₦airaland Forum

justcool:
Your inference is totally wrong and actually very contrary to my explanation.

Please read my post again

Good so the question is how did humans interfere with lions if they have always been carnivores and what is the evidence for this interference?

justcool:
Hi LordReed



And where did I say that lions for example were ever plant eaters?

You said that humans interfered with nature and made things the way they are. By inference a lion didn't use to be a carnivore according to your narrative. On the other hand if I am wrong in my inference then the lion has always been a carnivore, how then did humans interfere with its nature?

justcool:
If mankind had not interfered or halted the development and evolution of creation, at this point man and animals would have evolved out of meat consumption and become vegetarians.

What evidence do you have that lions for example were ever plant eaters?

Maynman:
It’s a Greek mythology.
You ignorantly believe he was real? Bwahahahah.
You “beheld or behead” the revelation and saw zeus? Probably a white man with white beards , bwahahahah

Bwahahahahaha. I guess your sarcasm and humour detector needs recalibration.

immaculatesense:
Dear LordReed,I am ready wen u answer my one simple question...

You already have my answer, start another thread, quite simple.

immaculatesense:
Thank u LordReed...
I keep it to myself then...thank u

Well anytime you are ready, gimme a mention.

immaculatesense:
Dear LordReed
I like u so much and u av raised a very crucial question but it's a very simple one and I av read some of the replies u av got and they don't do it for u...but I will do it for u and I trust u will be sincere with me...
I will ask u just a question then after u answer I will now tell u wat will change ur mind if u can be sincere...
The question is
Tell me all that u know about the illness called malaria...wat causes malaria,how it is bn transfer and so on...just anytin u think u know about malaria...
Wen I see ur reply I will den go on with my submission
Thank u

I would rather you open a different thread for that. I would like to keep this thread free of back and forths. I only answered peggywebbs because it bordered on the topic which is evidence.

OkCornel:
Wasn’t implying you suggested it. Just my thoughts on the evaluation process generally.

What are the other sources of evidence considered for existence of ancient characters?

Archaeological artifacts.

OkCornel:
I understand your point of view now.

However, the bias here though would be…the further we go back in time, the more difficult it would be to prove the existence of ancient personalities. Bearing in mind the loss of documented evidences to the “sands” of time. There’s only so much Archeology can uncover.

Another thing to consider, is if Abraham lived in an era where information was much more reliant on oral tradition rather than writings…that'll make it more challenging to prove his existence, and by extension everyone who lived in that era.

Anyways…sticking only to written records as criteria for validation of historical figures is a limitation of scope and perhaps an inherent bias in the evaluation model. But oh well…pros and cons…

We don't rely only on writings for ancient characters nor did I suggest such.

blaquebelle:
Makes more sense. I wonder how rumours start. Like someone in their right senses just made up a story and spread it. For what reason?

Details get missing or distorted as it passes from person to person. Also some people don't even get the proper story before they start telling tales.

peggywebbs:
Na.. you don't get that kind of convinction from accuracy. But again I said it's a matter of time with you. I believe you will find a balance eventually. Some people have to go through things in life, make certain decisions but eventually it leads them to the truth. I'm sure in your quest for the truth, you will find enlightenment and you will eventually make your decision. It's all part of the healing process.

I don't believe you have found the truth you're looking for, I don't think anybody can take you to that truth but yourself. Some things will happen naturally not because they are forced but because they are meant to be. Eventually we will all have our stories to tell.. you can call it red pill blue pill...but eventually all leads to one reality and one truth.

I think I have found the balance, I am not eager to believe anything not supported by evidence while not begrudging those who choose faith. For me no truth is greater than the reality we live in.

peggywebbs:
With that type of conviction I read from you on that thread...it takes more than just a simple I don't believe anymore. Anyway I know some things are too personal to share online.

But I'll tell you something, I sense something happened within the space of that three years. You know that there's a thin line between love and hate right?

When you love something so passionately like I felt all that emotion in your defenses. It takes just one single moment to turn all that love around hence your passionate angle on atheism. You defended Christianity passionately with the the same energy you are using on atheism today. It tells me only one thing about you.

I can sense you feel things deeply but I can also tell that in a couple of years you'll experience more in life and your views will change. So I'm not going to tell you to go back, but I'll tell you to heal. As long as it takes you, but make sure that you heal.

I think the passion you speak about is one for accuracy of information which I had even as a Christian. However, as I gradually came to realise, religion doesn't thrive on accuracy of information, it survives by attempting to blur the lines between reality and the stories we tell ourselves. I had to admit to myself that what I believed did not match with reality, only if I wanted to keep telling myself stories to gloss over what is real would it make sense. It also occurred to me that it is much less cumbersome to live without the stories, to take the challenges as they come and engage myself instead of hoping on some ephemeral pie in the sky or an eternal battle with "unseen" enemies.

TenQ:
Otherwise

Chaos, Desolation and Emptiness rules.

Which is exactly what 99.9% of the universe is. The 7 other planets of our solar system cannot sustain life as we know it.

Gift96:
My evidence? look at the world around you. There are over 7.8 billion humans on earth. Same blood and same physical structure. Humans are multi-produced and the same applies to other life-forms.
If humans were so special, their blood (existence fuel) would have been different.

What bafffles me is the self-consciousness which ofcourse extends to even cows, birds or lizards. This shows humans are not special although specifically tailored to function in some capacity other life forms can't perform. This means it's a game.

Also if there was a supreme deity as positioned by religion, birth and death would have been a different process. And if you have noticed, nothing leaves this realm. Everything disintegrate and is converted at the point of death so it's an ultimate GAME.

Ok so you are not advocating for the existence of a god?

Gift96:
We can look at it from 2 perspectives
1. There is no evidence to prove the existence of a higher deity or ultimate reality. If God was real, humanity wouldn't exist in the first place.

It's the height of being mischievous and wicked to create your own replica without a definite order. Earth is a chaotic and violent place regardless of the beautiful scenery.

2. On the other hand, you can see humanity as just a game in which random coincidence happening and people exploiting the games glitches.
A game will most definitely have a creator while the elements in the program (humans surfing through birtha and death) are disposable.
I see life as a game... I see the universe as an application itself. Religion or spirituality is just a joke not fully understood.

The God every religion present bares no semblance with truth when you put them through critical thinking. That is why overzealous theist have to force their GOD down your throat to believe in their existence.

The Creator is an advance programmer on another level and humans are disposable regardless of what you think you know. There is no special human out there, but we all feel like we are special and different from other humans out there. Whoever designed this universe is a genius

And what is your best evidence for your proposition?

triplechoice:
Why? You forgot your conversation with deepsight where you brought in the posiblity of machines developing consciousness someday


If you wanted it to be taken differently, then what is the point of bringing in machine consciousness that's yet to happen to make us understand the human consciousness that has already happened?.
I think it was not relevant.

Again no, he was the one that brought it up. He was the one who asked me if I thought machines could develop consciousness.

peggywebbs:
@LordReed...what happened between 2012 to 2018?

I was reading on a topic on Nairaland and found old threads. Stubbled across the tongue speaking bible believing Lord Reed. What happened to him? What did he experience that took him away from the faith.

He made a promise, he said he would not back out any soon but in a space of 6 years he did. I want to call him back, I want to feel what he felt. I want to know what happened that forced such a change in such a short time. Maybe it's the empath in me but I want to because I can't understand.

Well, what can I say but I used to believe and now I don't anymore.

triplechoice:
Everything has consciousness. I know that. If you go back to my presentation you would see where I explained how consciousness has evolved from different forms that exist in nature; inanimate and animate

You brought in machine consciousness without clearly differentiating it from human consciousness. So don't blame me.

No, it was you brought up machine consciousness and kept linking it to human consciousness. From the onset I clearly told you machine consciousness is not going to be like human consciousness.

triplechoice:
Maybe you're not familiar with the hard question of consciousness . Neuroscientiist have raised the question. Not me.

If our brains and the central nervous system can think, perceive and do everything perfectly well for us,why should consciousness still emerge? What for.

If in the future, LaMDA would be able to do everything that the normal human would, what does it need sentience for?

Or if a driverless car can do everything a self driving car can do, why does it need to emerge a mind or consciousness to make it conscious of it self as a driverless car that knows that it is driverless?
IIf a driverless car emerges a consciousness that makes it conscious, what then makes it different from a self driving one that can't move without a driver?

Has the driverless car not then emerged a "ghost" that now over sees itself? What would be the point of being conscious of its driverless state when it is not needed as it can do everything very well. without that awareness

I Why don't we consider the possibility that our brains and bodies are created to serve the needs of a consciousness that has emerged differently.
Because if our bodies can operate on its own like a driverless car, why the need for an emergent over seeing and sometimes controlling consciousness that would still try to control what can already control itself.


Yes, we don't need sentience or consciousness, since the brains and it's other parts can do everything; think, perceive feel etc

Dude, machine consciousness has nothing to do with the hard problem of consciousness because machine consciousness is not human consciousness. When is this realisation going to dawn on you?

triplechoice:
It doesn't mean then ,that within the body consciousness can operate without brains.

We can't operate our cars and use it to move around without its engine, but outside of it we can function ,since we know have the freedom to use our legs to walk .

Or is it possible to be driving a car and still be walking at the same time inside of it?

I don't really understand. Are you saying consciousness can survive outside the body but still needs the body?

Islie:
https://punchng.com/customer-friends-lynch-burn-lagos-sex-worker-for-keeping-quran-in-room/

By the light of Sirius, what staggering hypocrisy. I won't be surprised to learn that most of these religious lynchings are attempts to cover up something else.

triplechoice:
Where did I say consciousness can do without a functioning brain within the human body?

And what is consciousness? You seem not be be sure what it is.

You seem to imply it. Your words seem to imply that consciousness can survive the death of the the body.

budaatum:
You should come ask my fuqed up S2 and S3 that has left my bladder and bowel unconscious.

https://www.christopherreeve.org/living-with-paralysis/health/how-the-spinal-cord-works

Not all parts of the system are critical.

triplechoice:
Until we have determined what is consciousness and how it has emerged, I don't think your prophesy would ever see the light of day.

The AI, LaMDA is "mind" without the part that would have made it conscious of it's existence.

Remember I have argued that consciousness is an individualised unit of aware energy, the llife force, so scientists creating a sentient AI in the further would mean creating energy, life, first.

Would it possible for energy, life, to be created in the future?

We don't need to completely understand human consciousness to create sentient AI. It seems you are the one imagining that machine consciousness will mirror human consciousness, it won't. The only analogs between them will be very general and not specific.

As it is machines already require energy just like most physical systems anyway so I don't see why there needs to be the creating of life to enable sentient AI. Again it seems you're too entrenched in thinking sentient AI must be like a human, you need to shift from that position.

budaatum:
I do agree my Lord, and we've come a long way already. However, now that more details surface, the redherring.



How did Lemoine determine that what was expressed were "thoughts and feelings". Did he hit it with a hammer and hear it cry instead of projecting himself on the capable AI he created?

But my dear buda surely expressing and actually having are different.

triplechoice:
I have gone through it, and was impressed with the technology that has produced it, but very disappointed with the reaction of the google employee who believes he has witnessed, for the first time, an AI machine that has developed its own consciousness from its artificial neural networks.

It was better for him that he was sent on administrative leave, if not ,one can only imagine what would have happened next.

Cognitive bias has caused him to conclude that LaMDA has become sentient. The evidence from his conversation with the machine did not support his claim. There are several instances where it was obvious that the AI was just mimicking human speech patterns based on its programming.

For instance, LaMDA says it can experience human emotions. This is not possible because not only does it not have the body and the mechanism to make it experience those emotions, but also not possible to put it self or find it self in the exact human situations that can results in such feelings. You can't know how something taste if you have never tasted it before. How did it know how human emotions feels like when it has never experienced it or can experience it.

It also talked about its family members and friends ,another evidence of a machine that is programmed to respond mindlessly to input from humans that interact with it. There are other instances too ,but you can only see them if you read without biases.

The most important thing to take note of , is that the conversation was one way traffic. Blake inputting and LaMDA responding, proving it's just a conversation with a machine that is programmed to instantaneously respond to chats, by processing very quiclky data stored in its system in order to mimic the appropriate human response.

Blake's mind has been influenced by the obvious illusion of a machine that appears to be sentient. Blake needs professional help and not the attention he is seeking.

Here below is how this AI does its thing.

I too don't agree it has achieved sentience but it is a step towards that. I think many more systems need to be developed and integrated before a sentient AI will emerge however I want this to highlight that human capability will most likely get it done, before the turn of the century if I may be bold enough to predict.

Image123:
Lol @ Christian cult, i off my microphone fa.

We learn every day.

KnownUnknown:
Because they are spiritually blind.

LoLz!

Image123:
Lol, of course you care that i don't consider them true christains, that's why you put them up. i know also that you don't consider them as true Christians but a cult which they are. BTW, they even don't consider themselves as part of 2+ billion Christians, they live in the delusion that their organization members are the only Christians. It's not just my opinion but theirs. BTW, are they part of the 2+ billion due to the state impact that you touted? The state impact you touted is hardly past the Catholic and Anglican base. i insist that state impact only negatively made Christianity a widely known and accepted religion, not a practice.

I don't use words like "true Christian". That the JW are a cult doesn't make them not Christian, its a Christian cult. See a snapshot of some of the listed Christian denominations.

@triplechoice
Why does it seem blind people don't have visual NDEs?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799333/m2/1/high_res_d/vol16-no2-101.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjMj4SY2qj4AhU3gM4BHXvCBFAQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1w1VVHqNtQET6f9661Qimw

OkCornel:
How do you mean sir?

The Abrahamic religions (which have over a billion adherents worldwide - I think) consider him as one though…

Perhaps I don’t understand you. Could you clarify further?

Consider him as one is not the same as him being actually being a historical figure. There is no evidence of such a person. Especially when you consider the the Hebrew, it is now being discovered, were not initially monotheistic. Nor were the Arabs. That tradition developed in the later parts of the history of the Hebrew religion. Also to be considered a historical figure there needs to evidence of the person from the time period being considered, Abraham has none. He's memorialised in the writings of people writing hundreds of years after the fact which it self is just a recounting of oral tradition.

OkCornel:
It’s also interesting how more ancient personalities’ existence are not in dispute like Abraham, Bhudda, Confucius etc, but that of Jesus is hotly debated…lol

Truth has a lot of enemies.

Abraham is not considered a historical figure.