₦airaland Forum

Maynman:
Post all your claims. Especially the einstein claim on fabric.
Space is Space, what’s “physical space”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#:~:text=Outer%20space%20is%20not%20completely,%2C%20dust%2C%20and%20cosmic%20rays.

https://www.space.com/end-of-einstein-space-time

Essentially, Einstein thought space and time were intertwined in an infinite “fabric,” like an outstretched blanket. A massive object such as the Sun bends the spacetime blanket with its gravity, such that light no longer travels in a straight line as it passes by the Sun.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/954/10-things-einstein-got-right/#:~:text=Essentially%2C%20Einstein%20thought%20space%20and,it%20passes%20by%20the%20Sun.

LordReed:
How can you know what the universe is expanding into when we can't even investigate the boundary? How are the scientists wrong if you acknowledge that the universe we are in is separate from whatever may be outside the universe?

It is a fact that the universe is expanding. This is as much a fact as saying that the Earth circumnavigates the sun. Its elementary and well established.

Please - do you give me to believe that you deny the well established fact that the universe is expanding?

And if you dont, is it possible to expand where there is no further "space" to expand into?

In addition Maynman, let me just say that there is nothing like "empty" space within the universe.

Maynman:
You’re welcome my friend.

Ok I see what you attached. Physical space in this universe is said to have substance to it. Material substance. It is not nothing. This is the subject of my discussion on the difference between space as so described and the intangible self-existent space I speak about. To be clear, this "fabric" (metaphorical or not - and Einstein did not mean it metaphorically by the way) - is not said to exist outside this universe is it? That is the beginning of the point that there exists an altogether different sort of space which is infinite.

Maynman:
you are the one remaining stuck.
knowledge is gotten through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.
You are yet to make a substantive claim, just assumptions over assumptions.

Alright, cheers, appreciated, nice chatting. Good morning.

Maynman:
That’s the beauty of it, you don’t need to agree, it still remains fact.
And knowledge is gotten through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.
You are yet to make a substantive claim, just assumptions over assumptions.

My friend, if you want to remain stuck on the definition of science, I will have to leave you there. Nice chatting.

LordReed:
I will chuck my failure to agree with your premises and conclusion to my ingrained methodological naturalist thinking pattern. I need substantive elements in other to consider any assertion as plausible. You seem to me like someone saying magenta is not a shade of purple because it has its own name, simply giving something a name doesn't change its nature.

Oh but I am not simply giving names.
Lets look at this question - Into what is the Universe expanding?

You see, I dont know if the reason I ask this repeatedly misses you. The reason is simple. Science today describes space as a fabric within the universe. If that is strictly the case, into what space is the universe expanding. The point I am trying to make is that there is obviously a realm of space beyond that which is described as the physical space of this universe alone. As such I am not just reeling of names. I am describing extant reality.

Maynman:
Philosophy is Science. you should look up how “pysics, biology, chemistry and cosmology came to being.” All through philosophy. Physics was formally called natural philosophy.

Science as a word Literally Means Knowledge.
How do you arrive at knowledge? You ascertain knowledge through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC.

Haba. I have said lets leave the point and move on. You want to remain stranded on the definition of science? That's not the topic you know. I still dont agree with you, but I'd rather not get stuck here. The substantive discussion remains.

Maynman:
Please Stop barking and looking for trouble where there’s none. We are discussing with facts and not accepting beliefs complied by a GOVERNING body that owns your life.

Maynman:
Who made it an archaic definition which is no longer applicable? You?

Even what you posted said what i said, science means knowledge.
None of your definition says “physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology
You ascertain knowledge through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained not only LOGIC. So which area is Knowledge used without all these but only logic? Deepsight?.
Even Physics was known as natural philosophy before, hope you know what “philo” means.
Biology was discovered by a philosopher.

so is it ignorance and beliefs that you’re using in your discussion?

Look, lets not distract the conversation by quibbling on a pedantic point. Whatever you describe science as is fine. The fact is that in this discussion the relevant usage is the study and observation of the natural world.

As opposed to something like art, literature, philosophy or music for example.
Capisce?

Maynman:
Sorry to you too, That’s the definition of science. so is is it ignorance and beliefs that you’re using in your discussion?
You are yet to tell me the clear definition of “god”.

What you have presented is an archaic definition. An ancient one, which is no longer applicable. The origin and etymology of a word is not always descriptive of its current meaning. Today, science is not a synonym for knowledge. This is a fact. There are fields of knowledge outside scientific knowledge. This is also a fact.

Here is the definition of science from the Oxford Dictionary -

science
/ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
noun: science
1.
the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
"the world of science and technology"
Similar:
branch of knowledge
area of study
discipline
field
a particular area of science.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
2.
ARCHAIC
knowledge of any kind.
"his rare science and his practical skill"

As far as the context of this discussion is concerned, we evidently speak of science in terms of the known areas of natural scientific study such as physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology, etc.

KnownUnknown:
If causes and effects were straightforward and not a complex set of factors acting simultaneously, the first cause argument could stand. But nature can’t be said to be simple “cause and effect”. Take daylight for example?
What is the “cause” of daylight? Think about it carefully and see if its a simple case of “cause and effect”

The rotation of the Earth as it receives the light of the sun is the cause of the effect of night and day.

Since this first cause has no support and can’t be logically deduced, it can have whatever attribut you want. It wholly depends on simplifying existence to a series of causes. If you do that, there is no reason to terminate this chain of cause at the “first cause”

I hope you understand that an infinite regress of causes would render the inescapable result that no universe would exist. If you do not grasp this, happy to expatiate. Dwell on it a little though.

This first cause or god you speak of, why should it be the first cause. Why not the 10th cause?
Maybe there is a first cause that caused the effect that became the second cause that caused the effect that became the third cause………became the ninth cause that caused the effect that became the tenth cause that caused the universe.

It could actually be the millionth or zillionth cause. This will take nothing away from the basic point that there must needs be an origin or source of all things - save those things which are self-existent.

If I accept your first cause that is “unknowable”, can I go a bit further and ask about the second cause? Maybe it is knowable. Yes?

It very well could be unknowable. There are many things even within the universe which will forever remain unknowable.

What does it mean to be beyond this reality or universe. Is the first cause the only thing that is beyond this reality or are here other…….causes.

What rests beyond our given reality is great and unfathomable. To use a loose analogy, imagine yourself as a character in a book - let's say Mario Puzo's "The God Father." Now, much exists outside that book. People, places, planets, universes, worlds, realms, creatures - and even other books and their own characters. If you stop to consider that this reality is likely a simulation, then this will resonate even deeper. So no, its not just the source or origin that exists beyond this reality. An infinity of imponderable dimensions exist beyond this reality.

Frankly, the deist’s claim is just as arbitrary and unfounded as the theist’s. These are just claims that really do not mean anything. “Transcendence”. “Beyond the universe” ………..”to infinity and beyond”

No it is not arbitrary or unfounded to say that things exist beyond the universe. One simple question you can ask which demonstrates this is this: Into what is the Universe expanding?

It’s not hard to speak about God. It’s just impossible to make sense when you speak about God. God remains an idea that is shaped by whoever is espousing it. That includes attributes and location. I even created a God the other day called McMickie the Leprechaun. It will drown you in Guinness if you offend. Of course, McMickie is timeless, spaceless, immaterial…………..and He just told me that He is also Maximally Great. And yes, he sits on my shoulder.

Fair enough.

We can say the universe (including humans. An error in thinking caused by most religions and philosophy is regarding humans as separate from the universe as if we aren’t inherently a part of the universe) is self existent. The universe exists and there is does seem to be direction. The universe is continuously morphing “self existently”.

Why can’t the universe be the self existent principle. The universe exists and its fundamental nature is unknowable and its functioning is beyond human understanding. You don’t have to go “beyond” the universe to find “god”.
And before you say it, let me say that the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe but the expansion for universe. So, the universe can be as “eternal” as god is claimed to be because it has no beginning and the expansion gave rise to space time or the “first cause” of time.

The Universe cannot be self existent because it is both tangible and mutable. A self existent thing is necessarily intangible and immutable. It simply IS. It is not created. It does not "commence." It does not die. It does not change. It is a necessary component of primordial existence itself. An example is infinite and real space and another is infinite and real time. These are self existent things. The universe, a material thing, can never be self existent.

This statement is just a wild claim and is not factual. It doesn’t even say anything.
Now this arises from the fact that if it is indeed the beginning of all other beginnings, it must itself be unbegun. Why? Because I said so.

As I have explained, with an infinite regress of causes, nothing would ever exist. No universe would ever exist, and certainly no trigger will ever become a real causative agent in any meaningful sense. I hope you see this, nonetheless, happy to expatiate.

What if these realities and dimensions you speak of have their own uncaused first cause. Why should your first cause of reality A be the first cause of reality B and C? Simple, because you say so.

There are probably different causes of different things my friend, none of these obviates the discussion on a source of all realities. A founding principle in short.

Your whole argument is god exists because it is the nature of god to exist. Maybe it’s the nature of gods to exist? There is no reason to stop making claims at one, you can multiple this “self existent” thing indefinitely. Their nature is necessary and fundamental and not contingent on anything.

Oddly enough, and even though it is open to mockery, maybe this is not such a bad description of what I am saying. So long as you understand the philosophical difference between necessary things and contingent things, you would not think this so silly. To exemplify: would you consider it silly if I say to you that infinite space is self existent?

If not, please just replace the word "god" there, with infinite space. Because it appears the word "god" causes problems, and understandably so.

Now we know the gender. I’m guessing “Creation” means he “created” the universe. How does he and did he create?

We dont know any gender, whatever pronoun I used was only for convenience and you know that already.

He sounds very human. Just give it whatever morals and purpose you want, after all you already know the gender.

Religious notions of God are often very human. I don't think God ITSELF is human in that way. Most of our notions of the "goodness" of God and all that are nothing but fantasies. God, if and where it exists, is more likely a neutral primordial source of existence.

Maynman:
Science by definition means Knowledge

Sorry, that is not the definition of science. Furthermore, there are many fields of knowledge outside that which is scientifically derived.

Maynman:
Science don’t work on logic, they work on fact and data, and even so show me the sufficient logic of the element and not elements.

But you only learn the concept of “god” through religion. You said the idea of “god” is in most traditions, please mention 2 of those traditions.

Well, you believe what you don’t Know.
Is radiation not physical, radiation do mutates and it’s tangible, so how can radiation come from a source that is not physical, intangible and immutable?

This discussion is not limited to science. In fact, science can only be used in very tiny snippets here because this discussion is mostly far beyond the realm of science.

PS: The word radiation I used, is for want of a better word and does not refer to any radiation you might understand by science.

LordReed:
There's a huge gap between 5 & 6 that your intuition seems to be leaping over. That gap starts at no material thing is eternal. Ok we can agree on that but then you haven't showed how immaterial things can be eternal or how they possess this attribute, you simply jumped to that conclusion.

I didnt jump to that conclusion, it follows naturally: and in following naturally please you have to look at 1 - 4 and take them on board as well.

Maybe it will help you to try to picture nothingness. The stagnant, borderless, infinite void. Now, we understand that "nothingness" does not exist and thus this borderless infinite void is not nothing, it is something.

It is real, infinite space and it is intangible. This is why I have often described this real/infinite space as "the void into which things are interpolated." In the same way, real/infinite time cannot be delimited. It is, as I have often said, 'the void into which events are interpolated." It is perfectly intangible and immaterial and per force self existent. It cannot but exist, it is fundamental.

Yes. Your no 5 statement above already shows that space and time cannot be self existent. And even if they were that would mean that there doesn't need to be a first cause, space and time came into being by their self.

Spacetime as conceived in today's physics is a material thing and this is why I was careful to say "real/ infinite" time and "real/infinite" space - a distinction which I believe I have made to you before, and which I have just described above.

LordReed:
These seems like leaps of intuition, is there anything substantive backing it up?

It only seems like leaps of intuition when one has not settled down carefully to consider it. Lets start with the first statement. I said -

DeepSight:
A number of things.

1. For anything to exist (and things exist), something or the other must self-exist. Otherwise nothing will exist. Happy to expatiate on this, but dwell on it carefully.

The logic commences as follows:

1 - Something cannot come from nothing
2 - As such, the universe comes from, or is, something. It is not nothing.
3 - Nothingness, by definition, does not exist - it is "no-thing."
4 - Thus as things do exist, they evidently have either always existed, or came from other things that have always existed
5 - Material things are not eternal in the past: not even when considered as constant change or flow in terms of energy and matter: this is because a thing that is eternal in the past cannot be a mutable thing. Why is this? It is so because all change requires a trigger, and a thing has been changing forever in the past would never even exist. What you have there is an impossible infinite regress which cannot ground its existence.

6 - Thus, only immaterial, intangible things are eternal in the past. And such things are permanent, necessary in the philosophical sense, non contingent and immutable.

2. Time (Real Time - Infinite Time) is self-existent. Naturally.

3. Space (Infinite Space - Real Space) is self-existent. Naturally.

Do you dispute these? I thought we had been over these before?

Maynman:
We have evidence that humans exist and can be birthed and also die, where is the evidence of this god or deity? And all the claims you attribute to it.

There is more than sufficient logic to infer the existence of that ultimate element in which we say inheres the self-existent principle at the root of reality. The fact that we are compelled, by limitation of language, to use the word "God" - common to many other usages, should do nothing to detract from this.

You are making assumptions over assumptions, you are just using the idea of your monotheistic religion.

I dont have a religion, I am completely irreligious and if you look at my history on this platform you will find it richly spiced with condemnation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike.

Now, having said that, the below are truly good questions. Beware, I dont have all the answers, I just have my thoughts which I will share in brief.

How can something that’s not physical create something physical?
of How can something intangible create that which is tangible?
Or something immutable create something that’s mutable?

I dont believe that the physical world was directly created by the ultimate intangible self-existent principle. Rather my view rests within a kind of natural radiation arising from the source which over zillions of unfathomable gradations causes various dimensions to come into existence one of which eventually coalesces at a certain level as the physical universe.

Maynman:
Why do you think humans can not self exist but a “god” can? What’s the parameters?

A self existent thing IS.

It does not grow or evolve in the way that humans do. Neither can it be born or die.

It also cannot be physical. It is necessarily intangible and immutable.

Maynman:
How did the agnostic come up with the idea of a “god”, where did he learn that word from?
Is just like me proposing whether “htjshsidnf” exist or not.
Now, what’s “htjshindf”? How did i come up with it?
Let the agnostics explain how they came up with “god” to know if it’s something that can exist or not.
Agnostics are just wannabe Monotheists!

There is a clear idea of what is referred to by the word "God" and that idea is that of a being said to be the source of creation. The language used is irrelevant, the idea exists in all traditions and at all times in history.

By contrast, "htjshsidnf" has no meaning. What does it mean, please tell me, and is it an idea people of all traditions have haboured throughout history?

LordReed:
How do you know that anything can be self existent? Or what leads you to believe that a thing can have such an attribute?

A number of things.

1. For anything to exist (and things exist), something or the other must self-exist. Otherwise nothing will exist. Happy to expatiate on this, but dwell on it carefully.

2. Time (Real Time - Infinite Time) is self-existent. Naturally.

3. Space (Infinite Space - Real Space) is self-existent. Naturally.

LordReed:
This might not be true because it is possible to show at the quantum level that A can cause B and B cause A. If like some scientists postulate the big bang was a result of perturbations at the quantum level then it stands to reason that a true first cause might not exist.

The reason I do not accept this argument is simple. Matter, being tangible, is also mutable. Anything that is mutable cannot be self-existent. A self existent thing is intrinsically and necessarily intangible and immutable.

@KnownUnknown, please note this. Because it is cardinal in what will follow later as my response to you.

@ KnownUnknown -

I really like your response.

As in, I really, really, really, really love it.
There's a lot in there though, and frankly, when I wrote what you responded to, I didnt think I was expressing myself properly. Or with proper nuance and refinement.

Its a busy day, and it will take some doing to pick through your very well reasoned responses.
But I will.

Thank you for taking the time - its the sort of thing I really appreciate.
Bless.

plaetton:
Africans are foolish.

First of all, you don't think that every single human being, irrespective of sexual orientation, deserves the same rights ?
That's a shame.

Secondly, this nonsense that homosexuality is not African an thing is soooo dumb, it is embarrassing to even address it. Check around you, from your family to your extended family, to your friends in school, colleagues at work, you will spot gay men or women all around you. They are actually not very difficult to spot out. But because it's a taboo, most of them live their entire lives in secret.

And thirdly and most importantly, it was not too long ago in the last century that many whites expressed the very same outrage at the idea of granting rights to black people in America, ironically by the same intolerant conservative evangelicals. As the race that have faced the most discrimination and prejudices, we black people, especially Africans, should be the most sympathetic and empathetic to those people, any peoples, that still face discrimination and prejudice in this unfair world.

We should rightly be at the forefront of human rights crusades for any and all minority peoples facing discrimination of any sort.

That we have such a very short memory of what we have been through is a great shame.

I'd be a little wary of supporting all minorities simply on the grounds that they have been discriminated against. That could, as a bare principle, lead to problems. There are all sorts of minorities in this world, and while a religious or racial minority may be a legitimate one to be defended, there are also ideological minorities of varied kinds which do not quite fall into the same definition and it would be a grave error to say that once they are minorities, and are discriminated against, then one should fight for their rights. Such an unnuanced principle could lead one to defend even the most extremist sects.

PS: I hope you understand what I have just written because I myself support LGBTQ rights - save in the matter of marriage for the purpose of raising children as a family. And I could not care for the silly gammut of non-binary pronouns being forced down everyone's throat these days. And oh yes, I do not believe its right to allow a Trans woman to compete in sports for women. I have serious issues with the concept that one can just "self-identify" as something and then claim the social rights attendant thereto. I cant accept that children are also encouraged to do this ere they even understand their own bodies. A few of my issues, otherwise, sure, human rights for all.

Bacteriologist:
I don't find them mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief claim.

A - theism = Absence of belief in god.

(A)Gnosticism relates more with a knowledge and confidence levels.

And since knowledge is a subset of belief both can co-exist.

So we can have an Agnostic atheist or a Gnostic theist.

[Editted]

KnownUnknown:
You and/or agnostics love to say that god is “unknowable” or “cannot be known by mankind” yet you and/or agnostics simultaneously suggest a singular entity you call “god” or “self existent principle”.
Aren’t you describing an attribute of this “unknowable” god by describing it as singular?
I mean, why do you claim it’s unknownable while simultaneously describing it as a “self existent principle”?

Why not “self existent principles”?
Why must it be “it” instead of “they” or truly “indescribable”?

It seems people who were reared in the monotheist tradition hold on to the dogma of a singular god when they make claims about their agnostic ”unknowable”.

I’m agnostic about Zogdon Tien IV and claim it’s unknowable. Are you agnostic about Zogdon Tien IV? Probably, because you truly do not know what Zogdon Tien IV is or are and if I claim it/they is “transcendence” and beyond human understanding then you can assert that whatever it is, or they are, is unknowable.
But then you have to ask how I know that Zogdon Tien IV is an “it” not ”they” when ZT IV is supposedly “unknowable”

I appreciate your point of view. Even as I wrote what I did, I understood how it would be viewed as contradictory. Let me try to explain a bit. But just to remove a few points, let me make it clear that the force and necessity of language is all that compels me to use words such as God, god, it/he/she and the like. In truth all I am saying is that I believe that it can be logically deduced that there is a first cause of this reality and from that, I also believe it can further be logically deduced that -

1. That first cause can not at the same time be its own effect. In short, it must stand beyond it in some sense. Hence we say that it must be transcendent simply beyond this reality or universe. This is actually not a description of its nature anymore than saying that DeepSight is in outerspace describes Deepsights nature. It just describes DeepSights location. I understand that it is hard to speak of a location with regard to God, so please equally understand that I dont mean the example in a literal sense.

2. I can further logically deduce that it must be self-existent. Now this arises from the fact that if it is indeed the cause of all other causes, it must itself be uncaused. In this regard, I am stepping things up to refer to whatever is the trigger or cause of all realities/ dimensions/ universes. To put it in simple terms, In short, it must be a necessary as opposed to contingent thing. It must be a thing that exists of itself. Its very nature could only be an existent nature. I realize that this is indeed an attribute. However it is so necessary and so fundamental an attribute that I see it as the one thing we cannot avoid. It is thus why I rather called it a principle. The self existent principle.

There are different bands of agnostics. So perhaps this is my peculiar brand of agnosticism. I have never really called myself an agnostic per se. Most people on this forum remember me as a Deist. So far, and no further. And I really dont think I can be called a pure agnostic to be frank. Because a pure agnostic will tell you that we simply cannot know anything whatsoever on this matter. I would rather say that beyond the minimum that can be logically inferred, God is unknowable. In this I mean His nature - viz - Is He invested in Creation or not. What is His moral compass like (I cant imagine such at all). What is His desire and goal for creation. What is His purpose in creating? Things like these and more. God remains unknowable for me. And frankly, I think, too remote to be known in any proper sense by anyone. Except perhaps at a light and intuitive level. And even at that. Hmmm.

justcool:
The vastness of existence haunts mankind; we know so little about the universe whose vastness overwhelms our imagination.
Some people doubt that the human mind is capable of knowing all that exists; therefore, the knowledge of whether the universe has a creator or not is out of the question. Hence, agnosticism!
The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists or not.
Is the agnostic right? Do you think that we can know whether the universe has a creator or not?
Join us as we examine the interesting viewpoint of agnosticism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxIqkwRE5m8

Great man, great friend, I salute this work. More grease sir!
Brilliant one.

PS: Personally, I propose that the fact that a self-existent principle must perforce exist can be logically and intuitively inferred, but its nature cannot be known by mankind, being too remote and transcendental an element.

Cyberterror:
The owner of Nestoil is an Anambara man. He was born and brought up in Anambara. He started his business as a trader in Onitsha market. But when he became super wealthy, he went to Lagos to build a super structure to house his company's headquarters in Tinubu's Lagos because his own Anambara under Peter Obi was not conducive for investment. When you vote next month, know that what Nigeria needs is an investment magnet not a man whose company in the UK was closed down because of incompetence and fraud.

This is just like saying that someone from elsewhere in Egypt went to set up his HQ in Cairo or someone from elsewhere in SA went to set up his HQ in Jo'Burg.

Kini big deal? Normal normal.

wirinet:
Attempting to make him see the truth is like trying to make a flat earther believe in a round earth. It's an exercise in futility. He believes every white nationalist, KKK, Nazi, etc, propaganda ever spawn by right wing media. He ALWAYS supports the White's narrative in any confrontation with blacks. He propagates more extremist views against blacks than even white folks.

Medical experts, the police department and a jury of 12 found Derek Chauvin guilty of murdering an unarmed and handcuffed black man, but according to his own personal racial bias, the police officer was doing an excellent job arresting a violent criminal on drugs resisting arrest. One would think we watched a separate trial with two separate video evidence.

Oh. So he is one of those. Have come across a few. A pity and a shame. It is well.

CoolUsername:
Try swallowing all your fentanyl pills before discussing this matter.

SMH.

CoolUsername:
He was a reckless idiot who in my opinion was guilty of involuntary manslaughter not first degree murder.

Do you even know the meaning of the word "involuntary?" Or did you just pick it up from TV?
Look here, a motor accident could be described as involuntary okay?

Kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes while being warned by a crowd around you is not involuntary.
Try hold your breath for 3 minutes please, before discussing this matter.

Realist12:
All I have to say is . If Nigerians like let them vote rubbish and men without antecedents. Lagos economy has been forged on solid road map and will continually grow . It survived 16 year onslaught from the then ruling party PDP , it's still flourishing well as a ruling party.
All we need is visionary leadership that can set a valid road map for the country , not boxers or models.
Buhari has done his best sanitizing our public sector unlike PDP " share the money tenure "
I can't wait to see students loans , credit based economy, regional industrial hubs and ports when Nigerians get it right. Tinubu isn't a promise and fail .
BAT2027 ♾

How did I forget, Tinubu founded Lagos in the 1800s, and made it the capital of Nigeria, built its air and sea ports as well as all its main infrastructure. He also brought all the 20 million people here from Mali, the Congo and Zambia all by himself and thereby made it the melting pot of the Nigerian economy, single handedly. How could I forget. I apologize, I remember all this now.

LordReed:
Kind of. Lemme ask you this to illustrate, by your definition a baby is not sentient since it lacks self consciousness. The implication is sentience has to have a broader definition than just self awareness. I would say the ability to sense the environment and respond is more primary in that definition.

By this definition of yours a plant would qualify as a sentient being. Does that work for you?

The baby example is no issue. It is evidently a sentient being in an early stage of it's development. In time, it would bloom.

Actually what it would demonstrate is that consciousness is not uniquely biological. However I must repeat that this is merely a hypothetical, I don't think the human mind can be separated from the human body. I asked the question to show you that you are closer to accepting that a machine can be sentient than you think.

Surely I accept that consciousness cannot be limited to biology as we know it. Whatever it is encapsulated in, however, must be capable of feeling and I very much doubt that metal and silicone are. But theoretically, perhaps, why not. It would not change the point that all such things, being matter, cannot be conscious of their own. An intangible mind is always required.