₦airaland Forum

Sapiosexuality:
Let me sit here and read excerpts from individuals, who just like me, know zero about what they are talking about.

Hahahahahahaha this is somehow true, we all are unsure of our assertions but that doesn't mean we cannot try. Carl Sagan once said "Imaginations can take us to worlds that never was but without it we go no where"

CatfishBilly:
I never said they weren't.
It's just that theists always attack the apes human relationship idea, that's why I focused on it.

I'm sure we can reach an agreement that apes and humans are related with Feliximor but what ever conclusion one derives afterwards should not be stretched.

felixomor:
Oh so u have counted?
Besides, science is not democracy.

Well, good u agreed. At least
I am waiting for u to correct the op, who doesnt want to believe that there are scientists who dont agree.

Science is a self correcting enterprise that is what makes it reliable, it doesn't claim absolute truth but is a systematic approach through consistent logic and observations overtime to arrive at a truthful approximation.

Every theory and thesis in science is constantly under scrutiny, science is not dogmatic that is why it is always scrutinizing in order to be maintain certainty - once evidence against a given theory is presented, the theory is discarded surely and this always improves the quality of truth and knowledge because the knowledge is always evolving in coincide with evidence.

Till date surely you will agree evolution is yet to be disproven in the scientific community

Well, this is also an argument for a common intelligent designer of all living things.

The point is that they are related genetically, whether your genetic similarity to your 10th cousin somewhere in the country is because of common ancestry or design is now your cup of tea.

since we can establish they are all related genetically, that is good enough for me

Really?
See, dont speak what u dont know.
Ok.
Dna has sugar, it has nitrogenous part, and it has phosphate.
Just rest it there.

hahahahahahaha it's obvious brother, don't try too hard - forgive my laughing though, couldnt help it

Martinez19:
oh my god o! According to the theory of evolution, human and apes have a common ancestor.

And also bananas God damn it its not just about humans and apes, every life on earth are connected in a distant line of ancestry

CatfishBilly:
Humans share 96% of it's DNA with chimpanzees, so, yea, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Anyone that says otherwise is just being intellectually​ dishonest.

And yes also with bananas

felixomor:
Apes and humans dont share common ancestor.
As a matter of fact, many scientists disagree.

quite a small lot that is

Humans share similar DNA with banana and tobacco.
By your logic, maybe we also share similar ancestors to tobacco.

yes going from the evolutionary theory all life on earth evolved from a common remote ancestor so a human is also related to a banana, a tree out there or a grass you trample upon only a bit farther off the ancestry line

You should have known all life on earth are genetically related if you indeed are a doctor

Besides, its only the proteinous part of DNA that even share similarly.
And the proteinous part is not up to 10% of DNA itself.

WTF i really doubt you are a doctor brother, no offense.

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T).

and this chemical bases are the codes of organisms and that is how the genetic informations are stored. the genetic similarities abound are that of the bases of this chemicals.

Your logic is dead on arrival.

Not really

rinrin23:
Atoms and subatomic particles are not even solid as we would think. It is all energy vibrating at different frequencies. Even more shocking is physicists discovering that these subatomic "particles" are waves that only manifest as particles when being observed.

There's a whole lot to this "matrix" that we live in.

so that is, even matter is just good ol energy in different vibrational frequency?

djdoxxx:
I believe we all live within our IMAGINATIONS...

We all live within our INDIVIDUAL IMAGINATIONS..

Our Imaginations are subconscious buildups of Matter (Beliefs & Happenings, things around us) and ENERGY (Positive or Negative ) within us.


Anything can become real....if you can imagine it, then it can manifest provided the needed Energies are activated within the imaginer.

example ?

lordnicklaus:
Our perceptions are but microcosmic bits.

true

If God does exist (though I believe in Him but for the sake of congruity in this discussion, I have tended to subject my own worldview to scrutiny), then it is obvious that there is no scientifically verifiable system for such entity. Why such posit? This God would exist outside the cosmos and would be totally imperceptible in His innateness and hence to explain this stupefying concept, man needs delve into anthropomorphism.

true, there is no way we can ever derive certainty of beings outside our cosmos and to apply anthropomorphism puts us in the shores of being wrong in our presumption

So, tested systems need apply to explain scientifically unverified systems. Only things within the constrains of our universe can be verified via scientific enquiry and research. Reality could be in different planes or layers but we can only perceive a three dimensional layer

How are you sure everything scientifically verified is real real, example the sky is blue is a truth but the sky is colorless is a fact - what is real?

how do we objectively quantify that?

Otem i love your creativity and all but seriously Hypatia is the name of the last great librarian of the Alexandrian library killed by a mob of saint Cyril, the names within your codex betrays it.

Nice point thought

rinrin23:
Some of us have asked and continue to ask these questions.

We have been conditioned to think that "real" is what we can perceive with our 5 senses. However attaining different levels of awareness exposes us to the other realities that exist beyond these 5 senses.

Think about this; The atom is 99% empty space, as a matter of fact the entire stadium would be no bigger than a little cup if the empty space of the atom and between the atoms are removed.

So imagine at the scale we perceive such tiny thing due to the deception of the space between and within atoms, this means that everything, all that we perceive and all that we are, are in fact 99% not there and only 1% there.

how real are we?

Another way to look at it:
In our time we have Virtual Reality headsets that allow you to simulate(sight and sound) the users physical presence in an imaginary environment. Imagine the evolution of this piece of technology in the next 10 years (sight, sound, taste, touch and more). If immersed long enough one would start to perceive that VR world as real, no?

Just like a question we asked in one of our philosophical discussion meet ups, Are living in a simulation?

Like you rightly pointed out, this universe might actually just be a virtual reality projected within the actual reality just like our mediocre VR now but much more advanced

Mrphantom99:
It is impossible to be conscious of being unconscious.

good, therefore?

CC. Explorers, butterfly89, Blakjewelry, opeyemiolu, LoJ, dearpreye, bytemeister, Shollyps, neocortex, Humblebloke, CltrAltDelicious, donnffd, UncleSnr, Antiparticle, Krystalzkris, freecocoa, OgundeleT, Delusiongirl20, fearlesschicken, TheDauraMallam, K9blunt, joywendy, herald9, MarieSucre, reallest, PAGAN9JA, krattoss, hahn, Queed, dabosuker, realtem, sorextee, Dekatron, djdoxxx, kolajamesjnr, Liekiller, SIRANDREWS, TheFilmmaker, plaetton, menesheh, wiegraf, finofaya, Redlyn, Longstride, Rainess, rinrin23, tangled, Misogynist2014, Pr0ton, davien, nana22

invite more

"Corgito Ergo sum" Famous quote from the famous French philosopher Descartes which means 'I think, therefore i am



If we have no eyes, we would be unaware of the existence of color, what if we are missing an entire part of existence because we have not the organ to detect it Anonymous Quote


What is real?

certainly many of us have never asked ourselves this question, countless times we are on this board and very many others making confident remarks, stoic convictions about life, reality and existence but have we asked ourselves a question like that above with the aim of sieving reality?

We perceive this reality through our senses, our thoughts are shaped by our perception of this reality which is through our sense but like the quote above says, what if there is an entire aspect we are missing because we have not the organ to detect it?

What if the ones we detect are illusionary made from a treacherous organs we possess?

We barely know 1% of the universe, what if what we can perceive through our senses are not even up to 1% of what reality has to offer, maybe we are missing the majority of what is real?

But wait, What exactly is real and how do we measure what is real from what is not?

Descartes even though in conclusion of his ideas went back to his old vomit, he in fact undeniably started a string that is interesting.

The rattle snake sees in infrared, the bumble bee in x-ray, to these creatures color is not real but that doesn't mean it is not, at least to us.

is reality subjective? if it is then can we then refer to it as reality?

the very definition of reality spell objectivity, therefore what is real and what is not?

We perceive the universe through our sense but times and again that has proven to be unreliable and incomplete therefore incompetent.

from the onset of his meditation descartes first dropped everything he believed, even that which is obvious to him as his body.

This is a question i am dying to discuss, this is a point i want to stretch - How do we determine what is real?

are we even real?

Do you think this is all there is to what is or is there a possibility of more to reality, what you may call spiritual or there about?

do you think that there is so much we are blinded to?

[while at it i'd appreciate we avoid stoic remarks on our convictions, rather possess a free flowing mind ready to touch every possibility and path our imaginations may lead]

KingEbukasBlog:
Well , its not my idea but it does not mean that I won't or can't defend it well . I love the idealist's perspective of reality , its really impressive . And it seems like you are now considering the nature of reality of unembodied minds - keep it up , you'll find the truth .

I'm rather growing tired of meaningless squabbles, busy man i am with less time to spare these days while trying my best to avoid making confident remarks in uncertainties as you lot do here

KingEbukasBlog:
The universe is not eternal . Its not even a possibility .

Alright another confident remark on a naive point of view, let me stretch this a bit then - pray tell how it is impossible for the universe not to be eternal

But let's assume that the universe is eternal , it does not still affect the argument . Mathematical/Abstract objects are uncreated but they still exist in the mind of God . Instead , the new stance on the argument is that sensory ideas which are involuntary or not created by my will simply exist in the mind of God as abstract object do but they -sensory ideas and abstract objects - still depend on the will and intellect of God.

lmao

The argument is on sensory ideas and their causes since Berkeley sees his idealist world as a mind-dependent world .

assumes is the word

The argument impugns the existence of matter , attacking the materialist perspective of the world. Its a highly intellectual piece of work that needs great scrutiny - applauded by the greats though - and its blatantly arrogant to call it 'nonsensical' .

Doesn't really make it any less assumptive to derive a premise, No?

CoolUsername:
This is known as the special pleading fallacy. Your own argument states that perception is necessary for existence, it is illogical to suspend the principle behind your own argument to conclude that God exists.

The argument isn't really Ebuka's idea so you don't expect Ebuka to defend it that well

KingEbukasBlog:
God is eternal ?

Wrong answer, the universe might as well be eternal if we go from the possible eventualities of the Big Bang cosmological model.

The correct answer should have been, God as the ultimate mind perceives himself, just like Descartes perception of himself proves to him that he is. I think therefore I am.

Anyway is really nonsensical to assert things can only exist if there be a mind to perceive them, I do think that's consonant with reality and it's a premise that also has to make a lot of assumption and then base an argument of reality based on that personal assumption.

KingEbukasBlog:
King Ebuka : And there's where God comes in , the ultimate perceiver of all things , a divine mind which exists eternally and sustains everything we perceive . And even if we are not there to perceive these things that existed before us , the mind of God is there to perceive them . All realities are created and perceived in the mind of God . (To be is to be perceived )

You didn't see this coming , did you?

CoolUsername :

for once argue without being petty

CoolUsername:
Let's not get ahead ourselves, here. First, you haven't accounted for how perception impacts reality in anyway.

Secondly, by your own logic, God can't possibly exist, as there would have been nothing to perceive it before the creation of reality.

nice

KingEbukasBlog:
Of course it is . Consciousness is eternal

so much confidence in an uncertainty, LOL. alright

DeepSight believes that we are in a simulated reality .

reasons?

Matter is just a vehicle , it is not a product of it .

ok

What if consciousness is transcendent?

what if consciousness as a projection of energy gets recycled?

what if we are in a matrix, like the actual reality is somewhere beyond here, we wake up after our time here is done?

What if there is an infinite copy of us? [should be the case if the universe is infinite]

what if there is indeed a spirit and as plato said made of finely special atoms - the body is a prison for the soul?

Could it be that Democritus is correct that thought, mind, consciousness is a product of matter ?

Questions that can be stretched and discussions we could enjoy

I am going to post my reply on a similar thread by Frank317

johnydon22:
..Humanity is so vulnerable that we leave that which is in front of us to chase after that which we do not have or know but a figment of our imaginations, thoughts and wishes.

the above quote of mine holds true for our perception of death.

Haven't you noticed how the word "Death" gives rise to different philosophies of hopeful realities to many.

-On one hand some speculate we do not really die but transcends and then gets reborn and live again and so it goes in a circle.

-Another suggests we do not get reborn but some thinking formless needless part of us continues somewhere else.

-Plato suggests the body is a prison for the soul.

Where as all these philosophies are profound and hopeful, i also call it greed, selfishness and a product of an unmatched ego wielded only by the human mind.

Humans have that egoistic tendency of deluding themselves to be the most important part of the universe..

That is why in this deluding ego they see themselves as deserving to live again but not every other animal or living thing in this earth that also live as they live and feel as they do.


-Just how important are we in this universe?

More important than the stars? Without the stars we won't be here but without us they were, are and will be.

More important than the plants ? without them we won't be here but without us they were, are and will be.

So how exactly are we more important, why do we prize ourselves the most important part of the cosmos when we are so deplorable and expandable that the cosmos won't even notice our disappearance.

So many stories have littered the course of human philosophy on the eventuality of death.

So many wishful hopeful fantasies has been conceived to give hope and comfort to the human mind when faced with the inevitability of death.

-We shall see again in paradise
-we shall be reborn again
-we shall make merry in Valhalla

amongst thousands of such tales.. I do not know how enticing these stories are but i know the greed of a human mind makes them comforting as nobody would like to imagine the absoluteness of the end of our being.

That to me comes from a short memory cus just a little journey backwards whene we were not here, imagining inexistence won't be far fetched.

We have been dead for an infinite time backwards, now we are here and we will soon be dead how then can we not imagine our the state we were before coming to this?.

I really understand the reasons why all these stories crop up in the human mind, why all these philosophies and emotional clutch to a comforting tale defines a huge part of our belief

It is because of the vulnerability of our being.

Being that almost certainly we are probably the only species amongst all in this planet that know at a very young age that we would die one day.

This knowledge of our inevitable end is somewhat like a burden to us .

I doubt that other species Chimpanzee, dogs , elephants even though alive as we are are fretting over an afterlife or performing rituals to earn a place in paradise or somewhere else outside the cosmos.

No they just live in the moment.

With all these stories filling the gap left by fear, vulnerability of our mind, we yet have no evidence to support these fantasies.

I do not claim to have knowledge of what happens in death but if anybody, person or book claims to know, they are both lying and fraudulent.

Because they do not know.

We are so concerned by what we want to be, by what we wish for that we forget and pay little mind to what we have which is NOW

So isn't it better and more noble we forget all these stories and focus on what we have and where we are which is Now and Here

Here and Now are the most important, certain aspect of it all, make them count and don't waste them chasing after a vague shadow of an uncertain wishful fantasy.

KingEbukasBlog:
Let's go back to THAT thread then .

which thread cus i think i am going to weigh in on this one. I'm always in for a good discussion

Well I was circumcised, I have seen an uncircumcised member and I will tell you that; I am sure glad I was circumcised.

felixomor:
Does our activities and pollution affect the radiation reaching humans?
Yes
Can we make less radiation?
Yes
So i dont get your point
Besides i just told u that uv radiation and cancer is still being studied.
because there are people who "smoke" uv radiation and get no cancer.

i said mutation. i doubt if its the same thing we are even talking about here... I will be talking about A and you will be posting B.

Cellular mutation through Radiation and DNA aberrations during cellular replication are known causes of mutation billions of years before humans ever walked this earth.

There have been vital mutation factors in the evolutionary trend of species on earth. Even oxygen was not an original constituent of our atmosphere but rather hydrogen.

So i am not discussing humans exclusively, i am discussing Mutation as a natural factor before we can apply this to human..

I also notice you always ignore DNA aberrations in cellular replications which are in fact inevitable causes of mutation, it happens always.

Try and discuss with honesty, it doesn't cost anything.

Or maybe just agree you don't really know much about mutation and that can be understandable

felixomor:
Bro, ask yourself a simple question
What caused the radiation?

the sun

Could humans avoid it?

UV rays from the sun, every life on earth except for ones thriving in the ocean floors or glaciers are vulnerable to UV rays.. unless we will somehow build a global umbrella around earth or relocate to the ocean floors, No we cannot escape UV rays.

Please i ask again: Mutation by radiation or by DNA aberration during cellular replication, are these natural or not?

I am finding it hard to agree you are a doctor, this is an honest opinion

felixomor:
I have been honest so far.

For Mutation
Should I give u examples of some things that humans do (some carelessly, some greedily) that can cause mutation?

there are human caused mutation as well as naturally occurring inevitable causes of mutation.

just like both natural and artificial selection can aid evolution

With all things right, there will be no mutation.

So radiation do not cause mutation, DNA aberration during cell replication do not cause Mutation?

I thought you said you are a doctor ?

felixomor:
Sorry bro.
I don't know where u get your facts from
But Cancer as a whole is far from being established in any sense of study
It remains as bogus as I can express

That aside. If u expose yourself to the sun excessively and u get burnt, or get Skin cancer as a result
I don't see that as natural o.
Its as good as jumping in fire

I knew you wouldn't give a straight answer, talk about being honest. Lmao... Anyway i will keep going cus there are countless instances.

Now is Mutation natural or not?

felixomor:
My bro, there is basal cell cancer in people who are not exposed to sunlight o
I hope u know?

This still doesn't answer the question: Basal cell can be damaged through several other means but it is a fact that the main cause for basal cell damage is exposure to ultra violet light (radiation) - this is still not the problem here.

The question i asked was: are these instances as a result of radiation, natural or not.

i am going to have faith that you will give a straight honest answer this time

OtemAtum:
See plenty questions directed at Felixomor, just because he did not apply his brain well before talking.

Now those who use their brains critically are asking
1. Is pathogen natural or not?. 2. Is growth natural or not? 3.Is rainbow which is caused by refraction natural or not?

feliximor in a way have a point, arguable.

From his argument, diseases are effects of natural survival tussle between species -which partly is true.

the mistake therein is attributing every disease to this interwoven collision of fate.

felixomor:
You have seen the slip ba
Now for your answer

Pathogens are natural just like you
How do they cause disease?
They attack cells causing cellular injury, just like you attacked the anecdotal man with your teeth because of food
So also they attack in search of their own benefit
and sometimes even alter the genes of the cell for their benefit.

So just as your injury because of food is not "natural" so also, the "pathogens" are also out for their benefit.

I understand the point you are trying to make perfectly well..

So now basal cell and squamous cell skin cancer caused by exposure to sun (radiation) natural or not?