₦airaland Forum

HajiaNotu:
Some things dont add up in this story if its True .


Stereotypes and DoubleOh7 have said it all for me..

How possible is it to have an erected d*ck after beating up Someone you claim to love...

Beating up till the point of bleeding...

Sex is such a weird and primal thing that it coughs up every manner of unimaginable taste. From those whose excitement derives from violence to even those who can only get it up for corpses.

One question which I would still like looked into is if it's conceivable for a machine to be capable of absurdity.

Diridiri you appear to have retired, but I would have liked to hear you on this question.

Banchotmods:
Lazy racist reparation hustler, ask ya sef why tha video isa cut at ah 5 6 seconds? Why isa not show what ah happen to tha white ah kid after tha woman isa approach ah him?

Donkeys like ah ya isa who ah go out and ah burn ah nation because ya isa professional ah victim ye

You are pathetic.

sanpipita:
Like I said women lose their jobs too, it's been happening.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cnn-chief-marketing-officer-allison-gollust-resigns-11644972604

This is gratifying, even though it speaks volumes about the imbalance I referred to that she thought she could stay and made a real attempt to do so.

Thanks for the update.

killyaselfie:
Thoughts are products of material objects as in they are functions of a brain. Time is also product of the changes in physical constituents of the world.

Show me a thought without matter generating it or time independent of the physical world.

Oh but to say that a thing is the product of matter is still different from the thing being matter, dont you agree? So in other words, even if we agree that thoughts are the products of material objects, would you then assert that since this is the case, thoughts are in fact material objects?

killyaselfie:
State the criteria for proving the metaphysical and then go ahead and prove it.

Oh this will simply be logic and reason. If you are looking for an equation such as E = MC² well that's not not what I will be doing. As for proving it I should simply point out that there are many things that one could not reasonably consider physical, but which are nonetheless very real. Thoughts would be an example. Time would be another example.

killyaselfie:
Philosophical reasoning helps develop ideas but you still need the scientific method to understand the nature of reality.

Okay, given that you somewhat accept to some extent the usefulness of philosophical reasoning, maybe we should try a little of it and see where it might lead. However I must first ask if if you believe that science is capable of addressing everything about reality. I ask this because my impression is that science deals with the physical, and I believe that there is more to reality than the physical. And I am sure that I can prove this is a few short lines.

killyaselfie:
Ancient philosophers did not have the luxury of our scientific tools nor were they infallible. Their reason was handicapped by their lack of sufficient technology but scientific method/knowledge is what resulted from their dedication to reason. So, if we are to venerate reason, we should build on what they left and not hold on to their “enlightened ignorance”.

I like Plato’s Republic and have learned from it but that doesn’t mean I accept his concept of “soul”.

Do you accept philosophical reasoning as a tool for approaching the nature of reality as we know it: or is this inquiry the preserve of science in your worldview?

killyaselfie:
I would consider anything that isn’t a subjective claim.

Well, one thing I acknowledged at the outset is that significant aspects of this matter rest in the experiential (which is subjective) and thus may be wholly impossible to debate.

Yes, you have to be superstitious or indoctrinated to believe in souls.

Religiously indoctrinated?

Also what about the ancient philosophers who believed in this thing called a soul. Would you regard them as superstitious as well? Because they based their beliefs in that regard on what they considered to be reason.

killyaselfie:
Mind, emotion, etc are functions of the brain and only the superstitious or indoctrinated continue to say otherwise.

I would have liked to invite you to consider that those who have a different view are not necessarily superstitious or indoctrinated. I would have liked to urge you to consider also that there rests a certain inflexibility of thought in the disposition which dismisses all contrary views in a matter like this, as superstitious.

For one neednt be either superstitious or indoctrinated to believe that there is an immaterial aspect of being which rests at the root of personal consciousness and identity.

However I say "I would have liked to" because I am conscious that that is nothing but a pipe dream on my part: namely that you would never consider any of these thoughts as worthy of anything at all.

budaatum:
You might leave it at that deepsight, but I will continue delving be assured, after all we just might have different subjective understandings and I might learn [from] your's.

Ofcourse, and I from yours.

budaatum:
You are funny. "Simpler way of communicating your thoughts", like you have done below, right? But forgive me. My english school is so limited.


You are beffudled, which is funny since you are supposed to deeply see. Good too, since you must look beyond the mere material to be unbeffudled, which should be easy since you are not one to focus only on the material, lets assume.

Read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism?wprov=sfla1 and tell me if any human you know has "consistency", or "simpy cogency", or "subjective experiences" of the relevant "known factors" not to talk of be against them, and then tell me where they acquire this so called "collective".

I'd say you threw the kitchen sink and hoped it stick because you were not "simpler way of communicating your thoughts" one tiny bit there, DeepSight. I in fact accuse you of beffudling yourself!

Very well then. Alas we must leave it at that.

budaatum:
Straw, DeepSight!

There is no "consistency of the materialist worldview"!

Honestly you deeply befuddle me. I don't know what you mean here. For what it's worth, what I mean by "consistency" there is simpy cogency against known factors and our collective as well as subjective experiences of the nature of our lives and being.

Perhaps you need to find a simpler way of communicating your thoughts to me because I mean it when I say I am mostly at a complete loss as to the things you say.

budaatum:
That's precisely what Evolutionists would say too, yet you strawman them as materialists and then commence arguing against straw.

I must honestly tell you that I generally have a hard time understanding you: in this instance let us be clear - there are evolutionists who are materialists and there are evolutionists who are not (in fact the Catholic Church endorses belief in evolution). So I dont understand how I have strawmanned all evolutionists: I have merely spoken about the strict materialists who evidently have no recourse to anything beyond matter in arriving at the explanation for life and consciousness/ mind.

If you were honest, you'd have said you don't really know much of what you wrote about in that post as if it were fact, and were merely speculating, and I would have loved you for pushing thought forward a bit, but you've unfortunately presented it as fact, which it isn't.

I just dont understand you. I haven't offered any "theory of everything." What I have done is simply question the consistency of the materialist worldview.

budaatum:
Good. Glad I did not say you did.

Deepsight, how did life come about?

I dont know.

budaatum:
I'm going to deal only with the above.

Evolutionists make no claim that life rose spontaneously. They'll tell you life evolved over a very long period of time, but that aside.

The Theory of Evolution does not address itself to the origin of life at all.

I guess from the above, no God could possibly have created humans neither, since the process of creations we read describes a "spontaneously - virtually magically" creation, and out of nothing, of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Well that is the cup of tea of anyone who believes in a God who created this world. I dont believe in any such thing.

wirinet:
The IG cannot say he is not aware of the deals of Abba Kyari, he cannot also exonorate himself from how Kyari has been operating illegally despite suspension. Abba Kyari worked directly under the IG.

In a sane country, the IG should have been forced to resign.

Gbam.

TenQ:
Can a program write itself from sets of alphanumeric characters (given enough time and permutations of combinations)?
I still wonder how they feel that somehow the answer can be a YES!

Especially the program for something like the human brain. To suggest so has been likened to thinking that an orangutan playing with a laptop could produce the complete works of Shakespeare, once given sufficient time!

TenQ:
Of course!
My first eye opener was the Y2K supposed epidemic where computers will crash, planes will fall, banks will loose trillions of dollars etc. We now know that it was a hoax.

Look at the COVID-19 and their vaccination solution. Data is now showing them wrong even though they boxed the whole world to think along their line of thinking.

Let me drop a small extract from the tail-end of "The Resurrection of Heresy" my article, which I mentioned.

In an atmosphere where the expression of open and even contrary opinion on social or other matters of concern becomes taboo, there rests a grave danger to the global society as a whole. Primarily that danger involves the reality that certain ethos may be foisted on nations a sizable population of which find disagreement with such, but daren’t speak up.

This phenomenon replicates itself in many respects and the scientific community is not immune to its effects. I will briefly cite two examples: the Theory of Evolution, and Covid-19.

The Theory of Evolution is not something that I dismiss at a personal level, nevertheless, within the scientific academic community, I cannot help seeing the same phenomenon play itself out: Evolution is scientific orthodoxy in today’s world and any scientist who conducts any research, writes any paper or expresses any opinion contrary to the Theory of Evolution will quickly find himself or herself in a most perilous position with respect to his or her career. There have been professors who have seen their careers come to a crashing halt for this. This is very sad – especially because science, of all endeavors, ought to be the in the vanguard of truly free and open inquiry in all directions. However today, there is hardly any difference between the scientific community’s approach to divergent views on Evolution and the attitude of the Roman Inquisition to heresy.

With the coronavirus pandemic which brought a screeching halt to most of the global economy this year, I observed something very similar. Even in the absence of a known cure such orthodoxy very quickly built up around it which did not permit of the expression of divergent views. Having listened to many professionals on the subject, I am aware that there are several views in existence, but it has become virtual taboo for any views other than those which are mainstream to be expressed. In this regard, social media platforms such as Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and others, quickly shut down, block and ban contrary views and those who express them. Whilst I understand the importance of ensuring that people are not misinformed on health matters, I have seen many perfectly harmless contributions deleted, banned or blocked in this regard. In one instance, a person who wrote a post saying that he thought people should live a healthy lifestyle with an emphasis on keeping up strong immune systems was blocked on a particular social media platform for saying just that in response to the pandemic. For the life of me, I cannot understand what may be dangerous about that statement. But this just emphasizes the point about how freedom of thought and speech can very quickly be clamped down upon, in the face of any emergent orthodoxy.

Orthodoxies often spring up around events or subjects which involve a matter as critical as life and death. Hence their power. With religious orthodoxy it is a question of eternal life and death, with scientific orthodoxy, it is often a question of life and death in medical terms, such as with Covid-19 - but sometimes also in terms of the great questions of life – such as with the Theory of Evolution. With the emergent orthodoxy on LGBT rights, the very lives of involved minority groups are at stake, and with movements such as Black Lives Matter, again, lives are at stake. This is the reason it is so easy and often so tempting to, with the crowd, shut down, clampdown on, or seek to “cancel” people whose views differ from these orthodoxies – as Cancel Culture will have it. But then again, with a little reflection, we all should also see the many dangers in such absolutist stances.

In the immortal words of George Orwell: - “Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

Let us choose consciousness.

TenQ:
Don't twist my words. I haven't said these don't occur in nature I said it is an aberration (it's not normal)

Even at that, to be sincere animals are not homosexxual in the way that humans understand homosexxuality. You scarcely find animals who have a limited and strict desire for others of the same sex specifically: more often than not because of the way animal sexuality works with periods of heat, you will find that many animals will hump anything humpable around them during such heat. My dogs would hump my leg when desperate, they would also hump tables and chairs. However this has been seized upon by many people to erroneously or disingenuously characterize such as evidence of animal homosexuality when they hump another of the same sex in like manner.

TenQ:
It is unfortunate that the scientific community is sometimes like a CULT.

Now I am forced to steal the words of the greatest Nairalander of all time, Sir 'Kumo of That (also known therefore as Sadat, or simply as Jakumo) and say that you sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Because two years ago I wrote an article titled "The Resurrection of Heresy" in which I pointed out just how the scientific academia now punishes what it deems heresy in a frighteningly similar way to the Roman Church of old.

I will post that thread somewhere.

TenQ:
The baby seem to know that the solution to hunger is to drink milk. Baby chicks don't have to be taught to walk or peck at for food.

See what I said here -

DeepSight:
You see, "that fucking milk" could be the basis for asking you to think a little. Because new born pups for example, will immediately begin to struggle for their mother's mammary glands. Because they are so pre-programmed. You may try to wave this away as simple instinct, actuated by senses such as thirst, hunger and smell, but you see, I said this could be a basis for asking you to think - because there are too many startling examples in the natural world which go further to underscore the point: newly hatched turtles will instantly head to the sea - every single one of them with all the strength they can muster - and this, without the presence or guidance of their parents. You are free to point out how these are scientifically explained but you will be missing the point because I dont doubt that they are. The point is simply that there exist definite codes imprinted even on the newest of new born babies. certainly not "a blank slate."[/i]

It has been as if I am a lunatic for saying these simple things.

TenQ:
Fishes will swim dangerous terrains just to get to a place to brood and procreate.

I need to isolate this excellent point: for the way scientists describe it, one would think that the genes have a mental purpose of their own which they execute with the creature as a mere tool or vessel for the independent agenda of the genes.

TenQ:
I agree totally with you.


One other keyword that is not considered is PURPOSE!
Every living thing seem to have an underlying purpose whether it is recognised or not.

Fishes will swim dangerous terrains just to get to a place to brood and procreate.

There is just this drive to self preservation and reproduction that cannot just be attributed to chemicals flowing. Chemicals don't and can't care about anything. They just mindlessly react with other suitable chemicals if the environment is suitable.

You are very much on point good sir. Its amazing to listen to an evolutionary biologist such as Richard Dawkins on this subject sometimes - amazingly absurd. Mind you, he is a man I have strangely come to admire over the years, after an initial strong dislike, but when you hear him talk on this subject, he virtually attributes personality and intentionality to chemicals. The chemicals, of their own volition, in his view react to even situations that evidently require a purposeful mind to react to. And this again harks back to a question I asked early on - a chicken and egg question: which comes first - is it the mind directing the chemicals to act or the chemicals making the mind act. Or in fact, the chemicals making the mind direct the chemicals to act on the mind, to direct the chemicals (and this becomes an infinite loop, a never ending cycle, in fact, an infinite regress, to show you the absurdity.

A clear and lucid view of things should render it obvious that mere dead matter (or any combinations of mere dead matter) cannot account for the minds that we have, or for the beings that we are.

TenQ:
A software doesn't work in isolation of the hardware: the mind is the software that work on the body. The chemicals, elections, etc are just vehicles of control.

Gbam.

TenQ:
Those who argue that the mind is just chemicals acting on the brain do not realize that they are saying that "the brake fluid" is responsible for slowing down of the vehicle or the steering is responsible for the turning of a vehicle without accounting for the DRIVER who causes the visible effects to take place.

I very simply agree, in fact, so simply that one is accused of being simplistic.
This is why I have said earlier that such a line of thinking as they have would lead to imbuing the components of the body with intentionality.
Right down to cells and neurons. Because one would have to locate all intentionality in the concerted and coinciding actions of these.

So let me attempt to draw up a small list of some of the rational points which I believe render it impossible / implausible / unlikely that mind arises from matter. Just a small list, of a few of the points.

1. The point about the origin of life. A mind is a living thing, and in the physical world we only tend to see and interact with minds which are of biological living things. A mind - as we here speak of it - is distinct from a mere mechanical processor of information. A computer can process information but we certainly dont call it a mind, and certainly not in the context of this conversation. Perhaps sufficiently advanced Artificial Intelligence may be called a mind, but even then, of a robotic kind which lacks the element of subjectivity. But lest I digress here, the point I wish to make is that the biological creatures we are used to - those which we think of as having a mind - if we are to limit ourselves to the materialist worldview, must have evolved from non living matter. Now the theory of evolution does not concern itself with first life and how it arose, and the best we have till date in the scientific world is imaginative speculation about life being triggered spontaneously in a "pre-biotic soup" of some sort. Not only has this not been observed to repeat itself, but it also has not been replicated artificially and the origin of life remains a mystery to this day. I therefore say that there is as yet no proof that life, with its unique properties (especially the property of reproduction / self replication) could have arisen spontaneously - virtually magically - from otherwise dead matter - not to speak of then evolving into minds. I therefore dispute the matter at its root, and thus draw the conclusion that since there is no proof that life itself arises from matter, we cannot begin to speak of minds arising from matter.

Please in this let me say upfront that a response such as "we do not yet know how life emerged from matter but will know in the future" cannot suffice to address this point. For that contains an implicit assumption that life did indeed emerge from matter, notwithstanding that we do not know how and have absolutely no explanation of or idea of how dead matter became living.

2. The point about the evolution of minds. In the physical world, if we are to sustain the idea that mind (and thus consciousness) arises from matter, we must first grant that matter somehow assembles itself into intricate systems which produce consciousness. The scientific model for this process of assembly into intricate systems is the theory of evolution and there is no proven evolutionary impetus for the development of consciousness in the first place. If we step back into the earliest stages of the evolution of life on Earth as presented by the theory of evolution, we cannot point to any evolutionary rationale for the development of unicellular organisms into more complicated multicellular organisms with all their attendant greater difficulties with respect to survival. Indeed unicellular organisms remain the most successful organisms on the planet till today and the simplicity of their existence in nature discloses neither the evolutionary pressure in terms of natural selection or any other cogent reason for their development into more complicated unicellular organisms. Given that this very crucial early step of the theory of evolution cannot be surmounted without glossing over the process with bare-faced assumptions, leaps of logic and flowery verbiage, I again dispute the presupposition that minds could be said to evolve from unicellular organisms when it cannot be shown that there ever existed any evolutionary pressure for such organisms to become, first - multicellular - and second - sufficiently complex to assemble such intricate and advanced systems as to allegedly generate minds.

3. The point about the hard problem of consciousness. Consciousness is a deep-seated mystery. It ranks as probably one of the most profound and mysterious factors in existence and reality itself. There is as yet no satisfactory explanation for consciousness even in the realm of science, not to speak of self-consciousness of the sentient and sapient kind. It must be presumed by the materialist that matter generates consciousness but nowhere has it ever been shown just how. What we rather have is a resort to clunky scientific jargon to gloss over the specific difficulties in showing just how the chemicals, proteins and other material substances which make up our physical constitution lead to the spark of consciousness, not to speak of self consciousness. There is no specific "consciousness system" within physical bodies that we can identify as creating consciousness, rather we are left to assume that the entire get-up, being greater than the sum of its parts, mysteriously bequeaths to itself the indecipherable element of consciousness. I conclude on this point that we know neither the origin or methodology of consciousness and therefore cannot jump to the conclusion that matter generates consciousness if we cannot show exactly how.

4. The point about the nature of experience and subjectivity. The act and process of experiencing is such that it is necessarily subjective and personal in nature and this in itself is the nature of consciousness - we are each trapped within our own consciousness, which we can neither replicate nor swap with another. If we are to hold that such subjective experiencing is solely the handiwork of combinations of dead matter, it should be possible to both replicate and swap such subjective experiencing. I therefore say that the fact that this is neither scientifically nor logically conceivable serves to show that our subjective experiencing-nature cannot be the result of combinations of dead matter alone.

5. The point about the functionality of the senses. This is a crucial point which I am surprised that everyone either seems to miss or just gloss over. All of our senses and their functionalities by their very nature, evince the delivery of service and physical perception to a resident being. They do not and cannot logically exist to serve themselves otherwise we are led into extreme existential absurdity. None of the senses exists to serve itself and the brain which interprets the signals of the senses does not exist to serve itself either especially as it is only a processor of information. It should be asked: for what is it processing all the information wired to it - or rather, for whom?

This is a very simple question which materialists like to gloss over by saying that the totality of the body is the person and that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. With respect, it is truly insufficient to say this when one studies the senses. Everything about their activity evinces delivery of service to a being.

Let me stop here for now. These are to be taken together with the points I made earlier in the thread about the problem of freewill as against determinism in the mind/matter conundrum: namely that if mind arises from matter, then the prior combinations of matter are responsible for all that mind does and thus, mind does not in fact have any will of its own. And how this leads to a scenario in which there can be no ground for any personal responsibility for any thoughts, words, ideas, concepts or actions whatsoever. While anyone may throw up their hands and ask - so what? - the truth is that there lies in this an intuitive perception in our experiential lives that matter alone could not and does not account for the nature of our being.

cc: Diridiri, Tamaratonye1, PastorAIO, Budaatum, Triplechoice

zionstaar75:
I laugh at all u guys saying she'll walk free,1st degree murder?! she'll be executed.i just pray she gives her life to Christ before death

Convicted murderers are not executed in Nigeria for decades now because governors dont sign execution warrants on mostly religious grounds. What this means is that culturally, we already dont sync with the death penalty.

RussellRutherfo:
I pass this road regularly and it's not as orderly as you all paint it to be plus you could get robbed or stabbed along this axis in Oshodi.

Well neither is it what the OP posted.

brandsoncharlie:
If you say overpopulation you're wrong.
They're cities in China and other nations in the world more populated than Lagos as a whole but you don't see this..
This is as a result of poor planning..

Thats a very old picture of Oshodi, it has evolved. Update yourself.