₦airaland Forum

HonestFriend:
Well God is not man.. His ways re not our ways.

Same reason the good die young n the wicked die old.

SMH.

elated177:
I was trying to decide on which I would ask my Daddy in the sky.

Lemme know when you ask then we can have some metrics.

HonestFriend:
Same thing happened to me when I was in jss3... I always pray for everything. On that faithful that dey wrote my name in the list of noise makers in class, so wen the seniors came with their cains as ask the class captain to call out the names. After calling out d names we all came out.. He told us to face the blackboard n put our hands on it.. I started praying that dis senior should flogg us and if he does the cain must not pain me.. That's it

So he started flogging us 6 strokes each I ws the fourth person out of 5 or 6 I can't remember ... But till date I didn't know y he didn't flogg me. This is somone I never knew from Adam.

I just believe God truly answers prayer.

Na wa o. So your god will save you from being punished for being a naughty child but won't save people from being cleared off by natural disasters? LMFAO!

jesusjnr2020:
Also humble yourself and learn from her how not to be so foolish...

Of such is the kingdom of God.

Children can be very foolish that's why they need parents. I guess that's why you are looking for a magic sky daddy to cure you of your foolishness but it doesn't seem to be working. LMFAO!

What a sad story. May he Rest in Peace.

DeepSight:
Surely you see the distinction I point out? That it is not on account that something such as mind has not preceded mind that my argument against yours is based on? To be clear - the argument is this simple: you have said that mind arises from matter and the activity of matter. If this is the case then the activity of matter is necessary to actuate mind. Thus there must be preceding actions and interactions of cells and neurons before mind does anything. Hence before mind even comes up with a will there must also be preceding actions of matter which actuate that will of mind. Therefore you cannot say that mind controls matter without ceding the argument. You are making a circular argument which reaches round right back to itself. It is a contradictory argument. I have explained this in detail.

As I said before, you will have to decide what comes first: the mind willing an action, or the cells and neurons making the mind will an action. This is not on all fours with saying that a self driving car cannot exist because cars that came before it were not self driving. The apt analogy to use the elements of your example would rather be that if the components that make a car self-driving are necessary for it to be self-driving, then you simply cannot declare the car self driving without the prior activity of those components.

I hope you see the difference. In your bad analogy you compare the existence of one thing to a previously existing model with different capacities. In the proper analogy which you should make, you should be looking at the existence of the one thing viz-a-viz the components that comprise it, and make it function.

Just to conduct a quick check to make sure you are being open minded about where you may have got things wrong with analogies: did you at least see what was wrong with your analogy of the TV remote?

Because what was wrong with it was that the components of the TV remote do not control you. Whereas the argument in this thread is about components that control you, components, the activity of which, allegedly spawn your mind. The same thing wrong with that analogy is wrong with your present one: you are talking of a prior existing type of car and not the components of the same car in question.



I will shortly. Let me have dinner.

_{In the meantime there are other responses of mine from the NDE thread you are yet to react to. Or do you also want the definition of spirit before addressing those too?}

Yes I will wait before I make any further responses because I continually get the sense that you are merely interpreting my position through yours and I need to understand yours so that I may perhaps properly address your posers.

jesusjnr2020:
You sure do have a lot to learn from her then.

Sure, I am learning how to cope with kiddy sense like yours. LoLz

jesusjnr2020:
Lol! Kudos to your 3 year old. He knows much better than his dad.

Ah yes she is learning her tenses and ABCs quite well but like you she still mixes things up and thinks she just blew my mind with her kiddy sense just like you. Bwahahahahaha!

DeepSight:
This is a very bad analogy. Quite worse than your analogy with the TV remote control (which I trust you have seen the problem with). This analogy is bad because we are questioning the idea of component parts of a physical thing as the trigger for the emergence of a mind - we do not say that something does not exist because other things like it did not exist previously or have the faculties that it has - which is what you have now equated what we are saying to, with this analogy.

I trust you see that you have "straw-manned" me here.

It is only a bad analogy because you are unwilling to consider a different point of view. You insist on interpreting everything based on your position.

Still waiting for you to define spirit and outline it's attributes.

petra1:
it's not about horn . it's able the negative effect on human. it has the tendency to edit human DNA as well

So whose DNA has been edited and how did you know this?

jesusjnr2020:
So explain where on this thread I said you said it on this thread.

LMAO! Na wa o. Almost as if I was talking to my 3 year old child.

petra1:
We wait. For some the effect is quick and for some couple of years,

LoL! So which person who has taken the jab has horns now?

donnie:
Even coronavirus is not new. But they recently launched it.

But you used the word new, what now makes it new?

HardMirror:
perhaps it is ordinary, we only ascribe relevance to it because we think it is. Everything in nature is extraordinary. The whole cosmos and all about it is super extraordinary even atoms are extraordinary... little wonder in perplexity we bow and say God must be behind all these.

Indeed. I only say not ordinary because it is not tangible like matter is.

jesusjnr2020:
Obviously simple comprehension is a problem for you today, because I never said you did, God-hater.

So explain your statement:

jesusjnr2020:
Moreover, coming from someone who could possibly conceive the utterly stupid idea that God, his Creator, has a low self-esteem among other stupid ideas of the highest grade, it's indeed a high compliment.

Were in this thread did I mention anything about your god?

DeepSight:
Here is the problem: a circular conundrum is created where it is claimed that mind (and all its activity) arises from the activity of matter. If this is the case then the activity of matter must precede every thought, every feeling, every memory-deposit, and every action of mind. In this case, how can mind direct matter? From what will, can it direct matter. Will such "will" not need to be preceded by and actuated by the activity of matter as well? Can you see the circularity? Its a vicious cycle which cannot be answered, hence the absurdity. Because this is what LordReed has implied, whether he knows it or not.

As for self-learning codes of a computer I am not convinced that this presents a problem since you have not suggested that such computers thereby have a self conscious mind which circles back to control the components of the computer into actuating itself.

(Even the body has self-learning codes such as the circadian rhythm and too many others to mention).

It might be a conundrum for you,it certainly isn't for me. Maybe because I don't know better to express the idea that even though mind is produced by matter it has become a sum that is greater than its parts. Yes we know that ordinary matter has no volition but in our case ordinary matter is producing something that is no longer ordinary and is now able in turn to affect the matter that gives rise to it. Your position is like claiming a self driving car cannot exist because cars that came before it were not self driving.

jesusjnr2020:
Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word God-hater. I would have said "look it up in the dictionary," but you may not find the meaning there. So first look up the word God, and then hater, then you can combine both to give you the meaning which is you personified. Hence you being disgusted is my pleasure.

Moreover, coming from someone who could possibly conceive the utterly stupid idea that God, his Creator, has a low self-esteem among other stupid ideas of the highest grade, it's indeed a high compliment.

Apparently simple English is evading you today. You are conceited, I didn’t mention your god in it.

DeepSight:
Are you trying to avoid the difficult issues posed by the circular position you have taken as now clearly pointed out?

It is better that we deal with that circular conundrum first because it sets up the argument I wish to make that in the same way as cosmologists/physicists/astronomers infer the existence of dark matter, I am compelled to infer the existence of an immaterial being which I call the spirit.

PS: I will not evade your question, I will address it soon.

I want to have a better grasp of your position before I respond.

DeepSight:
I think you need to settle down and take a cold dispassionate view of the conundrum presented. It is illogical to say, for example, that a car is exclusively controlled by its steering-wheel and simultaneously insist that you have control over that car if you have no control over its steering wheel. What you are doing is quite circular and it surprises me that you cannot see the inherent circularity. To break it down -

- - -> You assert that minds arise from matter
- - -> You assert that the interactions and activities of matter are responsible for mind
- - -> You then imply that mind has some independent will of its own in what you have written above, because you insinuate that by this will, mind controls its body - - -> notwithstanding that the body is what produces mind in the first place, and that the interactions of the matter of the body are responsible for every thought and action of mind under your worldview

- - - > This is just circular. It is logically impossible. You cannot derive mind from matter and at the same time seek to infuse mind with some inchoate separate will of its own by which it can control matter. This would be absurd because what you are in fact trying to do here is eat your cake and have it - you are trying to assert that all the thoughts and actions of mind arise from the interactions of matter and at the same time insist that mind controls the matter. This patently self contradictory.

It doesnt help you that you say that you have said that we cannot control our cells. This in fact works directly against you. Because the action of those cells (in your worldview) is what activates the functions of mind. You will have to decide what comes first: the mind willing an action, or the cells and neurons making the mind will an action.

There is actually some scientific research on this matter which suggests that split seconds before we have a thought, take an action or make a decision, neurons have already coalesced in the direction of such a thought, action or decision. Such research naturally aligns with the overall argument you are making - that cells and neurons are responsible for the activity of mind. The only problem here is your refusal to accept the natural consequence of this - namely that there is nothing like free will, that all our thoughts and actions are determined by cells and neurons beforehand - over which we have no control. This is of course not my position since I make a distinction between matter and mind. Nor do I even entirely accept the results of that research - for reasons I will later go into. But you see, from my position, I needn't accept the results of that research. Whereas, not only does the research line up with your argument, but you must also be bound by its implications. You simply cannot eat your cake and have it. There is no way you can insist that you have conscious control of anything if indeed the prior activity of cells and neurons - which you have no control over - determines all the activity of your mind.

This is iron cast logic and I don't expect you to deny it.



Its very simple to indicate why this analogy fails. The constituent molecules of the TV remote are not said to be responsible for your own independent action of pressing down on the remote buttons! They are not your cells and neurons and it is not their activity that is said to be responsible for your actions! - which is what your position is with regard to humans and their cells and neurons.

In the case of the human being under the worldview you have described as your position, the constituent parts - the cells and neurons must perforce act prior to your being able to exercise any function of mind. Their action must precede your every thought, word and deed. For this reason it would be circular to say that you control anything outside of this. Indeed the minute you make such a claim you actually cede the debate entirely because you are thereby conceding that mind must precede and control matter.

In short, mind over matter.
There is just no way you can logically get around this.

Before we go on, can you properly define spirit that inhabits the human being and outline its characteristics.

Truthwords:
Alright, let me know even you take your second dose. I expect you to hold another paper next to the card with your nairaland username written on it. Remember the future consequences

Second dose taken. So when should I expect horns to start growing from my head?

DeepSight:
I think the below is an important point you need to address yourself to, Lordreed.
(in addition to the other responses i made to your responses in the NDE thread, but I am most interested in this point on determinism as I have responded below.



I think you are quite entirely wrong on this point and while there is much I could write in proof of that, perhaps its best to keep it short and simple: so long as you do not have any control of the cells, neurons and chemicals whose activity and interaction allegedly produce and direct your consciousness, then it is absurd and illogical to assert that you have any conscious control of yourself, your thoughts and your actions.

Determinism is thus inferred by the position that mind is the result of the interaction and activity of matter alone: because if it is true that your consciousness and mind are a function of such interactions of matter, in order to have control of your consciousness and mind you must have control of the said interactions of matter in the first place. It is an irredeemable circular conundrum.

Again this like asserting that because individual water molecules do not have the property called wetness therefore the wetness of water is some kind of ghost in the machine. This would be clearly an erroneous view since what we call wetness is borne out of the interactions of the water molecules. Just as it is erroneous to keep asking why cells and neurons have no intent since we are made up of cells and neurons.

There is no illogic in saying you have control over certain bodily functions, thought routines or actions because it is evident, I am writing this with my fingers consciously controlled by me to hit the keys for instance. However it is a strawman to say I said we have complete control since I never said that. I even went as far as saying we have no control over what our cells are doing nor can we consciously control them. The will we possess is limited in scope and function. This is the position of a compatiblist not a determinist.

Insisting that the only way matter can be controlled is if you have complete control down to the individual components is the illogical position. When you press your remote to put on the TV are you in control of any of the constituent molecules of the remote control or the TV or are you controlling a particular function of the whole remote and TV? It would be absurd to say that we are not controlling the TV because we are not controlling its individual molecules when evidently our control is over specific functions.

DeepSight:
On that same thread, in response to ooman, who contended in response to my OP that "the brain has perception and experience" - I further said -


No, dear, the brain does not have perception of itself as a brain.

Address this point: Only a person can see. Not a brain. Not neurons or sensors. Only a person. . . .

. . . the materialist atheist infers or states that such are nothing but the work and product of tiny pieces of matter, which, for their own unknown purposes and motivations, collectively work together in an intricate system to deliberately produce such. . . . they cannot discern the clear evidence of a personal being existing therewith, and the aggregation of matter about it, which is called a body, being nothing but its material support system for life in a material world.

The eye.

The eye is more than enough food for thought - not its unfathomable complexity - which is quite another proof, no, not even that: rather the fact that it represents perception through sight - and this is only possible to a personal being. To see a thing, a feel a thing, to hear a thing, to smell a thing, to taste a thing: these faculties are only possible where there is a being that is seeing, a being, that is feeling, a being, that is tasting, etc. The physical apparatus by itself can only transmit and interpret signals - if there were no being to experience the interpreted signals, there would be no experience.

Which is why I refer thinkers to meditate on the corpse. To observe its as-built functionalities and ask themselves: WHAT were those functions serving?

They are only functions built for a being.

The eye is part of the being. I don't see how the complexity of the eye proves there is a ghost staring through it. The eye is part of the systems that provide sensory perception to the being. Is this ghost able to have perception without any of the body parts? How is it an independent existing thing? Perhaps you should clearly define this ghost.

DeepSight:
LordReed, a little over eight years ago, I wrote the following in an attempt to argue the point we are discussing here - and say that "the person" is distinct from the body -

I contend that save there exist a being which inhabits the body, there could be no such thing as the senses, no such thing as thought, and no such thing as emotion.

To be clear, I say that the being utilizes the particles which form a body, as instruments of perception: and I deny the reverse - which would be to say that dead particles assemble over time, and through evolution, into a perceptive being.

I say that a robot cannot taste an orange, or enjoy s.ex, however it may be formed, now or in the future.

I say that cameras, even computerized cameras, do not have the faculty of sight.

I say that audio recorders cannot hear.

I say that perception is only open to a person, and that matter, and the body, is not, and cannot, be a person.

I say that experience is only open to a person.

I therefore say that that which is not material, evidentially exists.

I task the atheist to identify, define and locate the self.

https://www.nairaland.com/1565324/person

You may wish to consider the foregoing in this discussion.

These are assertions you are yet to provide any evidence for. Can you provide any evidence there is a ghost in the machine? Simply stating it is not sufficient.

BTW I have identified, defined and located the self. It is all that makes you up as a human being both the seen and unseen aspects.

[quote author=donnie post=109347386]They have released a new virus -MARBURG

They have released a new virus -MARBURG

🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/0bZsdTOvzB

— Ayiranor Wogar (@Ayiranor) January 7, 2022

is it a new virus if it was discovered in 1967?

DeepSight:
I think for the purpose of tidy-book-keeping and to provide some context to any interested future participants in this discussion, we should lay out the background to this conversation before proceeding in detail - lest that which we are driving at is lost in translation or in heaps of follow-on.

In summary the discussion here centers around LordReed's position that mind derives from matter and my opposing position that mind is distinct from matter, matter being only a tool or vehicle for mind. While LordReed says that there is "no ghost in the car" (that there is no spirit in the body) I say that there is an indwelling immaterial being which is the actual "personal being" which the functions of the body serve. These conflicting positions had led me to argue that for LordReed to sustain his position, he must perforce grant intentionality to cells and neurons, and all those chemicals which constitute the body, as well as eliminate the concept of personal responsibility for actions. As the spambot was torturing me, I made my argument in the word document attached to this post -

https://www.nairaland.com/6908566/boy-dead-20-minutes-what/5#109025848

- And LordReed responded with this post (and the four posts which follow it) -

https://www.nairaland.com/6908566/boy-dead-20-minutes-what/5#109239457

- My responses follow on from there in that thread, but we have, for the purposes of good book keeping, decided to migrate here.

The central question here is thus that of "Matter and Mind" - and pretty much as I have summarized it above.
In my next post, I will take a moment to refer to one or two other posts which I believe are relevant to this discussion.

Good one.

Myer:
I guess you don't understand my question.
Even if the high priests and philosophers wrote the bible, how were they aware of these private conversations?

Such as the conversation between Adam and God, Eve and the serpent, Abraham and Isaac on his way to sacrifice his son, Moses and God in the burning Bush, Jacob and God on his way to Panam where he dreamt of the ladder, and on his way to meet Esau when he wrestled with an angel, etc.
Elijah and God when he was running away from Jezebel, Elisha and Gihaz, etc.

These conversations were private with no one else around such as between Jesus and the Samaritan woman by the well, between Jesus and God at Gethsemane, between Jesus and the daughter of the centurion, between Jesus and Pilate when none of his disciples were around.

Mostly likely they are made up or interpolation of real conversations with made up stuff all in a bid to give the words potency and gravitas to anyone reading.

sonmvayina:
Because if it is not written God's laws, people like you can't tell the difference between right from wrong..

Yea...we are part of nature...

LoL! People were writing laws way before the Hebrews began to crystallise their language. Your favorite Hebrew myths are not the basis for how we know right and wrong, don't kid yourself.

The end of what? Buhari's second term?

conscienceman4:
You see the problem with this generation of no understanding of those separated unto God.
If it's a native doctor that they didn't touch, his things weren't taken, they will agree easily that he has a strong juju.
God knows His own. If you like carry bible up and down, jump around the altar of churches. If you don't follow the instruction of God, the things that happens to those not in Christ will happen to you.
"They know not and neither will they understand"

With all their juju Igboho and his supporters were arrested like cheap criminals. You delusional belief in supernatural mumbo jumbo will not save you from the vagaries of life.

jesusjnr2020:
Makes much sense to disgust a God-hater.

I'm sure your eyes have been sentimentally programmed to be blindsighted to those who don't foolishly agree with you, but to only see those who do.

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word conceit. Look it up in a dictionary. Your attitude is the very definition of conceit.

Hi DeepSight. So this thread will carry on with our discussions from other threads. I will start with the following reply to your comment. I will also subsequently add replies to your other comments.

DeepSight:
Unfortunately I don't believe it is either apt or possible to treat the analogy in this way for two main reasons - both of which centre upon the factor of consciousness - which you cannot discountenance as it is central to this matter.

The first reason is the fact that in the case of a human you are dealing with a self conscious being possessed with personality, intentionality and even alleged free-will. There is no way in which this can be analogous to a driver-less car. The second reason is the fact that the functions of the body evidently serve a resident being. If you have a supposedly driverless car which is built to function with a seat for a driver, a steering wheel for him to handle, and accelerator and brake pads for him to operate, we can surmise that this car works with or for a driver. Applying this loose analogy to the human body, its many functions as I said, disclose a machine suited to house and facilitate the experience and activity of a resident "being."

On a general note, we should continue these thoughts in the other thread, or even migrate our discussion to a new thread dedicated to "Matter and Mind" - for the simple purpose of tidy-book-keeping and ease of future reference, not just for ourselves but possibly others interested.

Oh the analogy is very apt. A driverless car acts just as directed as though a human being was driving it because all its integrated systems work to provide a safe driving experience with all the same features of a human driven vehicle. The car will brake, turn, slow down, speed up, allow for car spacing from cars in front of it, follow lane markings, etc just as well as a human. It would be futile to now say that because you cannot locate the driver inside therefore it is unable to function without a driver.

Also driverless cars do have seats and steering and all the other accoutrements that a "normal" car has so the question would be how do we distinguish between a driverless car and a human driven one? Which is directly analogous to the question how do we establish that a human being is "a machine suited to house and facilitate the experience and activity of a resident "being."" rather than the machine with all its attendant functions as an integrated whole?

DeepSight:
Unfortunately I don't believe it is either apt or possible to treat the analogy in this way for two main reasons - both of which centre upon the factor of consciousness - which you cannot discountenance as it is central to this matter.

The first reason is the fact that in the case of a human you are dealing with a self conscious being possessed with personality, intentionality and even alleged free-will. There is no way in which this can be analogous to a driver-less car. The second reason is the fact that the functions of the body evidently serve a resident being. If you have a supposedly driverless car which is built to function with a seat for a driver, a steering wheel for him to handle, and accelerator and brake pads for him to operate, we can surmise that this car works with or for a driver. Applying this loose analogy to the human body, its many functions as I said, disclose a machine suited to house and facilitate the experience and activity of a resident "being."

On a general note, we should continue these thoughts in the other thread, or even migrate our discussion to a new thread dedicated to "Matter and Mind" - for the simple purpose of tidy-book-keeping and ease of future reference, not just for ourselves but possibly others interested.

I think a new thread would be very welcome.