₦airaland Forum

God1000:
if they cannot develop a little size and make it orderly, how can they build a large landmass?

Do you know what Oshodi looks like today?
Search Google, also someone posted pictures on the 2nd page of this thread.
What you posted is ancient history.
Cities are living things and they evolve.
Lagos is evolving.

With all its wahala, its has a verve and spirit which is among the most indomitable anywhere.

God1000:
we have some cities that are more populous and organized than Lagos.

Tokyo (Population: 37,435,191)
Delhi (Population: 29,399,141)
Shanghai (Population: 26,317,104

Just note that sizewise, Tokyo is the largest city in the world, and if I am not mistaken, population=wise, Lagos, if not the fastest growing, ranks among the fastest growing.

That phrase . . . . "a working class."
Is it just me or its soooooooo goddamn razzzzz its off-putting.

Jakumo:
Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar. The greatest enemy of feminine beauty is Father Time first, and pregnancy second. Once that woman has borne children or reached the age of 27, such that her breasts look sad and droopy with stretch marks, while her stomach is protruding, and she is weighed down with three or four oversized buttocks rather than two, her attractiveness is ancient irrelevant history as far as I am concerned, and I'd never be capable of rising to the occasion even if I was force-fed a whole bottle of Viagara.

Conversely, there is no sight more visually stunning and breathtaking than that of a physically fit woman aged 20 to 23 shedding her clothes to reveal full upward-pointing breasts that are naturally jiggly and perky, along with a flat, nicely toned midriff, drawing the eye towards a curvy yet tight butt that simply demands canine modalities in the OZA ROOM.

I have never in my entire life dated a woman aged above 25 years, and this is a preference that I will retain for life. I am EXTREMELY picky when it comes to the physical appearance of any woman I intend to approach, and the instant I spot that bra straining too much to fight gravity, I am GONE. Similarly the instant I see physical evidence that suggests any particular woman has borne babies at any time in the past, my interest vaporizes right away, and I shift my attention to more worthwhile considerations like stamp collecting or bird-watching.

Sir That on the beat!
Ride on Sadat!

Kokaine:
hahahahaha
Imagine a war having positive impact on people on one part and destroying others in another

But its always like that!

goaldynboy:
[s][/s]

Winch kain pipu una be?
Pesin go siddon write better essay with kwarrect sense, ya reply na to just cancel am, come waka pass silently.
Devil.

JuanDeDios:
If there's an all-out war, I think IBB2 (another oil windfall embezzlement) will be the least of our concerns. Global supply chains will be disrupted - that will affect the delivery of refined petroleum products to Nigeria, which will affect food prices. Medicines too will be affected. We may be starving in 5 weeks, max. Note that Ukraine is a major exporter of grains.

Mostly true but I doubt we rely on Ukrainian grain to survive over here.

JuanDeDios:
Lawyer Hunter Biden somehow pushing Putin to amass troops near the Ukrainian border? Oh, well.

Oh no, please I havent said that at all. I am referring to the hype being generated.

tctrills:
Korea is quite close to Russia

Even Iraq and Afghanistan are as well. But none of them is squat between Russia and NATO Europe.

tctrills:
My point is that Russia and USA are not going to end the world because is in none of their national interests.

Nonetheless they should all je brake right now because its weird how things can escalate suddenly. If you read the history of the world wars, e go be like devil hand dey inside the matter, wahallahi.
Although something tells me there is an arms contract for Hunter Biden at the bottom of all this noise.

Wawelexy:
Even a layman would predict perfectly well that those nations you mention can't stand for long with the US in a war.... Russia is extremely diff... Even u, know that...

Even at that, it is instructive that the US failed in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Kokaine:
What I don't know yet is the effect it will have on Nigeria

Oil price will jump. Massive jump.
But e no go reach us.

Your uncles in Abuja go wack am wella.
With banga soup.

tctrills:
When us fought korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and iraq. It did not lead to a major war so why should a war between Russia and Ukraine be any different

The location of Ukraine is far more sensitive.

MangekyoAlt:
Today, we see the EXACT SAME scenario happening. The West has been building up its NATO footprint, putting NATO weapons, nuclear missiles, missile defense systems and special forces in former Soviet states.
Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan we’re a step too far for Putin inasmuch as this is literally on the doorstep of Russia.

Thank you jaare. You have said it all.
The West are always like - "We can do it, its okay, but if you do it, its criminal."

That's how many of them labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist for fighting for the freedom of his people.

budaatum:
Do not patronize me, deep! No one is putting you up against any "chasm".

The emotions felt for "a woman I am in love with", are pretty universal, barring outliers like people who abuse those they love.

If you are in the state of "a woman I am in love with", it would be pretty odd for you to abuse or batter her for instance, and if you did abuse or batter her most would conclude you do not know at all what love is or are not in the state of "a woman I am in love with".

Perhaps try anger. Say no one knows you feel angry, then consider all the tImes you been angry and people around you know you are angry and the degrees of it too.

Jesus wept!

wirinet:
The reason he annex Crimea is because Crimea people are ethnic Russians and have very close family ties to mainland Russia.

Hitler used the same reasoning to gobble up the Sudetenland and Austria.

LordReed:
Again you are doing the very thing I complained about the last time, attributing motive to me where you have no basis to. I haven't balked at answering your questions and I have laid out my opinions consistent with my methodological materialist viewpoint. How this translates to me being evasive is downright false and not mildly annoying. If you are not happy to hear my opinion then maybe we shouldn't be having a conversation.

This hyper-sensitivity is becoming irksome. Now saying that I think your answer is evasive is offensive?
Please!

Nowhere did I mention hypersensitivity, I said hypersignals they are not the same thing. If you can't be bothered to get what I wrote right what is the point of continuing with this?

This in fact changes nothing in what I wrote even if you substitute the words.

Conscience is not something that we know how to explain or how its mechanisms function therefore I cannot relate it to a machine. However your prejudice shows very clearly and I think at this point I will no longer respond to you on this issue.

Right. "I cant explain myself with regard to conscience but I sense you are prejudiced so I will not respond further."
Oga, Good afternoon.

LordReed:
Then it was pointless asking use if machines can have subjective experience since your definition precludes machines. Machines are not living beings so by your definition they can't have subjective experiences yet you are asking us and get frustrated by our responses. You should stop this line of enquiry since you are not open to our POV.

I cant help the fundamental reality that subjective experience is a feature of living things. And no amount of somersaults on you guys part can change that. Why should it bother you though - just as you declared machines could be conscious and have all manner of emotions, you could surely declare them therefore living!

Frankly, I think you guys are trying to hard to force the attributes of living creatures on machines.
All in a bid to deny the uniqueness of the quality of life.

smeag0l:
War is not the way you are thinking it is. Russia, North Korea and China even if they form an alliance all know that the US will defeat them. There are stats that point to this fact. The first is that all these countries have no allies close to the US except cuba. And theres no eay thry can get to cuba to set up weaponry to fight the US without passing through coubtries that are US and NATO allies so it is technically impossible to fight US from close range. Fighting them from afar using long rsnge missles is also loke wasting weaponry as US has some of the most up-to-date missle deflection systems. On the contrary, US can set up for war very close to all these countries as possible because they have allies all surrounding them.Secondly, the US spends the highest amount of money on defence than any other country in the world. Thirdly, amongst all these countries, Only China has more number of people in the military than US. Besides, the US only needs the total number of soldiers from just 2 or 3 other NATO allies to neutralize the ones a combination of Russia , China, North Korea, Cuba and Iran has. They onky need India , Egypt and France. Now, the rest of the soldiers from NATO are available to easily neutralize them. Then lastly, and the most important point, the US can defeat all these countries by starving them of funding. Ask me how?All of the world'sreserve currencies are either in USD,japanese YEN, Swiss francs or Euro. All the nations that use these currencies are NATO allies. It just takes a sanction to freeze reserve funds of any country going to war with NATO and then watch them run out of funds and then stop the war themselves or get vanquished. This , amongst others, is what you should think of whenever you hear sanctions. Please go study international politics, macroeconomics and diplomacy before you come type anything online. You guys just wake up and think that because a country is testing nuclear weapons and making noise about it that it means they can fight the US. Russia should go to fight Ukraine if they can and see where it will end them as a country!

I think you greatly overestimate US Military hegemony in the world as of today. Things have really changed. Anybody who thinks the US can take on Russia and China combined today is living in la la land. It is not even certain that they can take on China alone. Also you didnt account for the potentials of cyber warfare in your analysis. It is the most important emergent factor in modern warfare and a single hacker who knows what he's doing can neutralize a superpower. Think more deeply - the world has changed a great deal from the post-cold war US hegemony. Within our lifetimes, China will be the undisputed economic leader of the world. That is unstoppable.

idahme:
It's not about just fear of defeat , the collateral damage will be so great that no country would wish to go in for it. Russia can't surrender even when NATO joins the fight , meaning mutually assured destruction MAD will be activated by any side that see it loosing the conventional way. The USA has great advantage over the Russian side using conventional weaponry and with it's vast anti missile defense shield in Europe but unconventional dogfights will results in MAD and World war III. The US can't risk it's Homeland security for a 200 billion economy, rather it will bring it's economic might to bear and crumble the Russian economy. Ukraine should have joined NATO when other former Soviet states joined, bad situation for them.

With the rise of China, US economic hegemony in the world is no longer a given.

wirinet:
I am tired of explaining. Maybe you need to hear it from Putin himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJXwLzII278


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cugn8JZfk

Watch the 2 videos and you will understand Putin's perspective.

Cuban missile crisis 2.
What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

DeepSight:
Consequently a subjective experience cannot be translated or transmitted to another person. Only the experiencer has the unique nuance and flavour of it. Even if you and I experience an armed robbery together, our experiences will not be the same. Neither will it be possible to give you my experience of it. I can tell you a story about how I felt, but you could never be me, the experiencer. This is why it is impossible to say that something preprogrammed is a subjective experience. Anything preprogrammed is already objectively known outside of the personal experience of the experiencer. Indeed it is known before the experiencer experiences it.

Let me just add to this: any thing pre-programmed is also reproducible right down to its tiniest nuance. Thus with a machine, the programmer would be able to replicate the exact experience with another machine simply by downloading and uploading it. With a human experience you cannot do this. You cannot transfer a human's subjective experience to another human. It is outrightly impossible for the simple reason that they are not the same and will receive even such an "upload" differently.

LordReed:
DeepSight, what is a subjective experience?

A subjective experience is one within the internal self-consciousness of a living being, it is the actual act or process of "living through" something such that the living being feels the nature of the happening which is impressed on the being in a live manner such that it has personal awareness of the happening as it occurs. Such an experience comes with the personal feelings, thoughts and nuances of the moment which it provokes within the being.

Consequently a subjective experience cannot be translated or transmitted to another person. Only the experiencer has the unique nuance and flavour of it. Even if you and I experience an armed robbery together, our experiences will not be the same. Neither will it be possible to give you my experience of it. I can tell you a story about how I felt, but you could never be me, the experiencer. This is why it is impossible to say that something preprogrammed is a subjective experience. Anything preprogrammed is already objectively known outside of the personal experience of the experiencer. Indeed it is known before the experiencer experiences it. This is why Diridiri should understand the absurdity of his statement about pre-programming a subjective experience. It is a contradiction in terms. He himself said somewhere that we are each caged within our subjective experience of the world and this is true. It dumbfounds me that he then fails to see the contradiction in suggesting that subjective experience can be pre-programmed. There is nothing subjective about such, ab initio.

Ergo, a machine which is programmed cannot have subjective experiences.

Lordreed, Diridiri - can a machine have impulses and intuition.

_{Diridiri please surprise me with something other than "I dont see why not."}

LordReed:
Nope. Taste is the response chemicals on your tongue induce in your brain, if certain parts of your anatomy are affected you loose that functionality as with Covid for example. Machines may not have a tongue but chemicals can still be made to elicit a response from the processing core. That is why I put taste in quote.

You know, this mechanistic response truly wearies me. Because the question is one of experience - i.e: if a machine were to eat an orange (however conceivable that is) would it experience the citrus flavour associated with the orange in the way a living thing would. That is the question, not what you keep presenting which looks evasive to me. Its always easy to reel off the scientific process by which a machine could be said to have been programmed to respond to a given stimuli, and machines indeed can be so programmed. This is altogether different from having the actual experience in the way a living being does. At the end of the day it boils down to pre-programmed reaction for a machine and this has nothing whatsoever to do with experiencing a thing. What you are doing is as simple and as wrong as saying that a machine which can be programmed to react to some stimuli by saying "hooray" has therefore experienced happiness or exultation. This is a very wrong argument to make, and what baffles and tires me is that you cannot see that this is essentially what you have been doing all along the way.

And you have to be consistent all the way, I neednt keep repeating the varied spectrum of emotions available to a human to underscore the point (. . . what about guilt?). But it strikes me that this is what you did with pain when you defined it as hypersensitivity to an adverse event. This is a very strange definition of pain which does not take into account that which is understood by everybody as pain: the sensation of hurt. If you simply say hypersensitivity to an adverse event, the truth is that humans are so complex that they could experience joy or even sexual arousal at an adverse event. Nor does "hypersensitivity" say anything about being actually hurt. It simply indicates a high sensitivity which could even be pleasure. You took the word "pain" and forcefully made it "machine-compliant" describing it as something completely unrecognizable. It is of course possible to make a machine recognize an adverse event and react to it, but that is an altogether different precept from saying that it feels pain. When something so self-evidently lucid is pointed out to you guys, you say that one is being myopic, one is making baseless statements, etc and thats that. Its quite wearisome.

Perhaps I have said enough on this point of experiencing things for now and should now devote some time rather to asking you guys about the capability of machines in respect of moralization, ethics and conscience. Can a machine have a conscience. And please dont answer this question with the mechanistic falsity I have described above: by saying perhaps, that a machine can react to an error by correcting itself and then saying that this is conscience. Please don't redefine "conscience" to make it "machine-compliant" and thus render it something completely unrecognizable as you have done with "pain."

LordReed:
Because they don't use a tongue.

It has nothing to do with you knowing that it is not taste in the same sense?

budaatum:
The emotion does not differ much from person to person, DeepSight.

Bismillahi rahmani raheem!
This is staggering - and shows what chasms I am up against.

wirinet:
I am certain Russia would not use nuclear weapons but only if Russia itself is threatened. No one can win a nuclear war. Both Russia and the US has enough nuclear power to destroy the world 6 times over. So Russia will only use nuclear as a last resort if it's very existence is threatened.

More than six oh!

diridiri:
2. It is sufficient. It's a direct response to a question: Is X possible. It's a confession by me that no factors come to mind that would completely dismiss it from being possible. I don't know what is not being understood here.

Are you familiar with Russell's teapot?

3. In light of all you've said, would you still say that preprogramming something to be subjective, with this new definition of programming in which the machine is not programmed to be subjective but programmed to generate for itself subjectivity is inherently objective? How?

Honestly amigo, there is little to no practical difference between the blue and the red.

diridiri:
Nice attempt to intentionally misunderstand what I said.
I never said something being unproven means it's possible. I said it doesn't mean it's impossible. This is just common sense.

Its really odd to observe how you are just repeating the same thing.
You say something being unproven doesnt mean its impossible.
And I say it doesnt mean its possible either.

We can go on in this circle forever. It leads nowhere.

In light of my concession that the point that prompted your last comment was a bad point, hypothetically, assuming that such a machine existed, consciousness would be proven. If a perfect mapping between the physical structure of the brain and the subconscious was somehow proven without a shadow of a doubt, then the mapping itself would be the proof.

This - the bold - is beyond weird. Here, you are using the assumption that something becomes proved as its own proof.

LordReed:
That is practically a database of chemicals so sure machine can "taste", they do that already.

Why did you put taste in inverted commas?

LordReed:
We are talking about endocrinal fluctuations that might have nothing to do with the triggering events, that is not something you can easily code for. It's a whole other chain of causal links even you as a human have no control over nor can you predict with pinponit accuracy how much hormones are going to pour into your system and how it will cause you to respond. I am not sure such causal links can be coded.

Without knowing it you hit upon an important truth when you hint at the difficulty with coding such. For the complexity and nature of a living being could react in a plethora of unforeseen ways to stimuli. And this leads me to another point which I must also task Diridiri on - because a self conscious human is such a complex being that it is capable of absurdity. Is a robot capable of conscious absurdity?

A human can consciously decide to harm itself, commit suicide or take any number of self-destructive actions for reasons that may be absurd. It is also capable of altruistic actions such as sacrificing itself for another. Are robots capable of such. Mind you a robot can be programmed to self destruct, this is different from saying it could make an altruistic moral decision to sacrifice itself for another.

This is very different from pain which has to do with responding to singular events not a causal chain.

Come on, everything is in a causal chain.