical substance creating the effect is different from the effect. Here's a way we can tell, you cannot manipulate the image or shadow without manipulating the physical substance creating the effect. I am sure you have something casting a shadow somewhere around you, attempt to physically manipulate the shadow itself without touching the thing casting the shadow, it is a physical impossibility simply because the shadow is not made of substance, it is immaterial. You similarly do not directly manipulate the words on your screen, you are issuing commands to a processor which takes you input and outputs it on the screen, the image of which is virtual. Again contrast this to a physical book or diary to which you put pen on to write, in this case you are directly altering a physical substance.

You are using immaterial as some sort of opposite to physical, which is wrong. The effect itself is a thing it is own right, as is the consequence of an effect. You mentioned emotions and feeling as examples of this, I think.

My words here you are reading are physically before you as substance that I have manipulated to physically present them to you. I manipulated what you are now reading by deleting and reordering the physical words you now see, which you couldn't possibly be reading if what you are seeing lacked material that makes its substance physically possible for you to see.

I tried your experiment by the way, by just moving the light source, and the shadow moved without me touching the thing casting the shadow. So it is not a physical impossibility at all.

I do not need to directly manipulate a thing for it to have substance, my Lord. You are not reading the immaterial non-physical words in my mind, you are seeing the material I have indirectly manipulated to physically present the contents of my mind to you. And I hope it does have substance.

DeepSight:
In that case, take good care of my absence, a real thing which is right beside you.
Good night.

Deepsight. Your absence is a real thing. A real huge gap will exist where you were before you removed yourself from it, and the absence you leave behind will be noticed by those of us who remain here.

You too will notice the effect of your absense on us when you eliminate your absence and return.

LordReed:
Virtual ink and virtual paper are not material. If you think they are then what are they made of?

Electricity, light, sand, silicon, etc, my Lord. Everything required to make the device I type the physical words on and which work together to transmit them to you.

LordReed:
I didn't ask for what is making the shadow, I asked what the shadow itself is made of.

Do they really differ? The building makes the shadow by blocking some light from where the shadow is.

The shadow is made of light, or specifically by the reduction of light in the shadow area.

DeepSight:
Going by this then nothing is a thing. A perfect self- negating statement. You simply can't describe an absence as a thing otherwise you are surrounded by the absence of all things which exist which are not in your presence.

It's truly absurd, but enjoy.

You make it sound like "truly absurd" is a negative thing.

Indeed, one is "surrounded by the absence of all things which exist which are not in your presence". It's actually a state of being to be "surrounded by the absence of all things which exist which are not in your presence", and is the basis of human existence called want, and desire, and so on.

I am surrounded by poverty which is the absence of a thing which exists which is not in my presence, and when I am hungry its because I am surrounded by food that might exist but not in the proximity to my mouth and my belly.

LordReed:
The difference is in what they are made of. The virtual book or words are immaterial, they aren't made of substance unlike the book which is made of paper. Similarly, a shadow is not made of substance.

My Lord, you can not claim a virtual book is not made up of substance just because its not made up of physical paper and physical ink! Paper and ink has simply been evolved in the case of the virtual book and has become virtual ink and virtual paper.

And a shadow is specifically made of physical substance! That building forming a shadow by blocking the sun is a physical substance! Remove the physical building and it will stop forming that specific shadow.

LordReed:
I think you are conflating you physical acts with the words on your device screen. The words on your device screen are virtual they are not made of material. They are projection. Will you call the image in a cinema hall screen a physical image? It's not. If you think it is, what is it made of? Similar question to what is a shadow made of.

You are conflating physical things with whatever might be its opposite.

The words you are reading are physical things made by me ordering the letters in a specific order to convey a very specific message, which I will have converted into a virtual image so you can receive and read it. The virtual part is just to overcome the distance between us. If I called you and read it out to you instead you will not claim the voice of buda reading to you is virtual.

Same with the image on a cinema hall screen. I only see it because the screen, and the specific image, are physically there in front of me in the physical cinema hall.

DeepSight:
You cannot call an absence a thing. That is analogous to calling the absence of either light or sound a thing.
If you do so, once you go into your room at night, if you switch off the lights, then the ensuing darkness is a thing.
It is an absence of light - which is a thing. Light is a thing. The absence of light is not a thing.

But I have said enough on this matter. I am tired of it for now.
Maybe I will have the inspiration to revisit it some other time.

You simply cannot describe an absence of something as a separate thing in itself.
An absence is not a thing.

Yes I can call an absence, a thing. An absence of a thing can be a thing in many cases, and in fact, the specific word called not-thing has been formed so I can.

I can claim that the removal of a thing called light has left a thing (or a not-thing) called darkness. Also, an absence of money could be a thing called poverty, and a lack of food to eat can cause a thing called hunger, etc.

Its all in use of language.

LordReed:
The image you are seeing is a shadow if you will because it is produced by selectively inhibiting light so you not looking at an actual material that has taken the shape of an image. Lemme attempt to contrast this with a physical book . With a physical book you are looking at actual ink on actual paper which you see because light is reflecting off the physical paper into your eyes, with a screen you are looking at a shadow projected through a substrate, the image you are seeing is a virtual image not the reflection of light off of a physical image. In both cases you are seeing because of light but in one case you are seeing a physical image while in the other you are seeing a virtual image. I don't know how anyone can argue that a virtual image is made of material, that would be bizarre to say the least.

There is no difference between a "physical image" and a "virtual image" in the specific case of books. I can post you a piece of paper with ink for words, but it will just take a bit longer. Or would you argue that what you just read is not material that I physically created in the comfort of my home and virtually transmitted to you to read?

As for shadow, I know its physically there when it protects me from the sun and my sweating reduces. We can of course argue that the heat is blocked by the building forming the shadow, but that simply would mean the building formed a physical thing which I am benefiting from.

DeepSight:
Numbers - Numbers are representational of quantity, volume, size, length and the like. They are an immaterial construct, and do not exist in and of themselves as a thing. The number 7 is not a thing. It is neither a material thing nor an immaterial thing. It doesn't have any independent existence save with reference to representation of quantities, volumes, sizes, etc.

I'd say a specific shadow is a number "with reference to representation of quantities, volumes, sizes, etc". While shadow in general is like number 7.

One can qualify and quantify a specific shadow, which does make it a thing.

DeepSight:
Jesus No! certainly not!
Look I really dont know how something so simple has become a problem for you, but a shadow is not a thing, not even an immaterial thing. You cannot simply block light from a surface and then call it a thing, declare it a separate immaterial thing. It is not. Your mind simply discerns a shape from a part of a surface in lesser light as opposed to a part of the surface bathed in greater light. At all times, what you are looking at is that same surface, simple.

I truly must attend to other things, I will be back after hours.
Cheers.

Sorry Deep, but shadows are a thing. And you can simply block light from a surface and then call it a thing.

When I build a house I block off a part to form a shadow so I can sit in comfort in the evening. And when I plant things around my house I ensure the things I want to grow are in or not in shadow according to their need for light.

The argument could be whether it is material or not, but a definition of material would first be needed in order to determine.

LordReed:
Which is why it is necessary to settle definitions early. Your definitions don't seem to follow what I know or you seem to conflate so many things I don't understand how you make simple things into complex conundrums.

I blame you, my Lord. You've been here long enough to know definitions are very important since words mean whatever the user understands them to mean which may not be what you understand them to mean.

DeepSight:
This is the same thing with physical sound. It is sound waves in the air which are vibrating, so those vibrations are actually what causes the phenomenon of sound. This does not make the song physical, what I hear are vibrations of physical things, but even if you smash those vibrations you have not destroyed the song, have you? The song is not material, it is not even located anywhere specific in matter, it belongs to the realm of the intangible.

-------
And yet, you are able to play a song in your head. Does that not tell you something?
Do you use your physical ears to listen to a song you play in your head? You are able to speak to yourself silently in your mind. Does your physical ear hear such words? Anyhow this last bit is part of that which I will use in demonstrating an intangible being. So let us let it be for now.

Interesting. But vibrations are actually not what causes the phenomenon of sound (of music).

The maker of the specific music arranged vibrations in a specific way so that that specific song is what you hear when you hear the vibrations arranged in the specific order of that specific song.

And the order of the specific vibrations of a specific song are material, even when you are singing it inside your head.

DeepSight:
The song remains completely immaterial - even when it is sung by a person, what you hear are actually informative codes which float along sound waves and reach your ears to be transmitted to your brain

No, the song doesn't remain completely immaterial. Deepsight. The singing of the "informative codes" of the song transforms them into physical material that my ears perceive.

I'd even argue that the "informative codes" of the song are material in their own right. You'd note that physical codes need storing in a physical container for starts, and "informative codes" are very song specific.

LordReed:
The image you are seeing on the screen is not material, the light conveying that image is what is material not the image itself. These are 2 distinct things.

Hair splitting, my Lord.

If the image on the screen is not material how the heck are you seeing it? With you spirit eyes, perhaps?

LordReed:
Is computer software material? It is not yet it is generated by a computer a material thing. The image on a screen is not material yet it is generated by a material thing. You should acknowledge you have a problem with how you view these things, the conundrum is not mine.

Yes, my Lord, computer software is physical "material", as are these physical words physical me is generating with my physical hands and mind using a physical computer, and which you will read after I am done generating them. The message that the physical words convey itself is not physical however, but more of a non-physical message.

When you read these physical words, they are transformed back from their mere physical nature by your mind into the non-physical message that I am using the physical words to convey.

I am reluctant at this moment to give a name to the "non-physical message". And I've quoted Deepsight below because he is pretty close.

DeepSight:
Perhaps before proceeding to define/ describe spirit I should make a small detour/ stop-over here again. The computer software you refer to is a form of informative code which makes it possible to transmit information. So to use an analogy, if you want to copy a song from your computer to your phone, or to an external drive, what is actually moved or copied? What is copied is merely the specific code which represents the song and thus transmits it in a decipherable form. This code could vary from technology to technology and even from language to language. The code remains a method of transmission of the information which represents the song. It is not the song itself which is an immaterial thing.

Thus, the computer, in this analogy, did not generate the song. The mind did.

I hope this is clearly conveyed to you: and I had to stop over to make this absolutely clear, lest we suffer from it further down the road.
I now proceed to describe spirit.

DeepSight:
In summary the discussion here centers around LordReed's position that mind derives from matter and my opposing position that mind is distinct from matter, matter being only a tool or vehicle for mind.

Like there is an "indwelling immaterial being" inside of buda? Reminds me of a story I can only recall as Shokolokobangoshe, where a Man Friday sort of being, parasites off a Robinson Crusoe sort of being.

Where would this "indwelling immaterial being" dwell, and how does it manifest its presence, if it does at all?

DeepSight:
While LordReed says that there is "no ghost in the car" (that there is no spirit in the body) I say that there is an indwelling immaterial being which is the actual "personal being" which the functions of the body serve.

There is a ghost in the car. The ghost in tbe car is the indwelling immaterial spiritual being that the programmer programmed into the materials that constitute the car and make it car, or rather, drive. The programmer dwells immaterially, and not physically hence spiritually, like a ghost, in the car driving it. Remove the spirit (program) and the car wouldn't drive. In fact, self driven cars should be called 'indwelling immaterial spiritual ghost driven cars' from now on. I would not agree with you however, Deepsight, that an "indwelling immaterial spiritual being" drives buda. Least, not until you explain what it is and how.

That said, remove the spirit that drives buda from inside buda and buda too wouldn't drive so you might have a point, though I will be Igbo regarding it and say, if buda directs, and the "indwelling immaterial spiritual being" directs opposingly, buda will get rid of that particular "indwelling immaterial spiritual being" and get an "indwelling immaterial spiritual being" that serves buda.

LordReed:
Oh the analogy is very apt. A driverless car acts just as directed as though a human being was driving it ...

That, my Lord, is because a human being is driving it. The programming done by the human is for all intent and purpose, driving.

Think of it this way. I programmed the oven to roast my chicken. Self roasting oven, my Lord?

DeepSight:
The totality of your position on this matter may not be the same as the totality of LordReed's position which has advised my objections. Using LordReed's position to address the above, my problem with it is simple. We would not be able to say as you have said - "I then, through my mind instructed the neurons in my body to move my fingers" - for two reasons. In the first place, with LordReed's position since all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons, then such action of neurons must precede your mind instructing the same neurons to actuate itself into willing the neurons to act on the fingers. I am already weary of explaining how this is circular. It is evidently circular and self contradictory, thus impossible and absurd. I dont know what else to say if anyone fails to see how this is circular.

Secondly, LordReed says that we cannot consciously control cells and neurons so you are on your own here, in this your act of instructing neurons in your body to act.

I honestly do not get my Lord's position apart from what you say it is, but if it is that "all that mind does is a product of the prior action of neurons", I will be surprised.

The material you presented in this post was received by my eyes which are cells. The message in the material was brought to my mind through my neurons, and I am controlling my cells by sending messages through my neurons to the cells in my hands to type this response to you this very moment, which I am checking for errors with my eyes that are made up of cells and with my mind which is also made up of cells all under my very conscious control and instruction, so claiming I can not "consciously control cells and neurons", sounds odd to me. If my cells were to respond without my me controlling them, well.....

I am of course assuming agreement that my hands are cells and my eyes are cells too, as is my brain, three parts of my body at the least involved in this response, and I am assuming neurons are what are carrying the instructions to the cells that are helping me type out my response.

What say you, my Lord?

triplechoice:
I am afraid your analogy is not apt.

Even though driverless cars can operate as if a human being is driving it, they can't, at this moment, operate exactly as human driven ones.

His analogy is worst than not apt. My Lord thinks because the driver is not in the driverless car the car is not being driven by a human. He does not consider the a priori programming done by humans so the driver can be absent as actually driving the car because that is not what he is used to.

There is a salesperson definition of self driven car but that is not quite appropriate here unless my Lord's car programs itself to drive itself after cobbling all the necessary materials to constitute itself into a car.

Now, this might sound like it fits the human too, seeing that we do not ourselves cobble all the necessary materials together to constitute ourselves into humans. But in fact, we do constitute ourselves into humans, albeit one step removed, as our children, who are not exactly ourselves but you get what I mean, I hope. My car never had a baby.

DeepSight:
- - - > This is just circular. It is logically impossible. You cannot derive mind from matter and at the same time seek to infuse mind with some inchoate separate will of its own by which it can control matter. This would be absurd because what you are in fact trying to do here is eat your cake and have it - you are trying to assert that all the thoughts and actions of mind arise from the interactions of matter and at the same time insist that mind controls the matter. This patently self contradictory.

Not quite as logically impossible as you think, Deepsight, though, "derive mind from matter" is kind of somehow as an expression. Derive as in take out of, or produce?

The matter I interacted with with my eyes in the thread you were in before this one motivated me to come here and see more because it interests me, or rather, interested the mind part of me. If not, I might be discussing football or bbtacha.

I then, through my mind, instructed the neurons in my body to move my fingers to do what I am now choosing to do now, which is, compose a response to you.

My point is, the matter played its part, but this response to the matter is a product of the totality of me and my own freewill that got me to this very point, if you'd pardon my butting in, and is not illogical at all when you consider who or what controls my mind.

DeepSight:
There is actually some scientific research on this matter which suggests that split seconds before we have a thought, take an action or make a decision, neurons have already coalesced in the direction of such a thought, action or decision.

Neurons could not possibly have coalesced my reaction to this post split seconds before my eyes perceived the material that constitutes what I am responding to, though i do wish that could happen. My eyes perceived the material of the post and my my mind digested and made it comprehensible to me, and I am now using my mind to respond in material form so I'm glad its not your position.

DeepSight:
You simply cannot eat your cake and have it. There is no way you can insist that you have conscious control of anything if indeed the prior activity of cells and neurons - which you have no control over - determines all the activity of your mind.

My Lord, please show where you said the above. In fact, let me go look for your position, because I don't quite get it.

DeepSight:
In short, mind over matter. There is just no way you can logically get around this.

Oh yes one can very easily logically get around "mind over matter. One can be dumb and stupid and not as conscious as some and be swayed by any odd matter that blows ones way such that it could be claimed that matter is over ones mind. I'd in fact claim it is rather very common too that matters is over many minds.

Apologies again. I blame buda which is me myself and I, material and mind and thoughts and actions and all.

benalvino3:
must you support nonsense or you don't understand English yet again.

CNN is defending an insurrectionist. they are supporting a trump supporter, does that make sense?
https://www.youtub.e.com/watch?v=CtsOe7WwhrM

The thing with you is you let media tell you what to believe and think everyone is like you.

Fact is, whoever Ray Epp is will out one day because however much those in power try to hide it they will not be in power forever, and I am very willing to patiently wait unlike you who lets your head be tossed about by media.

PastorAIO:
Buddha, I'm not sure if you're an atheist or follow another religion but I actually do believe in the existence of yhwh. For many years encouched my spirituality in christian terms and within a christian framework and I've had the chance to get a close look at the whole affair.

That yhwh demanded Jesus as a sacrifice was a claim made by the first christian apostles, Paul especially. His letters are replete with it. Perhaps you don't think that the apostles can speak for yhwh. I cannot argue against that.

Of course many people hide behind religion to commit all sorts of vile and atrocious acts. An atheist may say that yhwh was created in the image of the people worshipping him. However I think quite the contrary. I do think the vile acts of these people was inspired by yhwh, an actual autonomous being.

You ignore both the human ability to commit vile acts of their own freewill, and the human ability to create. Paul was an adept creator. His letters about the Christ he only met in Spirit are the core of the Gospel according to Luke. But I respect your believing, though I always prefer understandings, which believe gets in the way of.

I study religions and their adherents, Pastor. And because of my greed, I sell what I have for the good fields in them all on which I harvest the crop which I store where moths can't get at it.

Correct your own head, son. Your opinion of buda is of no relevance to buda.

sonmvayina:
See this patronizing dick head...

Because I say your head dey correct sometimes.

elated177:
Is he, Yahushua the Messiah, your God?

Describe the God of "Let there be light". What is his name? What are his requirements?

I do not have a God, elated177. There is a God of the Bible who is written to have said "Let there be Light" that I study about a lot these days, but that God was not the first nor the only one I study.

As for its requirements, [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2015&version=NIV]below is a good enough summary[/url].

elated177:
YHVH. His name is YHVH.

How does YHVH own Biblical Scripture? Did YHVH write it or was it written about YHVH?

PastorAIO:
We can talk around and around this issue but there can be no denying the blatant and obvious biblical truth which is that YHWH was/is genocidal and filicidal. He accepts and is appeased by human sacrifice. This so obviously and blatantly the case in Judaism but more so in Christianity, the entire edifice of which is based on the human sacrifice of Jesus for the cleansing of sins.

Apparently there is no other way for YHWH to forgive you. Even the sheep and goats that were substituted for humans would not do the trick so in the end Jesus had to die.

Yhwh directly asks for and admits to asking for Humans to be sacrificed and the Bible demonstrates this by being full of human sacrifices.

I detect an assumption here. That Jesus who was crucified by an ignorant mob, was a sacrifice YHWH demanded. Could you show where that demand was made please?

And if you have the time, is it not truer that everytime Yhwh supposedly "directly asks for and admits to asking for Humans to be sacrificed", it is the people themselves justifying their own untoward crime of murder and genocide by claiming their God said?

MaxInDHouse:
That's why he is controlling millions of people who are zealously preaching and industrious teaching in your neighbourhood what he taught!

And that's why he is here spending so much time and effort discussing "just a character in a story book".

Sonmvayina, why are you spending so much time and effort discussing "just a character in a story book"? Is "just a character in a story book" compelling you?

TenQ:
But the guy in question is a NIGERIAN isn't it?

So? Does one news about Nigerians demonize Nigerians, like your "tiny news" about Fulanis demonizes Fulani? TenQ! Are you guessing buda reasons like you do?

I so wish we resolve this. Then perhaps we might consider the effect demonizing has on ones perception.

P.s. And know I appreciate your time and effort.

Kyari79:
That is hw its happen every day even here in the president's state, we peoples in the side are tired of complaining
So we need your prayers all.

Enlighten us. Daura is in Katsina State. Post us some news links please.

TenQ:
Yesterday, a Nigerian was caught by the news synthesising hard drugs using a pressure cooker in India.

https://www.nairaland.com/6940454/nigerian-man-arrested-india-making

I guess that this news is tantamount to Demonizing Nigerians.
Do you truely think so?
Do you also feel so?

I do not guess. I'm not the sort who guesses up tantamounts in their heads and believe it is the truth then allow it to prejudice what they think or feel.

I see no reason to think that news demonizes Nigerians nor do I feel it does.

TenQ:
Even though I have clarified a million times that it is NOT about demonizing the Fulani people but everytime, that's what you hear me say.

The question is, Who are these people called bandits?
What every evidence tell us is that
1. They are Fulanis
2. They are herdsmen (with or without cattles).

But you are demonizing Fulanis! You claim "evidence" and "facts" when you mean 'hearsay', and you insist the bandits are Fulani despite no real evidence to prove they are.

Nigeria does not adequately investigate these things, and when one local fool yells Fulani, everyone yells Fulani.

If I were so stupid, poor Fulani Monday!