₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
But you reject the idea that the universe is expanding into what is undefined.

Lemme ask you is darkness nothing?

This question is frighteningly close to our contention on the nature of a shadow, such that I am afraid and must flee the question.

LordReed:
Signal measurement can be divorced from their actual effects. For instance the strength of signal reaching your device can be measured without knowing the actual content the signals are carrying. The signals reaching your device are interpreted by your device to output the words you see now. Similarly it would be possible to see the "hypersignals" on a monitor but it would take the machine's processing block to interpret the signals as pain.

I hope you are not doing with pain what Lawrence Krauss did with nothingness. Namely defining it as something else entirely and then developing your answers on the basis of that redefinition. Because I suppose that you, as a human understands that pain hurts. That its something you feel. The question is if you believe a machine can have the feeling of pain. Can it feel hurt, and feel pain, as we understand pain to be.

Any one can write a code and label it "pain" such that a robot can see that code and scream "yikes" or even say "oh I feel pain." You know very well, I trust, that such interpretation of any given signal is not the same thing as actually feeling pain.

I also added a bit to my last post - I said -

In short, does your answer take into consideration the distinction between the appearance of pain and actual pain? Because there are already robots that can simulate feelings of every kind - even read a human's feelings and respond appropriately. This is however altogether different from the machine actually having feelings of its own - or feeling pain. So how do you distinguish these, and how do they factor into your answer. Also you didnt really say anything about emotional pain which I mentioned.

LordReed:
Also why would this droplet in an infinite field want to pass through the arduous and risky process called birth? And the process to even get to that point is so random you essentially don't know what you'll get until the formation of a physical body is underway. Isn’t that just too haphazard a process for something that purportedly emanates from a field of infinite possibilities?

BTW at what point does human foetus get a mind, immediately when the zygote starts dividing?

Je brake, we will come to all this. Lets clear up a few things first.

LordReed:
Yes, I think it would be possible though for ethical reasons I would hope it will be a very limited sort of pain.

Pain is basically parts of the organism recording adverse events which are translated to "hypersignals" which we interpret as pain. A machine could be made to feel pain in the same manner, "hypersignals" the machine processing block will interpret as pain. But as I said this would be very questionable ethically because having the ability to do it doesn't mean we should or if at all necessary be very limited in capacity.

How would you distinguish between the mere appearance of such hypersignals on your monitor and the machine actually feeling what we understand as pain. In short, does your answer take into consideration the distinction between the appearance of pain and actual pain? Because there are already robots that can simulate feelings of every kind - even read a human's feelings and respond appropriately. This is however altogether different from the machine actually having feelings of its own - or feeling pain. So how do you distinguish these, and how do they factor into your answer. Also you didnt really say anything about emotional pain which I mentioned.

DeepSight:
Diridiri, let me ask you this. Do you think it is theoretically possible to create a machine that feels pain. I trust you to dwell carefully on this question. Try also not to be clouded by your default perspective thus far.

In this I would further ask you to answer the question with respect to -

1. Physical pain and
2. Emotional pain.

Thank you.

LordReed do you want to attempt this question please.

Mom007:
Christ is the only true and acceptable sacrifice to God.

How is that any less barbaric than Aztec human sacrifice?

CSTRR:
There is no benefit to you, understandably, but that citizenship is gold to Indians, Chinese, Lebanese businesses in the country.

If your husband ever wants to invest in Nigeria, it would be gold to him too.

Have you ever worked in an Asian company in Nigeria?
When Immigration visits, that is when you will see commotion with Asians running up and down to hide.

Many can't even leave the complex for fear of being picked up.

I can testify to this.

NNTR:
Joshua 14:10-11
10“Look how the LORD has let me survive, as you can see, these 45 years since the time when the LORD said this through Moses, while Israel was wandering through the wilderness. And look! I’m here today—my eighty-fifth birthday!
11I’m still as strong today as I was the day Moses commissioned me.
I’m as strong today as I was then, and I can go out to battle and come back successful.

Black kite, that thinks, its an eagle. Give Red Bull a trial, loll. You see now, that youse and your alter-ego are not made from cloth and materials Caleb and I, are cut from. I've always taken you and your alter-ego on and will forever push youse heads under water.

The fear of silly questions is the beginning of wisdom.
Why not tag team your alter-ego, to step in

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Cool. Enjoy.

Babalegba:
Lol, I'm an egba man from Abeokuta. There is no need to balkanize the country, restructuring is the way to go instead of pursuing all this violent agitations that leads to a dead end. Anyway i lived in Britain for more than twenty years and on getting back to Nigeria,I found Nigerians extremely dishonest, perfidious, selfish, superstitious, lacking self control,arrogant empty and scurrilous,in fact they lack nation building qualities. As far as I'm concerned a Nigerian graduate is equivalent to a Briton with a G.C.S.E certificate. That has been my experience

Our people are challenging but let us not indulge in excessive self-hatred - the words in red are quite a handful. There is little to profit from self-hatred. Just as with every people upon the Earth, we have our dark and light sides. In spite of all our wahala, Nigerians rank amongst the most brilliant people in this world and not many nations have as illustrious a diaspora.

"Who will speak for me?" is a thought I often ask myself at my lowest and most depressed, contemplating all my errors in life. I realize, when I contemplate this, that if I dont speak for myself, none will speak for me. Likewise, Nigerians have to speak for Nigeria, or none will speak for us. In spite of all our foibles, we must be our own champions. Speaking ill of ourselves will take us no where. For example I would not want to believe you were pleased that a Nigerian president once went to the UK to concur that Nigeria is fantastically corrupt. Whether or not that is true, that is not the remit of a President. And whether or not that is true, there is no wretched evil we have committed which oyibos have not already previously excelled at.

NNTR:
You see my dear friend, I give as good, even with added bonus, as much as I get, but when I do, you wince and class it as insults, loll.

It is your way, even when no one has insulted you. Its merely interesting to note, please dont kid yourself into thinking any amount of ranting and raving from one such as yourself could cause me the slightest discomfort. Once upon a time I had the energy for your ilk, but as my grey hair begins to hit luxuriant stride, I have far less strength for piffle.

Kk, here's the deal. Few questions to start with. I'll like to see your responses done in the same numbered up style, this allows be to see when, where, how and what question, you've answered, loll.
1. Please tell what does the name Jesus mean. Please pretty please tell
2. Who really is Jesus on Calvary that sacrificed?
3. The animal sacrifices to Yahweh served what purpose and why at all?
4. Explain and describe how you mean that Yahweh is one of the most pagan, demonic, barbaric and darkly ritualistic deities of all time?
5. What to your knowledge is the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus in the NT neccesary?

These are silly questions and I will not dignify them.

NNTR:
The final word and point to be clear here, is that:
Josiah, YHWH's favoured King, slaughtered, the Priests gone bad, on their idolatrous altars, he burned the bones of these [pagan] priests on their altars.

He made a right divine judgment public spectacle of them, by desecrating their worthless bodies, on worthless altars, in their worthless gods' shrines

That is all, there is to say, to you and your alter-ego. loll.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

The argument about Jephtah, Josiah, et al - has nothing to do with my perspective, kindly note - if you are capable of noting. For me, the very fact of animal sacrifices to Yahweh in the OT and the alleged propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus in the NT are more than sufficient to conclude Yahweh as one of the most pagan, demonic, barbaric and darkly ritualistic deities of all time.

The final word on this matter is very simple. Propitiatory sacrifices were standard fare for Yahweh throughout the ages covered by the Old Testament. This in itself says quite enough: for the sensitive and enlightened soul must at once wonder at the spiritual and even rational basis for those practices. By what means was it ever suggested that animal sacrifices were appropriate to appease Yahweh in the first place. How is such not as pagan and barbaric as anything ever was.

Worse than all this, the fundamental rock on which the Christian faith is built is a further propitiatory sacrifice - this time of a human being - Jesus of Nazareth. How this is supposed to be something beautiful, graceful and sublime must eternally elude all people of conscience, good sense, genuine morality, integrity and humanity. The equivalent of an Aztec human sacrifice to appease a blood-thirsty deity and wash away the sins of humanity can never be something to be idealized. Not even the argument that Christ was not just human helps this any - for what sense can anyone derive from the spectre of a god entering the world in human form in order to enact a gory scene of blood propitiation to satisfy himself enough to pardon his creatures of the sinful nature he created them with.

The whole precept is at once nonsensical, devilish, pagan, barbaric and stinks of the worst kind of dark ritualism conceivable. That anyone would conceive of all of this as some sort of exalted purity is only explainable by the severe psychological delusion of humankind.

When one adds in the fact that this is said to be the way chosen by a just God - a transcendental, pure and righteous GOD devoted to justice, then one can only shake ones head in shame.
That is all there is to say.

ThinkSmarter:
They should remove the fuel subsidy
Improve power supply.
Improve accessibility to clean energy [Solar]
Those of you kicking against the removal of fuel subsidy should know that Nigeria economy is solely dependent on oil revenue.
And PMS is used more than AGO, DPK and LNG combined.
Worst case scenario is that most of the subsidized products are diverted to other West African countries where they still market the product without subsidy.
Before federal government will realize more capital for infrastructure development in railways, education, health, agriculture etc.
Subsidy must be removed.
Don't expect state governments to pay salaries smoothly, employ people, increase workers salary and carry out infrastructural development without increase in Federal allocation.


Remove the Fuel subsidy Now!
It's high time we make a crucial decision for our future and damn the temporal consequences.

Easy for you to say, ensconced in and snugly tucked within protective blankets wherever you are.
I pray you lose those warm blankets, and are compelled by the fates to experience the pinch exactly as it is felt by the unprotected.
And when that pinch of fate has sunk deep into your skin, then, I pray the fates present you with a chance to revisit this subject.

Thoughtless arsehole.

jamesid29:
Interesting viewpoint. Just so I'm accurately getting your point.

Are you saying wayyizbah should no longer be thought of as a word that exclusively denotes a ritual sacrifice but should be taken more generally as a term to denote a killing done in other to induce/ appease someone. That person could either be human or a deity.

I'm i correct in my understanding of your position?

PastorAIO:
Yes. or to reduce it to one word, an Offering.

But this is the essence of a ritual sacrifice. You are going round in circles.

budaatum:
And actually, it is those intending to insult that often call others materialists.
.

I hope you are not conflating "materialist" as used in these discussions with "materialist" as used to refer to a person who is focused on worldly wealth.

materialist
/məˈtɪərɪəlɪst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: materialist; plural noun: materialists

1.
a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
"greedy materialists lusting for consumer baubles"
2.
Philosophy
a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
"an atheist and philosophical materialist"

Diridiri, let me ask you this. Do you think it is theoretically possible to create a machine that feels pain. I trust you to dwell carefully on this question. Try also not to be clouded by your default perspective thus far.

In this I would further ask you to answer the question with respect to -

1. Physical pain and
2. Emotional pain.

Thank you.

diridiri:
In the second paragraph, you make an astonishing claim: "...this requires the sort of consciousness which we are not able to bequeath to even the most advanced artificial intelligence". I assume you do not mean that we currently lack the technology required to accomplish such a feat, but that it is theoretically impossible. It's a baseless claim. I'm certain that, 5000 years ago, it would have been said that human beings were unable to penetrate the skies or alter the weather; all things we are very capable of today.

I think its astonishing that you would think its astonishing if someone said its theoretically impossible to produce a machine with the attribute of consciousness as we understand it. Because this is a question that is truly alive in the sense that its is well debated even among scientists. This is way beyond the small matter of incredible scientific advancements which we would have thought impossible in ages gone by. This is something which goes to the root of theoretical possibility. It is as fundamental a question as probing if travel into the past is possible, or if teleportation is possible, or if observing what exists outside the universe is possible. It is not just a question of the ordinary advancement of science - it devolves upon certain inherent principles of reality and existentialism.

In this matter you should note that there is also the philosophical imponderable of proof of consciousness. Because you can invent a machine that so perfectly simulates consciousness that it is impossible to tell the difference between that machine and a conscious entity for all practical purposes. However you will never be able to conclusively know that that machine is conscious because consciousness by its very nature is a subjective experience. Indeed I would be surprised if you do not know that it is said that no one can even be sure of the actual consciousness of the next human being - you can only experience your own consciousness. You cannot enter into another persons consciousness - you will live your entire life trapped within the walls of your own consciousness.

So if you understand that you cannot even prove the next human being to be a conscious being as opposed to a simulation, how do you go about proving that that advanced AI of one million years from now actually has self consciousness. It is for all purposes unknowable - and you can be sure that my position is that something such as a machine or a computer cannot have self consciousness - and no, this is not an astonishing or even fringe claim. It is well within the realm of modern thought that a machine may not ever be capable of self-consciousness - and at all events, it is certainly the case that even if it were, proving such may eternally be impossible.

But that's not as important. Let's assume that you are right and said immaterial being exists. What makes it conscious, though? How does its own consciousness work? And, assuming you have a definite answer for that, why can't human brains use the same processes as well?

I dont believe that self consciousness can be attributed to material things but let us defer this point for now.

Moreover, can an immaterial substance that can interact with material substances be said to truly be immaterial? How does it even interact with the material shell?

Now this is a very good question but I would suggest that being of a different nature does not rule out the possibility of interaction. To use a loose analogy matter exists in different states such as solid, liquid and gaseous. All of these states can still interact notwithstanding being of different consistencies. Indeed the consistencies even often overlap. Likewise you may say that reality consists of different consistences, spiritual (or intangible if you prefer that word), ethereal and material. These differing consistences not only interact but even overlap. Please this is only a very loose analogy to visualize the point. It is not intended as an exact representation of anything or as scientific fact.

LordReed:
I mentioned several factors and you are latching on to 1 when I said it not a single factor but the combination. I dunno what you want me to say again.

Fair enough, pardon me - I did feel though, that a number of the factors you mentioned traced back to genetics and also that at least one of the factors was cancelled out by what I said about differences being noted from infancy - virtually prior to any possible "experience" of the world or any kind of "nurture."

Overall - this is not a tangent I would like to dwell too much on, it was just a passing thought.

LordReed:
Identical twins can have widely varying proclivities and aversions, that they are identical doesn't mean they DNA is exactly the same. Taken individual none of the factors will alone be responsible for the wide variance, it is the combination of all these factors that leads to the wide variance.

This is a bookish answer which borders on the deliberately generalistic in order to avoid a very specific point. With identical twins, you have a monozygotic situation where a single sperm fertilizes a single egg which then splits to form two babies. It will be painfully hard to argue that DNA accounts for radical personality differences in these kinds of babies, dont you think? Even if one agrees that they may imbibe different aspects of the same DNA - whatever that means - we surely must reasonably say that such will be way too infinitesimal to form solid basis for radical differences.

Agreed, they can have different DNA - due to cell splitting, but very marginally so. Using this as a basis for radical personality differences rests on shaky ground.

diridiri:
I'll answer your question with another question. Where do mental disorders and disabilities come from? Were people that were born sociopaths just born with a malicious "immaterial component"? Even though there are accepted correlations between the mapping of the brain and the way these disorders manifest?
Furthermore, what is responsible for physical radical differences between children? They come from the same parents.

Reproduction does not produce perfect copies - if it did phenomena like natural selection would not work and epidemics would have wiped out the human race already. Whether physical or mental, differences exist. However, as I stated in my first comment, this personality can still be manipulated by personal experiences and one's perception of these personal experiences such that, even though two people might have been born with a basically identical mental framework, that framework is altered in such a way that their personalities differ radically after a decade.

On the examples of your twin brothers, giving the meticulous planning that would be required to make their experiences completely identical, I doubt that they had experienced the same things, thought the same thoughts, felt the same emotions, and gained interests in the same things consistently for the entirety of their lives. Given the self-feeding nature of the human personality, even one slight different in an experience might compound.

All this being correct, was unnecessary for you to explain: I know and agree, but thanks for taking the time - I like meticulous discussants.

And even though they were just different from the day they were born, I don't see how this hints at the existence of an immaterial self causing this to be so.

Patience friend, it is just one step on a ladder I am putting up. You see, the point here is that they had not even started to experience the world, and there was no "nurture" to speak of by the time differences could be discerned. Such as one being eminently more expressive and aggressive than the other.

Now add this to the nature of Identical Twins. I chose them for a reason - "Identical, or monozygotic, twins occur when a single egg, fertilised by a single sperm, divides and makes two babies." So you see, its tricky to even resort to genetics to explain any radical difference here.

So taking away both physical "nature" (genetics) and "nurture" (experiences) what could account for such radical differences.
You know my answer already - whats yours?

diridiri:
What function of the self requires an immaterial component to be executed? . . . Is there something that hints at an immaterial user?

Experience and the capacity to experience is what hints at an inward dwelling user. Because as I have argued earlier on, a camera cannot "see" anything, it is merely a tool for capturing images. Same goes for the eyes. Even the optic nerves and optic lobe are only involved in interpreting visual signals. There is the obvious need for a being who is the recipient of that which is interpreted and delivered.

Everything about the physical system logically evinces this. All of your senses, from sound to sight, to taste to smell to touch - infer the same thing. Signals are being passed and interpreted but for what and to what, if not to an experiencing being. The entire construct would be meaningless without an experiencing being, and in truth this requires the sort of consciousness which we are not able to bequeath to even the most advanced artificial intelligence.

Only a being is capable of conscious experience - much less self-conscious experience and everything about the physical body patently suggests tools set up to deliver that experience to the actual being.

LordReed:
Some things known and unknown. The unknown part is clearly something we can't talk about since we don't know it yet.

Well as you already know, I lean towards the idea that the "unknown" part is largely accounted for by an indwelling spirit.

The known ones would be such as the structure of the brain, foundational formation of the personality construct, variation in actual information received by the individuals, genetic predispositions with regards to proclivities and aversions, variation in endocrinology, etc. I don't think I can exhaustively list all the things that would make them turn out to be different individuals.

As to the genetic part of this, note my choice of identical twins as an example - and further note that I said "radical" differences in personalities. Using my brothers as an example, the variation in actual information received will be too minor to account for radical differences, especially since such differences were observed even before they could speak.

diridiri:
Would I be correct in assuming that you are suggesting an inherent nature subject to, but not necessarily originating from one's experiences?

Indeed I am suggesting just that because these radical differences could be observed even from their earliest infancy.
What do you think accounts for that.

Small question which leaps to mind, for LordReed and Gang (Diridiri, Tamaratonye1) -

What do you think accounts for the sometimes radically different personalities of siblings who may have grown up together and thus received virtually identical sets of experiences and "nurture."

To bring this question into greater lucidity, presuppose identical twins raised together and who, like my own younger brothers, do everything together from infancy up into their present forties.

diridiri:
I consider myself a materialist, and I would say that the reverse applies to me: It was in my deep musings and long periods of inner exploration that I came to the conclusions that I hold now.
Of the more conspicuous issues inherent to a non-materialistic perspective is it's dependence on the existence of something which, by its very nature, is immune to inspection (for if it were not, the question of the self would be trivial, wouldn't it?). It's a tempting angle to look at things from, but is too convenient an answer to such a difficult question - too convenient for myself, anyhow.

The self, as it appears to me, is an algorithm build to repair the gaps formed by our memories and our capacity for inner examination. It's most critical function then is to create a consistent "being" - comprised of our thoughts, feelings, actions, reactions and relationships. Functionally this makes sense: most mental operations executed by the brain are sequential, and the output generated by them depends heavily on the output generated at a previous iteration. Our reactions to experiences depend heavily on our previous reactions to similar experiences, and our personalities are constructed by our experiences and our reactions to said experiences, which are also strongly correlated to our personalities at the time. For a self-feeding algorithm such as this to function properly, we must consistently perceive ourselves in one single stream of consciousness, so as to avoid mental confusion.

This is very well written and also very appreciated. It is also pretty much the truth.
Well - save with respect to your "self of the gaps."

I am often baffled by the perspectives of those who prescribe to a dualistic outlook of the self.

Well let me just clarify here that what I advance is no dualism of the "self" but actually a singular immaterial self dwelling in a material encasement, which for all practical purposes has the nature of a biological machine or robot, complete with its very advanced computerized section, which you may call the brain.

Given the numerous cases of the physical configuration of the brain having direct, predictable effects on one's perception of the self, one would think that the dualistic perspective would have been largely abandoned by now.

It is only natural that the computer which handles your entire perception of the physical world will have a significant impact on your sense of self therein, and even your sense of reality thereof. Deeper reflection, nonetheless, leads me to believe that this computer is not you, but a tool for the you.

PastorAIO:
Followers of yhwh seem to be the only people who will see inconsistencies in a story and not suspect mendacity.

Religious people generally - and certainly all those who assert the infallibility of their scripture.

Let me pause there abeg, although there is a lot more to say.

You have spoken well. The truth is more than obvious. However dont hold out any hope that any of those who worship Yahweh will see black and call it black. They will call it white till the hour of their death.

wirinet:
Imagine. And US went after Osama Bin Laden and subsequently the Taliban, even though Osama bin Laden was no where near the US on September 11 2001

Perfect response.

jamesid29:
Actually it is wayyizbaḥ. The root word for wayyizbaḥ is zabah hence the "strong number".
The form wayyizbaḥ only occurs about 15times, two of which are in 2kings and 2chronicles.

You can pick up any good interlinear Bible to confirm.
Even the link he(pastorAi) posted confirms it as well

Okay. Thanks for pointing this out. Well noted.
It did leave me slightly confused I must confess.

PastorAIO -
The bold refers -

DeepSight:
Discussing with NNTR, you will find that when you assert that two plus two is four, you will be required to actually draw two apples on one side, then draw two apples on the other side, and count them and show that there are now four apples. Sadly, after doing this, you will find this poster repeatedly ask you just how two plus two is actually four. Poker faced, this poster will say you have shown no such thing, and at the last minute is likely to insult you for saying that you have shown that two plus two is four.

chopnaira:
Ya ah tink da deepsight donkey Isa normals

Ita far right wing who ah claim da lefty ta fools people

Ita belief Ina conspiracy likey da apprentice donkey Basilico andi Methusela donkey onos


Kikikikikikiki

WHAAAAAAT ! ! ! !

Kazeem47:
9ja

Please dont post this sort of picture in future. I find this highly frightening.

Konkoja:
I honestly hate pointless chat which this has turned to.
So, @Deepsight, if you don gerit, forget about it.

This is not unfamiliar: when people are unable to deliver a cogent point they often resort to this.
Its been a pleasure all the same.
Tata.