₦airaland Forum

RedpillAnalyst:
I do agree it is not sustainable and its promotion isn't good,

LoLz! Are gay people asking you to become gay or are you attracted to it? How is the promotion not good? Like the environment gets destroyed because gay people exist or some other disaster happens? And what do you mean by not sustainable?

NNTR:
Actually, both.
Sheol is where all end up at, after the expiration of the ruach, otherwise known as, wind or the breath of God, even life-force

Would interest you to know, its Jesus who further exposed what Sheol really is and whats its like

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

Jesus' version doesn't have animals in it. But really a place with all the billions of animals that have died would be hell anyway. LoLz.

NNTR:
Psalm 49:13
'12But man, with all his [self] honor and pomp, will not endure;
He is like the beasts that perish.
13This is the fate of those who are foolishly confident,
And of those after them who approve [and are influenced by] their words. Selah.
14Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol (the nether world, the place of the dead);
Death will be their shepherd;
And the upright shall rule over them in the morning,
And their form and beauty shall [a]be for Sheol to consume,
So that they have no dwelling [on earth].
15But God will redeem my life from the power of Sheol,
For He will receive me. Selah.'

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

So you take this as literal rather than a figure of speech?

NNTR:
The soul of animals end up in the same place human souls end up at, call it Sheol if you like

State the verse in the Bible that supports this.

Take leave of him, as in free him, not take leave the thread

Already said the conversation was over so either he was too stubborn to take a hint or he was baked on something potent, I chose the latter.

triplechoice:
@Lordreed, I have seen all your replies. I will respond tomorrow as I am very tired now after today's hectic time in the office.

Also read through this article:

https://news.osu.edu/brain-scans-remarkably-good-at-predicting-political-ideology/

TenQ:
You disappoint me with this!
What happened to you!?

Huh? Like who are you, why would I care if you are disappointed in me? You want to act the fool and still claim moral high ground? LoLz!

triplechoice:
@Lordreed, I have seen all your replies. I will respond tomorrow as I am very tired now after today's hectic time in the office.

Ok, take your time.

TenQ:
No problems: you can take your leave!

Leave the thread I created? LoLz, you must be high on expired weed. Bwahahahahaha!

Image123:
This una talk hardly interests me 1%, just curious to know if you now believe in the existence of spirit, soul and body.

No I don't believe in the existence of spirit or soul, body is the only well established fact.

TenQ:
Sorry bro!
Take it or leave it!
Or
Ask questions!

The simple request I made you could not fulfil. Nay bro, thanks, the convo is over.

TenQ:
Because I am NOT quoting from the bible. I am making deductions from the bible!

Except the definition of the soul has been inconsistent both for humans and animals.

Oga you can only make deductions from specific bits of information. You cannot see In the beginning god created heaven and earth and deduce animals have souls from it. You have to have seen a specific bit of the Bible that lead you to the deduction.

TenQ:
The Soul is the unseen Internal or Personal Identity of a being. It is the center of Will, Emotion and Intellect of a being.

Do animals have their Will?
Do animals have Emotions?
Do animals have their Intellect?

If the answer to the three questions above is true, then Animals have their own SOUL!

You'll notice that none of your responses so far have quoted even half of a verse of the the bible. So again I ask where in the bible does it allude to any of this?

TenQ:
Do Christians think animals will be resurrected?
If their any scripture that suggests that animals will be resurrected?

If there is none, what happens to their souls?

Where in the Bible does it suggest that animals have souls in the first place?

triplechoice:
Continuation,
The inability to observe and test thoughts which exist as thoughtforms; energized thoughts , not directly associated with any particle of matter , is why scientists are blind to the true cause of the placebo effect , as they can't at this time observe firsthand how thoughtforms exert pressure on brains to trigger the placebo response

This seems like a contradiction in terms. How can something be exerting pressure on the brain and not be measurable? This is one of the fundamental problems with proposing some nebulous "realm" that is claimed to be immeasurable but yet exerts influence physically. If something is exerting pressure then that pressure can be observed and measured. You cannot simultaneously be claiming something is immeasurable and at the same time is exerting pressure.

Brain scanners do not show thoughts which form mind, the best they do is to show blood flow in a region of neurons when we , the owner of brains, are thinking. This, together with other brain activities observed ( neural correlates ) is then interpreted as evidence that matter is the source of mind or consciousness.

Yes the operation of the brain is surmised to be the basis of mind, no brain no mind.

The claim that mind or consciousness, is an emergent property of matter or biological processes, is not supported by science The claim is only made on the assumption that electrical charges in our brains, and other factors not yet known, has made it possible for mind to emerge "magically" There's no rational explanation for how this has happened.

It is supported by science, as can be seen here:

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/consciousness-is-the-whole-brain-not-a-single-region/

We can't see our we are separate from our bodies because most of us have never had any conscious experience of their consciousness operating any where else apart from the bodies they have occupied. But it's possible to separate one's consciousness from the body., while at the same time, still retaining a full awareness of our body

It can be done. In fact, we all do so unconsciously every night when we go to sleep in an experience we have come to describe as dreaming. Some persons who are. proficient at it, can have their consciousness present anywhere outside their bodies whenever they choose to.

This would be very easy to test, I dunno why you say it is not open to measurement. If these proficient people can be put under rigorous testing conditions and have their skill fully demonstrated, I don't see how it is a bad thing or unachievable for that matter. Put a giant cardboard sheet with random information that cannot be guessed in a room beside where this proficient person is without them seeing it visibly, then ask them to go look at it with their separated consciousness or mind. Simple, straightforward.

There are certain phenomena science won't be able to explain. I am not anti science .I rely a lot on the sciences to understand my outer body and the world around me.

The world we live is not exactly what we think it is or may not be what we think it is., and we are also not what we think we are The methodology of science, which is a human construct , and not perfect, is founded on a paradigm of belief which presumes that the observable universe and it's content is the only thing worthy of scientific investigation and consideration.

Wrong. It is founded on the paradigm that the only thing that can be reliably studied is either the universe or that which affects the universe. Any nebulous "realms" or phenomenon cannot be reliably studied since most times you can't even define this nebulous "realm" or phenomenon.

The problem with this, is that, if there's a phenomenon whose cause is unknown, or can't be fully observed, we only proceed to work with what is in front of us, which may be effect , that we have mistaken for cause, thereby drawing a wrong
conclusion from what we are only able to observe.

This is acting as if any conclusions reached are set in stone. If a scientist makes a faulty observation or conclusion, the practice is robust enough to scrap the faulty bits and have a do over. Which is why Einstein's theories can supercede Newton's.

Most people who rely completely on the sciences to interpret the world around them are not even aware of its limitations. The ones who pretend that they do, usually betray themselves with comments like , " oh one day science will be able to manufacture a machine that will eventually develop human consciousness with the capacity to think and experience live exactly like humans" .

LoLz. Was this an attempt to strawman what I said? If it is you would do well to go over what I actually wrote. No machine will ever develop human consciousness simply because it is not human. It may develop a form of machine consciousness just as much as animals have their own form of consciousness. You admit that animals do have a form of consciousness so why would it be difficult for you to conceive that machines would develop their own form of consciousness?

The only time the mystery of consciousness would be resolved, would be when science is able to come up with a device to make it possible to observe clearly all that happens subjectively within the human being and also outside of it.

Maybe. However the advances that have been made in understanding consciousness and mind have been quite useful even though the knowledge is far from complete. This is the advantage science provides, reproducible results.

Before I end this part, I would like to respond to the index case of a certain Phineas Gage brought in by someone here to argue against the idea that mind is separate from brains.


My response will be a question to answer back.


If mind is not separate from brains, how can it be explained, the cases of people with distorted personalities, but whose brains are not damaged or defective in any way. Also ,how can it be explained cases of people with brain defects that should normally result in behavior impairment that did not turn out as expected; their personalities remained intact. Neuroscientist in their studies to understand mind, have been observing those kind of cases in different people.

. It is obvious the person who brought in the Gage case to support is argument has not done enough research.

Can you give an example of the kind of people you are referring to?

TenQ:
I guess you don't understand the meaning of the words REASONING or DEDUCTION!?

And you don't understand the meaning of where. Which scripture passages do you draw your inference from? Such a simple request sees you acting like you can't understand nursery school English.

TenQ:
Reasoning from the bible.

You don't have to agree with me or the bible. I have told you how I Arrived at my conclusion

Where exactly in the Bible?

triplechoice:
Hello

Hello to you too.

I will be stating the "facts" as I know and understand it.

The interesting thing about facts are they are accessible to all so it will be interesting to see what facts you present.

And because it will be a long read, I have decided to divide it into two or three parts. The first is background information and random responses to comments made by others here, while the final part, will contain definitions and explanations for the concept of the "true self" I subscribe to , with evidence not scientific evidence, to identify this self , its emergence, and its relationship with the body it occupies.

Facts are facts they don't need a qualifiers like scientific or otherwise, as long as we are dealing with facts we should be on an even keel.

However, before I proceed, I would like to issue an important disclaimer; that whatever opinions or statements of "facts" that I am going to make is at the discretion of the reader to accept or reject. It would be irresponsible to force a sense of self of any kind on others that may result in mental confusion or a distortion of one's personal reality.


In any case, I do believe that my thoughts on the subject matter in this thread would be enough to stimulate further thinking .

Sure, let's ruminate on ideas by all means.

Why is consciousness or mind still a mystery?

Because it cannot yet be studied directly.

Contrary to what has been confidently asserted here and believed by some persons elsewhere, consciousness or what is mind is still not answered by science.They may be far from answering it at the moment.

I don't know what you mean by is not answered by science. If you mean scientists have not studied all there is to know about consciousness then yes there is more we don't than we do but it doesn't take away from what we do know. And that which we do know can be confidently stated.

Neuroscientists have not arrived at any definite conclusion as to the true source of the human consciousness. It's still a mystery to them. They are loath to answer directly the question of what is Consciousness or mind because at the moment, its difficult to localised our subjective experiences to any part of the brain .

The qualifier you use here of true for the source of consciousness is a leading one. It appears as though you already have a conclusion in mind and because science doesn't point to that "true source" you readily dismiss what it does point to. And it points to consciousness arising from the functions of the brain and body. The interacting systems that make consciousness possible are well known. You have your circulatory system, you have your nervous system, you have your endocrine system, combined these are the systems that support consciousness in the human being. Take away any one of these and the human being looses consciousness.

All attempts to do so, using observable brain activities or results from modern brain scanners has not produced the much needed result ,other than an impproved undestanding of how the visible brain works in relation to the other parts of the human body. This is very good and helpful for us at this time.

What much need result? The so called true source of consciousness?

However, insisting that an investigation of the observable activities of the human brain, which are believed to correspond with inner states of consciousness, is enough for a comprehensive understanding of mind or who we truly are, is almost the same as someone who would insist that viewing from their device the life stats of an ongoing football match, without watching the game directly, is enough to know what is actually happening inside the football pitch.

Live football stats for instance, without watching the game directly ,will show a goal has been scored, but will not let you see the exact ball movements made by the players that has led to the goal.

No scientist will claim they have a "comprehensive understanding" of the mind. What they will acknowledge is that their observations so far have provided a working knowledge of consciousness and the mind with many more mysteries to solve. This is evident in the application of many techniques employed in treating mental illness and other frailties of the mind.

Your analogy misses the point. A person who has the stats of the match doesn't need to know all the nitty gritty of what happened on the field in other to appreciate the nature of the result. Some even use these stats to predict the outcomes of future matches quite well.

There's much more going on within our inner world, subjectively, that we ourselves are unaware of, ,not to talk of an outsider who doesn't have any means to directly access it.

This is well appreciated in science which is why no scientist can claim comprehensive knowledge of the mind.

Whatever we say and do proceeds from thoughts that we, the owners of brain( the being within) generate from immpression. received through it. However, thoughts which forms mind is not directly observable nor testable by any known scientific instrumentation, except by alternative methods which are not too "popular" and available to those in the main body of the sciences. except individually

Science as practiced today cannot investigate that which cannot measured, it is an inherent limitation. If there is some nebulous "realm" that science cannot reach then it can't provide any answers there.

So it's difficult , for, instance, to really determine if someone is acting out genuine thoughts or simply faking it. We are all guilty of this at certain times, but some persons have mastered the art of deception so well that even if it were possible to attach a mini brain scanner to their brains to monitor its activity it can't be seen they're living a double live, as the results from the scanner will read the same as that of someone behaving sincerely.

There isn't such a scanner so how can we arrive at such a conclusion? You seem to have made up a scenario and concluded that the scenario is true without any real world analog?

TenQ:
I said:



I said:



You can treat the bible ANY-HOW you want, it's not my business.

LoLz. The question was where in the Bible did you get your reasoning from, dunno why you are getting your boxers in a twist.

Truvelisback:
Did u read where i mentioned "Connotative word"? Stop analyzing Spiritual things Carnally.

LoLz. You use blood a physical substance as a connotation for your so called spiritual things and yet are accusing me of misinterpretation. Can you not see how it is all your doing?

Truvelisback:
This has nothing to do with biology. This is a Spiritual thing.

Sexual reproduction does not involve blood so whoever told you blood is involved is either ignorant or making a fool of you.

Truvelisback:
because sex involves blood

LoLz. Go and ask for your school fees back from wherever you learnt this fake biology from.

TenQ:
Reasoning through the bible.
Where Angels, Demons and even God are Spirits. Where humans at death find their expressions as spirits. Where a human is described in a trinity of his body, soul and spirit.

And before you go ranting off the mark, the bible is not a science book.

Do you have another book or source that speaks contrary to this? What does it say?

Where in the Bible does it allude to animals having souls that expire?

Glad you know the Bible is not a science book so you'll not be disappointed when I treat it as the anthology of mythologies and legends it is.

TenQ:
The soul expires (becomes non-existent) because a soul need a host body to manifest.

And how do you know all these?

TenQ:
Animals have their minds (a subset of their soul) independent from their bodies although without the body the soul is like a software without a hardware.

A software without a hardware is useless: as a soul without the body is useless.
A hardware without the software is also useless: as a body without the software is useless.

Death of animals occur when their soul disconnect from their body

So according to you what happens to the souls of animals when they die?

triplechoice:
The other parts of my presentation not posted yet, already answered your question.

But since that has not come, I will answer you for now.



The terms, consciousness and mind are used interchangeably to mean the same thing, but they do not actually refer to the same thing.

Consciousness is the entity that inhabits the body at birth to enliven it. It is our true selves which exist as a force field of energy .It is often refer to as soul in religion and in other groups.

while mind is formed from the combination of thoughts this entity, consciousness, generates from the impression received through the brain, and also from the thoughts of others it has received.

Mind once formed, determines or shapens our human personality, the ego self, that we think we are.

Our personalities can change if we generate new thoughts to form a new mind, while the consciousness, our true selves, that forms mind remains what it is. We can become whatever we think different from what our current mind dictates for our brains.


Animals, just like humans also have consciousness. However, the animal consciousness has not evolved to a point where it can generate independent thoughts to form minds ,hence they are ruled mainly by instincts imbedded in their bodies which exert influence on their brains to control behavior. The inability to generate independent thoughts is why animals don't behave individually. They act almost the same, except they are conditioned to behave differently.

So do animals have minds independent of their bodies? I believe my explanation has provided the answer.

In summary, consciousness is what evolved into mind and animals have not yet achieved that evolution? Is their consciousness independent? And which is the one that is independent in humans, consciousness or mind?

triplechoice:
Continuation,
The inability to observe and test thoughts which exist as thoughtforms; energized thoughts , not directly associated with any particle of matter , is why scientists are blind to the true cause of the placebo effect , as they can't at this time observe firsthand how thoughtforms exert pressure on brains to trigger the placebo response


Brain scanners do not show thoughts which form mind, the best they do is to show blood flow in a region of neurons when we , the owner of brains, are thinking. This, together with other brain activities observed ( neural correlates ) is then interpreted as evidence that matter is the source of mind or consciousness.

The claim that mind or consciousness, is an emergent property of matter or biological processes, is not supported by science The claim is only made on the assumption that electrical charges in our brains, and other factors not yet known, has made it possible for mind to emerge "magically" There's no rational explanation for how this has happened.

We can't see our we are separate from our bodies because most of us have never had any conscious experience of their consciousness operating any where else apart from the bodies they have occupied. But it's possible to separate one's consciousness from the body., while at the same time, still retaining a full awareness of our body

It can be done. In fact, we all do so unconsciously every night when we go to sleep in an experience we have come to describe as dreaming. Some persons who are. proficient at it, can have their consciousness present anywhere outside their bodies whenever they choose to.


There are certain phenomena science won't be able to explain. I am not anti science .I rely a lot on the sciences to understand my outer body and the world around me.

The world we live is not exactly what we think it is or may not be what we think it is., and we are also not what we think we are The methodology of science, which is a human construct , and not perfect, is founded on a paradigm of belief which presumes that the observable universe and it's content is the only thing worthy of scientific investigation and consideration.

The problem with this, is that, if there's a phenomenon whose cause is unknown, or can't be fully observed, we only proceed to work with what is in front of us, which may be effect , that we have mistaken for cause, thereby drawing a wrong
conclusion from what we are only able to observe.


Most people who rely completely on the sciences to interpret the world around them are not even aware of its limitations. The ones who pretend that they do, usually betray themselves with comments like , " oh one day science will be able to manufacture a machine that will eventually develop human consciousness with the capacity to think and experience live exactly like humans" .

The only time the mystery of consciousness would be resolved, would be when science is able to come up with a device to make it possible to observe clearly all that happens subjectively within the human being and also outside of it.

Before I end this part, I would like to respond to the index case of a certain Phineas Gage brought in by someone here to argue against the idea that mind is separate from brains.


My response will be a question to answer back.


If mind is not separate from brains, how can it be explained, the cases of people with distorted personalities, but whose brains are not damaged or defective in any way. Also ,how can it be explained cases of people with brain defects that should normally result in behavior impairment that did not turn out as expected; their personalities remained intact. Neuroscientist in their studies to understand mind, have been observing those kind of cases in different people.

. It is obvious the person who brought in the Gage case to support is argument has not done enough research.

Question: do you think animals have minds independent of their bodies?

Image123:
You'll be waiting a very long while to point such out. The scriptures is very clear about what is sin, what is wrong with the human being and the road to Heaven.

Let's see.

Image123:
Lol, who be you people. The OP obviously speaks for his drunk self. As you can see, he just made up his ridiculous ideas and added Bible verses. He suffers from eisegesisaria.

Don't worry when it's your turn I'll point it out to you.

Small, small, you people are beginning to realise there is nuance and spectrum in behaviour and that everything is not black and white.

Hohenheim:
Joshua 10:12-14

12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

Not only did God kill everyone on earth by stopping the earth from spinning, he also clearly states that he doesn't listen to human beings, yet Christians keep wasting their time and energy praying to God.

LoLz! Nice catch.

donnie:
They actually used emotions to their advantage in selling lies and propaganda. It's pure witchcraft.

You use the same tactics so you concede that you practice witchcraft?

OLAADEGBU:
The evidence has been presented in the thread below. Are you still looking for God?

https://www.nairaland.com/7145649/amputated-finger-grows-back-extra

PUBLISHED JUNE 14, 2013
• 3 MIN READ

If a salamander or newt loses its leg, it can just grow another one. Humans aren’t so lucky. If you cut off my arm, it won’t grow back. (Note: please don’t do that.)

But back in the 1970s, scientists showed that children can sometimes regrow the tip of an amputated finger, as long as there’s a bit of nail left over and the wound isn’t stitched up. Later, we discovered that mice have the same ability. But why is the nail important, and why can’t a finger grow back without it? A new study provides an answer to this longstanding mystery. As I wrote in Nature News:

Working with mice, researchers led by Mayumi Ito at New York University have identified a population of stem cells lying beneath the base of the nail that can orchestrate the restoration of a partially amputated digit. However, the cells can do so only if sufficient nail epithelium — the tissue that lies immediately below the nail — remains.

The process is limited compared with the regenerative powers of amphibians, but the two share many features, from the molecules that are involved to the fact that nerves are necessary. “I was amazed by the similarities,” says Ito. “It suggests that we partly retain the regeneration mechanisms that operate in amphibians.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-fingertips-might-grow-back-but-entire-limbs-wont#:~:text=Humans%20aren't%20so%20lucky,wound%20isn't%20stitched%20up.