Just as everyday come and go,I Just can't help it but keep thinking about how hard drugs has turned my friend to a complete junkie.
This dude was my primary school classmate and at a time ago we were even considered as best friends. Somehow along the way we got admissions into different higher institutions. At first during holidays when we returned home from our different schools,I used to noticed how strange he had become. Someone who used to be very robust suddenly emaciated and I knew it wasn't as a result of hunger because his family made sure he got everything he needed in school,unlike myself who signed MoU with sapa.
Fast forward to 2019,after graduation,it all got worse. And he made his smoking habit public to the extent that he smoked on the streets. That was when his elder siblings and I had to advise him, about the damages weed and other drugs he was taking were doing to him. But it all seemed every advice we were giving him were falling upon deaf ears.
What really broke our friendship was when he was trying to lure me into weed. That was when I started to avoid him. The adage which says --"Show me your friend and I shall tell you who you are" kept ringing in my head and tho I did everything to talk him through,out of that bad habit but he wasn't getting any of it.
Just last week,when I paid my dad a visit,I saw this dude, now looking so unkept and rolling with street urchins. I only waived him and went my way.
Please guys out there,let's say no to hard drugs because it doesn't have any good effects on the human body.
#SAYNOTODRUGS.
Please let's help push this thread to the front page so that others can learn from it.
There is growing evidence that even though weed is not as addictive as other recreational drugs, it is bad for young people below the age of 24. Their brains are still developing so weed negatively affects that development. I suspect that is what happened to your friend.
FxMasterz: I wasn't there. I rely on the information passed down by those who were there. Not by people who come thousands of years later, and think they know better. There has never been a debate on Isaiah until recent times.
That is incorrect, you are NOT relying on people that were there. You mentioned Josephus, who was not there. The Dead Sea Scrolls are dated to around 200BCE, 400 years after the supposed book was written so no you are not even remotely relying on anybody who was there.
BTW the issue with Isaiah has been known for more than 200 years so it is not a recent development.
No evidence. Can you see how you staked all your belief about Isaiah on the VIEWS of modern scholars who are just debating and arguing. Did you seek evidence? No. For anything opposed to God, ordinary views of people without any evidence is okay by you. But for anything in support of God's existence, you would even discountenance evidences and try to argue against them as you're currently doing against the book of Isaiah. Was Daniel written by many authors too?
I did present evidence but if you mean archeological evidence then you just shot yourself in the foot because we have no manuscript older than the Dead Sea scrolls which are dated to around 200BCE, 400 years after the supposed book was written.
These are not ordinary views. These are the views of the people who studied the Hebrew manuscripts not the obviously biased English translations you rely on.
See, just simple reasoning will tell you that Isaiah or anyone cannot be prophesying to people who were alive in his days and be telling them about a future king when that king was already ruling. Is it possible for me to prophesy to you right now about Tinubu being born and becoming president of Nigeria in the future? You find that preposterous but you apply this same preposterous scenario to the book of Isaiah.
The reasoning that eludes you is this isn't a book prophesying jack. It is so obviously a book attempting to retcon the Hebrews post Babylon exilic experience and lay over it the drive towards the re-emerging Jewish faith. Go read about how most of the Old Testament is dated to the writings of anonymous Jewish authors after the Babylon exile, it will clear you. See the screenshot I attached for the dates of when the books were written.
Why should Cyrus credit Yahweh even when Yahweh clearly declared that Cyrus does not know Him?
If you were prophesied into being as a person, is that tantamount to you having knowledge of the God behind the prophecy? Would that even imply that you know about the prophecy?
Tradition has it that Jewish elders later showed Cyrus the book of Isaiah, and he was awed to see his name mentioned by a dead man who lived many years before he was born.
Talk about reasoning, are you telling me that this your god who said he killed 42 children just for mocking his prophet would leave a whole king to give his glory to another god? Abeg guy no dey whine me jor.
He was awed to see his name but still credits it to Marduk? Please tell a believable story jor.
Then bring up the archeological evidences that put the book of Isaiah in the hands of many authors instead of making mere views of people your evidence.
Like I said the dearth of direct archeological evidence is a big problem for your position as well. Meanwhile the Cyrus cylinder indicts the Bible as a bearer of tall tales claiming Yahweh did something which Cyrus claims for Marduk. Is your god so powerless he couldn't prevent this from happening? What a shame. LoLz.
I also have a view that lordreed is an old man always wearing green shirts. Do you believe that? Is my view now an evidence of what you and what you always wear?
You only need to supply what gave you the impetus for such a statement. If you have nothing, then your claim is worthless. The Deutero and Trito Isaiah claims have solid basis for them and make more sense than the claims of so-called prophesy.
FxMasterz: Yes, no evidence. All are just arguments and observations of people who were not alive at the time the book was written. No evidence that someone else wrote parts of Isaiah. I myself write in different styles. If I change my style tomorrow, you would say someone else wrote my posts? That's why such cannot be said to be evidence. It's just too myopic.
You're claiming a different date for Isaiah 45? Are you a revisionist?
Where you there as well since that is your argument.
Yes, a different date because there were multiple authors.
Cyrus doesn't credit Yahweh he credits Marduk, so the author of Isaiah 40-55 is the revisionist.
One only needs to understand archeologic evidence and all these so-called prophecies become demystified.
For instance, Isaiah 7 is not referring to Jesus, just mistranslation shenanigans.
FxMasterz: People who were not there when the book was written are arguing that it was written by more than 3 authors. Just as people who are not alive today can later come in 70 years time to allege that your Nairaland posts were written by several authors. Who cares about their arguments that have no evidence?
The general Christian and Jewish consensus supports a single authorship.
No evidence?
And isn't interesting to note that chapters 40-55 which involve Cyrus are dated to 6th century BCE which is also when the Cyrus cylinder is also dated.
There's affectionate and there's crazy. This was the latter. She might have been exaggerating but by Andromeda you don't exaggerate like that with kids.
jesusjnr2020: "I Agree With The Teachings Of Jesus" World's Richest Man Elon Musk Says
World's Richest Man and leading scientist and technological innovator, Elon Musk, has continued to proudly and publicly ldentify with Christ and those of the Christian faith.
This time he posted on the X, "I agree with the teachings of Jesus"
I sincerely hope though he means what he says and isn't just saying it for saying sake, but also walking the talk.
However saying it alone openly and unashamedly, in a world that hates, rejects and doesn't want anything to do with the name of Jesus, is a right step in the right direction.
jesusjnr2020: "I Agree With The Teachings Of Jesus" World's Richest Man Elon Musk Says
World's Richest Man and leading scientist and technological innovator, Elon Musk, has continued to proudly and publicly ldentify with Christ and those of the Christian faith.
This time he posted on the X, "I agree with the teachings of Jesus"
I sincerely hope though he means what he says and isn't just saying it for saying sake, but also walking the talk.
However saying it alone openly and unashamedly, in a world that hates, rejects and doesn't want anything to do with the name of Jesus, is a right step in the right direction.
God bless.
Which of Jesus' teachings says you can have lots of baby mamas?
DeepSight: + But you must perforce agree that there is an effect once you say there is a variation in intensity.
DeepSight: + This is an effect on outcome and even if thats all you grant, my point is still proven.
I can grant it (even though it is in dispute) because it doesn't take away from the fact that the wave function doesn't collapse which is what I said.
Now that we have that settled, what about consciousness affecting this experiment then means the universe is a simulation or illusion or however you want to describe it other than real?
+ Looking at the underlined above it seems to me you are grasping at straws.
And oh, a variation in intensity is an effect on outcome.
I didn't sy it wasn't. I maintain that the wave function DOESN'T collapse. Change in intensity is not that same as the wave function collapse. There are several ways of changing the interference intensity so it definitely not the same as the wave function collapse.
DeepSight: + Even if that is the case, you claimed that what I presented did not show wave function collapse whereas it says -
"In this context, the act of focusing attention to photons passing through the double-slit appears to collapse their wave function thus causing a shift toward particle-like behavior reflected in a decreased intensity of wave interference."
If the wave function collapses the interference pattern ceases, that is what the Double Slit experiment shows. It doesn't happen here.
DeepSight: + I dont understand. You insisted on showing that conscious observation collapses the wave function. I have now produced that. See my last post. So what are you on about now?
No, you didn't show the wave function collapse. The paper you cited shows variance in INTENSITY of the interference pattern. The interference pattern was still on. If the wave function collapses the interference pattern ceases.
The well-known, quantum physics "double-slit" experiment was the first demonstration of wave-particle duality of light-photons naturally behave like waves, but once they are registered by a conscious observer they switch to behaving like particles. In recent years, a new avenue of research has reported a psychophysical interaction occurring when focused attention was employed in the double-slit experiment. In this context, the act of focusing attention to photons passing through the double-slit appears to collapse their wave function thus causing a shift toward particle-like behavior reflected in a decreased intensity of wave interference. Contrary to the common belief that physical events have a unidirectional, first-order causal effect on cognition, these studies suggest that mental activities are capable of influencing physical systems.
This paper is just a review of that 1st paper you presented, it doesn't show an independent performance of the experiment.
DeepSight: + Support your disagreement with papers.
I am digging up papers to satisfy you. See above posts.
You like are someone telling me to provide evidence the teapot floating in orbit around Jupiter DOESN'T exist because I said no teapots were ever launched into orbit around Jupiter. That is not a logical step for me to take.
DeepSight: + I don't even mind a discussion where we dig into that because I can show you the details of that paper by paper.
What frightens me is the principle you are deploying.
If we say that consciousness affects outcomes, the point should be ceded once any outcomes are provably affected.
To say no, the point will only be satisfied if outcomes are affected in a specific manner is scary.
If you accede that any effect on outcomes goes to the point, that would be fair enough. But the principle behind saying only one kind of effect suffices is something I can't cope with.
Having said that, here is a study (in medicine this time) with the following conclusion:
. . . . we have shown that the presence of the subject in a state of high concentrated attention had an influence on wave-particle duality of the electromagnetic wave, attenuating visibility (wave properties) significantly and consequently increases corpuscularity, except for the relax group, in all groups compared to control. This fact means that the laser wave function collapsed in the interactive field of focused attention --- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987719307352
I thoroughly disagree. The wave function collapse ONLY occurs when a detector is introduced. You CANNOT cause wave function collapse by consciousness or else we would never have seen the interference pattern in the first place.
DeepSight: + It is possible this conversation has failed if you insist this way. Because I cant imagine how anyone can insist on the bold when it is obvious that the issue is consciousness affecting outcomes. To insist on a particular outcome is beyond me and I dont think I have the intellectual capacity to address myself to such a strange position.
I dunno what you mean by insist on a particular outcome. The wave function collapse is one of the things the experiment is famous for.
DeepSight: + Are you telling me that even when it is shown that conscious observation affects outcomes, if it is not shown to affect the collapse of the wave function specifically then you will insist that conscious observation does not affect outcomes in the experiment?
I don't know what else to tell you. My position is it does not cause the wave function collapse. Your paper says it causes something else which a counter paper says it doesn't. My initial position was not countered.
alphonsojidebab: A Nigerian nurse has recounted an emotional experience from 2016 involving renowned cleric David Oyedepo, founder of Living Faith Church Worldwide, revealing how the encounter nearly shook his faith and commitment to church attendance.
The man, identified on social media platform X as @Nrs_Danie, narrated that he had struggled for years to secure admission into the Lagos State School of Nursing, succeeding only after his fourth attempt. However, his joy was short-lived as he lacked the ₦230,000 required to pay tuition, with school authorities giving him just one month before forfeiting the admission. Eyes Of Lagos reports,
According to his account, he and his mother, who lived in Abule Egba area of Lagos, left home as early as 5 a.m. to travel to Sango Ota, Ogun State, where the church headquarters is located, hoping to seek financial assistance from the cleric.
He explained that they had been active members of the church for about three years, participating in services, prayers, and fasting programmes, which strengthened their belief that they might receive support.
They reportedly positioned themselves along the route where the bishop would pass before his morning service, waiting for an opportunity to speak with him.
When the cleric eventually arrived, the man said he and his mother rushed forward to plead for help but were stopped by security personnel.
He claimed that the bishop responded by advising them to apply for a bursary from the Lagos State Government instead.
The response, he said, left him devastated, considering the emotional and physical effort it took to gain admission after several attempts.
The nurse admitted that the incident affected him deeply and almost caused him to question his faith in God. However, he later came to the realization that religious leaders are human and that faith should be centered on God rather than individuals.
He emphasized that leaving church because of a pastor’s action would mean one’s faith was misplaced.
Despite the disappointment, he eventually completed his nursing education without financial assistance from the cleric and now works abroad as a nurse.
Reflecting on his journey, he said the experience strengthened his belief that personal faith and determination are more important than reliance on any religious figure.
I don't think I have ever heard that Oyedepo helped anyone financially who approached him from the blues. I think he has helped family members and close friends but someone he doesn't know? I don't think so.
Please this is the sort of thing that is worrisome. I have said at all times that the outcomes are affected by consciousness, this has been my statement. In light of that please go to my post again and read the bits I put in bold red and underlined.
I certainly hope that will do as opposed to introducing a specific requirement on what consciousness must do to the wave function.
We might be talking past each other. I am focused on the collapse of the wave function as you can see with this post from the other thread.
LordReed: The observation is not by conscious humans directly. They use detectors which collapse the wave nature of the electrons. It has nothing to do with consciousness. The reason the observation causes it is because the electrons receive energy from the detector not because there is a human being looking at it.
The paper you linked DOES NOT show that the wave function is collapsed by conscious observation.
DeepSight: + But your paper does not successfully debunk the research paper I provided which you asked me to. Frankly I didn't even need to because the results of the experiment are well known and as such you need something far stronger than that paper to properly rebut it. I could present you many other papers if you insist, but I am sure the point is proven.
I don't even need it to since yours doesn't even claim the wave function is collapsed by consciousness.
DeepSight: + Even this admits some effect on outcomes in the bold even if it argues they are minor. So you can't use this as a rebuttal. You need a stronger rebuttal.
My argument is the collapse of the interference pattern was not affected by consciousness and that is what this shows. The fringe visibility the paper notes is well within error rates or else it would have been significant.
DeepSight: + Before dropping a first link (and I may drop others) I want you to appreciate two elementary things which it does not seem to me that you appreciate. I dont know if you followed the progress of the experiment or you just read somewhere some conclusions about it. But a long time ago I have watched a documentary which showed its development step by step and in that documentary it is clear that conscious observation was seen to interfere with outcomes. The scientists then went so far as to step away from the experiment and replace direct observation with detectors and still the same results occurred. The point being that so long as there was a conscious being attempting to observe, either directly or indirectly (through detectors) the outcome was affected. This is why I think that your pointing to detectors is not only irrelevant but shows that perhaps you dont know how they arrived at detectors in the first place. It was in a bid to try to see if the outcomes would be different after direct observation had already altered outcomes.
The second point you miss is elementary. Conscious observation could be direct or indirect. For example, I can stand physically present to watch an event. That's direct. I can deploy CCTV t record it. That's indirect. Neither case changes the factor of a conscious being observing. This is why I find the distinction you are attempting to make tiresome and irrelevant.
Now, please have a look here -
"A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern's double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4.36, p=6 x 10(-6)).
Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0.43, p=0.67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. (C) 2012 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157]"
There is nothing to conclude from this but the fact that conscious observation has an effect on outcomes in our reality and this more than strongly shows that your much touted "object permanence" has no root in science and that the likelihood that we live in a programmed simulation directed by consciousness is far greater.
Read this:
A two year long experimental dataset in which authors of [1] claim to find evidence of mind-matter interaction is independently re-analyzed. In this experiment, participants are asked to periodically shift their attention towards or away from a double-slit optical apparatus. Shifts in fringe visibility of the interference pattern are monitored and tested against the common sense null hypothesis that such shifts should not correlate with the participant’s attention state. We i/ show that the original statistical test used in [1] contains an erroneous trimming procedure leading to uncontrolled false positives and underestimated p-values, ii/ propose a deeper analysis of the dataset, identifying several preprocessing parameters and carefully assessing the results’ robustness regarding the choice of these parameters. We observe, as in [1], shifts in fringe visibility in the direction expected by the mind-matter interaction hypothesis. However, these shifts are not deemed significant (p > 0.05). Our re-analysis concludes that this particular dataset does not contain evidence of mind-matter interaction. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6366771/
OriOko88: En..so how does the new Israeli discovery concerns Trump. Over 2million copies released yet you hv not seen anyone to indict Trump. Shame on u all
Because they spent almost a year redacting Trump's name from the files. And even if his name was left on there do you imagine that the AG he appointed, Pam Bondi the woman who defends Trump vociferously, will even try to indict him?
This here is where I bring in the double slit experiment. I was shocked to my bone that you claimed it had nothing to do with consciousness. The experiment is well known to have unveiled the way outcomes change based on whether there is conscious observation or not. Your arguments about instruments are neither here nor there for always the instruments were only aids for observation by conscious beings. And it remains puzzling till this day how that "observer effect" works out in quantum physics. However it strongly suggests that our reality is only rendered before us upon observation and thus that it is not intrinsically there - thereby destroying your claim on object permanence. And yes sir, I say this as an adult and not a child and the scientists who discovered all these were not children either.
The object permanence you observe is obviously a built in factor of the program, just as if you store something somewhere in a video game, you will return to meet it there when you log in. This does not mean that the thing was anywhere there or anywhere in fact while you were logged out. It was not.
I will post separately on the double slit experiment in order to nail the point that conscious observation was central to outcomes and this alone hammers home the point that this reality is an artificial construct.
I think our disagreement can be resolved by you linking a scientific paper stating that the Double Slit Experiment had its results due to human consciousness. I'll wait.
Christianity Etc › Re: Scientists Confirm Biblical Earthquake At The Moment Of Jesus' Crucifixion by LordReed(m): 12:00am On Feb 28
