₦airaland Forum

sotall:


Russia is a bully. How do you tell a sovereign state not to join an organization( NATO) just because they are your rivals or competitors?


At the end, Russia will meet its loo.

This is silly.
Go read "Cuban Missile Crisis."
Start there.

TenQ:
Is it possible that an AI computer/humanoid robot can be created that wouldn't need to be fed any kind of instructions/directives?
If such is possible, then you have a valid point!

This is a very good question and should be directed to Diridiri on account of his comments on self-learning AI.

killyaselfie:
For your proof to be valid, you have to present an isolated thought in the physical world independent of a brain or tell me how I can observe it in the “more to reality physical world”

It's a very subtle subject so let us take it step by step: are we agreed that even if a thought is produced by the interactions of matter, a thought is not itself matter? Because what I am trying to do here is simply establish the existence of non-material things.

For this purpose it does not matter that that they are produced by matter, no pun intended.
What matters is that we agree that thoughts -

1. exist and -
2. are not matter.

NNTR:
How do you mean 'God held by people, and not God ITSELF'?
Clarify please in toto what 'God held by people, and not God ITSELF' means.

God as pictured mostly within established religion - mostly of the Abrahamic hue - versus God as IT really is.

I am ecstatic at reading you admitting, accepting, agreeing and confessing that God is ineffable but though its a given incontrovertible truth and word up comment, I hesitate to get excited by the comment not before you tell why and how you know that God is ineffable. I dont want to get all wound up exhilarated if you dont explain why and how you know that God is ineffable

Simply on account that it is obvious to any humble observer and quiet seeker of truth, that there is much that is way above our pay-grade: the physical universe alone is a mystery to us: its commencement and existence are virtual imponderables - what then of that which is said to be the source of all existence. I take the view that that is something so transcendent of our reality, that it must be utterly unknowable: and thus ineffable.

And surely, save your slavish desire to locate IT in a Jewish man, you ought to agree.

NNTR:
Though I foresaw you'll burn out, loll, I still wanted to give you a benefit of doubt, the reason why I typed 'Really appreciate that you're keen on going the long haul on this bud' but just as I thought, you didnt last long, you fizzled out.

One should not continue flogging a dead horse when one has already made the central points one wishes to make repeatedly. If one's co-discussant either does not see those points or does not agree with them, there is a place to quite decently leave things be.

The pleasure was entirely mine, seeing the cheek of someone with nerve, gall and audacity swing their two floor hanging big balls to not only take a swipe at the Creator but also attempt to find fault, loll with him.

What your justification for doing that? Are you omni know all? Are you in privy with all the facts? You know all the behind the scene? Show me your portfolio. Let me see a living thing, you've created from scratch using raw material, loll.

I believe I clarified that what I critique here is the idea of God held by people, and not God ITSELF.
God ITSELF, as I have said before, is ineffable.

PS: This is DeepSight. The spambot got me.