₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: Then proceed to show us this astounding physics that allows for non-material to manifest without a physical base

Are you allowed to assume an initial point, one that contravenes known laws?

I never said anything about physics, I only showed you a direct causal link between the matterial and the non-matterial

Logicboy03: Learning new information increases brain size.



Pulling the cart before the horse.


Information itself doesnt exist without the brain. The brain creates information. The brain interpretes the data to make it into information.

The taxi drivers brains are reacting to the visual stimuli not just floating data/information. This iswhy brain activity changes according to different pictures in some clinical tests.


The taxi drivers look at the gps or maps or roads and store the routes that they have seen in their brain.


The brain is reacting to the physical map. The information is not the physical map but only a perception of the map created and later stored by the brain

Again you are making the same mistake wiegraf is making. You are pressuposing consciousness and assuming non-matterial phenomena such as perception, interpretation and data in order to make your point. If you want to prove that matter and not non-matter causes a material effect in the brain size, you need not steal non-material phenomena to help you. To explain to you what I mean, here is a dissection of an excerpt from your comment:

The brain is reacting to the physical map. The information is not the physical map but only a perception of the map created and later stored by the brain

Remember Matter is anything that has physical mass (kg) and occupies physical space (length, width and depth). For matter to physically effect matter, the products of these values must change one way or the other in an equal and opposite action and reaction i.e. when the brain interacts with the map, we must be able to measure an equal and opposite change between the brain and the map.

So when you say "The brain is reacting to the map", If we cannot measure an equal and opposite physical change between the two, we must conclude that the "reaction" has a non-matterial cause.

When you say "Information is not the physical map", you are correct because information is not matter.

When you say "information is the perception of the map created and stored in the brain", you are wrong because the information on the map is objective and it is either the brain understands it or it does not. The brain does not "create" the information. . . . .and neither does the map because the exact same information can be represented in many different ways.

Conclusion: To simplify

1. Information is not matter. It is non-material

2. Information is not based on matter neither is it necessarily about matter. The exact same information can be represented by different forms of matter. In fact it is the information that determines how the matter will be arranged, the matter does not determine the information.

3. Information can cause measurable physical change in matter and this proves that non-matter can and does effect matter.

4. matter cannot cause information. To do this, matter must have intent which is a non-matterial attribute and hence further proving that the non-matterial causes the material and not the other way round.

5. I have met the demand to show that non-material things cause matterial effects. It is now your turn to refute my claim by showing that only matterial things can cause matterial effects.

wiegraf: No, it's simply a proxy for matter. A tool used by matter.

That is where you are wrong. To say that non-material information is a tool of matter is to presuppose intent(a non-matterial attribute) You can't assume the initial point in order to make your case.

Ihedinobi: According to the Scriptures, do ministers of the Gospel have any entitlement to a wage or not?

Yes they do (1Cor 9:13-14)

Edit:
To expand on my answer; Ministers are only entitled to a wage that meets their basic needs and nothing more. (luke 10:1-9)

Kay 17: I know as a fact that information is processed data, but how processed data affects the brain, Mr ANony only can educate us on that.

Besides, it seems there isn't an actual divide between mental states and the physical structure of the brain, it appears both affect one another mutually.

Earlier in the thread we looked at the case of London cab drivers gaining increase in brain mass due to additional information from learning new routes.

Logicboy03: Number 3 is crap

Number 3 is fact. Learning new information causes the creation of new connections between neurons in the brain and hence an increase in brain mass.

wiegraf: Let me simplify so you can see what's wrong with this.

mr anony:
1. Is information non-matter= Yes
2. Is the brain matter = Yes
3. Does information effect brain size = Yes
4. Conclusion: Non-matter causes an effect on matter

1. Can information manifest without matter = NO
2. Is information non-matter= Yes
3. Is the brain matter = Yes
4. Does information effect brain size = In as sense, yes...however
5. Could the information have been generated without matter = NO
6. Conclusion: Matter effects matter, using non-matter (information) as a tool

Hope that's clear, your coherentness?

Good so you agree with my 1, 2 and 3 but what you don't agree with is 4. The Immaterial affects the material. but then the problem for you is that if you have agreed with 1,2 and 3, then 4 is inevitably what follows. You have conceded my point.

A look at your conclusion further shows this even though it is not entirely correct.

Wiegraf: Conclusion: Matter effects matter, using non-matter (information) as a tool

Notice have created a causal link of "matter effects non-matter which in turn effects matter". I created a causal link between matter and non-matter. You didn't contest this link at all, all you did was add another instance of matter to the chain.

So a simple recap.

1. You have admitted that non-matter exists
2. You have admitted that non-matter can and does effect matter
3. You have affirmed that matter effects non-matter.

1 and 2 are part of my position. 3 was not part of the contention.

thehomer: This doesn't help your case at all. You're showing an inconsistency in the Bible while ignoring the core problem. The problem isn't whether or not the command was fully carried out, but that it was given in the first place by a God that is supposed to be moral.

No we haven't established this.

So we're in agreement that the command given by God is immoral.

I have not shown any inconsitencies in scripture neither are God's commands immoral. I have explained that the command is written in the language of Ancient Near East exaggeration and therefore it was not literally to kill everyone including infants. We also read in 15:8 that Saul killed everyone except Agag. Yet we see in chapter 30 a colony of fighting Amalekites.
You can't have it both ways: If you claim that the verse is literal, then you must explain chapter 30. If you claim that there is an inconsistency, then you cannot sustain your argument because your argument presupposes that that command actually happened. So yes we have established that what you claim is not what happened.

I see no point in answering this question since we already agree that the act is immoral whichever way we arrive at this conclusion.
You know what? I'll answer anyway. It is morally wrong because killing people for crimes they didn't commit is wrong.
Back to you. Why do you think it is morally wrong to kill children and infants for the crimes of their parents?

Erhm....I'm afraid you have given a non-answer. Basically you've only said it is wrong to kill A for the crime of B because it is wrong to kill A for the crime of B. It is wrong because it is wrong is not a valid answer and does not explain anything. There is nothing upon which your morality is based.......unless you want to argue that these moral laws necessarily exist and are contingent on nothing (you will have to prove this by the way)

To answer your question: It is wrong because it is contrary to God's character (hear what God says in Jeremiah 7:31 referring to 2Chronicles 28:3)

mazaje: Do you know what it means to be fair?. . .Why do you guys keep saying ridiculous things all the time just because you want to promote mytholgy?. . .So your god can wake up and decide to kill children for the sins of their parents and yet he will remain fair. . .The same god that is said to have created humans in his own image and was said to have spoken that humans have now become like him knowing good and evil. . .Even the bible disgrees with you because it has good apologizing for the evil he has done to his chosen people when he did evil, at least the bible it self shows you clearly do not know what you are talking about since it has god apologizing for his evil deed and trying to be fair by apologizing. . .Try to read some of the stuffs you write before posting them. . .

Why don't you read the post in context especially including the verses of the bible I cited before proceeding with your reply.

P/s: I sent you a skype message

Mr Troll: He is saying that you have not shown the non material manifesting without a material base. . .

First of all, whatever it it he wants me to show has nothing to do with the fact that I have clearly shown him a direct causal link between the non-material and the material. He ought to acknowledge that first. After that and only after that then perhaps he should explain exactly what he means by "non material manifesting without a physical base" . . . . .or perhaps you can help him. Consider this exchange earlier in this thread.

wiegraf:
Because being tall is the same thing as tallness. Or being fat is the same thing as fat. Or being a liar is the same thing as lies.

Tallness, fatness, green, goats, lies, foo.lishness, whatever, all, and note, rely on the physical to manifest. All rely on the laws of physics/nature to manifest. You see the basic trend here? Cause and effect, and always with a physical basis. We've not been able to even conceive (except maybe quantum crazy, already adrressed) otherwise, as that makes no sense.

That seed, or the laws of nature/physics/matter to be precise, are responsible for that tree being green. The laws make no room for your spiritual nonsense. Nothing manifests without a physical base. Even your thoughts, which are the results of physical functions in your brain. Hope that's clear?

mr anony:
Once again you confuse the description of a thing with it's effect. A fat man means that fatness is the description of the man. It does not mean that the man caused fatness or that fatness is based on the man. I hope that's clear.

If what you mean is something else then please explain.

LightningLord: Neither

Lol, so according to you I have neither shown nor not shown a direct causal link between the immaterial and the material. You are being incoherent here please explain yourself.

Let me recap by simplifying the terms for you.

1. Is information non-matter= Yes
2. Is the brain matter = Yes
3. Does information effect brain size = Yes
4. Conclusion: Non-matter causes an effect on matter

Which of numbers 1-4 do you disagree with?

LightningLord: Erm, yes, you've shown nothing of the sort. What we have here is the extremely normal, ordinary and ubiquitous causal relationship between 'non-material' information, produced by a material base, and a material change.

Same way a computer program could run scandisk on itself. Or a body would produce antibodies in response disease. Or, better yet, release hormones when a potential mate is encountered.

So, when a potential mate is observed and the body produces hormones which alter the very physiological structure of the being, are you saying animals are incapable of doing this without....souls? You do know that's exactly whats going on here, yes? Brain processes information, decides hormones need to be released to deal with the problem, ie attracting the mate, then proceeds. In the case of neurogenesis, brain processes information, decides more fire power is needed, then proceeds to neurogenesis.

This is intrinsic to nature, or maybe all species that exhibit adult neurogenesis, or respond to stimulus really, ie ALL LIFE, has souls as well? Do they get to go to heaven too?

I am still waiting for you to show me why, or how, humans are not subject to the laws of nature, you're simply running around in circles.
I am still waiting for you to show me how, even conceptually, anything can manifest without a material base....

I think you are getting things mixed up. Are you saying that....

a) I have not shown you an example of non-matterial information directly causing an effect in the form of physical matter (change in brain size)

or are you saying....

b) I have shown you an example of non-matter effecting matter however it is a natural occurence for non-matter to effect matter.

Which is it?

Please try not to employ the "spirit/soul" strawman this time?

LightningLord: It's not rhetoric bros,

Two questions you are still evading
1. Why is he a bigot?
2. Why is it ok to discriminate between sexual preferences in a secular sense (whatever you might mean by "secular sense"?

It's hard to believe that someone with empathy would utter such nonsense, so I'm inclined to believe you're a sociopath. Feel free to ignore me, it's a very free world. And note, I never, ever claim to be mature.

There is no nonsense in what I said. If a person totally owns, creates and sustains a thing solely by his will, he/she is under no obligation towards it.

P/s: since you never claim to be mature, I will stop relating with you based on the assumption that you possess some maturity.

LightningLord: It looks clear to me. Ask @okey, it's his general speak. Can't be too bothered with your shenanigans at this moment.

If you truly has some intellect, my good sociopath, you realize that is not "if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you-are-a-bigot style of argument". I clearly show why he's a bigot, kindly refute else stop with the silly accusations of ad hominem.

Why is he a bigot?

P/s: dodging the request to explain yourself but instead employing the ad hominem fallacy by calling me a sociopath is more testament to the fact that your rhetoric is weak.

Please feel free to tell us why you think he is a bigot and why it is ok to discriminate between sexual preferences in a "secular sense" (whatever you mean by that) whenever you are ready....or you can always amuse yourself by replying with another insult. I won't bother to respond to childish mockery anymore it gives your words much more credit than they are worth.

Mr Troll: Welcome back Anony

How do you do Mr Troll? Thanks man

wiegraf: Are you actually grouping these together in a secular sense? I hope you mean amongst you bigots, yes?

What do you mean by "in a secular sense"? I would have thought that a secular sense wouldn't discriminate between any sexual preferences.

P/s: The if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you-are-a-bigot style of argument is really immature. If you truly had some intellect, you wouldn't need to employ the ad hominem fallacy in your rhetoric.

Uyi Iredia: Mr Anony >>> I was hoping you'll reply here >>> I want to iron out this consviousness thing with you.

I acknowledge your points and will discuss further with you but first I'll like you to watch these two videos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Seg8kjc6Z84


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

wiegraf: And you ignore the point, which is they work using similar principles. I can thereby program something to 'believe', nothing special. In fact, I do that all the time. My software trusts me as, well, it has no choice. See?

We've not yet encountered/gotten to conscious mechanical software, true, but we'll eventually get to that. And don't use words as silly as 'hope' in this contexts, that's for you deluded.

The first paragraph is a simple case of stretching anthropomorphism beyond its use. While it is good for descriptive purposes to use human metaphors, it doesn't count as a factual representation of the case. Your software does not trust you.

In the second paragraph, you admit that you have not yet encountered conscious mechanical software therefore claiming that we will eventually get to that is a declaration of hope on your part. Calling me deluded adds nothing to your case.

I'm sorry, you must not be anony, messrs stopgap. I recall anony posting this, just in case he intends to brush it off.

That looks to me like an acknowledgement of matter being the basis. Or you can have non-conscious without matter? Like I've told you


[size=25pt]SHOW ME[/size]

I know what I posted however what I don't see is the point you are trying to make.

Yes, when a brain suffers physical trauma which leads to wholesale personality changes, that has nothing to do with matter. Or now that we're putting memories into mice, memories being a core part of consciousness, that has nothing to do with matter. And most pertinently to this point, the fact that a fetus does not have the required tools, full functioning brain and CNS, to support consciousness has nothing to do whatsoever with consciousness. It's incapable of doing so without this completely nonexistent existent spirit power.

Again, show me where this aberration of nature exists, or kindly sharrap. You just might have had a very miniscule smell of a case if that were the only option, but it very, very, VERY, clearly is not. Rather than CPU, monitor, web cam etc, it's an undetectable detectable piano player. Makes a lot more sense....

What are you smoking?

I asked you to show consciousness caused by the unconscious you haven't.

Because being tall is the same thing as tallness. Or being fat is the same thing as fat. Or being a liar is the same thing as lies.

Tallness, fatness, green, goats, lies, foo.lishness, whatever, all, and note, rely on the physical to manifest. All rely on the laws of physics/nature to manifest. You see the basic trend here? Cause and effect, and always with a physical basis. We've not been able to even conceive (except maybe quantum crazy, already adrressed) otherwise, as that makes no sense.

That seed, or the laws of nature/physics/matter to be precise, are responsible for that tree being green. The laws make no room for your spiritual nonsense. Nothing manifests without a physical base. Even your thoughts, which are the results of physical functions in your brain. Hope that's clear?

Once again you confuse the description of a thing with it's effect. A fat man means that fatness is the description of the man. It does not mean that the man cause fatness or that fatness is based on the man. I hope that's clear.

Because biological organs do not grow (how many times did I emphasize the word?), and all the time at that. Or consider even healing, when we develope tissue to heal wounds, or when lizards take it to level of regrowing their lost tails. All these, what a strange phenomena, biological organs growing. I've never seen that happen before! It must be spirits!!

Also, the only sort of strain a biological organ/tissue could go through is the sort muscle goes through while exercising.

Let's see what googlod thinks. Well, at least, his chosen son, wikisus. Please, read it all



So many possibilities, so many avenues to explore, arguments and counter arguments, so many definite answers as well, all natural. Even plasticity is thrown into the mix as a hypothesis. However; spirits!!

Also, I suppose all the other animals that show this increase have spirits as well, no?


EDITS

Thanks for playing the "spirits" strawman again. It was totally irrelevant to our discourse.

I have shown you a direct causal relationship between non-matterial information and matterial change. I have taken time to read your "many possibilities" but all you've really said is "Nature did it".
You haven't contested the point that information (which is neither matter nor energy) caused a change in the size of brain matter. All you have really said is that it is a natural occurence and thus you have conceded that the non-matterial can and does effect the matterial.

...Unless you think information is matterial for which you'll have to provide arguments to back it up.

GeneralShepherd: I believe the topic is in what way is God objectively good and as such I just sighted and example of how 'unfair' God seems to be,but you in your arrogant normal modus operandi makes little of it.

God is not my SKYDADDY? Did Lb hack ur account?

The bible said, ' But my God shall supply all your need according to his
riches in glory by Christ Jesus'. Phillipians 4: 19

No? I implore you not to make light of people's predicaments

I am not making light of your predicaments I am only firmly pointing out to you that God is not being unfair. Since the whole universe is His property, He is under no obligation to give you what you want just because you want it. Consider the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector. Remember the pharisee presented to God reasons why he deserved to blessed by citing his good works. It didn't get him anywhere.
An interesting passage you might want to read is the parable of the landowner hiring labourers in Matthew 20:1-16.

God has the right to do as He pleases with what belongs to Him. He is not unfair at all.

thehomer: From my OP

1 Samuel 15 is an example of Ancient Near East exaggeration signifying extensive destruction but not necessarily absolute destruction and therefore does not literally mean that the Israelites to killed all the people including infants. We know this because we still see that the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 30 attack David and carry away his wives (mind you this happened during Saul's lifetime). If you maintain that 1Samuel 15 is to be taken literally as an utter genocide, then you will have to explain how come a few years later we still have an Amalekite army attacking and enslaving people.

And it happened when David and his men had come to Ziklag on the third day, the Amalekites had invaded the south and Ziklag, and had struck Ziklag, and burned it with fire. And they had seized the women in it. They did not kill any, either small or great, but carried them away and went on their way. And David and his men came to the city, and behold, it was burned with fire, and their wives and their sons and their daughters had been taken captives. And David and the people with him lifted up their voice and wept, until they had no more power to weep.
1Samuel 30:1-4

They're immoral because it is immoral to kill children and infants for the crimes of their parents.

We have established that this is not what happened in the story.

Your turn. Is it moral to kill children and infants for the crimes of their parents?

It depends largely on the context however in a very general "facevalue" sense; No it is not moral.

Your turn: Why is it morally wrong to kill children and infants for the crimes of their parents?

Ray McBlue: Never gonna happen, so keep living in fools paradise. Remember, it's not an 'hate speech' if it's true...which most are.

Christians and theist in general are cerebral hypocrites.

I like that "it is not hate speech if it is true".

Joagbaje: That's not what he should be preaching, He should preach the gospel. Not condemnation

So your gospel does not condemn sin anymore?

shdemidemi: ^^ IN^^

It seems it is only me and you here. once again, regretfully, I don't think our meet will hold anymore.

Hey guys, are we still on for tomorrow Potter's Field 1.00pm? Please confirm if you'll be at the meetup

musKeeto: Lol. Had to swallow my pride a little. And a few interesting threads came up.. When we go fit skype?

Sure. When you wanna skype?

musKeeto: Oga Plaetton, you don waka go far o.,

I'll do some reading and get back to the text. Though, I have to admit.. It seems your posts give a little bit of credibility to the Bible, never mind it's source...

I thought you'd hung your boots on matters concerning this dunghole of a forum

GeneralShepherd: Okay Mt Anony.. I graduated summa cum Laud from FUTO in EEE 11months after NYSC I don't have a job, cos I don't have contacts. God has blessed my hommies with Second class lower with cream jobs and I struggle to eat. How in the hell is God good? My mum has served this God all her life and He can't help me get a job? I say hogwash.... Its been easier since I stopped relying on a skydaddy that doesn't exist or doesn't care if exists...

1. You are ranting about something else entirely
2. God is not your genie or skydaddy or anything of the sort. He doesn't owe you anything

thehomer: How was it a wild unfounded assumption? I see no reason for opening up another thread. This one isn't full.



I started this thread to show you that his laws are immoral so trying to get me to appeal to his immoral laws isn't a good idea.

In what ways exactly are His laws immoral?

shdemidemi: 'We' are the organisers of the event .

'We' are a Christian community

'We' hold this meeting three times a year

'We are called the OASIS COMMUNITY

That's cool, I guess I'll attend

shdemidemi: The theme of the breakfast meeting is 'idolatry in the church'.

It's an interactive meeting where we can air our concerns and ask pertinent questions as regards the topic.

Ok cool.

shdemidemi: Unfortunately, we can't do lunch, Sorry about that.

The venue has been paid for, moreover we are having a breakfast meeting so we paid for the limited time we would have the venue for.

Who is 'we'? and what is the breakfast meeting really about?

shdemidemi: I would like to invite anyone interested to a breakfast meeting at the Hilton docklands on the 24th of August.

The meeting is between 9 am and 12pm, there is definitely enough time for anyone interested to get to potter's field park before 1pm.

Free breakfast, car park and crèche is guaranteed.

More details available if needed.

I need more details, what's the catch? Surely you don't want me to believe that you paid for a venue and breakfast at the Hilton docklands just because you are so excited and can't wait to meet nairalanders.

Spit it out. What meeting is really happening at the Hilton Docklands?

Deep Sight: Dear Mr. Anony,

I believe further events after the time I indicated my intention to cease to use this site (in protest over the MMW issue) have shown that I was not being melo-dramatic.

That intention thus remains firm. However because I am very interested in seeing this discussion to a logical conclusion, I have taken the trouble this morning to create a small forum where we can trash it out to its conclusion and anyone else interested in the subject can also read there.

Many thanks.

http://philoversity.com/thread/2/continuing-verse-academy-on-trinity

I have now signed up there, we shall continue.