₦airaland Forum

mkmyers45: I meant 'random' in the sense of human activity..we hardly do anything random now do we?

Ah, I see. By random I meant that humans can easily spit out a series of random and totally unrelated symbols. A machine on the other hand is not capable of doing this because it must work according to a set of mathematical/logical algorithms and the only reason why it may appear that a machine is doing something random is because we (the observers) do not know the precise set of instructions which it is working by. If we had access to these mathematical instructions,, we would know precisely what numbers/symbols the machine will produce. So we as humans can and do in fact do random things, machines cannot.

I have gone through John's arguement but he fails to distinguish the fact that a machine can actually hear and process given instructions in a particular language from what he calls understanding, Can a machine understand or not?

I think that is the million dollar question here. Can a machine understand? My answer is: No a machine cannot understand. It may be able to mimic understanding to a high degree but it definitely CANNOT understand in the true sense of the word.
I'm interested in talking about this in more depth if you are willing for us to press it further.

He does raise a valid point of the validity of computational models standing in as the real thing but then isn't the consciousness of humans modelled in the image of God?

Hmm, it depends on what you mean by modeled. I would say a robot/computer is modeled in the image of man but this wouldn't mean that a robot has the same kind of mind (if it can be called that) that a man has.

what is the limiting factor to humans will from that of God?

I don't quite get this question.

Is the human mind created, just there or simulated?

I would say the human mind is not just there neither is it simulated. It is definitely created.

Uyi Iredia: By space you could mean the region outside earth's atmosphere or the nothingness in which the universe exists. That does exist. In both cases we are reffering to something. Not so with time.

no by space I mean length, width and depth.

Would you also call that a mental construct which doesn't exist outside the minds of the humans who conceive it?

mkmyers45: I am not talking about prefrencing but the shear ability to interract at will...this means that the beign makes choices albiet thoughtfully, rationally or downright randomly which is theoritically what freewill is..

I don't think it is possible for a machine to ever develop a will, it is not even possible for a machine to act in a way that is truly random.

You can get a machine to mimic a mind/free-will but it is absolutely impossible for it to actually have one because of the way machines are built, a machine CAN NEVER develop a mind.

I'll talk on this further if you want.

For starters, you can check out John Searle's Chinese Room argument and then maybe we can discuss further on minds and machines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

This should be a really interesting conversation if you are game.

Uyi Iredia: All these goes to show that time is a mental construct which doesn't exist outside the humans who concieve it.

You know what, by the way you are going, you might as well say that space too is a mental construct which doesn't exist outside the minds of the humans who conceive it.

Kay 17: If time is a mentation of the mind, what exactly do clocks and sundials measure, given that they are outside the influence of the mind?

Good question?

[quote author=From_Guiriga]Those who does the will of the Father.
That is ANYONE with a clean heart.

I ask again, what Jews are you talking about?
[/quote]I answer again, the Jews in Romans 1:16

thehomer: It is pointless for me to drag this on since you wish to now run away from the clear problems with your ideas such as free-will in heaven, the devil and other angels choosing otherwise despite the fact that they knew God in his full glory, they had desires that humans are supposed to have in heaven and the fact that the devil never had flesh to contend with. I've already pointed these out so I see no reason to follow you down whether or not watching beauty pageants glorifies God or unicorns and dragons in the Bible so my work here is done.

Lol, it is obvious you have nothing more to say. I have not run away from anything. I have answered your questions. You have tried and failed to force the answers you wanted and that's the reason for your frustration. Well, you are always free to run away. So long

Uyi Iredia: I would because the physical beings required existed. If there was no concept of time, I would still have been born as long as such being existed. I think you are making a typical mistake of treating a concept as if it were an actual physical object.

i think you are misunderstanding what time is

ijawkid: Let me expose your ignorance to the full....

It seems the Father has committed a crime for exalting his son to sit down with him on his throne.....

Let me show you the adorement and worship the Father and any of his appointed annointed king enjoys...

And like I said all of Yahwehs exalted kings sits on his throne....so you guys are been fraudulent when you tend to equate an exalted person to the one who did the exalting...

1 Chronicles 29:20-22
King James Version (KJV)
20 And David said to all the congregation, Now
bless the LORD your God. And all the
congregation blessed the LORD God of their
fathers, and bowed down their heads, and
worshipped the LORD, and the king.


1 Chronicles 29:20-22
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 Then David said to all the assembly, “Now
bless the LORD your God.” And all the
assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their
fathers, and bowed low and did homage to the
LORD and to the king.


All annointed kings of God are worshipped along with the God who annointed them...that in no way means Yahweh now has equals...exactly what the isrealites did is what the angels are doing in heaven to Yahweh and his annointed one..



Now this Jesus you are trying to equate with his Father didn't assume this exalted position because he was a Co-God or some equal...

He worked hard for it and was exalted...

Why can't you stubborn headed trinitarians see this glaring points and shove your pride away...


Now see the reason why Jesus is even sitting on that throne...if Jesus was not exalted we wouldn't even be discussing this issue now...

See>>>

Revelation 3:21

New Living Translation (©2007)
Those who are victorious will sit
with me on my throne, just as I
was victorious and sat with my
Father on his throne.


Please I guess when those who are victorius sits with Jesus on his throne they'll become Jesus or equal to him....

And again the Father who is the one God has his own throne of which he exalted his son to sit down with him...

So stop this trinitarian childish acts and stick to the truth...

interesting. We both know that David was not worshiped. Bowing to pay homage and worshiping are not the same thing it is funny how you managed to scout for the only translation that translated that as worship and then pitched your tent there.
If I show you 1john 5:7 from KJV now, you will immediately deny that translation and start scouting other translations to make your claim.

Let us see what some of the translations you dodged had to say.

Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the LORD and the king. NIV

Then David said to the whole assembly, "Give praise to the LORD your God!" And the entire assembly praised the LORD, the God of their ancestors, and they bowed low and knelt before the LORD and the king. NLT

and my favorite:

And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Jehovah your God! And all the congregation blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed and worshiped Jehovah, and bowed to the king. MKJV


You have no case.

If you like I can also show you throughout the bible people paying homage, bowing and kneeling and falling flat on their faces before their fathers, uncles, brothers, friends, kings, angels e.t.c. Not all bowing is worship.

But how does your example compare with this:

Rev_5:13 And I heard every creature which is in the Heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and those that are in the sea, and all who are in them, saying, Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb forever and ever.

or this:

Rev_7:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb.

Or even better, This:

Rev 17:14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them. For He is Lord of lords and King of kings. And those with Him are the called and elect and faithful ones.

My dear, your argument is seriously taking a beating here

[size=16pt]Frosbel, does the bible teach us to worship Jesus Christ? Yes or no[/size]

musKeeto: Or better.. TIME HAS TO EXIST, for two separate events to exist...

Exactly!

Logicboy03: You should be proud....I was anonynizing

No what you did there was nonsense

mkmyers45: Human motor skills are developed from the ability to constantly interact with his immediate..Now the number through which this interactions go on is near unlimited. Although hard to concieve, its plausible that a bieng with this ability will develop these skills, learn from these experience and make decisions based on these.

Yes this is possible in the same way that your computer can be programmed to learn your preferences but this is very different from a machine being conscious that of what it is doing and willing itself to act.

The presence of a will as well as a subjective mental reality is one of the things that distinguishes mind from machine

Logicboy03: lol....and where do days, hours and minutes come from if not the calendar calculations of the movement of the earth by man?

C'mon logicboy this is just too poor even for you. The point is that as long as two separate events exist, time exists. Muskeeto meant calendars in a very different sense than you are misrepresenting him to have made.

Deep Sight: I doubt you have averted your mind to, and dwelt upon the implications of the brevity of recorded human history.

Trust me I have actually but it still doesn't let us make that jump

mkmyers45: Through free and near unlimited interaction..An AI can develop its own ideas no?

How exactly?

Deep Sight: That word 'necessary' as used in these discussions, is a word that MrHomer will NEVER understand during this earth life.

NEVER.

Which is really quite sad because he perfectly understands what 'necessary' means when he wants to argue against God's necessary attributes

thehomer: You've started this terrible habit of once again avoiding direct questions. I presented you with what you meant by chaos after you wailed about not comprehending what I said. And I asked you a direct question but you're yet to answer. Instead, you're once again dancing around. I know what it means to say that something exists necessarily and when you asked me this question about the universe, I answered you directly.

Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. Now will you please answer my direct questions? Then answer this question too. Does something being logically possible make it physically possible?

The point is that you don't even understand what your "direct questions" are. Allow me to press you a little bit on your answer. After that, I promise I'll handle your questions.

Now yes it is true that something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. By "possible" here does it mean physically possible or logically possible?

Please quote me making this concession.

We will come to that as soon as we have sorted out what it means to exist necessarily.

Wait what? That's not by the way. What you've just conceded here is that the universe doesn't need a God. Let me explain the implication of what you've said before you start whining once again.

Saying that the laws of the universe exist necessarily means that in all possible worlds, the most basic laws of the universe have to exist. If this is so in all possible worlds, then what role is there for a God? Since if they're necessary, then it cannot be that they would be absent.

If I recall correctly, this is what I said: "the laws of the universe also happen to depend on other laws which exist necessarily"

That means that the laws of the universe are contingent upon laws which necessarily exist. Is it that you don't know what necessary means or you are blind or just disingenuously setting up a straw man. Which is it?

Deep Sight: Its wrong because no virtual creation will ever have independent thought or freewill or self consciousness.

No robot either.

That's like suggesting that you can have a self conscious software or car. The engineered matter can and will only respond as per what is programmed into it and not have independent free thought of its own.

Thus Nick Bostrom was just being an idle and shallow fantasist.

Well, I don't quite agree with Nick either but the point is that you can't jump from fantasy like "the world could have been created by other men" straight into factual statements like "the world was created by other men". That my dear needs a little bit more explanation and evidence.

Logicboy03: Materialist here;

No physicality, no existence!

Oh I see, that's why you were arguing that space and time do not actually exist. How can you argue that the physicality is the only existence when physicality relies on space and time in order to exist? You are denying the very thing that holds up your worldview.

Kinda like a man hanging off a branch for dear life and yet cutting the branch he is hanging from.

Logicboy03: This comment just blew my mind away.


Philosophy carries you into some deep areas mannn...

This was the discussion we could have had on your matrix thread but as usual you were more interested in mocking religions so I left you to enjoy your pastime.

Logicboy03: Another problem with time; past present and future;

Failure of past and present;
- do we really live in the present? No. There is no different between the past and immediate present.
-Everything you do presently is an update at a millisecond. The present doesnt exist. An update is the latest version of a recorded event.
-Assume that you are typing something- every word you type is in the past as soon as you type the word;, it is a past action. Before you can describe your present action, it is already recorded by you as a past event.


Failure of the future;
-the future doesnt exist. There is no certainty. You can say that you will be alive in the next second but an asteroid could scatter the whole earth in the next second.
-the future doesnt exist just as tommorrow never comes. The moment you enter the future you are in the present which is actually then a recorded past event.

eg- I am going to school tommorow Sunday. When sunday comes, I cant say that I am in the future because I will have to say that I am presently in school. But even that present tense is false- I would have to have arrived in school to claim that I am present in school....the past but acually described as the present

Interesting. Let me see if I can help you. What do you think is meant when it is said that something exists? What do you think "existence" means?

Logicboy03: The space between two points exists but the length doesnt exist.


The space between your face and your computer screen is about 11 cm (for instance)

That space comprises of air and particles. Air exists- the space exists

The length of 11 cm doesnt exist.



=========================================


Event A happens before event B.

The time gap between A and B is 5 minutes.

Does 5 minutes exist? A and B as events existed.

5 minutes is only a concept made from the hours that it approximately takes the earth to rotate around the sun.
Should we be on a different planet's rotation (eg mars) would that 5 minutes be a sensible measure?

This is just terrible thinking. Very poor thinking indeed.

Deep Sight: Time is a component of God though.

Did you think on the planetary engineering questions I asked.

Particularly the third (and fourth) questions.

I've read it. Now let me answer you. Here's the short answer

1. Do you think that given sufficient time, humanity will successfully undertake such?

Yes

2. If they do, what do you think will be their approach - migration or setting up a zoo, or both?

Both

3. Given the age of the universe, if and when such happens, would you think that its the first time it has occurred?

No.

Now that's all well and good but none of them lead us to a statement of fact such as this:

Anyway, this world was created by men elsewhere, but of course you may not know this.

Now for the Long answer.

I don't know if you are familiar with the philosopher called Nick Bostrom but he has proposed an argument called the simulation hpothesis. He has argued something like this:

1. Given enough time and with improvements in computer technology, humans will be able to simulate total virtual universes with characters just like us programmed such that they have freewill and make their own decisions.

2. Of course there will be no way for our virtual characters to know that their world is indeed a simulation.

3. As our computer devices become better and more efficient, more people will be able to afford computers with enough computing power to create virtual universes

4. The virtual people can also develop in technology such that they too can create other virtual worlds.

5. If the above are possible, then there would be more simulated worlds than there are actual worlds.

6. The question now becomes: How do we know that the world we live in is the actual world and not one of the many simulations?

Now the above is a good line of thinking to play with but it still doesn't lead us to a factual statement like "This world was created by men elsewhere".

Get my drift?

thehomer: Let me make things more explicit then. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant approximately 3E⁶ m/s. This doesn't change even when the speed of a photon changes to 6 m/s. Basically, a constant doesn't change. You on the other hand, seem to think it can so, is your own idea of chaos physically possible?


I never said it did. What I said was that the universe had chaos (the conception I presented) inbuilt into it.


And you have once again shown that you don't understand the difference between a logical possibility and a physical possibility. Saying that since it is logically possible therefore it is physically possible means you have no idea of what you're talking about. Please examine those concepts again.

This is getting quite boring really. I suspect your problem is that you don't know (or are pretending not to know) what is meant by necessary. Let me see if I can help you. What do you think is meant when someone says that a thing exists necessarily? Once you understand what that means, then we'll begin to make some progress.

You do because you claimed that I made a concession. If I made this concession, you should show it otherwise one can conclude that you were lying against me.

I have showed you the same over and over but it seems you are not getting it. It makes no sense showing you something you don't even understand. I'll ask again what do you understand is meant by necessary?

Nairaland cannot represent the universe because it relies on other tools itself. That is why your analogy is not accurate.

uhm the laws of the universe also happen to depend on other laws which exist necessarily but that's by the way, I'll ask you what do you understand is meant by necessary? An answer to that will help us tie in this argument so it doesn't fly into multiple directions.

thehomer: Huh? What do you mean?

How on earth can you not see this? Computer code is actually code. DNA is actually a molecule that can be represented as code.

Dude, this doesn't still change the fact that DNA consists of constituent parts arranged in a specific way so that they give specific results.

"DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses."

"Software, is any set of machine-readable instructions (most often in the form of a computer program) that directs a computer's processor to perform specific operations."

The point here is that DNA gives instructions to a cell telling it how to function while Software gives instructions to a computer processor telling it how to function. Yet rather than explain why you think one set of instructions is more likely than the next, you are here dancing around over definitions that have no bearing on the question.

Remember that I said DNA was a molecule that can be represented as a code. From that and the chain rule in probability theory, if computer code needs to be created by sapient creatures, then the probability that we have computer code must be less than the probability that those sapient creatures exist.

DNA is not merely a molecule represented as code, it is a molecule whose atoms are specifically arranged in a certain way such that they give specific sets of instructions to living cells. In the same way a computer program is a set of symbols arranged in a particular way such that they give a specific set of instructions to a computer processor.
So to follow your in your footsteps,

"....From that and the chain rule in probability theory, if a specific set of instructions detailing the function of a thing needs to be created by sapient creatures, then the probability that we have these specific set of instructions detailing the function of a thing must be less than the probability that those sapient creatures exist."

Now how about when these sapient creatures themselves function based on a specific set of instructions? Your call

This is a separate question but no I don't think it was designed. My point is that with your very first response, you indicated that it was God that you had in mind. If this line of inquiry isn't supposed to lead to your God, then please say so.

Good, we will come to God later. For now you will still need to show us why you don't think it is designed. Why is one set of specific instructions less likely than another set of specific instructions to you?

I did that before and pointed out that you highlighted the tail end of my response and the beginning part of your own conception. You were quote-mining yourself and didn't realize it.

No I wasn't, I was showing you that there is a difference between "the universe is designed" and "everything in the universe is designed". In the same way "a car is designed" is very different from "everything in the car is designed". Showing that for instance the door handle was not designed will not prove that the car was not designed. That is the fallacy of composition. To prove that the car is not designed, you must show that the constituent parts of the car do not work together in a specific manner.

I know you specifically said that and with your answers to those questions. What you said amounts to saying you didn't know what a neutron star was but that (your own conception again): it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed.

How do you read? What happened to your comprehensive skills

My point is that if you do not know enough about it, then you cannot make that conclusion.

That's exactly what I said. I do not know enough about it to make that call.

The contradiction is that you claimed that since God specified the laws and what not and the moon was designed, then God designed the moon. But you turn around and say that other objects like water and the electron weren't designed yet they too came about by those same laws. That my friend is a contradiction. If you say God through the laws designed some things, it follows that he designed it all.

First of all I never said in my response to your query about water and electrons that water and the electron were not designed. You really need to learn to read properly.
Now of course I have said that God specified the instructions and laws by which we have a moon and water and electrons therefore God designed them. Notice that I am arguing for design from the starting point that there are specific instructions that define the universe therefore it can be said that things following from those instructions can be said to exist by design.
Notice also that the question with the list was you trying to find out how I infer design. That meant I have to now look at all the examples as individual sets on their own. And when I do that, I'll have to examine whether they consist of constituent parts working in a specified manner. Water and the electron in that sense are not necessarily designed.
What you are committing is the fallacy of composition. You are trying to argue that if the electron is not designed, therefore the universe is not designed. That's like saying if mud particles are not designed, then mud bricks and consequently mud houses are not designed. It doesn't follow.

Hmm. This is interesting. A vacuum is nothing? Yet it came about by the very same laws you attributed to God and credited with making the moon.

I don't see where this line of reasoning is leading you. Did you mean something else by a vacuum? If so pray tell

But hey, since you say a vacuum is actually nothing, that's all well and good. Just remember that you said it here.

Again I remember I said "if by a vacuum you mean nothing" If you meant something else, then tell me what you meant.

The part you highlighted in red was a part of my own statement and a quote you mined from your own conception. And I've read it now please actually show that I have committed any of the fallacies you've accused me of. Notice that each time is point out that you committed a logical fallacy, I actually show you the error in your line of reasoning.

Shown in this very response.

mazaje: You know it was designed ONLY because it is a human product. . .You keep assuming that nature and the universe at large is a human society as such it must be designed. . .Humans always design things. . .All things that humans do are as a result of design, because humans design things does NOT mean that nature must also design things. . .You know that your TV, car, clothes, painting etc were designed because they are all human products. . .Pls tell me just one human product that you know of that was not designed. . .Now tell me if natural things like mount Everest and the Sahara desert were designed. . .What about a hurricane, was it designed?. . .Rain bow nko?. . .Was it designed?. . .What about volcanic mountains, mudslides and earthquakes?. . .Were they designed?. . .

Uhm, you miss the point entirely. When I talk about design, I infer intelligence and intelligence is not exclusively a human trait

You haven't show this to be true in any way. . .

Too bad

It is not unnecessary since you are basing your entire premise on how things function in the human society. . .Complex things and structures here most times require more than one designer. . .

The bold is untrue

Deep Sight: The space between the two points, as per length, exists.

The duration between two events, as per time, also exists.

Please stop making me think for you. This is tiring.

Exactly! What he doesn't understand is that a being needs neither events nor spatial points in order to exist.

musKeeto: This should help..

https://www.nairaland.com/1091640/last-question-asimov

Thanks but that's fiction. DeepSight made what he believes to be a factual statement. That's what I want him to explain.

Deep Sight: You will never accept it, so forget it. However it is happening again. We, humans, will create another world in time. Yep, right here in this universe.

They will have myths, they will have legends. They will have scripture. And we will be watching them from our computers. And occassionally guiding them.

God, will remain, IS BE; AND IS IS.

I wasn't asking you to explain so that I can accept it. I was asking that you explain so that I understand it. So my oga no vex, please kindly explain. Educate me

ijawkid: lol....

just open even half a verse that says God is one being but 3 persons....

just one...

i had opened a scripture to show the Father is the one God overall(Jesus inclusive).....


please we need your triology verse....

we dey wait....no dancing around....just averse bro

This is the challenge i will take: I will present a verse supporting each of my statements 1-10 at which point 11 would be your inevitable conclusion. Do you agree?


By the way in other news, let me ask you a question. Does the bible teach us to worship Jesus Christ? A simple yes or no will do.

Logicboy03: Aww, our manly man, Deepsight is so lonely as a deist that he has to conjure up sophistry to make a deist out of an atheist.


Time is a concept. It is a concept with both material and immaterial aspects. It can be argued that time doesnt exist.

Just like numbers, time is a concept. And just like numbers, time results in infinity. Past, present and future have no tangiblity or tangible existence.

To say that because there is an eternity of time, there is also an eternal being is fallacious.

Your god would have no tangible existence if you want to hang his existence on the eternity of time.

Facepalm. Just when I thought Logicboy would pause and think, he proves once again that his reasoning runs parallel to rational thought and hence they cannot meet.