EmiloCorn:
Shebi I keep saying it that my oga is working.

Don't worry, very soon dollar will be down to N500 and below. Just 7 years more and we will finally get there.

On his mandate, I stand

agbadorians praising tinubu for doing nothing

Martinez19:
Why do they tell lies and make up stories to make their religion true? Lies like going to heaven and hell then coming back, lying for Jesus, lying for the Islamic cause, making up miracles and healing etc. Do you know that the fact you have to lie for your religion puts a question mark on it's truthfulness because if it were true, it would be there for all to see.

Why can't christians realise that if their religion is the truth, then by now, there would never be a debate on whether God exists or not? It would be there for all to see. Everyone would have embraced christianity. Who would ignore healing? Who would ignore miracles? Let's reason: if christianity is true, there won't too much talk on which is the true religion since the results would speak for themselves.

Because they are deluded.
Their god's existence is unquestionable, yet they need faith to believe in him. The definition of faith in Christianity is "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen". It is a crutch needed to accomplish the otherwise impossible task of believing the unbelievable and denying the undeniable.

If god was real, they would not need faith. It would be obvious to the entire world that god was real if he was real. The fact that people even ask this question everyday is proof that either god doesn't want human beings to know he exists, or that he doesn't exist at all.

It's why you see full grown adults believing in talking snakes and donkeys, the moon being split in half, and eternal realms made specially for those they do/do not like to dwell in for eternity. The most absolutely idiotic things that one could ever hear, yet as long as they have "faith" they are happy to give their pastor all of their inheritance to tell them this rubbish.

I only hope that one day Nigeria rids itself of this virus.

Jewessgratitud3:
Smh...

The pastor steals 10% of their salary every month, this one should be considered community service.

ShinjaWWest:
Igbo men n money

what is this one now

Rich4god:
For some time, I used to wonder why the US and their allies will have stocks of Nuclear weapons, but are placing embargo on some countries not to have nuclear weapons.

It all boils down to IDEOLOGY and HUMANITY.

Look at what Houthis have been doing, disrupting international trade and communication for a reason that doesn't concern the rest of the world.

Now lets assume Hamas have nuclear weapons, am pretty sure that the Oct 7 attack on Israel, they will definitely use nuclear bomb.

This Iran backed Houthis, am sure if they have such weapons at their disposal, they would have used it against Isreal or to even make that no international trade pass through their waters by making the place unsuitable for humans.

These guys dont think correctly, they dont think about their actions before they act.

Imagine Russia have been in a war for more than a year, but they havent deemed it fit to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine.

If the leadership of Russia were to be in the hands of say Houthis, by now Ukraine will be a radioactive wasteland

Palestine is too close to Israel, Hamas would never have used nuclear bombs because the Palestinians will also die.
In fact sef the only reason Hamas is fighting Israel is because Israel has been giving them trouble for 100 years.

Anyway, the real reason why those countries have nuclear weapons is because they are hypocrites and want to remain the dominant power forever.

DeepSight:


Well that is a pity. A shame that time travel is not as yet possible.



I dont know how better to express this: this is simply not sufficient. You could ask me if its possible that there's a teapot circling the universe and I could just as easily answer "I dont see why not."



Amigo - the methodology of further learning is still bequeathed by being programmed.

1. A pity indeed. Ah well.

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.

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?

DeepSight:


I cant do anything with this. Its just wastefully circular. If a thing is unproven does that thereby show it to be possible? That's just absurd.



It is your problem and not mine that that which you insist is possible can never be proven.

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.

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.

DeepSight:


I will pocket the red as the closest thing to a concession that I may hope for.

What is programmed is programmed. It is not necessary to program every outcome, once you have programmed the method by which the machine learns to arrive at new outcomes.

You skip the hard questions with general answers such as "I dont see why not" - can you get down to specifics as to how a machine may have an opinion for example - on morality or beauty?

In retrospect, upon being asked this same recycled question, I should've asked you to go down to specifics as to how a human being might have an opinion. Upon hearing your detailed answer, I would have asked why such a thing required intervention from the immaterial.

Also, I answered "I don't see why not" as a response to you asking if I thought it was possible.

Lastly, the red part is not a concession. I meant that the neural networks are planned in the sense that their functionality is planned. The structure is not. The functionality of a program is so high in the level of abstraction that calling it "programming" is like calling instructing a child on how to accomplish a task manipulating them like a mannequin.

DeepSight:


Let me show you how you are being circular here: let me reverse what you are doing to you, and see how it comes across. Perhaps that will help you understand. Here goes:



I state that it is impossible for science to accomplish a feat because you stated that it was possible.



It is a direct refutation to your statement, which was supported by the fact that you have not provided a real reason as to why such a thing would be possible.



Or would you have me believe that anything not currently proven is de facto possible?



Subjective experience leads us to see that the functions of the physical body could only make sense in terms of a being for which they deliver experience to. In the absence of such a being, the entire construct collapses as meaningless. No worries: I will elucidate on this separately ahead.



I am afraid you are the one with the problem here: because it is not the business of someone who says something is impossible to prove it. That would amount to demanding proof of a negative and no one does that. It is however the business of someone who says that something is possible to prove that it is indeed possible: and in this the burden falls squarely upon his case if the achievement of the allegedly possible thing is impossible to prove!

If a thing is impossible to prove to have been achieved, frankly, the person who says that the thing is impossible takes the day. The person who says it is possible is faced with an unsolvable quandary.

What you are doing makes no sense: for you are saying that since it is impossible to prove it has been achieved, then I would rest on that alone - even when no one can know that it has been achieved. Why on Earth will I not rest on the fact that its unprovable. Its equally unprovable that there isnt a teapot hanging above the universe. Whoever says there is, ought to prove it, and if thats impossible, then thats that. You cant shift the matter back to me. You simply cant. Thats asking me to prove a negative.

On the bit about me being circular:
Actually, you can't.

1. That's just true. Am I missing something? If I claimed that X was possible, wouldn't a claim that X was actually be impossible be a refutation of my point?
2. Again, you posited that something was impossible. Me saying that you cannot prove this is not being circular or making a moot point. It is punching a hole in a statement you made.
3. The third statement doesn't work either. I only brought up possible structures that could bring about consciousness because you made a hard point that it was impossible. You then waxed lyrical about the inaccuracies that come about from using the fact that science is constantly progression as a refutation to your point. I then asked if you would then suggest that anything not currently proven is de facto impossible. That question is a direct result of the claims you previously made.

On the last part of your comment (since you have not yet elucidated on the penultimate section), I will concede on the fact that it was a bad point, but a point made in my stupidity. I don't really know why I even let you take me through this rabbit hole in the first place. I should have stopped you when you started bringing up the point about "proving that subjectivity can be expressed in a robot", since my entire argument is and has been that there is no evidence that an immaterial being is required for "subjectivity", and that there is nothing about "subjectivity" that requires the immaterial.

DeepSight:


Yes, it is, barring errors and unintended consequences. At all events, every detail is measurable.

Interesting claim. I never spoke about whether the details were measurable or not, by the way.
Unfortunately, objectively false. Again, unsupervised machine learning. Although the end result is expected, the ways by which the computer manipulates the neural networks depends on a process akin to natural selection, which the programmer does not control. The resulting neural networks are not planned by the programmer (they are in a vague sense, but only in a vague sense), and it is typically a waste of time to even bother analyzing the neural networks themselves.

DeepSight:


Yes - and the method of such allegedly unsupervised learning is pre-programmed.

ALLEGEDLY? LOL
What do you mean "allegedly"? Are you about to say what I think you're about to say?

DeepSight:


It really doesnt work either, to simply posit the incredible, and defend same by saying that any protestation against it is from incredulity. That's rather circular. If something is incredible, or hasnt been done, its really up to you to show that it can be done.

This is a joke, isn't it?
Be reminded that your opinion is that the portion in the brain controlling consciousness is an "immaterial" essence of some unknown quality.
And yet my retort that this could be simulated in the brain by the brain itself is deemed "incredible" in comparison.

I could point out that you have yet to even provide an explanation as to how this immaterial essence even works, but I don't think I care a great deal, actually.

DeepSight:


Hmm. Once again you have quite needlessly explained to me that which I (and I imagine everyone else) understand(s) and agree(s) with. Nevertheless, once again, thank you - for as I said - I like the meticulous.

To be clear - quantum physics does not seem "magical" to me - that is only a way of speaking, a sort of figure of speech, you might say. I am sure you have heard the quote - "any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

Or what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" - with respect to quantum entanglement.

The point rests in the simple illustration of the fact that one must be careful with deploying the "science may achieve that in future" response to certain questions. You seem to try to draw a line between something such as probing outside the universe and something such as making a robot experience subjectivity. You say the one is justifiably considered impossible while the other is not, for you - insisting that science might make the latter possible in future. If you have grasped the point about subjectivity you will see that this is a matter that goes to the root of logicality and is not a question of scientific advancement. I did ask you if a robot could be subjective in anything. This is what you need to dwell upon. It is frankly logically impossible because everything about a robot is preprogrammed. I could develop on this by asking if a robot can have opinions, and even freewill. These are questions you need to address yourself to in order to get to the root of this matter.



Let us be simple and clear: you mentioned infinity in a context. The context was the speculation that the universe could be infinite and as such there might be nothing like "outside the universe." You further responded that you may not be qualified to comment further as you are not an astrophysicist. With respect: there is no astrophysicist who can grasp the concept of infinity: and it is a contradiction in terms to say that material objects may be infinite.

I dont know if you notice a pattern developing here. You say, hey, science may do X in future. You also say hey, the universe may be infinite, but you cant discuss it because you are not qualified. In both scenarios you are implicitly introducing an escape hatch which locks away any examination of what you are saying. We cant examine the first because you have locked it away in the future. We cant examine the second because you have restricted it to astrophysicists. Even when no astrophysicist can grasp infinity.

All of this, without me even going into the fundamental problem I hinted at when you first stepped into the thread: do you realize that since you agree that we could never prove self-consciousness in a robot, then you are basically saying that science may be able to accomplish something which is impossible to prove has been accomplished.

Do you not see a major problem here?

Seeing as a good number of these points are, in some way addressed in your other comment, I'll be brief here.

Firstly, I said that it is opined that the universe might be infinite. I never attributed it to myself. It is this fact that required that I confess that I am not an astrophysicist. Secondly, I state that it is possible for science to accomplish a feat because you stated that it was impossible. It is a direct refutation to your statement, which was supported by the fact that you have not provided a real reason as to why such a thing would be impossible. Or would you have me believe that anything not currently proven is de facto impossible?

You also seem to completely ignore my main point about the experiencing subjectivity bit. You have not yet demonstrated that this is something other than a purely physical phenomenon. Now, I propose that, assuming it were simply a physical phenomenon, it could be hypothetically perfectly mapped to the structure of a computer, producing the same result. Now, one might retort that I have no proof it is purely physical, but that's a warped way of looking at things. Before supposing supernatural influence, one must ensure that all the possibilities of a physical influence have been ruled out.

Why would you bring up the uncertainty of proving self-consciousness? Doesn't that also imply that your hard stance on its impossibility is irrational? After all, if you were wrong and a mapping really did recreate self-consciousness, you could simply cross your arms and point your nose to the sky, denying any apparent observations that might suggest self-consciousness, and you could feel justified in yourself, correct?

DeepSight:
Diridiri, please repeatedly saying "I dont see why not" is just as vacant as you accuse the article of being with respect to the reverse. It says nothing.

You seem to misunderstand my opinion in this discourse. Saying "I don't see why not" is a direct challenge to the opinion "It is impossible".
In this context it is absolutely not vacant.

DeepSight:


In case you havent noticed, you have not shown the reverse either.

You have not shown us just how a machine could be self-conscious. You have only said that you dont see why its impossible. Such a simple statement does not suffice for anything sir. And I warn you that it is a statement that can be made in response to virtually anything.

Ah. I was waiting for you to inevitably make this point.
The burden of proof does not fall upon me to make any such claim. You even say why it doesn't: My position is that "I don't see why it's impossible". This is in opposition to yours which is that it is definitely impossible.

Furthermore, that statement can not be validly made about anything. It can be made against an opinion that something is definitely impossible, and is a direct challenge to prove the impossibility of such a thing, which is why I made the claim in the first place. One would do well to remember that I was the one who responded to a comment that you made on materialism. I was challenging something you said.

DeepSight:


This is extremely problematic reasoning. Pre-programming something is a wholly objective thing: it does not admit of subjectivity. You therefore cannot make a statement such as "preprogramming something to be subjective." That would be exactly as absurd as saying that you have pre-programmed something to be non-pre-programmed.


Something that relates to the physical science of the body, such as the immune system is actually a matter of objective science and not a matter locked in to subjective experience.

Right, but the physical and the mental comprise a human being, correct?
Then, seeing as human beings are made up of components that are both "objective" and "subjective", does that mean that human beings are both?

I mostly asked my initial question in jest because I did not understand what it meant to refer to an entire "being" or "thing" as subjective. I could say an opinion is subjective, or a thought is subjective, or a memory is subjective. Could I say an entire human being was subjective, though? What exactly would I mean, if I said that? By saying that robots are "objective", you are being similarly absurd. If a robot was capable of abstract thought, those thoughts would perhaps be "subjective". I don't know how exactly it would then follow that the robot was subjective.

DeepSight:


All the mapping in the world could not translate the specific feeling and nuance of a particular emotion - it could not convey it to another person - at best it could show that the emotion is there, or that it is intense - it could never capture the actual feeling of the emotion itself - the actual experience of it. That is the nature of a subjective experience. Whereas you can capture everything about a robot. Absolutely everything. As I said - it would even be mathematically precise.

Baseless assertion, yet again, on two counts:

1. It assumes that a hypothetical robot with a subjective experience would be able to be fully captured, simply because it was a robot. This assumes that, simply because something is programmed, every little detail of its functionality is pre-planned. Have you ever heard of unsupervised machine learning?

2. The entire paragraph is an argument from incredulity. It seems like you simply feel that all the mapping in the world could not translate the specific feeling and nuance of a particular emotion, but I am yet to be presented with a concrete reason why that is.

DeepSight:


While I can see why you would make this comparison, I don't believe thats the argument being made either by myself or that article. It is a rather more nuanced point which devolves in the nature of experiencing itself. And the nature of consciousness which makes such possible.

A nature, mind you, that the article does not support in any way whatsoever. One can only make such a logical leap if one presupposes that consciousness requires the immaterial. The article does not satisfactorily explain why this is the case, it just makes baseless assertions here and there. I notice you have not done so as well.

DeepSight:

I think what you need to be asking yourself is if a machine is capable of subjectivity. Because this may help unravel the knots here: experience is intrinsically subjective as you have acknowledged and a thing which is preprogrammed is intrinsically objective in nature as opposed to subjective. Every aspect of its nature is predefined and thus set within a given objective code or program.

Thus, a machine cannot have a subjective experience. Everything that could happen with it can be fully described in terms of the code or program language with which it is set up. A living being on the other hand, is capable of subjective experiences which are indescribable to the next person forever.

The first paragraph is pretty weird. It implicitly supposes that there exists some aspect of human nature that is not predefined or set within a given objective code or program. It also makes the claim that "a thing which is preprogrammed is intrinsically objective in nature as opposed to subjective". Yes, to the observer, anyway. But if the preprogrammed thing was capable of subjective mental processes, then that's a moot point. Even with regards to human beings, assuming that you were correct, there would still be facets of the human body that were completely objective, like how the immune system operates, for instance. So it is possible for things to be objective and subjective in different areas.

According to your second paragraph then, if the chemical and electrical reactions in the human brain could be mapped and analyzed in as much detail as a line of code or a circuit could, we would all magically cease to have a subjective experience? Or are you going to assert that such a thing is impossible?

DeepSight:


If you understand this, you should see that a machine could never be capable of subjectivity and thus could not be capable of experience.

This is actually something which should be self-evident, however cognizant of the chasm between our views, I will only hope that a little point here or there may eventually strike a chord, even if this is a most unlikely thing.

Interesting.
You are right in saying that such a scenario is unlikely, I'll give you that much.

DeepSight:


Really. Thats . . . well, unfortunate. I have just pointed out one though - the capacity for subjectivity.
And here is one more thing you may want to contemplate about subjectivity - do you think robots can have opinions?
Dwell on this carefully, because I do not ask if robots can analyze a set of facts and arrive at a conclusion. I ask if they can have subjective opinions. Opinions on morality for example. Or on beauty.

Do you think robots can have differing opinions as well?
Can different "individuals" of the same type of robot, say, have different "tastes."
Or different worldviews.

Can robots properly be said to be capable of having opinions.

Opinions, not pre-programmed factors of analysis - such as the type which may be set to recognize fair skin and call it beautiful. I mean opinions in the proper sense.

In this, please try not to redefine the word "opinion" into something unrecognizable in order to be machine-compliant: because this has been happening here rather often with respect to the common understanding of words such as "pain" and "feelings" and "experience."

As I have stated with every new iteration of this question, I do not see why not.
I am yet to be convinced that this is mechanistically impossible and requires assistance from the immaterial.

DeepSight:


Sadly, I can see why people would ask you to "open your eyes." However I agree that that's not a way to discuss anything - certainly not in discussions like this. Nonetheless, it sometimes really boils down to acknowledging the painfully obvious - which, I have to say, I have come to learn, can also be painfully disputed. Even to the point of irritation.

The reason why such pleas irritate me is because they come across as ignorant.
If it were so obvious and self-apparent, you would be able to explain it precisely and concisely. If I ask for a mechanistic failing of physical systems in simulating a "subconscious experience" that the immaterial can account for, one would typically expect a direct answer that does not rely on abstractions but a literal mechanistic failing of physical systems.

DeepSight:


Perhaps you have not grasped what I am driving at: if one leans upon the advancement of science in any matter, one will be opening a virtually limitless door of possibilities through which it would become possible to even illogically contest anything: so if I say that it is impossible for you to shapeshift into a cockerel: it may be answered that this is myopic and that sufficiently advanced science could accomplish this.

In fact as regards the universe, the area of quantum physics already presents scenarios to us that border on magic. So you cannot so lightly dismiss the comparison - and surely you should then see the problem with your answer to the effect that "there is no reason why science cannot accomplish this in the future."

Because I hope you know that it is said about time travel that we have not seen anything in the laws of physics to render it impossible. If you consider what I have set before you properly, you will find that this type of answer (that science might make something possible in the future) can be applied to every conceivable imagination. And this shows up the flaw with it.

Typically when one refers to something as "true" or "accurate" in science, one actually means that it is "true beyond reasonable doubt" in the sense that it so perfectly matches observations made about the universe that it makes little sense not to adhere to the model or theory in question. With this knowledge in mind, it becomes obvious why exactly one can dismiss a supposition even if future advancements remain uncertain. If a supposition seems to contradict too strongly to too much of the observations made, it is more likely to be false than true. With some suppositions, this likelihood is so biased towards falsehood that it is accurate to call it impossible.

This is the same line of reasoning used when referring to any impossibility (with the exception of logical impossibilities like "X is both X and not X". If someone told me that the real Barney visited their child, I would say it was impossible, but there still exists a slight chance that magic exists and Barney actually visited their child. It's just too ridiculous, unlikely, and out-of-left-field to even entertain.

Quantum Physics presents scenarios that border on magic? Well, I will concede that they might seem "magical" at a cursory glance, the same way that the concept of a Heliocentric universe might seem "magical" to one who was totally illiterate on the matter. "After all", they might say, "the sun very much APPEARS to rotate around the Earth, so why the over-complicated explanation over a seemingly simple matter?". The fact is that, unlike magic, the scenarios presented by these models were derived not by armchair thinking and idle presuppositions but by observations of the universe supported and corroborated by other observations. You then see why an understanding of the field in question is necessary: If you do not understand the reason why the "scenarios bordering on magic" are presented, you will forever see them as somewhat magical. It is only with adequate understanding in the field that you comprehend the necessity of such scenarios. This applies to EVERY dense field of knowledge.

DeepSight:


Because it requires a self, and subjectivity.
But I know this means nothing to you as yet.

It's not the self and subjectivity part I have a problem with, DeepSight.
My problem is the implicit assumption that such constructions are somehow immaterial and cannot be generated by natural systems. It's a completely baseless assumption.

DeepSight:



This is not a matter of being unable to comprehend on account of not being an astrophysicist: there is no human being who can comprehend infinity.

In what sense do you mean?
I can't comprehend what it would mean to experience infinity, but I can certainly comprehend the concept. I'm certain you can, too, or you would be utterly lost on the topic. Infinity just means endless, or at least approaching a value of endless magnitude. I might not be able to imagine an infinite substance, but I can express and understand the implications of the concept, the same way I can comprehend the concept of cold fire or eternal bliss, unimaginable as those two might be.

DeepSight:


This is an excellent answer but my thinking was that if you are willing to say that scientific advancement may give us self conscious machines, you could also apply same to this question - you never can tell what sort of worm holes or as yet un-conceived method of trans-dimensional movement may be conceived in future could you?

I believe I already explained in the comment you got the prompt from why I distinguish between these two. Although there are mechanistic reasons for being skeptical about exploring the edge of the universe, I have yet to receive any such reason as to why consciousness requires an immaterial component. It is not the doubt in itself that is critical but the reason behind that doubt.

DeepSight:

I believe there is an irresolvable contradiction inherent in this - in that I doubt matter could be infinite.

Well, that's the first impression I had as well when coming across this opinion. However, given that I am not an astrophysicist (or any kind of physicist), I believe that it is infinitely more likely that I simply lack the sufficient information to comprehend the statement fully than that it is untrue.

MaxInDHouse:


This is where we need the help of the faithful and discreet slave that Jesus promised to work with him in our own time! Matthew 24:45

Jesus' messages will be difficult for wicked people to grasp. According to Daniel the prophet he said:

“During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. Daniel 12:1

So it's Archangel Michael that will come in the person of Messiah but since many will be confused about his true identity haughty and unfaithful people will not understand his message {Daniel 12:10} most of which he will deliver in PARABLES! Isaiah 6:10 compare to Matthew 13:13-14

As for what Jesus said about Lazarus and the rich man it's a PARABLE and each of the things mentioned are symbolic terms to be understood through the faithful and discreet slave who will teach us what each of the symbols means.
Rich man, Lazarus, Death, Abraham's bosom, sours in Lazarus's body, dogs licking the sours, drop of water from Lazarus's fingertip, chasm between them, Rich man's brothers and so on all has meaning but if anyone doesn't humble himself to learn from Jesus' representatives he will simply conclude that God is confusionist for sending Jesus to come and cause confusion.
The book of Enoch is not inspired by the same God so don't bring it into what is written in the Bible!

The book of Enoch was not inspired by the same God? How do you know?
The books in the Bible you use were probably selected and sorted out by scribes more than centuries after the death of all the significant figures of the NT. I'm not questioning the rationale behind the selections, but how would you know if they simply forgot to add the book of Enoch?

DeepSight:


Pardon my drawing you backwards, just a brief tangential question please: why do you think the assumed impossibility of probing outside the universe rests "on good justification" as opposed to merely being a thing which future advancement of science would render possible.

The rate of expansion of the universe seems like a good reason to do so.
Not even considering the very reasonable impossibility of light speed travel, the edge of the universe is some 46.5 billion light years away. By the time you reached the edge, the universe would have surpassed you by a significant amount.

From what I've found out, there isn't even any consensus as to whether the universe HAS edges. Some opine that the universe is infinite.

DeepSight:
So LordReed / Diridiri/

Against my better judgment I am compelled to throw you guys a follow up question. Mark you, I only say "against my better judgment" on account that I believe it will be virtually impossible to achieve a meeting of minds on this subject - not on account that I consider either of you necessarily unreasonable, please. The follow up question is simple - does it not stand to reason that for an entity to "feel" anything (such as pain, the case in point) it has to be alive? That it must be a living thing? And the build-on to that is the question as to if machines / robots are or can be living things.

Embedded Assumption: With this question I am not contemplating a cloned biological creature, any other biological creature of any sort or a cyborg of any sort.

That depends on what you define as "feel".
The entire discourse with you reminds me of the common apologist argument (paraphrased) "Every building must have a builder, and therefore every creation must have a creator". The arguments presented by the article you forwarded myself and LordReed a few days ago do not explicitly confess to using this type of logic, but one gets the impression that this is the sort of logic being used to come to such conclusions.

On the builder argument, buildings are by definition built. Them being built is in the definition of a building. If there was a structure that looked like a building, but was actually naturally formed, it wouldn't be a building. One might call it a building due to simple pattern recognition, but they'd be incorrect, as it was in fact not built by anyone's hands. Similarly, if your definition of "feeling" carries the implicit assumption that it must be done by a living being, then you would quite obviously take it for granted that it must be undertaken by a living being. Making any conclusions with loaded assumptions or definitions will unavoidably lead to you begging the question: assuming in the premise what one sets out to prove.

If you wish to articulate why being capable of emotional experiences is exclusive to living things, you need to either prove that the definition necessarily implies that the process is being undertaken by a living being, or prove rigidly that non-living beings are restricted by some quality (or the lack of some quality) from being capable of it. Tempting as it might be to simply assume these things are true, reality need not conform to our beliefs.

The matter of consciousness and emotion are especially relevant to this point, since we are bound to view our subjective mental experiences in a, well, subjective manner. They are not things that we rationalize, but things we feel. We are ourselves chained by them. This can lead us to think more of them than we ought to - they dictate our very essence, after all. Eventually, however, this attitude must be judged as being fundamentally infantile and self-centred, and then discarded with the other archaic infantile beliefs. One must acknowledge that there is no rule under heaven that dictates that the nature of things be governed by our perspective.

In the first place, I don't see any significant difference (at least in the abstract sense) between a robot and a human being. They are both machines. With enough complexity, perhaps a robot with a brain perfectly resembling a human being's in its functionality could be made. I cannot see why this would be impossible. I definitely cannot see why this would require an immaterial being or essence to be accomplished.

To give a direct answer to your question: No, I don't see why it would stand to reason. Why would it? I am yet to see a convincing argument for this position. Not by you, necessarily, but in general. Never in my life have I heard a convincing response to this question. Most responses are either indirect to the point of irritation or desperate pleas by my interlocutor that I "open my eyes" and "just think about it".

MaxInDHouse:

It's trinitarians that's misconstruing God's word, anyone could have picked up the Bible and see logical reasoning to find certain things on his/her own, then there will be little to interpret which will also harmonize with other parts of the scriptures. But trinitarianism has complicated everything that's why they always say God's word is a mystery as they locked themselves in a box.
For instance there is no logical reasoning to back up the teaching of eternal torment, God clearly stated in the Bible book of Genesis that Adam only had two options it's either he obey God's life saving instructions or die due to disobedience {Genesis 3:17} so at death Adam becomes lifeless unable to further cause harm to himself and others! Ecclesiastes 9:5-10
Apostle Paul emphasized that death is the wages of sin {Romans 6:23} therefore man pay with his life for his sin! Romans 6:7

But due to the wickedness in the hearts of trinitarians they feel death shouldn't end it all there should be another punishment for those that hurt them after death please ask anyone who preach this a simple question and see how confused they will be:

People who have good manners but refused to leave their traditional religion until they die will they go to heaven or HellFire since it's only believers in Jesus that will have everlasting life?
Then a trinitarian will flash back to his grandma or grandpa who was a traditionalists but lived a good life, he will not know how to say such a person will continue to suffer in his imaginary Hellfire!

I see where you're coming from, and indeed this was close to the opinion I held when I was a Christian. But the New Testament is quite explicit about the existence of Hell. Take the story of the rich man and Lazarus, for instance. This is an explicit confession by Jesus that hell exists, right? Evil as it might appear, that is what Jesus says.

I know that in the OT the concept of hell is never expanded upon. The concept of eternal torture is Hell was something that the Christ supposedly brought to Christianity. I say supposedly because Jesus never wrote any of the gospels (nor did any of his disciples, deceptive gospel names notwithstanding), so all of what is recorded on what Jesus said are not just hearsay but hearsay upon hearsay. The words in the OT translated as "hell" in English are "sheol" and "gehinnom", both very multifaceted words that do not cleanly translate to "hell". The general consensus is that, at the time of most of the OT writings, "sheol" was viewed as where everyone, regardless of moral inclination, went after they died.

Jesus did not start the idea of separation of sinners from the righteous, though. The Book of Enoch, a non-canonical text, goes into some detail about hell. So this goes a bit further than Jesus, but he still (supposedly) chose to support this view fully.

MaxInDHouse:


You're getting things right yourself so try to think outside the box of trinity for a moment and you'll fully understand what John meant in that verse.
@ Exodus 13:21 we read that JEHOVAH (the Almighty God) was moving ahead of the camp of Israel like a pillar of cloud by day and at night the pillar will turn to light.
But chapter 14:19 later revealed that it was an angel that they were seeing not JEHOVAH Himself.

@ Genesis 18:1 it was recorded that JEHOVAH appeared to Abraham but John later revealed that "no man has seen God at any time" {John 1:18} therefore it's evident that the angel who has always appeared to ancient servants of God was acting as God's representative all that time that's why John could say he WAS God's mouthpiece that they've been hearing all along! John 1:1

Ok, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I wanted to know how exactly non-Trinitarianism worked.

MaxInDHouse:


All servants of God believe that Moses was made a God and Aaron his brother was made his prophet {Exodus 7:1} therefore when John said the word was a god it's the misinterpretation of translators that caused the confusion there. Jesus is the Word of God and he was God just as Moses was God {Deuteronomy 18:18-19} but Jesus has a Father who is our Father and God who is also our God {John 20:17} so it doesn't make Jesus the Almighty God!

How would you interpret Jesus being the Word of God, then? Does that just mean he is God's mouthpiece?

MaxInDHouse:


You can't set rules for OXYGEN my friend you just have to abide by it's ways, the same applies to God. As for what God said through the Bible you only need to get the the right channel in order to know what is needed about God just as you don't expect everyone who claims they know about gases, you need to be sure you're in the right place!

It seems a large chunk of my comment was ignored. Consequently, your response reads more like a reiteration of your previous comment than an actual response. That's OK, though, I'll just not bring up that topic of discussion again.

On an unrelated note, you're a Jehovah's Witness, yes?
Is it true that Jehovah's Witness' don't believe in the Trinity? Out of genuine curiosity, how would you interpret John 1?
I'm certain that Matthew, Mark, and Luke never directly claim that Jesus was God himself, but John is sharply aberrant from the other three gospels in this regard. Do you think that "the Word" does not refer to Jesus?

Honor10:
Yoruba lagba.


Yoruba has been ahead of everyone since time immemorial, it is the unfortunate Nigeria that happened that slow down our development.

When Yorubas started going to school and exposed to civilization, some people are still living in cave and learning how to make human sound.

May Nigeria never happen to us.

see story!
these people sef!

MaxInDHouse:


So what evidence do you have to prove that you were born if you never witnessed it?
Is it not the continuous system of how people are been born?
Well God is a spirit (Invisible Supreme Being) the evidence of His existence is found in the things He created and how perfect it has been for thousands of years till now.
Therefore who ever wants to MEASURE, OBSERVE or INTERACT with God only need to follow the protocol not ignoring the protocol and trying to set rules for Him just as you can't set rules for OXYGEN you just have to study really hard to deal with it even when it's freely given to everyone! Matthew 5:45

You can't set rules for Oxygen but we know how it interacts with other components of the world, because of observations we made on it.
We can't observe God by definition. We can't measure him and make rules about how he operates. We just have to guess by reading millennia old books claiming to have been written by people that talked to people that talked to God, supposedly.

The rules that God supposedly operates on are arbitrary and nonsensical. Would you just automatically believe me if I said that breathing Oxygen cures gingivitis because someone told me that someone told me that a book said that Oxygen said so?

Penguin2:
Offline Tinubu urchins

Let Tinubu become President by mistake and you see him resurrect NURTW nationwide and make MC Oluomo it’s grand patron.

What we are seeing in Lagos would be child’s play to the nationwide they will become.

Tinubu is evil…Never him among your options.

that picture will not kill me abeg

MaxInDHouse:


YES! We often forgets the most important thing we need to trust simply because it's free and invisible!

There was a day my friend and i were going to mark the 27th wedding anniversary of our friend, we drove through a place that's always crowded but that day we had see anyone instead of suspecting that something has gone wrong we were happy that there is no go-slow.

We got to my friends house and it's time to come down from the car that's when we knew what has happened. Teargas has been shot in all the place so the OXYGEN we needed for fresh breath has been damaged. I managed to drag my friend into the building as i keep pressing the bell and the celebrants refused to open. Then i pick up my mobile and called that's when he rushed downstairs to open, we rushed in and the door was shot quickly.
He later explained that some hoodlums came to the area and it's the police that shot teargas everywhere.
That day i learned a lesson:
OXYGEN is something we also need to trust before going anywhere but because it's free and invisible hardly do we think of this most important thing we need to continue living~ OXYGEN!

So must we see God PHYSICALLY before we believe in His existence?

These people have come again now.
Oxygen is invisible but you can measure it, observe it, and interact with it physically. None of that applies to God.
Do you really think the biggest problem with God's existence is the fact that you can't see him with your four eyes? If that was the only issue, it wouldn't even be a problem. After all, I didn't see when I was born with my own two eyes, would that mean I was never born?

see wickedness

Nitah1:
Igbo people are their own problem, nobody hates them and there's nothing like jealousy here if at all there is no one would have allow them to settled everywhere in the north but same cannot be said about northerners in the Eastern part of the country.

Igbo people are not united eg they don't speak one voice.

Today some Igbo's want Biafra while others are against it..same Igbos are aspiring to rule the country they are agitating to leave.


Igbo people do not like one another,they have no respect for one another...eg you have money i have money what can u tell me?

Igbo people look down on every other person but proud themselves to be superior.


Igbo people do not trust anyone from any other tribe.


Igbo people hates northerners and westerners,the evidence can be seen here on nairaland.



Now how on earth will Igbo man become president?

In igboland there are parts that are considered to be inferior eg delta igbos.


Imo and Anambra problem is unending.

Igbo people brought Islam to the East.


Make I rest here..

look at this mumu

dazzlingd:

In order of evolution

Ape---black Africans----homo erectus----homo sapiens

aboki scientists have come again with their nonsense
person no go kill me for this website

madridsta007:


When @immortalcrown replies me (as it was his comment I replied to) let me know.

ok sorry o

jaybenugo:


https://igberetvnews.com/1414229/impregnating-wife-sin-ask-god-forgiveness-preacher-says/

he wants to do the impregnating first that's why he's talking